Would you consider the Spartan II program justified, ethically? The spartans saved the human race but were child soldiers created for the purpose of stopping a civil war which (albeit not as much as the Human-Covenant war) would cause devastating civilian losses. Do the ends justify the means?
It wasn’t justified at the time of its conception. If the program had been initiated after the start of the Human-Covenant war, I would have said it was justified. But you can’t use the coincidence of aliens showing up to justify child soldiers designed to fight human rebellion.
The Spartan-II program was justified.
Controversal, I know since many love to sit atop their metaphorical high horse and question the ethnics and morals of using children. Well guess what it was only a matter of time until some mad scientist came up with the idea of children as the next test subject as the Orion Project was a failure and soldiers like Avery Johnson were lucky enough to walk away and continue serving in the military. Could the technology have advanced without the need for children, probably but time wasn’t on mankinds side as human space was on the brink of war as stated in Haley many times and the arrival of the Covenant merely delayed a possible Dark Age of technological devolution as they fought for survival.
Science is going to advance.
I’m not going to use the real world example of human experimentation seen in real life, but it is obvious that someone in ONI was going to beat Halsey to the finish line as the possibility of having their name written down in history is one hell of a drug. Greed is often the downfall of our morals of right and wrong and after the kidnapping of the children. ONI viewed them as assets that were disposable and Halsey was at odds at with them continiously as she developed a surogate bond of motherhood with her “children”. It is especially ironic when some of those children eventually went to work for ONI when they could and would have been discarded for being useless but I degress.
> 2533274978302173;2:
> It wasn’t justified at the time of its conception. If the program had been initiated after the start of the Human-Covenant war, I would have said it was justified. But you can’t use the coincidence of aliens showing up to justify child soldiers designed to fight human rebellion.
Said rebellion was killing millions, though. Even without the Covenant, human society was faced with a catastrophic collapse. If the UNSC, flawed as it may be, had fallen, entire systems could’ve been left to the whims of warlords and criminals.
So I’d say that, yes it was justified even before the Covenant declared their war on all of humanity.
> 2533274870884222;4:
> > 2533274978302173;2:
> > It wasn’t justified at the time of its conception. If the program had been initiated after the start of the Human-Covenant war, I would have said it was justified. But you can’t use the coincidence of aliens showing up to justify child soldiers designed to fight human rebellion.
>
> Said rebellion was killing millions, though. Even without the Covenant, human society was faced with a catastrophic collapse. If the UNSC, flawed as it may be, had fallen, entire systems could’ve been left to the whims of warlords and criminals.
>
> So I’d say that, yes it was justified even before the Covenant declared their war on all of humanity.
But child soldiers? Surely there would be other ways. Kidnapping children to force them into fighting isn’t the solution to a rebellion. I’m not confident that, had the Covenant not arrived and the Spartans were deployed as intended, they would solve the problem. Sure, taking out high level insurgents like Colonel Watts could destabilise the insurrection for a time, more would always rise and 30 or so Spartans would not be able to police hundreds of solar systems.
Plus, eventually the Spartans’ origin would be revealed. Without the Covenant as an excuse, how do you think the general population would react? Those who were on the fence before would side with the insurrection. It would worsen the problem if ever revealed, and eventually the truth would get out.
So, if it’s not certain that the program would even help, I don’t believe kidnapping children, brainwashing them, experimenting on them and forcing them into battle before they’re even adults is justified.
They used children…
There’s no justification.
I feel like the strength of the insurrection is also really murky. Despite the newer books liking to hammer the morality of the Spartan program more than the ones did, I feel like they also talk up the threat of the insurrection more at the same time.
They really just felt like some minor terrorist outlets pre-Halsey Journal. Yes they had some major defectors but I didnt get the impression they were an existential threat to an interstellar empire. In the 343 era depictions seem to range more. FUD hinted at more outright warfare, but otherwise most innie strongholds still seem small, and not able to field much of what would be a threat to the UEG at large. After the covenant you get the NCA cropping up, but thats largely because the UNSC simply lost the ability to police large swaths of space.
