Ender's Game

      In Orson Scott Card’s novel Ender’s Game a serious ethical dilemma is addressed: Does the ends justify the means? Or, is it ethically justifiable to use someone for reasons of war without their knowledge or consent? To be fair, the stakes in the book may have been the survival of the human race, but it is intriguing the speculate to what ends are we willing to compromise our humanity in favor of a basic animal instinct to survive? To backtrack, this novel is centered around its protagonist, a young child named Ender who performs the best at a war game at the fleet school. This game is one wherein Ender must defend his civilization from an alien attack from the Buggers. Later on, on top of the strain from being singled out to train for this game at the cost of his personal relationships, the game itself is revealed to not be what it had once seemed.
    Ender finds out that his fleet commander school had been tricking him and taking advantage of his skills for the war games. They even resort to emotional extortion in order to get what they want out of Ender. Of course, one could argue that the stakes were high, but to what extent does this argument hold up? It seems that this fear-based politics can serve as a comment on various waves of xenophobic behavior that have occurred within human history.
    In retrospect, I think one of the main themes in Ender’s Game is the abuse of power, as well as being a survey into different types of power. In his fleet commander school, Ender’s teachers abuse their power by depriving Ender of knowledge so that they can exploit his skills. They also force Ender into a difficult social situation so that they can isolate him from his peers. Ender, once proficient in the war games, gains a power over his fleets that he won’t fully realize until later, and finally, Ender’s brother gains power through personality on Earth which contrasts Ender’s leadership via his proficiency in the war games. Ultimately, so much of this book occurs with an element of manipulation that it makes you wonder how a sense of human superiority can be justified.
    Card seems to have made the decision that it will always be necessary to break a few eggs in order to make an omelet. One can argue this position, but it is certainly a dilemma that will come to mind while reading this book: is it better to dogmatically sacrifice a few for the greater good, or to have everyone confront adversity together and equally, but perhaps without strong leadership?