Was JAneway right in Caretaker?
TC
>Well, I say yes. She couldnt leave the Ocompa to die like that... What do
>you think?
Based on the Prime Directive, then no.
In order to have a series to last longer than an episode, then yes.
TC
>Ta'Teria
>======
>"When all else fails, deny everything"
>
>
TC
>Ta'Teria wrote >...
>>Well, I say yes. She couldnt leave the Ocompa to die like that... What do
>>you think?
>
>
>Based on the Prime Directive, then no.
>
>In order to have a series to last longer than an episode, then yes.
Besides, What do you think happened after the 5 years of energy ran out?
TC <sorry, posted the other too soon.>
Lisa
"Ta'Teria" <tat...@request.this.dodo.head.com> wrote in message
news:_A4q4.45170$ox5.11...@tw11.nn.bcandid.com...
> Well, I say yes. She couldnt leave the Ocompa to die like that... What do
> you think?
Ta' I think that Janeway is just so right in everything that she says and
does!
*whispers*
Is that what I'm supposed to say?
Ta'Teria
"Lisa" <dug...@freeuk.com> wrote in message
news:88buvu$23p$1...@apple.news.easynet.net...
Nah. You can say what ya want... just not in reply to me. Its like dissin
Tuvok in front of Jules...
Pie
>Well, I say yes. She couldnt leave the Ocompa to die like that... What
do
>you think?
Prime Directive be damned, she had a moral obligation to protect the
weak.
EvilBill[AGQx]
>
> Prime Directive be damned, she had a moral obligation to protect the
> weak.
>
Exactly. She couldn't allow an entire species to be enslaved and massacred
by the Kazon, which was likely to have happened if the Kazon got their hands
on the advanced technology from the array.
I wonder what happened when the five-year supply of energy the Ocampa had
stored ran out, though?
--
Sisko: "Do you really want to give up your life for the order of things?"
Remata'Klan: "It is not my life to give up, Captain, and it never was."
EvilBill's home page: http://members.xoom.com/EvilBill/; ICQ number:
37464244
Remove KILL-THE-SPAM from my email address to respond.
Get paid to surf the web: http://www.alladvantage.com/join.asp?refid=dtd-950
Lisa
"Pie" <Sweetie...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:88e34b$b53$1...@news6.svr.pol.co.uk...
> Ta'Teria wrote
> >Well, I say yes. She couldnt leave the Ocompa to die like that... What
> do
> >you think?
>
>
> weak.
>
>
What about protecting her crew? Wasn't her moral obligation to them
greater? I really wish we had seen more in the early days about how the
crew really felt about what she had done. Even now it would be a good story
as they are still so far away and I'm sure some crew members must be
resentful of her.
Lisa
"EvilBill[AGQx]" <evilbillKI...@nutter.swinternet.co.uk> wrote in
message news:tPwq4.536$74.1...@nnrp3.clara.net...
> > weak.
> >
>
> by the Kazon, which was likely to have happened if the Kazon got their
hands
> on the advanced technology from the array.
>
of it to happen, she should have just minded her own business and got on
with what she was there for.
> I wonder what happened when the five-year supply of energy the Ocampa had
> stored ran out, though?
Exactly! Janeway or not they would soon have been on their own.
EvilBill[AGQx]
>
> Why couldn't she? She isn't the saviour of the Galaxy, she didn't cause
any
> of it to happen, she should have just minded her own business and got on
> with what she was there for.
>
Put yourself in her place... I know I sure as hell wouldn't want to see a
race of sentient beings enslaved, just or the convenience of getting myself
back to the Federation.
> > I wonder what happened when the five-year supply of energy the Ocampa
had
> > stored ran out, though?
>
> Exactly! Janeway or not they would soon have been on their own.
>
Although, those five years' grace would have given them time to prepare for
the inevitable need to return to the surface.
Lisa
> "Lisa" <dug...@freeuk.com> wrote in message
> news:88f1m9$8tf$1...@apple.news.easynet.net...
> >
> > Why couldn't she? She isn't the saviour of the Galaxy, she didn't cause
> any
> > of it to happen, she should have just minded her own business and got on
> > with what she was there for.
> >
>
> Put yourself in her place... I know I sure as hell wouldn't want to see a
> race of sentient beings enslaved, just or the convenience of getting
myself
> back to the Federation.
Maybe if she were only 10 years or so away, but she here decision literally
took away the lives of the people on board her ship. She may have helped
one race of people, but what about the two crews she was also responsible
for?
>
> > > I wonder what happened when the five-year supply of energy the Ocampa
> had
> > > stored ran out, though?
> >
> > Exactly! Janeway or not they would soon have been on their own.
> >
>
> Although, those five years' grace would have given them time to prepare
for
> the inevitable need to return to the surface.
Some of them seemed more than ready and certainly didn't need 5 years!
EvilBill[AGQx]
>
> "EvilBill[AGQx]" <evilbillKI...@nutter.swinternet.co.uk> wrote in
> message news:wRGq4.954$74.3...@nnrp3.clara.net...
> >
a
> > race of sentient beings enslaved, just or the convenience of getting
> myself
> > back to the Federation.
>
> Maybe if she were only 10 years or so away, but she here decision
literally
> took away the lives of the people on board her ship. She may have helped
> one race of people, but what about the two crews she was also responsible
> for?
>
The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few.
> >
> > Although, those five years' grace would have given them time to prepare
> for
> > the inevitable need to return to the surface.
>
> Some of them seemed more than ready and certainly didn't need 5 years!
>
But don't forget, the Ocampa had been down there in the subterranean world
for over 1,500 years... it'd be a big transition to going from the
environment they were used to, to the harsh conditions on the planet
surface. Also they'd need time to prepare for the inevitable confrontation
with the Kazon.
Julianna Feigl
>
> Well, I say yes. She couldnt leave the Ocompa to die like that... What do
> you think?
She could of course have returned home and left the Ocampa at Jabin's
mercy... but in that case they'd never met Seven, so I guess that
wouldn't have been a good idea... OTOH, Chucky might have ended up in
prison...
Julianna
--------
Tuvok:
The main reason to watch Voyager!
Julianna Feigl
>
> Ta'Teria wrote
> >Well, I say yes. She couldnt leave the Ocompa to die like that... What
> do
> >you think?
>
> weak.
But shouldn'T she also get her people home? What about poor mom of
Harry? WHat if she suffered a heart attack when she heard her boy was
missing? Or what about Mr. Wildman? Or Tuvok's little girl back home?
Couldn't they all be heavily traumatized?
Julianna Feigl
> > weak.
> >
>
> by the Kazon, which was likely to have happened if the Kazon got their hands
> on the advanced technology from the array.
>
> stored ran out, though?
They developed the "back to nature" philosophy and became
tree-huggers...
Julianna Feigl
> >
> > Ta' I think that Janeway is just so right in everything that she says and
> > does!
> >
> > *whispers*
> >
> > Is that what I'm supposed to say?
>
> Nah. You can say what ya want... just not in reply to me. Its like dissin
> Tuvok in front of Jules...
there's no reason to diss him *ever* - since he rules :-)
David B.
>
> >From: "Lisa"
>
> >> The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few.
> >
>
> Because Spock said so and Spock is a god.
He is? Whoa...cool.
--
Scully: Snake handling, they didn't talk about that in catechism.
Mulder: Maybe not, but I used to know a couple of Catholic school girls,
who were experts at it. - The X-Files: "Signs and Wonders"
Lisa
> "Lisa" <dug...@freeuk.com> wrote in message...
