Is Eli a Person?

[metoo]

I... the historical soldier tended to be on his own for meeting basic needs, such as food, clothing, shelter and so on, and it seems they were often enough paid very little to nothing at all. Yes, they killed enemy soldiers, but when they conquered a village or castle, pillage ensued together with atrocities heaped on the conquered populations.

Yes. Wars could only be fought on fertile land in the old days. This is one reason why Sweden historically has seen less of war than mainland Europe. Too much forests.

[Lacenaire]

Well, I don't want to stir more of topic dispute, but I can't quite leave this point entirely alone. It seems to me that all comparisons of Eli to a "soldier" are based not only on a different idea of the typical situation and problems of a soldier but more importantly a lack (or avoidance) of basic logic. The obvious point that people making these comparisons either fail to see or deliberately avoid is that Eli chooses for her victims not people who threaten her but exactly the opposite - the ones who present the least threat or are even trying to help her (Jacke or the old woman in the novel). She would in fact clearly avoid anyone who was armed and dangerous.
This is quite rational form the point of view of a predator but not what the task of a soldier is. To say that some soldiers of even many soldiers may well do so (as do lots or criminals, rioters, ec. etc.) and therefore Eli is "like soldier" shows to me a shocking disregard of basic logic.

A soldier is not normally required to kill unthreatening, random civilians. A soldier may do so, like any one else, but that is not the essence of being one. This seems to me so obvious that I don't really see any point arguing about it any further.

I should add that whileI have never been a "soldier" myself, my father, my uncle, and everyone of my father's remaining family members has either been one or is right now. The idea that they were or are in any way in a situation comparable to Eli's is absurd.

If you want to see an example of a story of a "real person" who faces a situation rather like Eli, and how he reacts afterwards, there is no better place to look than the beautiful Russian film by Pavel Lugin "The Island" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Island_(2006_film). But I am sure it will not be to everyone's taste here.

[sauvin]

Eli chooses for her victims not people who threaten her but exactly the opposite - the ones who present the least threat or are even trying to help her (Jacke or the old woman in the novel). She would in fact clearly avoid anyone who was armed and dangerous.

Dude, Eli is an apex predator to give all other apex predators a screaming case of the nighttime squitter[deleted]s. Jocke could have been hiding a Mac-10 under his jacket, a Bowie knife in each boot, a Ruger in his left coat pocket, a Baretta in his right and grenades in his backpack, and he'd still have been just as dead just as fast. She's fast, she's strong and she just doesn't fight fair.

This is quite rational form the point of view of a predator but not what the task of a soldier is. To say that some soldiers of even many soldiers may well do so (as do lots or criminals, rioters, ec. etc.) and therefore Eli is "like soldier" shows to me a shocking disregard of basic logic.

Not at all. I've admitted the analogy isn't perfect. Most analogies don't map terribly comfortably onto their referents. I AM asserting that there are important similarities.

By the way, Lacenaire, how many people have you talked to who've done time in Southeast Asian bushes hunting or fleeing little men wearing black pajamas?

The idea that they were or are in any way in a situation comparable to Eli's is absurd.

Rather depends on which military service for which country at what point in history, wouldn't you say? Our modern American soldiers might agree with you, but I've heard tell Russian soldiers invading the tattered remains of the Third Reich wouldn't have understood a single word you just said.

Edit: 5 Novembre 2011, replaced a "bad word" with [deleted] to comply with renewed restrictions on language.

[Lacenaire]

Eli chooses for her victims not people who threaten her but exactly the opposite - the ones who present the least threat or are even trying to help her (Jacke or the old woman in the novel). She would in fact clearly avoid anyone who was armed and dangerous.

Dude, Eli is an apex predator to give all other apex predators a screaming case of the nighttime squittershits. Jocke could have been hiding a Mac-10 under his jacket, a Bowie knife in each boot, a Ruger in his left coat pocket, a Baretta in his right and grenades in his backpack, and he'd still have been just as dead just as fast. She's fast, she's strong and she just doesn't fight fair.

