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

[horatio83]

While I am for relativism in the case of dealing aliens I am the very opposite in the case of us. Human rights are universal. When somebody tries to rationalize monarchy or genital mutilation with tradition he is simply wrong.
Of course the problem of such a stance is that it is on a fundamental level totalitarian. But you need this zero-level of dogmatism, you can e.g. not say that democracy is contingent and we can vote on whether we want it or not. In Germany this was possible eighty years ago and it led to fascism.

[Sindatur]

Ian Keldon wrote:

---

Warp drive doesn't carry with it inherent moral implications from it's use.

You're avoiding the context. I was responding to the position that the Moral Dilemma is false, because it is being presented with Junk Psuedoscience. Warp Drive is every bit junk Psuedoscience, so, since they arrive at the moral dilemmas every week via Junk Psuedoscience Warp Drive, all moral dilemmas in all of Trek can be just as easily dismissed as being false dilemmas. You can't accept the results of one bit of Junk Psuedoscience as legitimate, while saying the effects of another are false.

I agree it was wrong for the writers to propagate/condone the idea as legitimate science, but, that was the science they chose to present in the story, so, in that universe, in that episode, it is legitimate science, just as much as Warp Drive is, since they couldn't arrive at the Moral dilemma without the Junk Psuedoscience of Warp Drive

[The Overlord]

Sindatur wrote:

---

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

Because he is working on a Star Fleet ship and thus is subject to Star Fleet rules and regulations. If someone is visiting another country and they break the laws of that country, trying to argue that the illegal act in question is okay in their culture would not save them from legal punishment.

[horatio83]

First, Phlox did not break any rule. He considered insubordination but didn't do it.
Second, The Breach reveals that your notion of Phlox being subject to human medical ethics is wrong.
Third, Archer could have chosen a human doctor but he chose an alien doctor for a good reason.
The emerging Federation is not a "homo sapiens only club". What we see in ENT is the slow coming together of species that differ and often cannot stand each other.

[Sindatur]

The Overlord wrote:

---

Because he is working on a Star Fleet ship and thus is subject to Star Fleet rules and regulations. If someone is visiting another country and they break the laws of that country, trying to argue that the illegal act in question is okay in their culture would not save them from legal punishment.

How can he be working on a Starfleet ship, when there is no such thing as starfleet?

[BillJ]

horatio83 wrote:

---

While I am for relativism in the case of dealing aliens I am the very opposite in the case of us. Human rights are universal.

It really does sound great but in practice it will never carry very far due to the radical differences in life experience and radical differences in what is needed for survival.

[horatio83]

Sindatur wrote:

---

How can he be working on a Starfleet ship, when there is no such thing as starfleet?

It is not the UFP Starfleet but Earth Starfleet. Not really much of a fleet yet though.

[The Overlord]

Sindatur wrote:

---

How can he be working on a Starfleet ship, when there is no such thing as starfleet?

So are we to assume that Archer's ship there are no rules and regulations and anyone can do what they feel like?

[sonak]

horatio83 wrote:

---

While I am for relativism in the case of dealing aliens I am the very opposite in the case of us. Human rights are universal. When somebody tries to rationalize monarchy or genital mutilation with tradition he is simply wrong.
Of course the problem of such a stance is that it is on a fundamental level totalitarian. But you need this zero-level of dogmatism, you can e.g. not say that democracy is contingent and we can vote on whether we want it or not. In Germany this was possible eighty years ago and it led to fascism.

so you're saying you're a blatant speciesist? Ethics and rights apply to Humans, but not to sentient, self-aware aliens with their own societies?


What would be the distinction other than place of origin? If there were an undiscovered tribe living somewhere on Earth, would you contend that ethics don't apply to them?

[horatio83]

sonak wrote:

---

If there were an undiscovered tribe living somewhere on Earth, would you contend that ethics don't apply to them?

Which part of universal human rights did you not understand, Mr. Strawman?

[TiberiusMaximus]

The Cold War could have easily ended in the extinction of humankind. So make up your mind, is preventing extinction only OK in the case of natural catastrophes and not in the case of cultural ones or what and why the distinction between cultural and natural and what about the cases where you cannot make a distinction between them?

What the frell does that have to do with my comment? I said:

Now, there would be situations where the Feds would be justified in turning down a cry for help, a line where they would say "Sorry, we can't get involved with this." One example would be asking for help in a war that had nothing to do with the Feds.

So, basically, I said sometimes the Feds would be morally and ethically obligated to say no to a request for help. Other times they wouldn't. Your "reply" makes no sense at all. You seem to think I'm equating "cries for help" with extinction-level events. I was referring to two different kinds of scenarios: actual requests for help that do not involve extinction-level events OR extinction-level events with or without requests for help.

I think I'm done with this thread. I'm exhausted of going in circles. To sum up: The PD is a good idea but isn't always right, and a lot of Trek fans fail to properly understand just why it's a good idea. Letting billions of people die is never a good thing. Saving someone once doesn't render you responsible for their eternal well-being. Hmm...that seems to cover it.

So long, everyone. Have fun.

[horatio83]

It has everything to do with what you wrote as you claimed that the Feds should prevent extinction and not interfere into wars. I just asked a natural question, what if they overlap, what if a war could lead to self-annihilation.
Bill has provided a clear answer to this question. He distinguishes between natural and cultural catastrophes and advocates interferences in the former and non-interference in the latter case. You on the other hand refuse to think about the issue. So much about not making sense.

[sonak]

horatio83 wrote:

---

Which part of universal human rights did you not understand, Mr. Strawman?

so it is indeed a location thing for you? There's something special about originating on the third planet in the Solar system as opposed to being a sentient, self-aware species in some other system somewhere when it comes to ethics?

Now look at that concept objectively, and try to construct a logical basis for it to make sense.

[TiberiusMaximus]

horatio83 wrote:

---

Bill has provided a clear answer to this question. He distinguishes between natural and cultural catastrophes and advocates interferences in the former and non-interference in the latter case. You on the other hand refuse to think about the issue. So much about not making sense.

Stop being passive-aggressive and snide.

One more thing before I actually stop replying in this thread. I am NOT refusing to think about the issue. I'm advocating a more case-by-case approach to deciding who does and doesn't get help. Drawing arbitrary lines in the sand doesn't really help anyone. That's not the same as refusing to think about the issue.

Horatio, people might take you more seriously if you could write at least one post without being so smug and condescending.

[horatio83]

sonak wrote:

---

so it is indeed a location thing for you? There's something special about originating on the third planet in the Solar system as opposed to being a sentient, self-aware species in some other system somewhere when it comes to ethics?

Now look at that concept objectively, and try to construct a logical basis for it to make sense.

A bunch of stupid primates who were about to kill a silicon-based lifeform, to enslave an android and to deny hologram their basic rights can hardly know the holy grail of universal ethics that applies to all lifeforms. Starfleet officers are humble folks and not megalomaniacs that wage war against death-loving aristocrats like the Klingons in order to put them into reeducation camps afterwards.

If every species thinks it knows what it best for ALL other species the consequence is total war.

TiberiusMaximus wrote:

---

Stop being passive-aggressive and snide.

Horatio, people might take you more seriously if you could write at least one post without being so smug and condescending.

I responded to your "you do not make sense" in kind and now the pot calls the kettle back.