> >
> > "EvilBill[AGQx]" <evilbillKI...@nutter.swinternet.co.uk> wrote
in
> > message news:wRGq4.954$74.3...@nnrp3.clara.net...
> > >
> > > Put yourself in her place... I know I sure as hell wouldn't want to
see
> a
> > > race of sentient beings enslaved, just or the convenience of getting
> > myself
> > > back to the Federation.
> >
> > Maybe if she were only 10 years or so away, but she here decision
> literally
> > took away the lives of the people on board her ship. She may have
helped
> > one race of people, but what about the two crews she was also
responsible
> > for?
> >
>
Why? Who is to decide which are the more important lives?
>
> > >
> > > Although, those five years' grace would have given them time to
prepare
> > for
> > > the inevitable need to return to the surface.
> >
> > Some of them seemed more than ready and certainly didn't need 5 years!
> >
>
> But don't forget, the Ocampa had been down there in the subterranean world
> for over 1,500 years... it'd be a big transition to going from the
> environment they were used to, to the harsh conditions on the planet
> surface. Also they'd need time to prepare for the inevitable confrontation
> with the Kazon.
I'm sorry, but that was not Janeways problem, her first call should have
been to get her ship and her crew home safely.
Shammie
>> The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few.
>
>Why?
Because Spock said so and Spock is a god.
EvilBill[AGQx]
>
> "EvilBill[AGQx]" <evilbillKI...@nutter.swinternet.co.uk> wrote in
> message news:rAVq4.1286$74.3...@nnrp3.clara.net...
> > >
> >
>
> >
Spock. <g>
That was his line ;)
Besides - which would you rather have on your conscience - the separation of
a couple of hundred people from their families, or the deaths of hundreds of
thousands?
Shammie
>(Shammie) wrote:
>
>>>From: "Lisa"
>>
>>>> The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few.
>>>
>>>Why?
>>
>>Because Spock said so and Spock is a god.
>
>That's enough for me..
There ya go! :-)
Désirée Davis
SP...@nutter.swinternet.co.uk says...
> >
> > Why couldn't she? She isn't the saviour of the Galaxy, she didn't cause
> any
> > of it to happen, she should have just minded her own business and got on
> > with what she was there for.
Exactly. She is *not* responsible for the welfare of anyone but her
crew. She choose to put the welfare of another group over the welfare of
her crew. She must not care for her crew much if she is willing to
sacrifice them to whatever group comes along claiming a greater need.
> >
>
> Put yourself in her place... I know I sure as hell wouldn't want to see a
> race of sentient beings enslaved, just or the convenience of getting myself
> back to the Federation.
What if hadn't been an entire race but 10-20 individuals? What if it was
just 1 person who would be enslaved? Is there some magic number where
Janeway suddenly has a moral obligation to save them? Is it Janeway's
job to go around ending slavery at the expense of her crew? And what
system of morals is that anyway? The "sacrifice is moral, self-interest
is immoral" one? You are ascribing a standard of morality to Janeway
that she may or not hold.
Désirée- Janeway is an immoral crew-hating murderer
Désirée Davis
SP...@nutter.swinternet.co.uk says...
> "Lisa" <dug...@freeuk.com> wrote in message...> > message news:wRGq4.954$74.3...@nnrp3.clara.net...
> The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few.
You have just justified the Holocaust since the killing of a smaller
number of people benefited a larger number (by increasing the
resources available to them). That statement you quoted is the biggest
sham ever foisted on the human race. If I have a choice between saving 1
person I love vs. 4 complete strangers (say, from a burner building or a
car accident on the freeway), I will always without question save the one
person I love, and I will know I made the right moral choice.
What if the Ocampan population had been smaller than the crew compliment
of Voyager? Is morality just a numbers game? What benefits the most
people is moral regardless of the sacrifice necessary by the minority?
It is immoral to sacrifice even 1 person against his will for the need of
anybody or any group. (Which is why murdering Tuvix was immoral as well)
> > > Although, those five years' grace would have given them time to prepare
> > for
> > > the inevitable need to return to the surface.
> >
> > Some of them seemed more than ready and certainly didn't need 5 years!
> >
>
> But don't forget, the Ocampa had been down there in the subterranean world
> for over 1,500 years... it'd be a big transition to going from the
> environment they were used to, to the harsh conditions on the planet
> surface. Also they'd need time to prepare for the inevitable confrontation
> with the Kazon.
but any one Ocampa only live for 9 years, so the 1500 years is
irrelevant. 5 years is 1/2 a generation, which is plenty of time to
adapt to the surface. In 5 years, a whole new generation of Ocampa will
be middle aged already, having spent their entire life on the surface.
Désirée- donning asbestos bikini
Désirée Davis
> > > >
> > >
> > > The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few.
> >
> > >
>
> Spock. <g>
> That was his line ;)
>
> Besides - which would you rather have on your conscience - the separation of
> a couple of hundred people from their families, or the deaths of hundreds of
> thousands?
>
however the crew's lives *are* my responsibility and effectively ending
them would be on my conscious.
Désirée- I choose who to be responsible for
EvilBill[AGQx]
> In article <rAVq4.1286$74.3...@nnrp3.clara.net>, evilbillKILL-THE-
> SP...@nutter.swinternet.co.uk says...
>
>
> number of people benefited a larger number (by increasing the
> resources available to them). That statement you quoted is the biggest
> sham ever foisted on the human race. If I have a choice between saving 1
> person I love vs. 4 complete strangers (say, from a burner building or a
> car accident on the freeway), I will always without question save the one
> person I love, and I will know I made the right moral choice.
>
> What if the Ocampan population had been smaller than the crew compliment
> of Voyager? Is morality just a numbers game? What benefits the most
> people is moral regardless of the sacrifice necessary by the minority?
> It is immoral to sacrifice even 1 person against his will for the need of
> anybody or any group. (Which is why murdering Tuvix was immoral as well)
>
The Holocaust was a crime of genocide perpetrated by a brutal sadistic
regime. I'm talking about saving the lives and freedoms of an entire
*species*. The Kazon would almost certainly have treated the Ocampa in the
exact same way as the Nazis treated the Jews if they had gotten the advanced
technology from the array. Besides, such technology could very well have
allowed them to attack other areas of space as well - including the Alpha
Quadrant. It's not just the Ocampa Janeway had to worry about - it was the
safety of the Federation - as well as countless other species.
We're not talking about giving a benefit to a group in terms of resources,
we're talking about protecting innocent lives. Voyager has technology -
weapons, shields, trained personnel - they have the chance of surviving in
the Delta Quadrant. The Ocampa have/had none of those things.
You're right, it's not a numbers game - but the issue is one of protecting
the weak, and defending those unable to defend themselves.
> >
> > But don't forget, the Ocampa had been down there in the subterranean
world
> > for over 1,500 years... it'd be a big transition to going from the
> > environment they were used to, to the harsh conditions on the planet
> > surface. Also they'd need time to prepare for the inevitable
confrontation
> > with the Kazon.
>
> but any one Ocampa only live for 9 years, so the 1500 years is
> irrelevant. 5 years is 1/2 a generation, which is plenty of time to
> adapt to the surface. In 5 years, a whole new generation of Ocampa will
> be middle aged already, having spent their entire life on the surface.
>
Well... we're talking about a cultural transition here... the Ocampa as a
species aren't adapted to life in those harsh, desrtified conditions.
> Désirée- donning asbestos bikini
And I'm sure you look nice in it too! <g>
Julianna Feigl
>From: "Lisa"
>
> >> The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few.
> >
>
> Because Spock said so and Spock is a god.
:-)))
Silverhawk
>her crew.