You must have watched a different film from me. The way I see it, she finds bringing down Jocke quite difficult and has to really struggle with Lacke. And from what we know,a gun would make a short shrift of her. In any case, the logical point is quite different. A soldier exists primarily to destroy the fighting power of the enemy. A good soldier is one that causes the greatest damage to this power. Eli has no interest in doing that at all. Her interest is in feeding to survive and hence in choosing the easiest and the least threatening victim. Morally and practically this makes a big difference. This is not just a minor difference, but an essential one.

Another key logical distinction. A soldier may indeed murder, rape, pillage and may avoid punishment for doing that (though see below). However, he is almost never compelled to to this under the punishment of death. He almost never faces Eli's dilemma. Even the Nazis did not, as a rule, execute their own soldiers or officers who refused to commit atrocities. (I can give examples of this related to me personally). Eli does not rape and it is not clear if she does not pillage but she will die if she does not kill someone. This is in no way like the situation almost any soldier ever finds himself in.

This is quite rational form the point of view of a predator but not what the task of a soldier is. To say that some soldiers of even many soldiers may well do so (as do lots or criminals, rioters, ec. etc.) and therefore Eli is "like soldier" shows to me a shocking disregard of basic logic.

Not at all. I've admitted the analogy isn't perfect. Most analogies don't map terribly comfortably onto their referents. I AM asserting that there are important similarities.[/quote]
No, the similarities, at least those that affect moral judgement are purely incidental and insignificant. Morally significant situation is the one shown in the film "TheIsland" I mentioned above.

The idea that they were or are in any way in a situation comparable to Eli's is absurd.

Rather depends on which military service for which country at what point in history, wouldn't you say? Our modern American soldiers might agree with you, but I've heard tell Russian soldiers invading the tattered remains of the Third Reich wouldn't have understood a single word you just said.[/quote]
Really, you have heard that? I wonder from whom. Revenge is a very different motive from Eli's. We have not been discussing it. So is the feeling of license and the ability to do whatever you like, without a threat of punishment. Again, that is also nothing to do with Eli. These are "points of basic logic". The Russian soldiers you refer to would have understood every word I wrote. That does not mean their behaviour would have been different, but they were in no way like Eli.

Besides, what you imagine was certainly not universal. A soldier is not compelled to behave like that - Eli has to if she is to survive.
Just for your information: my uncle was a junior officer in the Polish units involved in the capture of Berlin along with the Soviets.

As for other armies: it is hard to find examples of armies whose basic task was to kill at random in order to survive. And already in the 17th century there appeared military codes regarding the treatment of civilians. Here is an example of the 19 th century code of Napoleon's Grande Armee (from John Elting's book "Swords around a throne"):

Death was the punishment for attacking or threatening an officer, NCO or gendarme; it was death for desertion to the enemy, for theft with violence, for rape of a women of good repute, and for stabbing a wounded enemy officer and stealing his medals.

This was certainly not always effective, but the intention was clear. That shows what was expected of a soldier.

[sauvin]

You must have watched a different film from me. The way I see it, she finds bringing down Jocke quite difficult and has to really struggle with Lacke. And from what we know,a gun would make a short shrift of her. In any case, the logical point is quite different. A soldier exists primarily to destroy the fighting power of the enemy. A good soldier is one that causes the greatest damage to this power. Eli has no interest in doing that at all. Her interest is in feeding to survive and hence in choosing the easiest and the least threatening victim. Morally and practically this makes a big difference. This is not just a minor difference, but an essential one.

We watched the same movie. I'm taking somebody's word for it from this forum (I'm nearly deaf, remember) that there was the sound of bones breaking when Eli turned around and started clinging really tightly to juicebag Jocke as she started digging in with her teeth/fangs/whatever. Anything pint-sized like Eli that can crush a grown man's rib cage isn't something I'd want to meet in a dark alley, and I'm reliably told I am myself not something even a Marine wants to face when enraged or terrified.

"From what we know a gun would make short shrift of her" how? That's not at all clear. Head shot? Put a bullet through her heart? Head shots don't guarantee mortality, and "from what we know", an Eli with a bullet in her brain might just turn out to be a Hakan Zombie with a mild stroke. You wanna try to guarantee a good heart shot while you've got fangs gouging chunks out of your neck? I wouldn't.

