Was Neo a terrorist?

Marchesk

In the first Matrix movie, when Neo is arrested, Agent Smith tells him they just want help bringing a wanted terrorist to justice. That would be the infamous Morpheus. At the beginning of the movie, we see Trinity kill several police officers who have apprehended her. Later in the movie, Trinity & Neo storm a military building, killing security guards & soldiers while also detonating a bomb.

The thing is that all of these are envatted people. Morpheus at one explains to Neo that if someone is plugged in, then they're the enemy, because they will fight to protect the system (unless they want out), and agents can use their connection to jump into the digital representation of that person. Morpheus and his crew also inform Neo that if you die inside the Matrix, your mind makes it real, and you die for real.

As such, Neo kills human beings plugged into the Matrix without compunction to further the cause. How is this different from any terrorist or revolutionary group doing the same in the name of freedom? Granted, no civilians are ever shown being killed, and security forces are only killed if they get in the way. So it's not random terrorizing, nor is it done to terrorize. But it is still killing human beings who believe they are just doing their job.

Cavacava

↪Marchesk

There is a difference between what a revolutionary does and what a terrorist does. The revolutionary has a military objective, such as the freeing of Morpheus. The terrorist attempts to create indiscriminate havoc in the general population to persuade, to exact retribution or to polarize a population.

The revolutionary is at war with the prevailing power structure, the terrorist may have no interest in the existing power structure, except in how it can disrupt it.

Marchesk

↪Cavacava

Is there an ethical difference when it comes to taking lives?

BlueBanana

↪Marchesk

Does only the result matter, or the motivation as well? For one killing is negative, for the other it's positive.

Cavacava

↪Marchesk

I think the revolutionary would argue that they are at war, and in war ethics is suspended for the sake of a just cause which is to over throw the existing order, and to replace it by what the the revolutionary considers a legitimate, just, new order. ( kinda utilitarian approach ;) sans the train )

The terrorist's value system is not concerned with order, only with disruption of existing order, and if that entails killing of innocents then so be it. The terrorist seeks attention and indiscriminate killing is almost certain to draw massive attention.

Marchesk

Does only the result matter, or the motivation as well? For one killing is negative, for the other it's positive. — BlueBanana

What matters is that people are being killed for the cause. In the Matrix movie, Morpheus, Neo, etc. never really give a defense for doing it. It's just presented as necessary, because sometimes human security forces get in the way. They're collateral damage. But it's not like Neo exactly goes out of his way to avoid it either. Neo and Trinity walk into that building expecting to blow people away.

Marchesk

The terrorist's value system is not concerned with order, only with disruption of existing order, and if that entails killing of innocents then so be it. — Cavacava

Isn't that the mission of Zion in the Matrix movies? To disrupt the existing social order and free the humans?

It's interesting that the third movie ends with a truce instead of a victory for the humans. And that was the Oracle's plan all along. She wanted the humans and machines to reach a new way to coexist. Morpheus and everyone in Zion wanted the machines to be defeated. They thought the Oracle was exclusively on their side. But she was on both sides.

I think the directors message was that the Oracle had a better way out than total war, and that peace is better than preferable to one side winning.

Cavacava

↪Marchesk

I guess in order to ground your position you would have to detail how life under Machine rule is a just, good life. If life in a vat can't be justified, then the people of Zion are not terrorists, they are revolutionaries.

BlueBanana

↪Marchesk

Exactly, for terrorists they're not collateral damage because killing them is the goal.

Marchesk

I guess in order to ground your position you would have to detail how life under Machine rule is a just, good life. If life in a vat can't be justified, then the people of Zion are not terrorists, they are revolutionaries. — Cavacava

One consideration would be the history of being under Machine rule. According to The Animatrix, humans started the war out of jealousy and fear of machine capabilities. Morpheus states that humans darkened the skies to deprive the machines of power, so the machines ended up using humans as batteries. And then Agent Smith tells Morpheus they initially tried to create a perfect world inside the Matrix, but humans wouldn't accept it in preference for a world of suffering.

Another would be whether revolution is the preferable outcome. Say Zion succeeded and the Matrix was destroyed. Would they be able to feed, shelter and provide a meaningful existence for all those formerly envatted humans? How many would perish in destroying the Matrix?

Cavacava

↪Marchesk

OK, then the question becomes almost theological. Can a machine be or become a moral agent or are their actions only derivative of the moral agency of its creators, ultimately human in origin. God in the Bible also tried to create a perfect world, but it also did not work out.

Interesting thought which I will try to pick up latter.

Was Neo a terrorist?

Welcome to The Philosophy Forum!

Categories

More Discussions