Wrong. She has a 'moral' responsibility. Extrapolating your position
to the real world, it would mean the leaders of the western powers
ignoring everything that didn't directly affect their country and/or
their people. "Everyone else can go jump off a cliff as long as we're
okay." Now if that attitiude had of been prevalent, there'd be
several ethnic 'races' that would have been genocidally wiped out by
now - the Bosnians and Kosovans being two recent examples.
>She choose to put the welfare of another group over the welfare
>of her crew. She must not care for her crew much if she is willing
>to sacrifice them to whatever group comes along claiming a
>greater need.
Who's sacrificing? By destroying the array, the Voyager crew were
gonna be stranded, not killed. Janeway did a similar thing in
"Dreadnought" when the Maquis missile was going to devastate a planet
and she was gonna self-destruct the ship. Again she wasn't
sacrificing any of her crew's lives. They were all in the escape pods
weren't they!?
The Voyager crew were unlikely to all be killed by intervening, but
the Ocampans most certainly would have been if Voyager had done
nothing. The Kazon would have made sure of that.
Silverhawk
--
"Paranoia's the only thing that's kept me alive this long, hon'.
You'd better learn to think the same, otherwise BANG... you'll be out
the game."
Désirée Davis
k...@eidosnet.co.uk says...
> >Exactly. She is *not* responsible for the welfare of anyone but
> >her crew.
>
> Wrong. She has a 'moral' responsibility.
A moral responsibility based on what? On your morals? On Christian
morals? You speak as if "morals" are pre-existent entities and that
everyone shares your concept of morals. Had I been captain, the crew I
am responsible for getting home comes first over a bad situation that
neither me nor my crew were responsible for creating in the first place.
Extrapolating your position
> to the real world, it would mean the leaders of the western powers
> ignoring everything that didn't directly affect their country and/or
> their people.
Yup. You say that as if it's a pre-ordained "bad thing" Guess what?
There are many of us who feel we should take care of our country first
before trying to impose our morals on some one else. After we "rescue"
Bosnia are they going to embrace democracy and capitalism, the tenets
that allowed us to help them in the first place? Not bloody likely. You
want us to help even those who spit on our values. I won't do that nor
will I support it.
"Everyone else can go jump off a cliff as long as we're
> okay."
And who are you to tell someone they can't if they want to? Are you God?
Are your morals somehow "better" than theirs? If someone *wants* to jump
and has made a rational decision to do so, what right do you have to stop
them? This is nothing but arrogance.
Now if that attitude had of been prevalent, there'd be
> several ethnic 'races' that would have been genocidally wiped out by
> now - the Bosnians and Kosovans being two recent examples.
Thank you for dropping context, it makes my counter argument so much
easier. If this attitude had been prevalent, then there would be no
genocide to begin with. You want to argue against "hands off" by America
but fail to include the offending governments as well. If they kept
their hands off, the problem never would have begun.
>
> >She choose to put the welfare of another group over the welfare
> >of her crew. She must not care for her crew much if she is willing
> >to sacrifice them to whatever group comes along claiming a
> >greater need.
>
> Who's sacrificing? By destroying the array, the Voyager crew were
> gonna be stranded, not killed.
You don't consider being stranded away from home and family for 70 years
a "sacrifice"? You must have a very limited definition of the word. I
do not. "Sacrifice" is anytime you give a value and get less or no value
in return.
Janeway did a similar thing in
> "Dreadnought" when the Maquis missile was going to devastate a planet
> and she was gonna self-destruct the ship. Again she wasn't
> sacrificing any of her crew's lives. They were all in the escape pods
> weren't they!?
Different situation, although she was still sacrificing the ship I.e.
sacrificing her best and only chance at getting home. Janeway is willing
throw away the welfare of her crew at the drop of hat.
>
> The Voyager crew were unlikely to all be killed by intervening, but
> the Ocampans most certainly would have been if Voyager had done
> nothing. The Kazon would have made sure of that.
And had Voyager never been there, the same thing would have happened.
Voyager had no "moral" responsibility to save them at their own expense
unless you believe in a morality in which actions that are good for
others=moral, actions that are good for myself=immoral. The end result
of such a morality is everyone being sacrificed for the benefit of
everyone else. Not a world I care to live in, thank you.
Désirée- sacrificing myself to no one and asking no one to sacrifice
themselves to me.
Silverhawk
>
>And who are you to tell someone they can't if they want to? Are
>you God? Are your morals somehow "better" than theirs? If
>someone *wants* to jump and has made a rational decision to
>do so, what right do you have to stop them? This is nothing but
>arrogance.
If someone climbed over the railings of a bridge and were about to
chuck themselves over the edge, you'd just shrug your shoulders and
let them? You wouldn't try to talk them out of it?
>> Who's sacrificing? By destroying the array, the Voyager crew
>> were gonna be stranded, not killed.
>
>You don't consider being stranded away from home and family
>for 70 years a "sacrifice"? You must have a very limited
>definition of the word. I do not. "Sacrifice" is anytime you give a
>value and get less or no value in return.
I'm sorry. I interpreted your use of the word "sacrifice" as its
ultimate form - i.e. death. I didn't realise you were writing in more
general terms. It still doesn't sit well with me though. By nature,
I'm the sort of person that would try and help people if I see them in
trouble/danger, even if I don't know them. I can't change the way I
am or the way I think.
>>Janeway did a similar thing in "Dreadnought" when the Maquis
>>missile was going to devastate a planet and she was gonna
>>self-destruct the ship. Again she wasn't sacrificing any of her
>>crew's lives. They were all in the escape pods weren't they!?
>
>Different situation, although she was still sacrificing the ship I.e.
>sacrificing her best and only chance at getting home. Janeway
>is willing throw away the welfare of her crew at the drop of hat.
Imagine though blindly going through the galaxy like Voyager, turning
your back on things and situations where your intervention could save
millions, if not billions of lives. How many would have to die while
you selfishly cocoon yourself away? I'm sorry if my words are causing
offence here, but I just couldn't do that.
>Voyager had no "moral" responsibility to save them at their own
>expense unless you believe in a morality in which actions that
>are good for others=moral, actions that are good for
>myself=immoral
You're making a blanket judgment here yourself. I never said that
actions which are good for yourself are immoral, but if those same
actions are causing hurt, pain or distress (for example) to others,
then isn't it worth at least re-evaluating whether that good thing for
yourself is worth it?
You sound like a hard woman, Desiree. I mean no disrepect by that,
but it's just something I could never be myself.
Désirée Davis
k...@eidosnet.co.uk says...
> >>"Everyone else can go jump off a cliff as long as we're okay."
> >
> >And who are you to tell someone they can't if they want to? Are
> >you God? Are your morals somehow "better" than theirs? If
> >someone *wants* to jump and has made a rational decision to
> >do so, what right do you have to stop them? This is nothing but
> >arrogance.
>
> If someone climbed over the railings of a bridge and were about to
> chuck themselves over the edge, you'd just shrug your shoulders and
> let them? You wouldn't try to talk them out of it?
I believe in a person's right to commit suicide if they so choice. I may
ask if they are making a rational decision or an emotional one. If it's
an emotional one, then I would try to talk them out of it. Emotions are
terrible things to base life decisions on as emotions change but
logic/rationality stays he same and once the emotion passes then your
decision based on it will change. If someone is making a rational choice
based on objective facts then who am I to tell them to do otherwise?
>
> >> Who's sacrificing? By destroying the array, the Voyager crew
> >> were gonna be stranded, not killed.
> >
> >You don't consider being stranded away from home and family
> >for 70 years a "sacrifice"? You must have a very limited
> >definition of the word. I do not. "Sacrifice" is anytime you give a
> >value and get less or no value in return.
