[aziaziazi]

Let me give others perpectives:

> Extending human-like moral weight to even non-human mammals is a rare idea

It's actually pretty frequent to demonstrate deep empathy and give more importance to pets that to unrelated humans. Some also argue that humans can be morally inferior to others. Drawing a line between human and non-humans may be tempting but the opinons down there are very diverse. Just a few years back and a common agreement would be "Extending white-like moral weight to even non-white..."

> most vegans don't care about the insects killed in farming

Of course they do! But found out it's the compromise with the lowest externalities. Most meat eater also don't like slaughterhouses but think it's a necessity.

> Extending it to literally alien bugs [...] is an incredibly niche idea

I bet if humanity do encounter alien bugs, this idea will be way more discussed. Moral is often somewhat put aside when engaging a fiction: Starship Troopers or Happy Tree Friends are perfect exemple. Most would's joke about that if that was real.

[mrob]

If humans encounter alien bugs that respond to a non-violent provocation by a minority group with attempted genocide of all humans, I hope that discussion would not be taken seriously. By your logic, taking antibiotics to cure a life-threatening infection is mass murder. The characters in the movie are obviously morally correct, and also obviously morally superior to real-life humans because they figured out a way to pull off large-scale group defense without resorting to slavery. Heinlein should be considered a great moral philosopher for coming up with the concept.

I can see only two possible reasons for disagreement. Either you are not actually addressing the movie itself, and are instead talking about an extended work of the movie plus the director's commentary, or you fundamentally disagree with me about human rights and do not consider slavery to be a serious problem.

[aziaziazi]

You got it: I wasn't addressing the movie or the book itself but the general ideas about moral developed in your precedent post.

Antibiotics are obviously mass murder toward bacteria, that's exactly their function I guess? Using them to cure a life-threatening infection (bacterias) isn't seen as immoral by most, neither do I. May you point out what part makes you think otherwise?

I agree that slavery is not morally acceptable but i'm not sure to follow you point afterward. Perhaps you rank slavery as the worst moral practice and as some humans still enslave others, the movies's characters that don't are "morally superior"? That's a fair and rational view. I also see invasion, violence and a lot of sadism from the humans in that movie. I don't give them a moral advantage.

My whole understanding is close Slg post [0] about the fascist critique. It's also a very popular view: A quick search on internet return many articles in this frame and as you referenced "director's commentary":

1 > I decided to make a movie about fascists who aren’t aware of their fascism

0 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46982514

1 https://www.theguardian.com/culture/2018/jan/22/how-we-made-...