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

[Vassa]

this episode combined a contempt for ethics with a contempt for science and the way evolution works. It is at the bottom of the barrel for Trek and it's depressing to see fans defend it.

Please explain whyyou think the show failed to properly show how evolution works? So far all I've seen is, "doesn't work that way" without referencing what was wrong. A genetic defect in the DNA of the Valakians is being re-enforced and passing on to later generations. The flaw is not fatal yet, but is bad enough to be making the Valakians sick. Everybody has the defect and the Valakians have no means to correct the problem. How is this screwing up evolution?


Could you go into more detail about this Absolute One True Ethical Standard? From what I've seen so far it seems to be, "I know what I want to happen and anything I do to make that happen is ethical. Anything that makes me feel uncomfortable and doesn't result in what I want to happen is unethical !". Am I missing something?

[DonIago]

I have to wonder how some of the people posting here would feel if an alien race visited Earth and decided that humans weren't ultimately meant to be the dominant species on the planet...and then took the actions that they felt would be most "ethical". Say the Probe in TVH had arrived in the mid-1990s; would it be "ethical" for the Probe to wipe out humans before humans wiped out the whales?

It boggles my mind a bit that people can watch as many episodes of Trek as they presumably have and still think that humans have a right (or worse, a duty) to determine the course of societies they know almost nothing about.

[Miss Lemon]

sonak wrote:

---

this episode combined a contempt for ethics with a contempt for science and the way evolution works. It is at the bottom of the barrel for Trek and it's depressing to see fans defend it.

I find it depressing that some people who ardently hate this episode seem to think that they are morally superior than the ones who "defend" this episode.

DonIago wrote:

---

It boggles my mind a bit that people can watch as many episodes of Trek as they presumably have and still think that humans have a right (or worse, a duty) to determine the course of societies they know almost nothing about.

That argument goes both ways in this case. Either way you're interfering. That's why it's called a dilemma; you're damned if you do, you're damned if you don't.

Ethical dilemmas should be solved based on "objective facts" and not on emotion-evoking analogies, as this episode shows.

[Vassa]

How is letting nature take its course interfering?

[DonIago]

I don't think "interference" is the proper term for allowing a planet's development to continue as it would have had you not arrived in the first place.

[Miss Lemon]

DonIago wrote:

---

I don't think "interference" is the proper term for allowing a planet's development to continue as it would have had you not arrived in the first place.

I'm confused, I thought -you- were calling it that, based on the analogy you were using.

Anyway, the fact of being there is already interfering. You've become a "player in the game". All people involved have already changed by your mere presence. Additionally, the decision of not taking action has multiple implications, most of emotional ones as is shown by the responses to this thread.

[Vassa]

Anyway, the fact of being there is already interfering. You've become a "player in the game".

So flood survivors are responsible for those who didn't survive?

[Miss Lemon]

Vassa wrote:

---

So flood survivors are responsible for those who didn't survive?

Where did I imply that?

As I pointed out before, I try to avoid using emotion-evoking analogies in ethical dilemmas. Emotions tend to cloud reason.

[Vassa]

Where did I imply that?

By claiming the Enterprise is interfering simply by avoiding the flood.

The "Flood" in the case being the disease that is killing the Valakians. Your implication is that by simply witnessing the natural disaster the Enterprise has become a "player in the game" and is therefore obligated to fix it.

By that same reasoning, anybody who survives a flood must have interfered with those didn't survive, simply because both of them were victims of a flood.

[Mach5]

Gaith wrote:

---

That's a matter of extreme urgency

Not necessarily. A victim could be beyond saving, or it could be virtually unharmed (just stuck). Also, a car itself may, or may not be on a verge of exploding.

It's all relative anyway. Minutes (hours) for the crash victim, years (or decades) for the Valakians... All the same.

However, chances that another advanced species would visit them before they're all dead are astronomical, compared to that poor dude's chances of being saved by someone else.

Miss Lemon wrote:

---

I find it depressing that some people who ardently hate this episode seem to think that they are morally superior than the ones who "defend" this episode.

And I find it disturbing that some people actually don't even understand the basic concepts of morality and humanitarianism.

[Miss Lemon]

Vassa wrote:

---

...and is therefore obligated to fix it.

I did not make such claim.

In fact, I have been arguing that there is no such thing as an universally right choice in this dilemma.

You raised a good question when you asked sonak about the Absolute One True Ethical Standard he based his decision to interfere on, but you might ask yourself a similar question: what is evolution's rightful course?

[Skywalker]

Evolution has no rightful course. It's all random. The Valakians weren't sick because the Menk were supposed to rule the planet. They just got sick.

[Miss Lemon]

Skywalker wrote:

---

Evolution has no rightful course.

I agree.

[Vassa]

And I find it disturbing that some people actually don't even understand the basic concepts of morality and humanitarianism.

The only way I can see how letting nature take its course is interference is if I believe that I am a direct copy of the creator of the universe and therefore possessed the knowledge of what that creator's ultimate goal was in creating the universe.

Naturally, being a direct copy of the creator of the universe also means I have permission to do things that make me feel better about myself because ultimately that makes the creator of the universe happy.

Obviously, the simple fact that I am there means the creator of the universe wants me to do something.

[Miss Lemon]

Mach5 wrote:

---

And I find it disturbing that some people actually don't even understand the basic concepts of morality and humanitarianism.

These big words are often misused by people who claim to know the Truth.