>
> I'm sorry. I interpreted your use of the word "sacrifice" as its
> ultimate form - i.e. death. I didn't realise you were writing in more
> general terms. It still doesn't sit well with me though. By nature,
> I'm the sort of person that would try and help people if I see them in
> trouble/danger, even if I don't know them. I can't change the way I
> am or the way I think.
Unless you are a fatalist/determinist, you *can* change the way you
think- you have free will. I'm not saying you should but having a
working mind (not an "open" mind, but a working one- willing to evaluate
new information and if need be, alter your thoughts and actions based on
that info) is essential for living. And if the life of any passing
stranger is of more value to you than your own, then you *should* be
willing to sacrifice yourself for them. If that is the case, to not do
so is immoral.
>
> >>Janeway did a similar thing in "Dreadnought" when the Maquis
> >>missile was going to devastate a planet and she was gonna
> >>self-destruct the ship. Again she wasn't sacrificing any of her
> >>crew's lives. They were all in the escape pods weren't they!?
> >
> >Different situation, although she was still sacrificing the ship I.e.
> >sacrificing her best and only chance at getting home. Janeway
> >is willing throw away the welfare of her crew at the drop of hat.
>
> Imagine though blindly going through the galaxy like Voyager, turning
> your back on things and situations where your intervention could save
> millions, if not billions of lives. How many would have to die while
> you selfishly cocoon yourself away?
Would they have died anyway had Voyager not been there? If the
answer is "yes," then I'm not saying she shouldn't help, but just not at
the expense or risk of her crew.
> I'm sorry if my words are causing
> offence here, but I just couldn't do that.
The problem I have with Janeway is not that she helps people but that she
helps people at the expense of her crew. She first and foremost has a
moral responsibility to her crew but she will ignore that responsibility
in favor of whatever alien of the week needs her help. Since this is a TV
show, of course, things always work out for the best, but reality isn't
like that. Her crew should be dead many times over because of her
rampant "morality".
>
> >Voyager had no "moral" responsibility to save them at their own
> >expense unless you believe in a morality in which actions that
> >are good for others=moral, actions that are good for
> >myself=immoral
>
> You're making a blanket judgment here yourself.
Morals are blanket judgements. Murder is always immoral. Rape is always
immoral. Why are these actions "immoral"? Because they are a violation
of some one else's rights- the right to life and the right to ownership
of your body. All morality stems from those basic principles. If you
wish to discuss morals, then you are discussing philosophy and philosophy
is based on principles. Principles are by their nature blanket
statements. So-called "situational morality" is really no morality at
all as any action can be justified simple by manipulating the situation.
And by claiming that Voyager had a "moral" responsibility to help the
Ocampans, you yourself declared just the morality that I described above.
You proclaimed that the "moral" action was the one that helped others,
whereas if Janeway had just left that would have been "immoral"
Unfortunately, philosophy has been lost in modern America and it's
influence, although all-pervasive is unrecognized by most.
I never said that
> actions which are good for yourself are immoral, but if those same
> actions are causing hurt, pain or distress (for example) to others,
> then isn't it worth at least re-evaluating whether that good thing for
> yourself is worth it?
You are confusing the issue. Did Janeway & crew "cause" the situation
that had arisen between the Kazon and the Ocampa? No. They were not
responsible for it. Their action of self-preservation would not have
"caused" hurt, pain or distress unless you have a very odd definition of
"cause." By your argument, Janeway should be like a comic book superhero
seeking out wrongs to make right. I have no problem with Janeway doing
this except for the fact that she has 170+ people in her care as well and
they must come before any random alien.
>
> You sound like a hard woman, Desiree. I mean no disrepect by that,
> but it's just something I could never be myself.
(hard or a woman?);-)
I practice a philosophy of rational self-interest (I act to better myself
& improve my enjoyment of life and by doing so society is the beneficiary
of a better me). As I have shown before, given a choice between rescuing
a single loved one or a family of strangers from a burning building, I
will rescue my loved one and not feel guilty about it. Why? Because,
the loved one is of more value to me. I'm not saying the family is of
strangers is not of value, but they are not of value *to me* and since I
am the one risking my life then I am going to act to secure that which is
of value to me.
You say I am "hard" (although I suppose you meant "cold"). You say this
because I don't believe in a philosophy whereby myself or the people in
my care exist just to be sacrificed to anyone's "need." I will never
sacrifice myself to anyone's "need" nor will I ask anyone to sacrifice
themselves to me for mine. Remember, by "sacrifice" I mean giving a
value and receiving less or no value in return. I may be willing to risk
my life to save my partner because life without her would have no value
for me. But I will not throw my life away for any stranger in need.
Désirée- I belong to me, you belong to you
Désirée Davis
SP...@nutter.swinternet.co.uk says...
> "Désirée Davis" <HBeac...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> > In article <rAVq4.1286$74.3...@nnrp3.clara.net>, evilbillKILL-THE-
> > SP...@nutter.swinternet.co.uk says...
> > > The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few.
> > You have just justified the Holocaust since the killing of a smaller
> > number of people benefited a larger number (by increasing the
> > resources available to them). That statement you quoted is the biggest
> > sham ever foisted on the human race. If I have a choice between saving 1
> > person I love vs. 4 complete strangers (say, from a burner building or a
> > car accident on the freeway), I will always without question save the one
> > person I love, and I will know I made the right moral choice.
> > What if the Ocampan population had been smaller than the crew compliment
> > of Voyager? Is morality just a numbers game? What benefits the most
> > people is moral regardless of the sacrifice necessary by the minority?
> > It is immoral to sacrifice even 1 person against his will for the need of
> > anybody or any group. (Which is why murdering Tuvix was immoral as well)
> The Holocaust was a crime of genocide perpetrated by a brutal sadistic
> regime.
But it was justified with a variation on "The needs of the many outweigh
the needs of the few" That is, the needs of all the non-Jews were more
important than the needs of the Jews. By killing all the Jews, the
remainder of the society were going to have more resources for themselves
and be better off. The point is a philosophy of sacrifice and "moral
duty" to the majority can lead to all kind of atrocities. In the Nazi
mentality, the Jews had a "moral responsibility" to die for the benefit
of the the Aryans. Anyone who practices any kind of moral relativism
would be hypocritical to condemn the Nazis. You can only condemn such an
act on moral grounds, with specific, set morals, not situational ones.
> I'm talking about saving the lives and freedoms of an entire
> *species*. The Kazon would almost certainly have treated the Ocampa in the
> exact same way as the Nazis treated the Jews if they had gotten the advanced
> technology from the array.
And had Voyager not been there, it would have happened anyway. Voyager
was not the "cause" of the situation, therefore they had no *moral*
responsibility to save the Ocampans. If you wish to argue that stopping
the Kazon was in Voyager (and the Federation's) best interest and the
Ocampans were lucky beneficiaries, that is a completely different
argument, one which I would not dispute.
> Besides, such technology could very well have
> allowed them to attack other areas of space as well - including the Alpha
> Quadrant. It's not just the Ocampa Janeway had to worry about - it was the
> safety of the Federation - as well as countless other species.
Janeway didn't "have" to worry about the Ocampans at all (I.e. she wasn't
obligated too) She does have to worry about the safety of her crew, her
ship and the Federation she is sworn to protect. It is on that basis
that an argument for destroying the array and stranding the crew can be
made.
> We're not talking about giving a benefit to a group in terms of resources,
> we're talking about protecting innocent lives.