Given the sometimes high level of defectors, I do agree its likely without the covenant the spartan program’s origins would have been discovered sooner by the innies, and would have inevitably made things worse. The spartan program feels more like a symptom of the disease that is the UEG’s corruption, not its solution.
> 2535413842557373;1:
> Would you consider the Spartan II program justified, ethically? The spartans saved the human race but were child soldiers created for the purpose of stopping a civil war which (albeit not as much as the Human-Covenant war) would cause devastating civilian losses. Do the ends justify the means?
Justified without a debate. May be wrong, but when created to help prevent rebels on mass scale like it was or else humanity is possibly in severe trouble. Yeah it’s justified, nothing else was working. Then when the covenant was discovered and they saved the world, multiple times? Then that made them even more justified. Basically if you think it was wrong fine, but being wrong doesn’t always mean it shouldn’t happen. And if you disagree then I’d say YOU are wrong for wanting humanity’s extinction. Or risking it for that matter.
> 2535456717741030;6:
> They used children…
> There’s no justification.
Couldn’t disagree more…hypothetically speaking, let’s say this truly happened. You’d say it’s unjustified? Not realizing you’re alive and able to come up with that absurdity of a conclusion because they saved the world and all life…Guess extinction would be the better option.
I’ve seen people say that using children was justified because they were to stop the insurrection movement, but I don’t see that. The entire premise of the insurrection was a conflict of escalation: First it was disgruntled lobbying, then it turned to protests, then it turned to riots, then it turned to more drastic terrorist actions. Spartans coming onto the field wasn’t going to, and didn’t, stop the Innies.
Spartans are touted as the be-all-end-all answer for that, yet it really didn’t work out that way. Even after numerous successful missions conducted by the Spartans, there was still a strong insurrectionist movement. Midnight in the Heart of Midlothian shows Innies using a rudimentary drug to briefly counter Spartans; attempts were made to even sway Spartans themselves, like the wash-out Soren-066; then there’s the trap set by Graves in Ghosts of Onyx to capture Blue team.
In summary, I really don’t buy the “Children were justified because it’s what was needed to stop the Innies” when that simply didn’t happen. They weren’t all of a sudden dropping their weapons and surrendering; they were finding ways to counter the Spartans just like they were countering older UNSC tactics before the Spartans arrived.
The only hang up I have with the Spartan-II and Spartan-III programs was that they used children to create soldiers. A major justification behind this was that it would be easier for their bodies to accept the augmentations at a younger age. So this tells me that volunteers could have been used, but the UNSC didn’t want to expend the resources necessary to develop augmentation protocols that would work with adults. I mean, the reason both Orion projects were scrapped were because they weren’t successful enough to justify the cost. Had the UNSC continued R&D in that direction, by the 2500’s adults could have been easily used as volunteers.
To the argument that the Insurrection was causing mass casualties, this was largely in response to an overbearing, over-reaching, and distant fascist government. It’s circular logic to say that the UNSC had no choice but to crush a rebellion that they were largely responsible for inspiring. The American Revolution was started over similar circumstances and caused quite a bit of bloodshed as well, but the end result was a stable and independent nation. If you hypothetically think about the galaxy as one giant planet (with each planet being a nation in that giant planet), Earth in the 2000’s is a planet made up of hundreds of independent nations that spill blood on a daily basis. We don’t like the blood shed, and we want to stop it, but I’d be hard pressed to find a rational person who thinks child super soldiers would be a viable option for stopping it.
I applaud the asking of the question and the thought provoking debate, even while I’m not sure anyone could ever possibly arrive at one definitive answer. Philosophers, sociologists, theologians/clergy, politicians, lawyers, scholars, ethicists, etc. have debated questions like this for thousands of years.
From the perspective of the billions saved by the Covenant War ending, sure, it was justified.
From the perspective of the parents of the SII children, I’m sure they’d feel a bit differently.
