Good and Evil in The Matrix

Inspired by another thread on Smith and Death, and so as to not stray from the subject in said thread…

In the Matrix movies our protagonists kill endless amounts of hapless humans. Squad teams, police-officers, security guards, maintenance-workers… You name it, they die. We know from M1 that if you die IN the Matrix, your body will die as well.
On the other hand we also know, that anyone who’s not unplugged is potentially an agent. POTENTIALLY.
Is killing that many humans to free humanity good or evil?
Are the machines simply paying “us” back for the way we treated them, or can we trust Renaissance I and II? Or are they just being logical, using the best power source available?

it is pry the best source of renewable energy. i'm sure there is other forms of energy the machiens can use but we are renewable. and we did use them as slave labor so it can even be revenge and practicality.

and killing that many humans to free humanity... all i have to say is... WWII.

I agree.

but the difference between ww2 and the matrix is that they kill innocent people in the matrix. if i kill a german soldier in ww2, it's because he would've killed me as soon as possible anyway. the german soldiers weren't innocents. in ww2, if an enemy decided he wasn't going to try to kill me, he could do that. it was called surrendering.
you'll notice, however, that the rebels take no prisoners. in fact, they don't even give security guards and other innocents a chance to surrender.

what the freeminds did in the movies is immoral. i don't think you can argue against that. what i'm asking myself is, what crosses the line from immoral to actual evil? and i don't know. they have their reasons: the people were potential agents, they were sacrificing few (well, few in comparison) for many, etc.

but is "they were potentially" anything an excuse? it would be wrong to go back in time and kill a 9-year-old adolf hitler just because he would potentially massacre the jews.

as long as we're still talking about ww2, happy kine . . . there's another difference. "killing that many to free humanity." but in ww2, the allies "killed that many" of the other side's guys to free humanity. in the matrix, they're killing their own.

bombs were dropped indiscriminately... they didn't have "smart" bombs that were laser guided. also the line between good and evil is shady at best... i could point out a few things that seem like they would be evil, but are they really... or visa-versa what seems good can be evil in the long run. and anything can be compared that way. immoral is just a matter of perception.
as far as them killing their own guys... anyone plugged in is an enemy. and potentially in this case is different... in the matrix its not potential... they WILL become agents. besides them scenes were fun to watch.

Just a note... remember that good and evil are human opinions and perceptions and vary most duly. How can you expect technology to be one or the other when technically they don't exist anywhere but the human mind?

~AI

true.. i eat cows... mmmmmm i love eating cows... from t-bones to ground beef, or a london broil, maybe a delmonico, or a flank stake.. mmmm... a sirloin sounds good ... but people in other parts of the world consider that evil... for they worship cows... but me did i mention that i love to eat cows...everything is perception

Happy Kine> But how do we know the accounts in Renaissance I and II are correct?
Are you also seriously contesting that all the 35 million (!) people who died, died only to “free” humanity? That there was no revenge, vengeance etc? Isn’t that a dangerously simplistic view (aka my signature)?
That you eat meat is not evil. Humans are omnivores. We have teeth designed to eat both meat and vegetables. If people do not WANT to eat meat, it is their (religious) choice, but nature gave us meat-teeth if you like.

Nickjs21> Who IS innocent, anyways? We know that unconsciously the humans in the Matrix have chosen to be plugged in. You also write, that if you’d have killed a nazi druing WW II, you’d have done it so he wouldn’t kill you. Again you’re back at “he could potentially have killed me.” How could you know if he’d have surrendered if you shot him on sight?

We’re left with: What IS good? What is EVIL?