Eli is an opportunistic predator, this seems abundantly clear, but it's not nearly as clear that she has to be because of physical disadvantages in strength or speed. One perspective on her "honey pot" approach with Jocke is that she's a child and tends to think like a child when hunting - stealth and deceit can be powerful tools in any predator's bag of tricks. Another is in what she really fears: villagers with torches and pitchforks in their dozens and hundreds knocking on her apartment door two hours after the sun rises. It looks to me like she'll eat a fully loaded Marine just as quickly and as easily as a newborn baby if she can do it quietly, quickly and remove herself from the crime scene immediately. The idea here isn't to avoid being overmatched, it's just to delay detection as long as possible.

You're talking purpose. You're saying that soldiers, drafted or enlisted, are given training and munitions in order to serve their respective countries' interests. This is correct. It is also correct to say that Eli serves no interest save her own.

Know what? The only difference between one country invading another for its gold, wheat or oil and an Eli draining a stewbum of his lifeblood is scale. In this sense, Eli is very much a soldier - [deleted], she's a whole [deleted] ARMY - serving and protecting the interests of the sovereign state of Eli.

I, for one, am actually arguing effect, and it has no direct moral component. A drafted soldier doesn't want to be out in the bush shooting men and bombing children, he usually just wants to go back home to a TV, a wife and a case of cold beer (not necessarily in that order). It's patently absurd to suggest that having to commit atrocities doesn't have a long-term psychological impact on said drafted soldier - it's just too [deleted] easy to collect a roomful of veterans who'll say with utter conviction that anybody who tries to claim otherwise is a slackjawed drooling idiot on crack - and I believe the overall cumulative effect the atrocities Eli has to commit in order to survive won't be markedly dissimilar.

Edit: 5 Novembre 2011, replaced a "bad word" with [deleted] to comply with renewed restrictions on language.

Edit: 11 Decembre 2011 Replaced a "bad" word with [deleted] in compliance with renewed language restrictions (2 occurences).

[Lacenaire]

You're talking purpose.

No, I talk free will. A soldier may do all these things and even escape punishment (it depends on various factors such as the nature of his government, his commanding officer, whether he gets caught or thinks he will etc), but normally it is his own choice. A soldier may stand buy while his colleagues rape and murder but he will never (or practically never) be compelled to join in. And there are always those who do not join in (even in the "Rape of Nanking"). Officers may be able to stop such thing and often do. The Napoleonic marshal Davout was famous for the fact that his troops almost never committed theft or atrocities of any kind. He did this by unsparing use of the firing squad.
These things can be very complicated. The story and fate of general Iwane Matsui who did not take part in the Nanking Massacre and actually stopped but was found responsible and hanged gives a lot of "food for thought" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iwane_Matsui.
But, what matters most for moral judgement (and this is, I think, what this thread is mainly concerned with) is "free will". And the fact that all soldiers do not behave in the same way in identical circumstances (which I don't think you deny, do you?) shows that they retain their free will.
This is what Eli is claimed not to have. Or maybe she does? In any case, a comparison with a soldier, in my opinion, fails totally to tell us anything at all about her situation from the moral perspective.

[sauvin]

This [free will] is what Eli is claimed not to have. Or maybe she does? In any case, a comparison with a soldier, in my opinion, fails totally to tell us anything at all about her situation from the moral perspective.

Oh, this is all about moral perspective? I thought we were trying to decide if Eli is a person or not. Granted, we're going about it in our usual fashion, taking the longest and most tortuously winding roads possible, but at what point does "moral perspective" have overriding weight in deciding that a given person is or is not, in fact, a person?

[Lacenaire]

Oh, this is all about moral perspective? I thought we were trying to decide if Eli is a person or not.

Well, then, let's go back to the original post of ACL and the article he quoted. It's all about moral judgement as far as I can see. The question of whether Eli is a "person" reduces to the question is she a "moral agent"? Perhaps even a "moral patient" (in the terminology of the article) could be called a person, but in any case the word "moral" is central to the whole discussion (as intended by ACL, I think).

[sauvin]

ACL, wanna weigh in on extrinsic and intrinsic moral stature?

[a_contemplative_life]

Ah! How much ink has been spilled, and will be spilled, over this little . . . person?

JAL's career is not over by any means, but it strikes me that when he's done writing, he might look back and consider what was the greatest thing he did. I would daresay that the answer is, he gave the world himself as Oskar, and he gave us . . . Eli.