I think remembering that the rebels were in possession of ships with FTL capabilities and could be armed with nuclear weapons that could wipe out entire populations in the blink of an eye considerably makes things a lot more complex than, say, the terrorist operations today. Of course, both the UNSC and rebels used nukes on two worlds (Far Isle and Mamore), so the escalation could only have gotten worse.
This in no way invalidates the moral issues that plague the S-II AND S-III Programs.
> 2533274851065491;10:
> I’ve seen people say that using children was justified because they were to stop the insurrection movement, but I don’t see that. The entire premise of the insurrection was a conflict of escalation: First it was disgruntled lobbying, then it turned to protests, then it turned to riots, then it turned to more drastic terrorist actions. Spartans coming onto the field wasn’t going to, and didn’t, stop the Innies.
>
> Spartans are touted as the be-all-end-all answer for that, yet it really didn’t work out that way. Even after numerous successful missions conducted by the Spartans, there was still a strong insurrectionist movement. Midnight in the Heart of Midlothian shows Innies using a rudimentary drug to briefly counter Spartans; attempts were made to even sway Spartans themselves, like the wash-out Soren-066; then there’s the trap set by Graves in Ghosts of Onyx to capture Blue team.
>
> In summary, I really don’t buy the “Children were justified because it’s what was needed to stop the Innies” when that simply didn’t happen. They weren’t all of a sudden dropping their weapons and surrendering; they were finding ways to counter the Spartans just like they were countering older UNSC tactics before the Spartans arrived.
You’re argument is it didn’t happen. Yet you’ve failed to state that’s simply because they dint have enough time to continue the spartan 2 program and build on it before the covenant arrived. And you’ve also failed to mention the impact they had in saving the world. The human race altogether. But I guess those are facts are undebatable that’s why I wasn’t quoted or countered in your argument…explain how that doesn’t justify the program? I admit it may have been wrong, but it’s still justified.
> 2533274912168474;9:
> > 2535456717741030;6:
> > They used children…
> > There’s no justification.
>
> Couldn’t disagree more…hypothetically speaking, let’s say this truly happened. You’d say it’s unjustified? Not realizing you’re alive and able to come up with that absurdity of a conclusion because they saved the world and all life…Guess extinction would be the better option.
The outcome does not take away from the fact that Spartan II and III programs are morally and ethically indefensible.
> 2533274912168474;14:
> You’re argument is it didn’t happen. Yet you’ve failed to state that’s simply because they dint have enough time to continue the spartan 2 program and build on it before the covenant arrived.
It really doesn’t matter, because even after years of successful operations conducted by Spartan-IIs, Spartan-IIIs (with Noble Six specifically being mentioned to make entire militia groups disappear) and now Spartan-IVs running round, there is still a strong insurrectionist movement. As I said in my first post, the Innies simply sought ways to counter and fight the Spartans rather than give up.
> 2533274912168474;14:
> And you’ve also failed to mention the impact they had in saving the world. The human race altogether. But I guess those are facts are undebatable that’s why I wasn’t quoted or countered in your argument…explain how that doesn’t justify the program? I admit it may have been wrong, but it’s still justified.
I didn’t specifically quote you because my comment wasn’t intended for anyone in particular. I’ve seen the “children were justified” sentiment used for years. Your argument is on the premise that because, ultimately, the Covenant showed up at a convenient time, that it therefore justified the cost. I’m more lenient when considering the whole scope, but not when specifically focusing on the insurrection, as the reasoning for using such drastic measures was to put a swift end to the insurrectionists, yet it did not.
> 2533274851065491;16:
> > 2533274912168474;14:
> > You’re argument is it didn’t happen. Yet you’ve failed to state that’s simply because they dint have enough time to continue the spartan 2 program and build on it before the covenant arrived.
