True or False: Dear Dr. is most morally bankrupt trek episode evar

It is interesting to see how the people who argue for helping the Valakans do, or shall I say have to, pretend that the Menk are lower lifeforms than they actually are.
Apart from the obvious disgusting fact of calling an intelligent primate who can speak a "helper monkey", this shows once again that the anti-PD faction is not concerned about clear a ethical principle which would imply that helping slaves to free themselves is mandatory just like healing a sick species is. Instead they pick and choose, help the sick folks and call the slaves stupid monkeys.
That's why Starfleet has a rule that forbids its officers from abusing their power to the benefit of group A and the detriment of group B.

 

Once again, the Menk are what they are. They are the equivalent of helper monkeys, according to Phlox, at this point in time. If a helper monkey is a slave, then the Menk are slaves. We have a known quantity in the Valakians and an unknown quantity in the Menk.

But you've, once again, offered absolutely no proof that helping the Valakians is in any way a detriment to the Menk. Not even Phlox could prove it and he states they are deciding whether to help the Valakians based on a theory about what may happen to the Menk in a thousand or so years.

 

They are not. Watch the friggin' episode, they are intelligent primates who can speak. And no, Phlox doesn't compare them with monkeys, he actually compares the Valakians and Menk with Neanderthals and homo sapiens.

This factual distortion is not an accidental but a necessary symptom. People cannot bear the radical implications of their ethical stance (human ethics are universal in the galaxy) so they disavow them via viewing the Menk as slightly lower lifeforms who do not fall into our ethical rules (on a sidenote, I hope that they would, that our future is more Singerian).

 

I just watched it. Are they comparable to the Valakians? Apparently not according to a Phlox and according to him the only way they grow is for the Valakians to die. That means they are a lesser life form at this point.

Would they have their own society without the Valakians? The Valakians cannot control every Menk in existence. There has to be at least some in the wild. Have they built their own society or are they sitting in trees flinging poo at each other?

So, whether you like it or not, the closest equivelant we have is that the Menk are primates in comparison to the Valakians. Now if you consider helper monkeys slaves then the Menk are slaves.

 

You can of course stick your fingers in your ears, sing lalala and pretend that they are monkeys. Doesn't make it true though.

Ehm, the Valakians are primates as well. We humans are also primates.
Not that my choice of the word primate was good as it includes monkeys as well as apes. Great apes, hominids or the Trek term "humanoid" are narrower.

 

You can continue to ignore the point that the Menk were a lesser life form on the evolutionary scale and that determination comes from an independent third party (Phlox).

 

I never said that they aren't. You on the other hand continue to call them monkeys. If you wanna lie, go ahead, that is your prerogative. But it is hardly the basis for a discussion.

 

I said 'equivalent' to helper monkeys.

Is it slavery when we use a lesser life form to help humanity? You know, like a seeing eye dog or a helper monkey? That's what the Menk are, a lesser life form being used by the dominate race.

It doesn't mean the dominate life form should be sentenced to death nor does it mean that the social order should be changed.

 

Still sticking with your monkey comparison, eh? They are neither dogs nor monkeys, they are hominids who can think and speak. We have no frame of comparison as among all the higher primates who could have (or actually have?) developed speech we are the only one in existence on this planet.

Phlox' comparison with Neanderthals was good but also had its flaws as we do not really know whether they were not actually a subspecies of us and whether we really exterminated them or actually got along and even mated with them.
But it is still far closer than your comparisons. The difference between us and monkeys is larger than between us and greater apes and larger than between Valakians and Menk.

Back to the frame of comparison problem, we have no rules for how to deal with a fellow human species which is slightly less evolved than we are. That's why I would advocate the Prime Directive, we simply lack competence.
But I see nothing inherently wrong with treating them according to human ethics. As the Menk are "more human than animal" (with this I mean the treshold which we perceive between us and animals; of course we are animals but also more than that and the ability to think and speak constitutes this more) we'd have to grant them full "human rights" and not animal rights. Life, liberty, pursuit of happiness; the Valakians only grant them the first one so we'd have to liberate the Menk.


You cannot have it both ways, help group A but not group B. Certainly not if your only way to uphold this argument is via denying the "humanity" of group B.

 

But your argument falls apart because there is no hint that group B is in any kind of distress.