Offering the service of protection *is* giving a benefit, unless you wish
to argue that being protected and not being protected are equivalent i.e.
neither is a more desirable state than the other. The Ocampans
benefited by Voyager's action. The question is whether Janeway was
sacrificing her ship for their benefit, or to stop the aggression of the
Kazon. The former would be immoral in my view, the latter moral
(Although the header asks "Was Janeway right..." what the question really
means is "Was Janeway's action moral..."
> Voyager has technology -
> weapons, shields, trained personnel - they have the chance of surviving in
> the Delta Quadrant. The Ocampa have/had none of those things.
And wouldn't have still had Voyager not been there. Is Voyager supposed
to wander around the DQ seeking out all the species being bullied and
rescue them too? Where does the "moral responsibility" end? Is it just
whatever alien of the week is fortunate enough to have Voyager stumble
across them?
>
> You're right, it's not a numbers game - but the issue is one of protecting
> the weak, and defending those unable to defend themselves.
At what cost? At what point does Janeway say, "Doing this is going to
cause our destruction and thus we shouldn't this"? What is the level of
sacrifice the crew must make to fulfill this "moral responsibility" to
protect the weak? Being stranded? Giving up supplies? 1 crew member
dead? 2? Half of them? Is there any standard or is Voyager just
supposed to protect the Ocampa until it is destroyed completely?
> > > But don't forget, the Ocampa had been down there in the subterranean
> world
> > > for over 1,500 years... it'd be a big transition to going from the
> > > environment they were used to, to the harsh conditions on the planet
> > > surface. Also they'd need time to prepare for the inevitable
> confrontation
> > > with the Kazon.
> > but any one Ocampa only live for 9 years, so the 1500 years is
> > irrelevant. 5 years is 1/2 a generation, which is plenty of time to
> > adapt to the surface. In 5 years, a whole new generation of Ocampa will
> > be middle aged already, having spent their entire life on the surface.
> Well... we're talking about a cultural transition here... the Ocampa as a
> species aren't adapted to life in those harsh, desrtified conditions.
I am just pointing out that 5 years for the Ocampa would be like 40-50
years for us. Imagine the cultural changes we are capable of in 50
years.
> > Désirée- donning asbestos bikini
> And I'm sure you look nice in it too! <g>
Why thank you :-)
Désirée- who doesn't want to think about the changes 50 years from now-
I'll be old :-(
Silverhawk
>You say I am "hard" (although I suppose you meant "cold"). You
>say this because I don't believe in a philosophy whereby myself
>or the people in my care exist just to be sacrificed to anyone's
>"need." I will never sacrifice myself to anyone's "need" nor will I
>ask anyone to sacrifice themselves to me for mine. Remember,
>by "sacrifice" I mean giving a value and receiving less or no
>value in return. I may be willing to risk my life to save my partner
>because life without her would have no value for me. But I will not
>throw my life away for any stranger in need.
Fair enough. I see your point, and while I'm not in total agreement
with it, I respect your right to have that philosophy.
EvilBill[AGQx]
> In article <r1Yr4.4698$uT1....@nnrp4.clara.net>, evilbillKILL-THE-
> SP...@nutter.swinternet.co.uk says...
> > regime.
>
> But it was justified with a variation on "The needs of the many outweigh
> the needs of the few" That is, the needs of all the non-Jews were more
> important than the needs of the Jews. By killing all the Jews, the
> remainder of the society were going to have more resources for themselves
> and be better off. The point is a philosophy of sacrifice and "moral
> duty" to the majority can lead to all kind of atrocities. In the Nazi
> mentality, the Jews had a "moral responsibility" to die for the benefit
> of the the Aryans. Anyone who practices any kind of moral relativism
> would be hypocritical to condemn the Nazis. You can only condemn such an
> act on moral grounds, with specific, set morals, not situational ones.
>
To kill for gain is immoral. To make a sacrifice (for example, stranding
one's ship in the Delta Quadrant) to help save a race of people, is the
"human thing to do", as Kirk or Spock might have put it.
>
> And had Voyager not been there, it would have happened anyway. Voyager
> was not the "cause" of the situation, therefore they had no *moral*
> responsibility to save the Ocampans. If you wish to argue that stopping
> the Kazon was in Voyager (and the Federation's) best interest and the
> Ocampans were lucky beneficiaries, that is a completely different
> argument, one which I would not dispute.
>
As stated in my previous post ;)
>
> Janeway didn't "have" to worry about the Ocampans at all (I.e. she wasn't
> obligated too) She does have to worry about the safety of her crew, her
> ship and the Federation she is sworn to protect. It is on that basis
> that an argument for destroying the array and stranding the crew can be
> made.
>
She may not have been "obligated" to the Ocampa... but don't forget, she
states in later episodes that she does NOT like bullies... and that's what
the Kazon are, essentially. She's not going to stand by and let them push
others around. And neither would I... I was a victim of bullying for many
years, so I don't take very kindly to bullies either.
>
> Offering the service of protection *is* giving a benefit, unless you wish
> to argue that being protected and not being protected are equivalent i.e.
> neither is a more desirable state than the other. The Ocampans
> benefited by Voyager's action. The question is whether Janeway was
> sacrificing her ship for their benefit, or to stop the aggression of the
> Kazon. The former would be immoral in my view, the latter moral
> (Although the header asks "Was Janeway right..." what the question really
> means is "Was Janeway's action moral..."
>
Well, it seems clear that you and I have two different viewpoints on this...
I suggest we agree to disagree ;-)
> > Voyager has technology -
> > weapons, shields, trained personnel - they have the chance of surviving
in
> > the Delta Quadrant. The Ocampa have/had none of those things.
>
> And wouldn't have still had Voyager not been there. Is Voyager supposed
> to wander around the DQ seeking out all the species being bullied and
> rescue them too? Where does the "moral responsibility" end? Is it just
> whatever alien of the week is fortunate enough to have Voyager stumble
> across them?
> >
BTW - Isn't it part of Starfleet's job to render aid and assistance to those
worlds that request it?
> > Well... we're talking about a cultural transition here... the Ocampa as
a
> > species aren't adapted to life in those harsh, desrtified conditions.
>
> I am just pointing out that 5 years for the Ocampa would be like 40-50
> years for us. Imagine the cultural changes we are capable of in 50
> years.
>
> > > Désirée- donning asbestos bikini
>
> > And I'm sure you look nice in it too! <g>
>
> Why thank you :-)
>
You're welcome! :)
> Désirée- who doesn't want to think about the changes 50 years from now-
> I'll be old :-(
At least you won't be 20 generations dead, like an Ocampa <g>
H. McDaniel
>
> In article <88ulvq$q2u$3...@quince.news.easynet.net>, analog-
> k...@eidosnet.co.uk says...
> > >Exactly. She is *not* responsible for the welfare of anyone but
> > >her crew.
> >
> > Wrong. She has a 'moral' responsibility.
>
> A moral responsibility based on what? On your morals? On Christian
> morals? You speak as if "morals" are pre-existent entities and that
The Trekian Prime Directive is a legal rule expressing a moral principle.
It does not provide the federation with any benefits, it is akin to
contemporary endangered species protection laws which would not exist
were it not for some moral beliefs concerning those creatures being
protected. One does not have to believe in moral absolutes to see that
morals exist and play a role in the Trek verse. The way trek crews
religiously observe the Prime Directive strongly suggest that it is
a moral root of all their beliefs.
[...]
> You don't consider being stranded away from home and family for 70 years
> a "sacrifice"? You must have a very limited definition of the word. I
> do not. "Sacrifice" is anytime you give a value and get less or no value
> in return.