>
> It’s undeniable that the Spartan-IIs were conveniently constructed by the time the Covenant showed up. In the end, the Spartans were the saving grace, but that is wholly coincidental–as was noted in Halo 4’s prologue–and my point resided on the premise that it was justified to use children because of the insurrection, because without them humanity would be doomed. I find that dubious, because even with the use of child soldiers, the insurrection still remained. My stance isn’t focusing on the Covenant aspect.
>
>
>
>
> > 2533274912168474;14:
> > And you’ve also failed to mention the impact they had in saving the world. The human race altogether. But I guess those are facts are undebatable that’s why I wasn’t quoted or countered in your argument…explain how that doesn’t justify the program? I admit it may have been wrong, but it’s still justified.
>
> I didn’t specifically quote you because my comment wasn’t intended for anyone in particular. I’ve seen the “children were justified” sentiment used for years. Your argument is on the premise that because, ultimately, the Covenant showed up at a convenient time, that it therefore justified the cost. I’m more lenient when considering the whole scope, but not when specifically focusing on the insurrection, as the reasoning for using such drastic measures was to put a swift end to the insurrectionists, yet it did not.
But you can’t use the “dint end the insurrectionist” argument when time didn’t allow them the chance. If they saved the human race from the covenant, I’m pretty sure they’d save them from an inferior human race. Like the insurrectionist.
BTW: I enjoy our civil debates. Thanks for keeping it civil!
> 2535456717741030;15:
> > 2533274912168474;9:
> > > 2535456717741030;6:
> > > They used children…
> > > There’s no justification.
> >
> > Couldn’t disagree more…hypothetically speaking, let’s say this truly happened. You’d say it’s unjustified? Not realizing you’re alive and able to come up with that absurdity of a conclusion because they saved the world and all life…Guess extinction would be the better option.
>
> The outcome does not take away from the fact that Spartan II and III programs are morally and ethically indefensible.
It may have been wrong, but it’s justified due to the severity of the war and outcome. Justified and wrong have two different definitions for a reason.
> 2533274912168474;17:
> But you can’t use the “dint end the insurrectionist” argument when time didn’t allow them the chance. If they saved the human race from the covenant, I’m pretty sure they’d save them from an inferior human race.
Admittedly, I apologize for misreading your first point initially. I since edited my post but will post it here as a proper response:
It really doesn’t matter, because even after years of successful operations conducted by Spartan-IIs, Spartan-IIIs (with Noble Six specifically being mentioned to make entire militia groups disappear) and now Spartan-IVs running round, there is still a strong insurrectionist movement. As I said in my first post, the Innies simply sought ways to counter and fight the Spartans rather than give up.
I’ll now add that how the Covenant were defeated could not be applied the same way to the insurrectionists. How the downfall played out with the Covenant empire is drastically different from the inner turmoil with humanity.
> 2533274851065491;19:
> > 2533274912168474;17:
> > But you can’t use the “dint end the insurrectionist” argument when time didn’t allow them the chance. If they saved the human race from the covenant, I’m pretty sure they’d save them from an inferior human race.
>
> Admittedly, I apologize for misreading your first point initially. I since edited my post but will post it here as a proper response:
>
> It really doesn’t matter, because even after years of successful operations conducted by Spartan-IIs, Spartan-IIIs (with Noble Six specifically being mentioned to make entire militia groups disappear) and now Spartan-IVs running round, there is still a strong insurrectionist movement. As I said in my first post, the Innies simply sought ways to counter and fight the Spartans rather than give up.
>
> I’ll now add that how the Covenant were defeated could not be applied the same way to the insurrectionists. How the downfall played out with the Covenant empire is drastically different from the inner turmoil with humanity.
So are you indirectly claiming the flood, forerunners and covenant are on the same level as the insurrectionist? I’d have to strongly disagree and I think yes the way they’d be handled would be different. I still believe without any other distraction they’d be able to contain and end the rebellion. Easily. They defeated an unknown enemy that was superior. They could have easily contained the innies. The Spartans of every generation hasn’t had full focus or potential to attack and contain them. They’ve been at war on so many fronts. I’m mind blown of how we can’t agree on that.