Those of you who liked (or disliked but found interesting) 「Ender's Game」 might find this philosophical review by John Kessel interesting.
I'm not a fan of Orson Scott Card's politics in general; Science-Fiction has long had some conservative streaks, and Card's mormonism comes out here and there (see Heinlein's 「Starship Troopers」 for comparison). I found 「Ender's Game」 to be good science-fiction, although some of its elements felt cliche in a Piers-Anthony-esque way.
I don't think I agree with Kessel's moral conclusions much, although the reasoning I use is mentioned in a postscript that summarises responses; it may depend on how much we believe Card is providing moral reasoning for a highly contrived situation versus getting his foot in the door for more broad reasoning. If Card is doing the first, I have basically no objection to Ender; the combination of intentionality and reasonability-given-available-informatio
Could genocide of an alien race be forgiven? Under some circumstances, yes; if there were no visible alternative or pursuit of an alternative posed too much risk; in that circumstance it might come close to being obligatory. Still, in the novel the specifics of the situation (namely, a war game where the participant did not know the crucial information) shields him from moral guilt (although there may be related appropriate feelings that don't impact his character).
I am more interested in Kessel's criticisms of "the way to be" inherent in Ender's work, and the patterns of thought it empowers; those have considerable weight.