The crew knew that great risks come with exploration and serving onboard
an armed vessel of Voyager's type. The crew is likely full of people who
like adventure and accept the risks beacause in the Trek verse it'd be very
easy for them to simply lounge around having free food, medical care, and
entertainment. Janeway is often wreckless, but her crew follows her so I
guess they enjoy that ;)
[...]
> And had Voyager never been there, the same thing would have happened.
> Voyager had no "moral" responsibility to save them at their own expense
> unless you believe in a morality in which actions that are good for
> others=moral, actions that are good for myself=immoral. The end result
> of such a morality is everyone being sacrificed for the benefit of
> everyone else. Not a world I care to live in, thank you.
The end result of only doing things that benefit yourself is animosity and
distrust on the part of others that percieve you as using them to get what
you want. Janeway sees her mission as a diplomatic and explorative one besides
getting the crew home. IMO, if the crew *really* wanted to get home as fast
as possible they would've mutinied in the first year and kicked Janeway
off the boat a la what happened to the Bounty's captain.
I wouldn't want to live in the Trek federation. Nice place to visit but
the things they do to thought criminals... Very Orwellian, those
"rehabilitaion" centers and mind correcting devices.
-McDaniel
Désirée Davis
ha...@DEATH-TO-SPAMMERS.wolfenet.com says...
> "Désirée Davis" wrote:
> >
> > In article <88ulvq$q2u$3...@quince.news.easynet.net>, analog-
> > k...@eidosnet.co.uk says...
> > > >Exactly. She is *not* responsible for the welfare of anyone but
> > > >her crew.
> > >
> > > Wrong. She has a 'moral' responsibility.
> >
> > A moral responsibility based on what? On your morals? On Christian
> > morals? You speak as if "morals" are pre-existent entities and that
>
> The Trekian Prime Directive is a legal rule expressing a moral principle.
> It does not provide the federation with any benefits, it is akin to
> contemporary endangered species protection laws which would not exist
> were it not for some moral beliefs concerning those creatures being
> protected. One does not have to believe in moral absolutes to see that
> morals exist and play a role in the Trek verse. The way trek crews
> religiously observe the Prime Directive strongly suggest that it is
> a moral root of all their beliefs.
Good answer, although I am not sure how the Prime Suggestion would apply
to Janeway's action. Please elaborate, not that we have a moral
framework.
BTW- if you don't believe in moral absolutes then *anything* (and I do
mean anything) can be moral- human sacrifice, murder, rape, child
molesting, anything. Without absolute morals, anyone can claim his
action is moral and you have no grounds to dispute him.
>
> [...]
> > You don't consider being stranded away from home and family for 70 years
> > a "sacrifice"? You must have a very limited definition of the word. I
> > do not. "Sacrifice" is anytime you give a value and get less or no value
> > in return.
>
> The crew knew that great risks come with exploration and serving onboard
> an armed vessel of Voyager's type. The crew is likely full of people who
> like adventure and accept the risks beacause in the Trek verse it'd be very
> easy for them to simply lounge around having free food, medical care, and
> entertainment. Janeway is often wreckless, but her crew follows her so I
> guess they enjoy that ;)
This argument may have held for Caretaker, but Voyager has civilians on
board now. I have already in another post conceded the argument that by
virtue of being in Star Fleet you give up some control over your life,
however, I still hesitate to say that you give up your right to life for
the benefit of the alien of the week whether Janeway says so or not.
> [...]
> > And had Voyager never been there, the same thing would have happened.
> > Voyager had no "moral" responsibility to save them at their own expense
> > unless you believe in a morality in which actions that are good for
> > others=moral, actions that are good for myself=immoral. The end result
> > of such a morality is everyone being sacrificed for the benefit of
> > everyone else. Not a world I care to live in, thank you.
>
> The end result of only doing things that benefit yourself is animosity and
> distrust on the part of others that percieve you as using them to get what
> you want.
This is only true if you "use" people, which I presume you mean to say
you don't give people a fair exchange value for whatever they have given
you. If I trade fairly with all other people, exchanging value for value
by mutual agreement in order to better my own standing in life, how does
that create animosity? The only thing it creates is jealousy if I happen
to have more than some one else. Should I lower myself to avoid people
being jealous of me? Should Voyager fly around space giving away
technology to avoid alien species being jealous of them and maybe acting
violently because of it?
> Janeway sees her mission as a diplomatic and explorative one besides
> getting the crew home. IMO, if the crew *really* wanted to get home as fast
> as possible they would've mutinied in the first year and kicked Janeway
> off the boat a la what happened to the Bounty's captain.
Which they should have, but this is a TV show.
>
> I wouldn't want to live in the Trek federation. Nice place to visit but
> the things they do to thought criminals... Very Orwellian, those
> "rehabilitaion" centers and mind correcting devices.
As a laissez-faire capitalist I have no desire to live in the
Socialist Federation of Planets either.
Désirée- even with replicators, the law of supply and demand still holds
(unless they can replicate beach front property)
f
o
o
d
f
o
r
b
o
t
Désirée Davis
SP...@nutter.swinternet.co.uk says...
> "Désirée Davis" <HBeac...@yahoo.com> wrote in message...
> > In article <r1Yr4.4698$uT1....@nnrp4.clara.net>, evilbillKILL-THE-
> > SP...@nutter.swinternet.co.uk says...
> > > regime.
> >
> > But it was justified with a variation on "The needs of the many outweigh
> > the needs of the few" That is, the needs of all the non-Jews were more
> > important than the needs of the Jews. By killing all the Jews, the
> > remainder of the society were going to have more resources for themselves
> > and be better off. The point is a philosophy of sacrifice and "moral
> > duty" to the majority can lead to all kind of atrocities. In the Nazi
> > mentality, the Jews had a "moral responsibility" to die for the benefit
> > of the the Aryans. Anyone who practices any kind of moral relativism
> > would be hypocritical to condemn the Nazis. You can only condemn such an
> > act on moral grounds, with specific, set morals, not situational ones.
> >
>
> one's ship in the Delta Quadrant) to help save a race of people, is the
> "human thing to do", as Kirk or Spock might have put it.
To make such a claim, you must first have a moral base (which means you
must have a philosophical base). Why is killing for gain immoral? Does
that mean killing but not gaining anything is OK? Why is sacrifice
moral? Would not sacrificing be immoral then? Is all sacrifice moral?
> > And had Voyager not been there, it would have happened anyway. Voyager
> > was not the "cause" of the situation, therefore they had no *moral*
> > responsibility to save the Ocampans. If you wish to argue that stopping
> > the Kazon was in Voyager (and the Federation's) best interest and the
> > Ocampans were lucky beneficiaries, that is a completely different
> > argument, one which I would not dispute.
> As stated in my previous post ;)
> > Janeway didn't "have" to worry about the Ocampans at all (I.e. she wasn't
> > obligated too) She does have to worry about the safety of her crew, her
> > ship and the Federation she is sworn to protect. It is on that basis
> > that an argument for destroying the array and stranding the crew can be
> > made.
> She may not have been "obligated" to the Ocampa... but don't forget, she
> states in later episodes that she does NOT like bullies... and that's what
> the Kazon are, essentially. She's not going to stand by and let them push
> others around. And neither would I... I was a victim of bullying for many
> years, so I don't take very kindly to bullies either.
Janeway's response to "bullying" is emotional. While there is a very
good moral reason for not liking bullies, that still doesn't make her
*obligated* (morally or otherwise) to take on every bully she encounters.
<snip>
> BTW - Isn't it part of Starfleet's job to render aid and assistance to those
> worlds that request it?
