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

[The Overlord]

Sindatur wrote:

---

The Hippocratic Oath comment was related to The Breach, which is why I specified it didn't apply in The Breach

I am talking about the Hippocratic Oath in general and Phlox breaking it in "Dear Doctor" is pretty relevant to the topic.

[horatio83]

I will give no deadly medicine to any one if asked, nor suggest any such counsel; and similarly I will not give a woman a pessary to cause an abortion.

Lovely nonsense, if you want an abortion or get euthanized you are screwed. No doctor today cares about this ancient oath anymore and a fictional alien doctor in an interspecies exchange program certainly doesn't either. Archer chose a Denobulan doctor precisely because he wanted somebody with a different perspective. Gee, that's why humankind is going out there in the first place, to learn from and about other people.

[The Overlord]

horatio83 wrote:

---

I will give no deadly medicine to any one if asked, nor suggest any such counsel; and similarly I will not give a woman a pessary to cause an abortion.

Lovely nonsense, if you want an abortion or get euthanized you are screwed. No doctor today cares about this ancient oath anymore and a fictional alien doctor in an interspecies exchange program certainly doesn't either. Archer chose a Denobulan doctor precisely because he wanted somebody with a different perspective. Gee, that's why humankind is going out there in the first place, to learn from and about other people.

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.

[horatio83]

No idea what the modern Hippocratic Oath is supposed to be, you merely talked about the Hippocratic Oath so I pointed out what it is actually about. Compared to some crap from Ancient Greece (seriously, ethics from antiquity for life in space?) that forbids doctors to conduct abortions and euthanizations I'd pick Denobulan medical ethics anyday.
It's a big galaxy and the Vulcans and Denobulans have far more experience than the human greenhorns. That's precisely why their non-interference principle later becomes the Prime Directive. According to the UFP's first rule any Starfleet captain is explicitly forbidden to assist a pre-warp species like the Valakians.
I do not wanna imagine what the Federation were without its first law. Probably only mildly better than the empires around it.

[BillJ]

horatio83 wrote:

---

That's precisely why their non-interference principle later becomes the Prime Directive. According to the UFP's first rule any Starfleet captain is explicitly forbidden to assist a pre-warp species like the Valakians.

You must've missed A Private Little War, Miri, The Apple and Return of the Archons. Seems to me that Starfleet captains have a great deal of latitude under the Prime Directive.

[The Overlord]

horatio83 wrote:

---

No idea what the modern Hippocratic Oath is supposed to be, you merely talked about the Hippocratic Oath so I pointed out what it is actually about. Compared to some crap from Ancient Greece that forbids doctors to conduct abortions and euthanizations I'd pick Denobulan medical ethics anyday.
It's a big galaxy and the Vulcans and Denobulans have far more experience than the human greenhorns. That's precisely why their non-interference principle later becomes the Prime Directive. According to the UFP's first rule any Starfleet captain is explicitly forbidden to assist a pre-warp species like the Valakians.
I do not wanna imagine what the Federation were without its first law. Probably only mildly better than the empires around it.

Look up the Hippocratic oath:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hippocratic_Oath

Besides every rule needs exceptions and I think intervening to save a civilization from a natural disaster is a good exceptions. The PD didn't even exist back then, so it doesn't apply. Also saying the PD shouldn't have exceptions, makes the PD come off as dogma, something that creates fanatics who obey without any independent thought. That's not enlightened, that's the behavior of a cult.

Also you ignored one of my questions, was Picard wrong for punishing Worf when killed Duras, even though what Worf did was okay according to Klingon tradition? Does Worf's cultural background trump his duty?

[horatio83]

BillJ wrote:

---

You must've missed A Private Little War, Miri, The Apple and Return of the Archons. Seems to me that Starfleet captains have a great deal of latitude under the Prime Directive.

Apple is a blunt violation, in Miri they got sick themselves and the other two stories are fairly muddy cases. We can of course go over them if you wish to.
The hypothetical Valakian case set 20 years in the future on the other hand is clear-cut. They ask for help but as they are pre-warp you gotta decline.

The Overlord wrote:

---

That's not enlightened, that's the behavior of a cult.

No idea why you watch Trek if this is your view of the Federation.

Also you ignored one of my questions, was Picard wrong for punishing Worf when killed Duras, even though what Worf did was okay according to Klingon tradition? Does Worf's cultural background trump his duty?

Picard reprimanded Worf because he violated his Starfleet duties. This has nothing to do with the Prime Directive. While dealing with the Klingon Empire the Federation is, as always, relativistic.
The Klingons are death-valuing aristocrats whereas the Feds are life-valuing democrats. If human ethics are universal in space you have to crush them. This implies total war and is obviously worse than the 24th century peace with them.

[BillJ]

horatio83 wrote:

---

The hypothetical Valakian case set 20 years in the future on the other hand is clear-cut. They ask for help but as they are pre-warp you gotta decline.

Seems Picard disagrees with you...

SARJENKA [OC]: Data. Data, where are you? Why won't you answer? Are you angry me? Please, please, I'm so afraid. Data, Data, where are you?
PICARD: Wait. Oh, Data. Your whisper from the dark has now become a plea. We cannot turn our backs.

[horatio83]

Picard to Data: You reminded us that there are obligations that go beyond duty.

Picard never pretended that he did not violate the Prime Directive.

