4 ms·

I agree to the general point and have used similar argument to why I don't really get involved in star wars or Star trek. I think for layman (like me) a questi

I agree to the general point and have used similar argument to why I don't really get involved in star wars or Star trek. I think for layman (like me) a question to ask to make the distinction is just to ask "if we replace all the science element in the scifi with magic, would anything change?" In star wars the force could simply be magic, light saber is the magic swords, space travel is portal between worlds, aliens is just magic species (yoda is a fairy), and almost nothing of the story or any core message would change. Now can you say the same for say, Black Mirror? Not really, removing the "science / tech" from those stories will drastically change the meaning of the story and how the audience will relate to it. "Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic" as Arthur C. Clarke said. Core of good science fiction is to make that magic relatable and still somewhat convincing that "in the future, this might be something we would just call science"

jncfhnb 3y ago
Eh. I think that is backwards. Star Wars would not (and in some works, does not) work without the magic. Science Star Wars is bad. Star Wars worked because it operated under a backdrop of objective morality. Good guys who learned the virtues of being good. Bad guys who were kind of just evil. When you choose to lean into the science you tend to start doing things related to practical consequences of the tech that frankly just make the universe a lot shittier. Things like Jedi blood, droids that have machine intelligence and perfectly calculated 360 no scope shooting instead of their goofy “organic” personalities and flaws, light speed kamikaze attacks, annoying characters asking if the bad guys are the ones self identifying as the dark side powered by hate or is it some dickish wealthy arms dealers? The important difference imo is not realism but whether the ability of the tech comes from supposed ingenuity or does it come from moralistic fantasy willpower stuff. Game of thrones is more sci fi than Star Wars. While the former has fantasy elements, a lot of it is deconstructed practical consequences of the premise of the tech and magic. Game of thrones is not by any means emblematic here of what I’m saying though* The techification of Star Wars is just a slow grind of ruining a world with canon
- mcpackieh 3y ago
  I think the problem with Star Wars isn't the objective morality, but rather the simplistic morality. Stories with objective morality can still present complex moral situations, dilemmas in which the answer isn't clear cut despite morality being objective. It's been many years since I've read it, but IIRC I think Ender's Game is a good example of this. The author at least believes in objective morality (from what I understand) but the situation presented to Ender is morally complex.
  - jncfhnb 3y ago
    By objective I meant the bad guys identify as bad. And the good guys largely identify as good. It is definitely not a problem.
  - Incipient 3y ago
    Simple moral messaging doesn't seem to be a problem today. Almost more valuable than ever. Even here in Australia, where we're not as nutty as the US, we just had a bunch of teenagers stab someone for his phone. The world could do with a re-grounding in simple morals.
    - mcpackieh 3y ago
      Huh, I've come to completely the opposite conclusion. Simplistic moral messaging like Star Wars is harmful to public morality. It teaches people that evil is some obvious lifestyle / alignment that people consciously choose. That evil people know they're evil, believe being evil to be good and behave in evil ways for the sake of being evil. What's wrong with that? It gives people a framework for rationalizing away their own evil acts because they believe themselves to be fundamentally good, not aligned with evil. Simplistic moral messaging facilitates moral self-licensing, in which people form a self-image of being fundamentally good and use that self-image to give themselves license to occasionally commit evil acts. People 'know' themselves to be fundamentally good, and believe an occasional evil act doesn't define them as a person. Mass media like Star Wars promotes this model of morality because it helps the audience feel good about themselves, and that is good for business. We should instead be teaching the public about the banality of evil. Evil people should be depicted as complex characters with a mix of good and bad traits, not flat sociopaths fanatically dedicated to evil for the sake of evil. This encourages people to evaluate their individual actions, and particularly to evaluate the morality of their own actions when they know themselves to have a mundane (or even good) motivation rather than some comic book supervillain's alignment to evil itself. In stories with complex morality, a character who is generally good can do something evil and the story recognizes that as evil; this helps people who believe themselves to be fundamentally good to recognize that they might nevertheless sometimes do something evil. Even better is when a story shows how evil can be motivated by the pursuit of some good and noble goal; it teaches people that they might be tempted to commit evil acts when "the ends justify the means", and that doing so is still evil despite their pure motive.

jncfhnb 3y ago

Eh. I think that is backwards. Star Wars would not (and in some works, does not) work without the magic. Science Star Wars is bad. Star Wars worked because it operated under a backdrop of objective morality. Good guys who learned the virtues of being good. Bad guys who were kind of just evil. When you choose to lean into the science you tend to start doing things related to practical consequences of the tech that frankly just make the universe a lot shittier. Things like Jedi blood, droids that have machine intelligence and perfectly calculated 360 no scope shooting instead of their goofy “organic” personalities and flaws, light speed kamikaze attacks, annoying characters asking if the bad guys are the ones self identifying as the dark side powered by hate or is it some dickish wealthy arms dealers? The important difference imo is not realism but whether the ability of the tech comes from supposed ingenuity or does it come from moralistic fantasy willpower stuff. Game of thrones is more sci fi than Star Wars. While the former has fantasy elements, a lot of it is deconstructed practical consequences of the premise of the tech and magic. Game of thrones is not by any means emblematic here of what I’m saying though* The techification of Star Wars is just a slow grind of ruining a world with canon

mcpackieh 3y ago
I think the problem with Star Wars isn't the objective morality, but rather the simplistic morality. Stories with objective morality can still present complex moral situations, dilemmas in which the answer isn't clear cut despite morality being objective. It's been many years since I've read it, but IIRC I think Ender's Game is a good example of this. The author at least believes in objective morality (from what I understand) but the situation presented to Ender is morally complex.
- jncfhnb 3y ago
  By objective I meant the bad guys identify as bad. And the good guys largely identify as good. It is definitely not a problem.
- Incipient 3y ago
  Simple moral messaging doesn't seem to be a problem today. Almost more valuable than ever. Even here in Australia, where we're not as nutty as the US, we just had a bunch of teenagers stab someone for his phone. The world could do with a re-grounding in simple morals.
  - mcpackieh 3y ago
    Huh, I've come to completely the opposite conclusion. Simplistic moral messaging like Star Wars is harmful to public morality. It teaches people that evil is some obvious lifestyle / alignment that people consciously choose. That evil people know they're evil, believe being evil to be good and behave in evil ways for the sake of being evil. What's wrong with that? It gives people a framework for rationalizing away their own evil acts because they believe themselves to be fundamentally good, not aligned with evil. Simplistic moral messaging facilitates moral self-licensing, in which people form a self-image of being fundamentally good and use that self-image to give themselves license to occasionally commit evil acts. People 'know' themselves to be fundamentally good, and believe an occasional evil act doesn't define them as a person. Mass media like Star Wars promotes this model of morality because it helps the audience feel good about themselves, and that is good for business. We should instead be teaching the public about the banality of evil. Evil people should be depicted as complex characters with a mix of good and bad traits, not flat sociopaths fanatically dedicated to evil for the sake of evil. This encourages people to evaluate their individual actions, and particularly to evaluate the morality of their own actions when they know themselves to have a mundane (or even good) motivation rather than some comic book supervillain's alignment to evil itself. In stories with complex morality, a character who is generally good can do something evil and the story recognizes that as evil; this helps people who believe themselves to be fundamentally good to recognize that they might nevertheless sometimes do something evil. Even better is when a story shows how evil can be motivated by the pursuit of some good and noble goal; it teaches people that they might be tempted to commit evil acts when "the ends justify the means", and that doing so is still evil despite their pure motive.