Yes, but not by virtue of "moral obligation" Any aid given by Starfleet
is a gift. The receiving aliens did nothing to deserve the aid and
Starfleet is not obligated to give it. It is given by Starfleet's free
choice and SF is certainly not obligated to render aid when doing so
would be detrimental to SF.
<snip>
> > Désirée- who doesn't want to think about the changes 50 years from now-
> > I'll be old :-(
>
> At least you won't be 20 generations dead, like an Ocampa <g>
Now there's a plea sent though :-/
Désirée- imagining Star Fleet's "Aid to Dependent Planets" program
Masked Man
<ha...@DEATH-TO-SPAMMERS.wolfenet.com> wrote:
|The way trek crews
|religiously observe the Prime Directive strongly suggest that it is
|a moral root of all their beliefs.
Masked Man---->Dont you mean pay token lip-service to the P:rime
Suggestion?
--
Who was that masked man?
EvilBill[AGQx]
> In article <7DYs4.6101$74.1...@nnrp3.clara.net>, evilbillKILL-THE-
> SP...@nutter.swinternet.co.uk says...
> >
> > one's ship in the Delta Quadrant) to help save a race of people, is the
> > "human thing to do", as Kirk or Spock might have put it.
>
> To make such a claim, you must first have a moral base (which means you
> must have a philosophical base). Why is killing for gain immoral? Does
> that mean killing but not gaining anything is OK? Why is sacrifice
> moral? Would not sacrificing be immoral then? Is all sacrifice moral?
>
Killing is a bad thing full stop... but if it's a choice between killing and
being killed, it sometimes becomes necessary :(
To make a sacrifice to help another is a noble thing... whether not making
that sacrifice would be immoral, I don't know.
>
> Janeway's response to "bullying" is emotional. While there is a very
> good moral reason for not liking bullies, that still doesn't make her
> *obligated* (morally or otherwise) to take on every bully she encounters.
>
She's not *obligated* to... neither would I be. But to take on a bully with
a view to stopping them from bullying anyone else is, IMHO, a good thing.
>
> > BTW - Isn't it part of Starfleet's job to render aid and assistance to
those
> > worlds that request it?
>
> Yes, but not by virtue of "moral obligation" Any aid given by Starfleet
> is a gift. The receiving aliens did nothing to deserve the aid and
> Starfleet is not obligated to give it. It is given by Starfleet's free
> choice and SF is certainly not obligated to render aid when doing so
> would be detrimental to SF.
>
There's the crux: free choice. People know the risks when they sign up for
Starfleet and they still do so, out of free choice. Janeway decides to
render assistance out of free choice, exactly as you said - it may not be a
moral obligation, but that makes it, even more than if she had had a moral
obligation, an admirable and honourable decision.
Désirée Davis
SP...@nutter.swinternet.co.uk says...
> "Désirée Davis" <HBeac...@yahoo.com> wrote in message...
> > In article <7DYs4.6101$74.1...@nnrp3.clara.net>, evilbillKILL-THE-
> > SP...@nutter.swinternet.co.uk says...
> > >
> > > To kill for gain is immoral. To make a sacrifice (for example, stranding
> > > one's ship in the Delta Quadrant) to help save a race of people, is the
> > > "human thing to do", as Kirk or Spock might have put it.
> >
> > To make such a claim, you must first have a moral base (which means you
> > must have a philosophical base). Why is killing for gain immoral? Does
> > that mean killing but not gaining anything is OK? Why is sacrifice
> > moral? Would not sacrificing be immoral then? Is all sacrifice moral?
> >
>
> Killing is a bad thing full stop... but if it's a choice between killing and
> being killed, it sometimes becomes necessary :(
> To make a sacrifice to help another is a noble thing... whether not making
> that sacrifice would be immoral, I don't know.
Murder is immoral (I.e. wrong) because it denies someone else his right
to life. If the choice is to kill or be killed, then you are not
initiating force (you are not taking action to deny someone his right to
life) but are enforcing your own right to life by preventing that other
person from violating it. If you must kill someone to prevent him from
violating your right to life, then you have done nothing immoral (as long
as they took the first physical action).
As for sacrifice, if you choose to sacrifice yourself to someone else
(I.e. to give up something of value to you (your life, your time, your
liberty, etc) in exchange for a lesser value or nothing at all)
contemporary society considers this moral. The problem with this is that
it means that anyone who may need my assistance can claim I am morally
obligated to help them. If my life is my own, then I have free will as
to how to dispose of it, without being obligated to anyone else (morality
doesn't necessarily imply obligation but it does imply that we "ought" to
something) If I choice to not offer aid, to not offer a free benefit to
someone, then it cannot be said I acted immorally since the person is no
worse off than had I not been there at all.
> > Janeway's response to "bullying" is emotional. While there is a very
> > good moral reason for not liking bullies, that still doesn't make her
> > *obligated* (morally or otherwise) to take on every bully she encounters.
> >
>
> She's not *obligated* to... neither would I be. But to take on a bully with
> a view to stopping them from bullying anyone else is, IMHO, a good thing.
Why is it a "good" I.e. moral thing? If we return to the idea that the
bully may actually be a threat to yourself or your organization (in this
case Star Fleet) then stopping the bully is justified as an act of self-
preservation. The bullies victim's of lucky beneficiaries of your own
selfish action. Imagine that- selfishness is beneficial to others.
>
> >
> > > BTW - Isn't it part of Starfleet's job to render aid and assistance to
> those
> > > worlds that request it?
> >
> > Yes, but not by virtue of "moral obligation" Any aid given by Starfleet
> > is a gift. The receiving aliens did nothing to deserve the aid and
> > Starfleet is not obligated to give it. It is given by Starfleet's free
> > choice and SF is certainly not obligated to render aid when doing so
> > would be detrimental to SF.
> >
>
> There's the crux: free choice. People know the risks when they sign up for
> Starfleet and they still do so, out of free choice. Janeway decides to
> render assistance out of free choice, exactly as you said - it may not be a
> moral obligation, but that makes it, even more than if she had had a moral
> obligation, an admirable and honourable decision.
"admirable" and "honorable" imply standards by which any action can be
judged. What makes an action "honorable"? how does that differ from
"moral." If offering free benefits (I.e. sacrificing) is honorable then
does it not follow that not offering free benefits is dishonorable?
Just some things to think about. Bet you never realized how much a part
of your life philosophy is.
Désirée- we all have a philosophy, the trick is figuring out what it is
EvilBill[AGQx]
>
> Murder is immoral (I.e. wrong) because it denies someone else his right
> to life. If the choice is to kill or be killed, then you are not
> initiating force (you are not taking action to deny someone his right to
> life) but are enforcing your own right to life by preventing that other
> person from violating it. If you must kill someone to prevent him from
> violating your right to life, then you have done nothing immoral (as long
> as they took the first physical action).
>
Although, even though it's not immoral, it IS illegal...
> As for sacrifice, if you choose to sacrifice yourself to someone else
> (I.e. to give up something of value to you (your life, your time, your
> liberty, etc) in exchange for a lesser value or nothing at all)
> contemporary society considers this moral. The problem with this is that
> it means that anyone who may need my assistance can claim I am morally
> obligated to help them. If my life is my own, then I have free will as
> to how to dispose of it, without being obligated to anyone else (morality
> doesn't necessarily imply obligation but it does imply that we "ought" to
> something) If I choice to not offer aid, to not offer a free benefit to
> someone, then it cannot be said I acted immorally since the person is no
> worse off than had I not been there at all.
>
I see your point... but I also still agree with Janeway's decision to
destroy the array... I don't think either of us is going to change the
other's mind at this point <g>
> >
> > She's not *obligated* to... neither would I be. But to take on a bully
with
> > a view to stopping them from bullying anyone else is, IMHO, a good
thing.