It is like with torture, of course it has always happened and always will. Doesn't imply that we should make it legal like many people tried to after 9/11, it has to remain a taboo. Otherwise you open the gates of hell.
Same in the case of the Prime Directive. Of course Starfleet officers bend or violate it all the time and when there is a good reason for it they might get away with it but this doesn't imply that the rule is irrelevant or should be weak. On the contrary, it has to be as strict and dogmatic precisely to prevent a slow loosening up like with torture. Hell, it has to be even more rigid as torturing runs against common decency whereas the Prime Directive is extremely counter-intuitive, hence all the adverse reactions by fans.

It reminds me a bit of this turn the other cheek thing from the Gospels which is also quite counterintuitive as the normal strategical behaviour is tit-for-tat, i.e. you are nice but if your fellow isn't you retaliate. Yet the idea is not so much that you should just be a victim but rather that via not retaliating you hold up a mirror to the other and might make him realize what he does. If you strike back he can feel totally justified in doing the same.
So yeah, like the Prime Directive turn the other cheek is one of these nice ideas that force you to think.

[sonak]

horatio83 wrote:

---

Picard to Data: You reminded us that there are obligations that go beyond duty.

Picard never pretended that he did not violate the Prime Directive.

It is like with torture, of course it has always happened and always will. Doesn't imply that we should make it legal like many people tried to after 9/11, it has to remain a taboo. Otherwise you open the gates of hell.
Same in the case of the Prime Directive. Of course Starfleet officers bend or violate it all the time and when there is a good reason for it they might get away with it but this doesn't imply that the rule is irrelevant or should be weak. On the contrary, it has to be as strict and dogmatic precisely to prevent a slow loosening up like with torture. Hell, it has to be even more rigid as torturing runs against common decency whereas the Prime Directive is extremely counter-intuitive, hence all the adverse reactions by fans.

It reminds me a bit of this turn the other cheek thing from the Gospels which is also quite counterintuitive as the normal strategical behaviour is tit-for-tat, i.e. you are nice but if your fellow isn't you retaliate. Yet the idea is not so much that you should just be a victim but rather that via not retaliating you hold up a mirror to the other and might make him realize what he does. If you strike back he can feel totally justified in doing the same.
So yeah, like the Prime Directive turn the other cheek is one of these nice ideas that force you to think.

The PD is counter-intuitive because it's overly rigid, arbitrary,(why make a line for pre-warp cultures? Or pre-first contact?) and illogical.


Oh, and the way it gets interpreted seems to frequently mean standing by as civilizations die. Your continued efforts to defend it are cute, though.

[BillJ]

I'll defend it as a construct designed to keep cultures on a normal course of growth. As in, not interfering in a societies social order, preventing advanced technology from being dumped in their laps and allowing them to find on their own how they fit into the greater scheme of things.

But none of the above would prevent me from stopping an extinction level event. At the end of the day, cultures can recover from contamination, even if widespread.

[sonak]

BillJ wrote:

---

I'll defend it as a construct designed to keep cultures on a normal course of growth. As in, not interfering in a societies social order, preventing advanced technology from being dumped in their laps and allowing them to find on their own how they fit into the greater scheme of things.

But none of the above would prevent me from stopping an extinction level event. At the end of the day, cultures can recover from contamination, even if widespread.

I think issues of avoiding cultural interference can be handled more effectively on a pragmatic, case-by-case basis than a rigid, one size fits all approach like the PD.

[horatio83]

sonak wrote:

---

The PD is counter-intuitive because it's overly rigid, arbitrary,(why make a line for pre-warp cultures? Or pre-first contact?) and illogical.


Oh, and the way it gets interpreted seems to frequently mean standing by as civilizations die. Your continued efforts to defend it are cute, though.

The line is not arbitrary. When a species develops warp drive it has to face aliens and learn to deal with them.
If you drew the line earlier, e.g. when a species industrializes, aliens would have been ethically obliged to prevent the dozens of genocides, the development of sweat shops, slavery, nuclear weapons and nowdays climate change and financial speculation on food.
About "standing by as civilizations die", note that at least climate change and nukes endanger not just millions but our entire civilization.

Do you want some benevolent alien nannies to help us with these problems or do you want us to become an adult species on our own respectively if we fail destroy ourselves?

[sonak]

horatio83 wrote:

---

The line is not arbitrary. When a species develops warp drive it has to face aliens and learn to deal with them.
If you drew the line earlier, e.g. when a species industrializes, aliens would have been ethically obliged to prevent the dozens of genocides, the development of sweat shops, slavery, nuclear weapons and nowdays climate change and financial speculation on food.
About "standing by as civilizations die", note that at least climate change and nukes endanger not just millions but our entire civilization.

Do you want some benevolent alien nannies to help us with these problems or do you want us to become an adult species on our own respectively if we fail destroy ourselves?

a species doesn't need warp drive to have aliens come to contact them.

[BillJ]

horatio83 wrote:

---

The line is not arbitrary. When a species develops warp drive it has to face aliens and learn to deal with them.
If you drew the line earlier, e.g. when a species industrializes, aliens would have been ethically obliged to prevent the dozens of genocides, the development of sweat shops, slavery, nuclear weapons and nowdays climate change and financial speculation on food.

Seems like the Valakians were out facing aliens without warp drive.

There is some debate as to whether or not those who left Vulcan had warp drive when they founded the Romulan Empire. One series of books speculates that they used generational ships. The asteroid ship Yonada didn't have warp drive. The ancient Bajorans were able to make FTL trips by using solar sails.

And we saw races that were considered advanced that participated in all the things you list above.

Warp drive is an incredibly arbitrary line in the sand.

The smart way to go would be to evaluate in a culture by culture basis.