View Single Post
Old February 26 2013, 05:09 PM   #61
sonak
Vice Admiral
 
Location: in a figment of a mediocre mind's imagination
Re: Star Trek: INS- Son'a/Dominion Question

Robert Maxwell wrote: View Post
sonak wrote: View Post
Hartzilla2007 wrote: View Post

Probably becuase by doing so the federation would become one of those badguy planet conquering empires they usually fight against.

I'm not a believer in rigidly deontological ethics. Context matters when evaluating ethical decisions- they're not "conquering" anyone, they're relocating a small village for a vastly greater good. If you can't see that, then you're probably one of those who think a starving person should go to jail for ten years for stealing a loaf of bread.


"but he was starving!"


"it was STEALING!" "He's a thief, context doesn't matter, it's all about rigid rules that are totally devoid of the context of the situation!"
This is why you prioritize values, otherwise they constantly come into conflict. A person's right to live is more valuable than a baker's revenue, so while stealing a loaf of bread so you don't starve is illegal, it would be difficult to argue that it's unethical.

Self-determination and sovereignty are some of the most important Western values there are, values which the Federation also appears to hold as sacred. Given that, being willing to violate those principles for the sake of acquiring some dubious medical technology puts in doubt how much the Federation actually values those supposed rights.

T'Girl wrote: View Post
Hartzilla2007 wrote: View Post
Wait didn't Picard say that the Federation respects people's sovereignty and right to self-determination a few times on the show.
Wait didn't Starfleet remove a group of migrants, from a planet that wasn't theirs, so they would not be harmed?

(Ensigns of Command)

And don't forget, at no point in the movie do the Baku state that they consider the ring planet to be "theirs." This comes solely from Picard.

The migrants were Federation citizens, on a planet the Federation had ceded (by treaty) to the Sheliak. Apples and oranges since the Federation had legal jurisdiction over those settlers, but not the Ba'ku.

I agree that the Ba'ku should have actually been part of the discussion regarding what to do with them and their planet. Had the Federation bothered to go down that road, no conflict or "insurrection" should have been necessary.

1. claiming that the medical technology is "dubious" is a way of rigging the argument in your favor. There is nothing in the movie to indicate that the procedure wouldn't work as advertised.

2. Self-determination and sovereignty aren't being threatened here, PROPERTY is. The Baku would have simply been relocated to have sovereignty and self-determination on a different planet, they would have remained independent and sovereign, it wasn't an issue of conquest. So the "values clash" you refer to is actually that of the property rights of a few vs. the vastly greater good of the many.

3 the "Baku weren't asked" argument is one that gets brought up a lot, but it's kind of a silly one. There is a point in this movie when they realize exactly why they are being faced with removal, and they give no indication that they would consider doing so. The argument is basically a technicality-yes, there was never a point where Dougherty went down to the planet and directly asked "would you voluntarily relocate so that we can get this resource? We will find you a new planet and give you compensation."

It is however, pretty clear from the Baku attitude in the movie that they would have said no.
sonak is offline   Reply With Quote