The Ethics of "Ender's Game"

WARNING: This post contains spoilers for the movie Ender's Game.

Last week, I posted a review for the 2013 film adaptation of Ender's Game. After that post went live, I was asked to do a post discussing the ending of the film and what it says about ethics. Since this is a subject that I have spent some time thinking about, I thought I would write a short post that briefly shared my thoughts on the subject.

In the climax of Ender's Game, Ender and his fellow cadets take part in a simulated battle with the Formics, the alien race that attacked Earth years ago. At the end of the battle, they use a super weapon to wipe out the Formics' homeworld, thereby killing all of the alien queens controlling the alien soldiers. This is something Ender wouldn't do in real life, but in since this is a test in a simulated battle, he is willing to take this kind of action to pass the test.

Except it's not a test. Ender and his comrades were giving unknowingly giving orders to real human spaceships attacking the Formics' homeworld. Ender really did give the order to wipe out the Formics. Ender is furious that he was lied to and that he had been tricked into committing genocide. Colonel Graff tells him it doesn't matter because Earth is safe. The humans won. "No," Ender replies. "How we win matters."

This scene illustrates two different approaches to ethics. Graff represents the approach that says that ends justify the means. This is why he indicates over and over throughout the film that how the humans win doesn't matter so long as they win. This philosophy says that you can take whatever action necessary to complete your goal so long as that goal is something good. On the other hand, Ender represents an approach to ethics that says there is an objective right and wrong. This approach says that we must do what is objectively right when pursuing our goals, even when it isn't necessarily the easiest solution. This is the view of ethics taught in Scripture. We are to do what God tells us is right regardless of our circumstances.

That being said, there is still the problem of how the scenario at the end of Ender's Game should have been handled. How far should those in authority be willing to go in order to ensure the safety of their people? If a group poses a potential threat, what should be done about that threat? Is it ethical to enact a preemptive strike to eliminate the threat, or is it better to wait for an attack and then retaliate? I would like to posit that such ultimatums are irrelevant. This is because these ultimatums assume that all potential threats are in fact threats. As Ender points out, the Formics had made no action against Earth in years, even though they clearly could have tried. Labeling the Formics as a threat because they could potentially try to invade again is like saying that a dog with a history of biting people is going to bite you because it has the ability to.

However, this does not mean that we should ignore all potential threats either. Potential threats can still become threats. So what is the answer? Let's go back to the dog analogy. Obviously, the dog has a history of biting people, so it could theoretically decide to bite you too. However, it may also choose to continue to lie in the corner of the room. Are you going to get a gun and shoot it before it has a chance to bite you? Of course not. The dog is not at that moment a threatening presence. But are you going to wait for it to bite you and then kill it? You could, but why would you want to let it bite you? Ideally, it would be great to not get bitten by the dog at all. So what do you do? You keep an eye on the dog and be at the ready to defend yourself should the dog suddenly decide to attack you. This sounds a lot like the second option, but it is different. The second option waits for an attack to occur before a counterattack is made. This third option sees the attack coming so that the attack can be stopped before it does any harm.

Coming back to Ender's Game, it is clear that genocide was the wrong solution. Since the Formics had not attacked in years, it is theoretically possible that Graff tricked Ender into killing an entire race for no reason. Perhaps they never were in danger of a second Formic attack. This of course does not mean that it is impossible for a second attack to occur. But the Earth's leaders don't have to sit on their hands and wait for a second attack before taking action. They can monitor the Formics and prepare defenses to keep Earth safe should a second invasion come. In Ender's Game, the Earth's leaders do not take this course of action, and instead they cause a boy to do something that will haunt him for the rest of his life all in the name of security. It is those kinds of decisions that the film frowns upon, and Christian viewers should frown with it.

Don't miss this week's installment in my weekly movie review series. The review will be for Inception, and it will go live tomorrow (Tuesday).