I've already layed out the requirements for me to offer help, either an extinction level event or to clean up a mess from a prior expedition. The Menk don't fall under either of those two parameters.

EDIT: this is ridiculous, I'll end up making full Admiral on this thread alone if things keep up.

 

Do you actually read before you respond?

Comparing hominids with dogs and monkeys, lack of reading, one-liners responses, I am somehow tempted to use a harsher phrase than intellectual laziness.

 

Meh. I'll live through your harsh criticism... somehow.

 

I don't wanna be difficult but sorry, when you write the equivalent of "slaves who are well treated shouldn't complain" I naturally have some doubts about whether you have really thought about your ethical stance.
Despite being a PD advocate I view the inverse position as totally sound as long as you do not disavow its radical and horrible implications ... which you obviously do via your denial of the "humanity" of the Menk.

About your position, it is an interesting one and, guess what, I would agree that Starfleet should prevent the annihilation of an entire planet.
But preventing the annihilation of a species? Nah, it requires a definition of which life is safe- worthy and which isn't (the Data and Doctor problem), evolutionary questions like in Dear Doctor and very problematic questions like whether you should interfere into a war between two species that threaten the annihilation of one. Where do you draw the line, what about genocide, what if not a species but a group is annihilated by another?

I say something very horrible now, if there are aliens up there I am happy that they do not stop any genocides down here. Because we have to learn on our own, even if it costs the lives of millions. I find it hard to say something more horrible than this but that is what ethics are, rules that might run counter to our natural-biological morals. They are not meant to make you feel good about yourself.

 

I see the disposition of the Menk as an internal affair. To be solved between the two parties. You could "free" the Menk and it would, most likely, change very little in the relationship between the two parties. Only the nature of how the support is given to the Menk would change. Working as a hospital orderly is still going to lead the Menk to live in compounds based on a rather low rate of pay for unskilled positions. It would be unlikely that their education would ever be of the same caliber as they aren't as intelligent as the Valakians.

Has their intelligence come far enough to know how to value currency? How to make sure they're making the right nutritional choices? To know when to go to the doctor? What about voting would they even be able to understand the concepts of politics?

Sounds like you're interfering solely to make yourself feel better...

 

Yeah, that's why I just described how horrific the consequences of my Prime Directive advocacy, being passive while millions or billions people die, actually is.

Internal affair? The entire thing is an internal affair! Either you help everybody or nobody. When you help group A you hurt group B and vice versa. An arbitrary pick and choose game is not a viable option.

If you have to literally change reality via viewing the Menk first as monkeys, than denying that from a human perspective (which is not my perspective but the one of anti-PD folks which I have to adopt here) they are slaves who have the right to be free and now implying along similar lines that they could not cope with freedom (it sounds like the stuff slave owners say) your argument that the Federation can actually play such pick and choose games stands on very shaky grounds.

Your ill-thought off position reveals what the lack of a Prime Directive (and a lack of the inverse, to apply human ethics universally throughout the quadrant) implies, random favouring of some folks at the costs of others. If the self-interests of the Feds comes into this equation you sooner or later end up with imperialism.

 

it's really the same thing every time with you on this thread isn't it? The same patently absurd all or nothing fallacy.



Hey, the next time you help an old lady cross the street, you also have to help her buy her clothes, fix her meals, and get her a job, okay?



You can't just pick and choose how to help folks.

 

I'd have an easier time negotiating a tax increase with a member of the Tea Party.

 

If we can step out of the universe for a moment and actually look at what may or may not have been intended with the Prime Directive...

Roddenberry has a writing credit on the episode where the Prime Directive originated (The Return of the Archons). He also has a writing credit on the episodes Assignment: Earth and The Paradise Syndrome. In the former he shows an alien species silently guiding Earth, successfully, through the dawn of its nuclear age and the latter has aliens known as the Preservers abducting members of primitive cultures and putting them on other worlds in order to ensure races survive cataclysmic events that may render a single world uninhabitable. Roddenberry also ran TNG when the episode Pen Pals was produced.

So what do we have the creator of the Prime Directive saying? It seems to this 'intellectually lazy' observer that he is saying that NO law is absolute. The absolutist interpretation comes from after Roddenberry is no longer in control of the series.

 

Thats because the definition of genocide doesn't include an "unless they are enslaving another group" in the definition of the word.