So, if two crewman were badly and mortally injured, it would NOT be murder to withhold medical attention from them? If Neelix and Tuvok were lying in a corridor with phaser burns that would be mortal without treatment, it'd be just fine, and not murder, for everyone to just walk by them? It certainly would be murder, in the Doctor's case at least, as you pointed out. While most jurisdictions don't have "good Samaritan" laws that require people passing another who is harmed to, say, take him to the hospital, I'd say most of us would find someone who simply passed an injured person on the street, one unable to help himself, to be acting in a pretty morally objectionable fashion. But these are crewmates on a ship, not simply stranger civilians passing each other by, and I'd guess that the Starfleet code of military justice would require them to help each other. Anyway, this thread isn't about law, but in fact IS about ethics.
Aren't you overlooking one very important fact in your little scenario there? Helping those two crewmembers with Phaser wounds would obviously NOT kill another sentinent being! That's the key difference and it's beyond me how you can't see that. So yes, if you need it spelt out for you: If you had to end some innocent's life in order two save those two people, then yes, it WOULD be murder. I don't see what's so difficult about that. MacLeod, I admire your continuing efforts in this thread. I think you should be commended. I honestly don't know how you can still have this discussion. It's like tilting at windmills. Frankly, I'm somewhat freaked out at the sheer number of people who consider the killing of an intelligent, feeling being to save two friends as the right thing. I don't see the grey area in this episode and the "there wasn't a right decision". Well, people, killing somebody ain't it.
McLeod clearly said that Doctor's have a "Duty of Care" which is a legal term as much an a an ethical term. I was thinking more so about the Asimovian laws of Robotics and how they were clearly all about inaction being just as important as action.
No, I didn't overlook that. But I'm afraid you seem to have (at least partially) overlooked my first post in this thread. I wrote that BOTH acts--dismantling Tuvix, or leaving Tuvok and Neelix forever in an oblivion of nonselfhood--are murder. Here's what I wrote (a few posts above):
Yes, I know. I acknowledged that, too. It doesn't change the crew's own moral duty to Tuvok and Neelix. Huh. I figured that since my post was nothing but a cop-out equivocation--I pretty much just shrugged and wrote there's no good way out of this ethical dilemma--that no one would much care about it (the post). And personally, for me, the practical lesson about the transporter is a better one. But it does seem as if some folks have an interest in not acknowledging the personhood of a couple of fairly obvious persons: Tuvok and Neelix. Or at least making their personhood less than Tuvix's. On the other hand, I have no special interest at all in denying Tuvix's personhood. It's just as obvious. I sure hope this isn't an abortion/anti-abortion thing. I know it's not for me. It's science fiction, peeps.
The Abortion argument comes up from time to time. Women sometimes have to terminate their foetus to survive. Neelix and Tuvok had to terminate their composite to survive.
You know what gets to me? EVERYONE talks as though Tuvix is now DEAD because he was terminated to give us back Neelix and Tuvok. And they like to say how Tuvok and Neelix LIVE ON in Tuvix.. well doesn't Tuvix live on in Tuvok and Neelix? I know I would never get over such a mashup.
Because Tuvix is the thing with two heads. Why can't the brain be unscrambled, but attached at the ass can be?
Tuvok already had two brains. One was a three thousand year old strain of sentient syphilis, which probably means that it had a greater right to exist than Tuvok except for the fact that it was a strain of sentient syphilis.
It would be just like ENT with secret Romulans. I want to amend my previous post. When I am super old and someone comes to me and says TIMES UP make way for the young I will say, "just hold on dearie, let me get my slippers" and reach under the bed and whip out a big ass cannon phaser thingie and blow them away. Well, I'll give them the option to leave quickly, because I understand the rashness of youth that would request such a thing.
So - a doctor commits murder by NOT hitting a passer-by with a crow bar, taking him to the hospital and cutting him up in spare parts - because these spare organs could save the lives of 2 (or more) terminally ill patients. And, as such, the actions of the doctor that killed a person for spare organs are not creepily evil, but in a moral 'gray' area'. Really? Let's euphemistically call the moral values wanna-be you expoused here, 'interesting', Vandervecken. You're not even the first one to come up with such concepts; J Mengele - and others - thought along the same lines.
Awww dude, just when you were doing so well, you had to go there Is this thread still going....didin't i win it about 5 pages back....could've sworn i totally won it
...and we have a winner of the Godwin's law-first contest! LMAO! Look bra, I can't help it if you miss something right under your nose--ie, a post 2 posts above the one in which you completely misstate what I wrote. I know you feel a need now to try to attack what I've written from some other angle--that of non-originality now--because it seems you've invested a great deal of your self-esteem in a posting board, but at least try to keep it on an adult track, ok? Ok, so you're comparing not actively murdering someone to walking by mortally injured crewmates and granting no succor? And you ARE saying Tuvok and Neelix are less important than Tuvix in this scenario, right? Because leaving them without necessary medical/technological attention in this case works out to that, and I think you don't much like the corner you've painted yourself into. Bear in mind I was writing that both acts are murder. Nope, didn't think I was the first to come up with this conclusion. Somehow I don't think Mengele did either. Oh, MAN, this is too rich!
I'm comparing - legitimately - your absurd qualification as murder of the act of refusing to kill a person to save 2* with the qualification as murder of the act made by a doctor of refusing to kill a person to save 2. As for where you advocated just this qualification - apparently, you think posters here can't read your previous posts. lol. *how did you put it?: "leaving Tuvok and Neelix forever in an oblivion of nonselfhood [by not killing Tuvix] --are murder" Originality? You actually post this to be the substance of my last post? Talk about grasping at straws. The substance of my post was your lack of coherent moral thinking as evidenced by your advocacy of obscene "morals". About the posting of 'Godwin's law': You actually think the naming of the troupe obfuscates the fact that you are the "moral" succesor of Mengele and its ilk? Good luck with this one.