An essay on sci-fi morality.

[cmzero]

Sci-fi writers are not open to all views, or with an advanced perspective on things. Sci-fi writers are often the exact opposite. Sci-fi allows one to make a specific argument obvious when it is not so much so in the actual world. Or make an argument that is actually invalid in reality, but works due to the parameters of the fictional world. And

Comments

[chime]

I agree that there is potential for sci-fi writers, or writers of fiction of any kind, to argue views that only work in that fictional universe and not in the real world. (Crime never pays, just look at how often criminals get caught on CSI!)

But I am not sure that that is what's happening in all of these cases -- were BSG's writers actually arguing that "all war is wrong," or were they only saying "this war is wrong" or even "these are the facts in this world; this is the result of continuing/not continuing this fictional war"?

[surgo]

I think this is one of the reasons I enjoy cyberpunk so much -- there's no false presumptions of having an advanced and open perspective.

[anonymous]

Just for a fun little twist, one interpretation of the main aesop of Martian Successor Nadesico is about the danger of building a system of ethics based around a work of fiction. So, in essence, the lesson of this work of fiction is "don't take lessons from works of fiction". XD

[alaster]

D'oh, that was me.

[cmzero]

Sure, I'd be flattered.