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

[Ian Keldon]

horatio83 wrote:

---

The Hippocratic Oath forbids abortion and euthanization and hardly a decent contemporary guidelines for medical ethics.

What can be more decent in ANY era than the principle of "do no harm"?

[Ian Keldon]

Sindatur wrote:

---

Babylon 5 dealt with a similar matter. An Alien family had a son with a breathing problem that was killing him. The Doctor could fix it with a simple operation, however, the family's Religion didn't allow cutting/surgery, and so they refused to allow the Surgery. The Doctor went to the Commanding Officer to ask for permission to do the surgery, the Commander ordered him not to do the surgery unless the family agreed. The Doctor did the surgery anyways and the boy was fine. But, the family believed he was no longer pure and they killed him

And should have been sentenced to whatever the maximum penalty for murder in that universe is.'

The doctor did the right thing, saving a life. It was the twisted, sick beliefs of the parents that killed the child.

[Ian Keldon]

BillJ wrote:

---

Actually, I support both of these cultures to execute their respective moral codes internally.

The problem becomes if it spills outside their populace and ensnares innocent people, like we see in A Taste of Armageddon. You can't enforce your moral code on other cultures.

So it's perfectly all right to allow other cultures to practice human sacrifice because "that's their culture", just so long as it's their own people that they are killing?

Doesn't fly. Not for one minute.

[DonIago]

Right, much better that humanity should go through space forcing others to adhere to our belief systems.

And if an alien race comes to Earth and wants to impose their beliefs upon us?

[BillJ]

Ian Keldon wrote:

---

So it's perfectly all right to allow other cultures to practice human sacrifice because "that's their culture", just so long as it's their own people that they are killing?

Doesn't fly. Not for one minute.

So you're saying that starship captains should go through the universe enforcing truth, justice and the American way? Or is that the Chinese way? Or the Islamic way? Or the Vulcan way? Or the Andorian way? Or the Tellarite way? Or the Betazoid way? Or the Trill way?

Are you going to stay years or decades to ensure that they meet your moral code? Are you going to set up a military government and send in troops to enforce your morality on an alien race? Would you be supportive of a superior race technologically coming in and enforcing their morals on humanity? Do you equate technological progress to moral superiority?

I don't think for a minute that I'm wise enough to enforce my own moral code on an alien race. It discounts thousands of years of development on their part, because of how I feel today. I'm a much different person than I was twenty years ago and will be a much different person twenty years from now.

Your mileage may vary...

[horatio83]

About external extinction events, I think it is for Starfleet to destroy objects that are on a collision course with a Minshara class planet with sentient life on it.
Setting up something like the verteron array on Mars to constantly protect an alien culture would probably go too far because the folks would think that it is totally natural than no asteroids hit their planet and not come up with a method to deflect them on their own as it is already done for them.

[sonak]

horatio83 wrote:

---

Still not getting the rationale, are we? When a culture develops warp drive and wants to actually get out there it has to change and open itself to alien lifeforms. Its culture will massively change (humankind!) and in this time it is OK for the Feds to contact them. If you do it earlier the civilization is not ready yet (the episode First Contact).
Still waiting for an answer, do you want the alien nannies or not?

While "pre-warp" probably covers the vast majority of cases I agree that "out in space and culturally ready to meet new folks" should be the more general pattern.
Then again you need simple guidelines. Detect no antimatter, stay away. If you discover afterwards that they use a different form of FTL propulsion you can still make first contact. It's an asymmetrical issue, no harm done if you wait for days or even years but if you make first contact too early you can fuck them up seriously.

Since the top part was directed at me...


1. You seem to be assuming that FTL travel is automatically connected to a desire for contact with other races. That's a big assumption. Suppose it was developed by a race that had overcrowded their planet, as a way of settling on other uninhabited worlds far away? They might not be looking for contact at all, merely settlement. Others may do it to escape repression or because of a political split.(Like the Romulans fleeing Vulcan) On the other hand, a species WITHOUT FTL may be very interested in alien contact(like many on Earth are right now)

That's why it's arbitrary.


2. As for the nanny thing, it's a strawman. I'm not proposing that the UFP go out and search for problems to take care of. In "Dear Doctor," this was a situation they stumbled upon. And I don't consider it "nannyism" to help those in need, I consider it the right thing to do.(resources and capabilities permitting)

[Sindatur]

The Overlord wrote:

---

You do realize the modern Hippocratic Oath is different from ancient one, right? Most doctors still respect the modern oath.