>
> Why is it a "good" I.e. moral thing? If we return to the idea that the
> bully may actually be a threat to yourself or your organization (in this
> case Star Fleet) then stopping the bully is justified as an act of self-
> preservation. The bullies victim's of lucky beneficiaries of your own
> selfish action. Imagine that- selfishness is beneficial to others.
>
I think it's a good thing for the simple reason that bullies are unpleasant,
and if you stop them from bullying you and/or others you've made your life
and other peoples' just that bit better.
> >
> > There's the crux: free choice. People know the risks when they sign up
for
> > Starfleet and they still do so, out of free choice. Janeway decides to
> > render assistance out of free choice, exactly as you said - it may not
be a
> > moral obligation, but that makes it, even more than if she had had a
moral
> > obligation, an admirable and honourable decision.
>
> "admirable" and "honorable" imply standards by which any action can be
> judged. What makes an action "honorable"? how does that differ from
> "moral." If offering free benefits (I.e. sacrificing) is honorable then
> does it not follow that not offering free benefits is dishonorable?
>
Not necessarily... it's dishnourable to outright refuse help to someone who
has *asked* you for it, when you are capable of giving that help. But in a
case where you're not really in a position to offer help, then the best
thing to do would be to direct the person(s) asking, to someone who CAN help
;-)
> Just some things to think about. Bet you never realized how much a part
> of your life philosophy is.
>
LOL! True! :)
--
Sisko: "Do you really want to give up your life for the order of things?"
Remata'Klan: "It is not my life to give up, Captain, and it never was."
EvilBill's home page: http://members.xoom.com/EvilBill/; ICQ number:
37464244
Remove KILL-THE-SPAM from my email address to respond.
Get paid to surf the web: http://www.alladvantage.com/join.asp?refid=dtd-950
>
Allen W. McDonnell
seen expressed here on ATVSTV. Personally I am a rational anarchist, do
whatever you want so long as you don;t effect others, when you effect others
you have to use a moral absolute to decide the correct course of action.
--
Life is what YOU make of it, so why are you sitting there reading this?
Allen W. McDonnell
AIM Tanada1945
ICQ 44757320
Email Tan...@provide.spam.net
Désirée Davis
> Desiree I must say your philosophy comes the closest to my own that I have
> seen expressed here on ATVSTV. Personally I am a rational anarchist, do
> whatever you want so long as you don;t effect others, when you effect others
> you have to use a moral absolute to decide the correct course of action.
>
recognize the need for government.... But yes, do what you want so long
as you don't violate anyone else's right to life, liberty or property.
It's too bad more people didn't realize these very simply rules for
living.
Désirée- currently residing at Humanities.Philosophy.Objectivism
Désirée Davis
SP...@nutter.swinternet.co.uk says...
> "Désirée Davis" <HBeac...@yahoo.com> wrote in message...
> >
> > Murder is immoral (I.e. wrong) because it denies someone else his right
> > to life. If the choice is to kill or be killed, then you are not
> > initiating force (you are not taking action to deny someone his right to
> > life) but are enforcing your own right to life by preventing that other
> > person from violating it. If you must kill someone to prevent him from
> > violating your right to life, then you have done nothing immoral (as long
> > as they took the first physical action).
> >
>
> Although, even though it's not immoral, it IS illegal...
Not always... depends on the circumstances. If some one breaks into my
house, you better believe I'm gonna be the first one to put a bullet in
him.
>
<snip>
> > > She's not *obligated* to... neither would I be. But to take on a bully
> with
> > > a view to stopping them from bullying anyone else is, IMHO, a good
> thing.
> >
> > Why is it a "good" I.e. moral thing? If we return to the idea that the
> > bully may actually be a threat to yourself or your organization (in this
> > case Star Fleet) then stopping the bully is justified as an act of self-
> > preservation. The bullies victim's of lucky beneficiaries of your own
> > selfish action. Imagine that- selfishness is beneficial to others.
> >
>
> I think it's a good thing for the simple reason that bullies are unpleasant,
> and if you stop them from bullying you and/or others you've made your life
> and other peoples' just that bit better.
People with Tourette's syndrome can be "unpleasant" as can people who
sneeze excessive. An excessively gassy, squeaky voiced, obsessive
compulsive person with bad body odor would definitely be "unpleasant."
Personally I find Chris Rock to be "unpleasant." Of course "stopping"
these people is a matter of taste & opinion, not morality. A better
reason than "unpleasant" is needed. (The correct reason is that the
bully is violating rights)
> > "admirable" and "honorable" imply standards by which any action can be
> > judged. What makes an action "honorable"? how does that differ from
> > "moral." If offering free benefits (I.e. sacrificing) is honorable then
> > does it not follow that not offering free benefits is dishonorable?
> >
>
> Not necessarily... it's dishnourable to outright refuse help to someone who
> has *asked* you for it, when you are capable of giving that help.
Well, it's not very nice, but is it wrong, I.e. immoral? Who makes the
decision about when you have enough for self and must "as a matter of
honor" help others?
> But in a
> case where you're not really in a position to offer help, then the best
> thing to do would be to direct the person(s) asking, to someone who CAN help
> ;-)
>
> > Just some things to think about. Bet you never realized how much a part
> > of your life philosophy is.
> >
>
> LOL! True! :)
>
Now if we all could realize that...
Désirée- whose gonna use these posts to write "The Philosophy of Star
Trek" (which I guarantee would be better than "the Metaphysics of Trek"
EvilBill[AGQx]
> In article <TFNt4.1267$C4.2...@nnrp4.clara.net>, evilbillKILL-THE-
> SP...@nutter.swinternet.co.uk says...
> >
>
> Not always... depends on the circumstances. If some one breaks into my
> house, you better believe I'm gonna be the first one to put a bullet in
> him.
> >
Technically that's still manslaughter though, isn't it? And I don't know
much about US law, but over here we also have some pretty tight laws about
handguns as well.
> >
> > I think it's a good thing for the simple reason that bullies are
unpleasant,
> > and if you stop them from bullying you and/or others you've made your
life
> > and other peoples' just that bit better.
>
> People with Tourette's syndrome can be "unpleasant" as can people who
> sneeze excessive. An excessively gassy, squeaky voiced, obsessive
> compulsive person with bad body odor would definitely be "unpleasant."
> Personally I find Chris Rock to be "unpleasant." Of course "stopping"
> these people is a matter of taste & opinion, not morality. A better
> reason than "unpleasant" is needed. (The correct reason is that the
> bully is violating rights)
Well, perhaps I should rephrase "unpleasant" as "deliberately out to hurt
and intimidate others" - which is behaviour I find TOTALLY UNACCEPTABLE.
> >
> > Not necessarily... it's dishnourable to outright refuse help to someone
who
> > has *asked* you for it, when you are capable of giving that help.
>
> Well, it's not very nice, but is it wrong, I.e. immoral? Who makes the
> decision about when you have enough for self and must "as a matter of
> honor" help others?
>
You do ;-)
> > > Just some things to think about. Bet you never realized how much a
part
> > > of your life philosophy is.
> >
> > LOL! True! :)
> >
> Now if we all could realize that...
>
Perhaps someone should make a Philosophy holodeck program and cause it to
malfunction <g>
> Désirée- whose gonna use these posts to write "The Philosophy of Star
> Trek" (which I guarantee would be better than "the Metaphysics of Trek"
>
Uh oh... <g>
I didn't say anything in this thread! It wasn't me! It was a Changeling
Impostor! I swear! ;-)
--
Hugh: "Resistance is... NOT futile."