"this is a war and we are soldiers"

the rebels killing people in the matrix has nothing to do with good or evil.

it's all about survival.

happy kine: i don't think immoral is a matter of perception. evil, maybe, but immoral is basically anything that is deliberately opposite of a B Value (truth, justice, etc.), isn't it? i think immoral is pretty universal at its core. true, some doctrines are different: eating a cow would be immoral in some places. but at the core, lying is always immoral. prejudice is always immoral. murder is always immoral. that's universal, whether some people choose to believe it or not (but let's not get into objective and subjective all over again).

omega: true.

i don't know. i think you could build a strong case for either side -- that what the freeminds do is either evil or good.

but wait. maybe not. i don't know if you could ever defend murder as good -- but you could defend the reason, right?
it's always "not good" to kill. but if you kill someone (a solder) because his country is invading your land, that's justified. if you kill someone (a hostage taker) because his gun is up to an old lady's head, that's justified. but is the killing in itself something good? so at most, killing is justified. but i doubt it's ever good. but that's just my opinion.

personally, i think the matrix is an entertaining movie and yes, the freeminds were left with no other alternative in each situation. but i'm saying that their responsibility for loss of life is at best justified -- neither good nor evil. their intentions, however, are good.

and anyway, it's much more "entertaining" to see a helicopter crash into an office building and kill god-knows-how-many people than to see them safely land it.

nickjs21, there are no universal values. lying, even murder can be justified in some cases. if you're interested in these sort of things, google on 'ethics', and especially 'utilism' and 'deontology' 🙂

I still think Ikobe's point about gfood and evil being human perceptions is wrong. They are SENTIENT perceptions- and humans are, of course, sentient, but so are the AIs!

The humans have no choice but to kill other humans because these humans will try and stop them achieving freedom for humanity as a whole; I am sure none of them enjoy it but some would argue that justified action in a good cause is, in itself, good. Some may disagree, but all shoulds agree that the rebels cannot be condemned for it- they are simply doing what they must.

I do believe in universal values though.

Incidentally, what nature gave us to do is nothing to do with whether it is good or evil; nature is amoral, it does not recognise the concept. There is plenty we should do by NATURAL law that we might consider evil- letting the old and sick die, for example. Just because we have teeth designed to eat meat (and in any case I have heard evidence that we are actually by nature frubivores) does not make it right to do so- 'natural' and 'right' are entirely seperate concepts; much that is natural is wrong and much that is unnatural is right (unless you want to give up all your modern day comforts...)

So the argument that just because we have the equipment to eat meat it is therefore right to strikes me as nonsense, and I have great respect for people that refuse to eat meat on MORAL grounds.

nickjs21

....just a quick, off-topic question...

Where did you get your avatar? I love it.

P.S. The Cheat is not deeeeaaaaad, I'm so glad The Cheat is not dead.

it seemed to me the conversation between neo and the councillor was a kind of a good and evil discussion...

There is plenty we should do by NATURAL law that we might consider evil- letting the old and sick die, for example.

exactly!
we have left nature behind... i believe that to be immoral...

Sorry, do you find nature evil, the letting the old and sick die evil, or the leaving nature behind evil?

leaving it behind, in my opinion, is immoral... i don't believe that there is anyhting thats truly evil... whats immoral and moral can be debated all day long... each debater being right.

i'm a vegetarian, not because of my religion but because i can live fine and eat well without killing animals, like any human 🙂 that what you mean ush?

Yes.

So you believe the old and sick should be left to die, HK?

no i really don't think that at all... but are we pushing the limits too far... at 90 what does some one really have to contribute... believe me i want to live to be 200 and if you can and want to go for it... i just don't think it would be right. but i'd still try myself...

even a vegetable of a human life is a human life, kine, regardless of their contribution to society. in such a case, i believe we've been given a wonderful opportunity (through evolution) to go beyond primal instinct and do something unnatural.

but really it's just case by case, isn't it? i think ush hinted at it, that not everything natural is right and vice versa. it's not right to cheat on your wife, even if your natural instinct is to continue multiplying as much as possible.

rysdigital: i still stand by my opinion that universal values exist. my post right above yours did say the same thing you did, that murder can be justified in some cases. but that doesn't mean that murdering someone isn't a universal no-no.

tomkat: 'preciate it. check your pm box. oh, and, "i gave you this light switch to turn the lights on and off. not to throw crazy light switch dance raves."