Also just because Phlox's perspective is different doesn't make it good. Phlox seems to using eugenics to justify his perspective, that a weaker race is holding a stronger race back and if the weaker race dies the stronger race will thrive. That sounds familiar.

Frankly if Phlox can just ignore the Hippocratic oath at his whim, he is not fit to be a doctor in Star Fleet. Do you think Picard shouldn't have punished Worf for killing Duras, even according to Klingon culture what Worf did was okay?

I don't believe in complete cultural relativity, that is dangerous for a society. If someone believes they have the right to beat their wife, I don't think they should be legally allowed to do that.

Why do you keep bringing up Starfleet, and what Picard would do, and the Prime Directive, none of these things exist, and Phlox is not a member of Archer's Organization that gives him his orders. He is a Cultural Exchange participant, who Archer invited along for the ride requesting he serve as the ship's Doctor, no different than T'Pol's situation as an Observer

[horatio83]

sonak wrote:

---

As for the nanny thing, it's a strawman.

You are still evading the question I asked so strawman yourself.

You have problems with the Feds standing by as civilizations die. If they are aware of the problem of a civilization like ours should they prevent someone like us from annihilating ourselves via nuclear weapons, climate change or whatever or not?

[BillJ]

horatio83 wrote:

---

You are still evading the question I asked so strawman yourself.

You have problems with the Feds standing by as civilizations die. If they are aware of the problem of a civilization like ours should they prevent someone like us from annihilating ourselves via nuclear weapons, climate change or whatever or not?

No they shouldn't interfere. The scenarios above are self-inflicted.

[Ian Keldon]

DonIago wrote:

---

Right, much better that humanity should go through space forcing others to adhere to our belief systems.

And if an alien race comes to Earth and wants to impose their beliefs upon us?

If their beliefs mesh with what is right, we will have already adopted them ourselves, and imposition would be unnecessary.

The idea that one does not have the right to take the life of an innocent person is a universal "good", for example.

[Ian Keldon]

BillJ wrote:

---

So you're saying that starship captains should go through the universe enforcing truth, justice and the American way? Or is that the Chinese way? Or the Islamic way? Or the Vulcan way? Or the Andorian way? Or the Tellarite way? Or the Betazoid way? Or the Trill way?

Are you going to stay years or decades to ensure that they meet your moral code? Are you going to set up a military government and send in troops to enforce your morality on an alien race? Would you be supportive of a superior race technologically coming in and enforcing their morals on humanity? Do you equate technological progress to moral superiority?

I don't think for a minute that I'm wise enough to enforce my own moral code on an alien race. It discounts thousands of years of development on their part, because of how I feel today. I'm a much different person than I was twenty years ago and will be a much different person twenty years from now.

Your mileage may vary...

Quit doding the question. Humans have had cultures that practiced human sacrifice for millenia...was that right? Should it be permitted to be revived today because it was "thousands of years in development"?

Right and wrong are universal constants..

[BillJ]

Ian Keldon wrote:

---

Quit doding the question. Humans have had cultures that practiced human sacrifice for millenia...was that right? Should it be permitted to be revived today because it was "thousands of years in development"?

Right and wrong are universal constants..

I'm pretty sure that if you dig deep enough there are still cultures practicing human sacrifice and cannibalism. Are you saying we should send in armies to stop every action that a culture takes that disagrees with your view of right and wrong? We can't decide among ourselves what constitutes right and wrong from country to country and even person to person, it is far from a universal concept.

The Vulcans turn their children loose in a desert in a test of maturity and betroth children (which happens here on Earth as well) when they're very young? Should Starfleet and Child Services invade and occupy Vulcan until they come around to our enlightened way of thinking?

[horatio83]

Indeed. While I view the postmodern denial of universal human concepts as disgusting it would be extremely arrogant if humankind thought that it knew what is best for aliens. To quote Archer from Cogenitor: You thought you were doing the right thing. I might agree if this was Florida, or Singapore, but it's not, is it. We're in deep space and a person is dead.

As you pointed out arranged marriage might be forbidden on United Earth but it can hardly be forbidden in the Federation. It might be a stupid artifact from the past and not serve any direct purpose but Vulcan society is so orthodox and rigid for a good reason. Not our job to tell them to change their ways.
Furthermore humans are not even aware of all the various lifeforms that exist. They initially deny Horta, Data or holograms basic rights so how they be the judge of what is right and wrong for them.

[BillJ]

horatio83 wrote:

---

While I view the postmodern denial of universal human concepts as disgusting...

Its not disgusting. It is a product of people being brought up with differing values and differing experiences shaping an individuals worldview.

Universal human concepts attempts to homogenize our worldview in a way that simply isn't possible.