I hope for more traditional space battles

[Ovation]

No. I'm Gates McFadden.

[M'Sharak]

Franklin wrote:

---

No you're not! I'm Gates McFadden.

Ovation wrote:

---

No. I'm Gates McFadden.

Hold on...

[SalvorHardin]

[QUOTE=M'Sharak;7731184]

Franklin wrote:

---

No you're not! I'm Gates McFadden.

Ovation wrote:

---

No. I'm Gates McFadden.

[Franklin]

Where's Gary Moore when we need him?

[King Daniel Into Darkness]

BillJ wrote:

---

J.J. Abrams broke into my house the other night and demanded that I turn over my Trek DVD's/Blu-ray's. Thankfully, LeVar Burton was there to fight him off!

[Opus]

Ovation wrote:

---

No. I'm Gates McFadden.

I'm Gates McFadden and so's my wife.

[Franklin]

OphaClyde wrote:

---

I'm Gates McFadden and so's my wife.

Winner!

[UFO]

Set Harth wrote:

---

So in other words, X is wrong because it is X?

Pretty much. I was just cutting to the chase.

BillJ wrote:

---

However small it is, there is a chance Nero could pull a rabbit out of his hat and survive the collapse of the Narada. If he survived (remember he had a collection of craft aboard), he could become a huge problem somewhere else in the timeline.

To me his chances look like zero but because the visuals are a bit ambiguous its a pity that wasn't covered in the movie.

Saul wrote:

---

His ship was still a threat since they couldn't see it, only the explosion from the first torp and they had to stop an assassination.

Exactly. There was no time to stop and ask Chang how badly he was hit. Nor did they have another gas seeking missile ready to go. In that situation you keep firing till the battle is over or someone surrenders. That scene was nothing like the one with Nero where the shooting had well and truly stopped.

yousirname wrote:

---

I am not ignoring sensors or damage. The information Kirk has is not sufficient to establish that Nero is weaponless, that's all.

There is no way you can know that. On the other hand. Nero (a guy not known for his diplomacy) wasn't firing and neither was Kirk. That should tell you something. If Nero was a threat, Kirk would have demanded his surrender first, before offering help. The whole scene was clearly intended to show Nero was defenceless.

I don't really care if Kirk can or can't save Nero. Indeed, if he can't, all that does is remove one of the reasons why killing him would be wrong. But he appears to think that he can, so I dealt with that issue anyway.

Yeah, it's pretty clear that you and I approach the issue differently and with differing ethical assumptions.

I can't help but think you may have differing ethical assumptions to the rest of the known universe. Which is not to say you are "wrong", however let's look at the ones that supposedly combine to make killing people (I'm still thinking mostly Nero) "OK":

yousirname wrote:

---

His death is imminent and inevitable

It can be avoided with Kirk's help

Given the exhaustive and compulsory choice 'Die or accept Kirk's help' Nero prefers death

Kirk can reasonably suppose that attempting to forcibly rescue Nero represents an unacceptable risk to him or to his crew or to his ship, or to all of the above

No-one currently exists who will mourn Nero

What the above facts do is remove, one by one, every objection I can raise to Kirk pulling the trigger.

I think your average police force would take a contrary view. I note the business about the victim’s mental state is missing form that list however. Preferring death doesn't cover it.

yousirname wrote:

---

This is just a word game. Suppose that my very dear friend is suffering from a painful and debilitating illness. So crippling is this affliction that, though his pain is such that he wants nothing more than to die, he is unable even to end his own life. This friend asks me to assist in his suicide. Initially I agree, since I have determined using my criteria that it is not wrong to do so.

Now suppose that, just as I am about to painlessly inject him with a lethal dose of morphine, a thought occurs to me. Say, Bill, I ask him, even though in your current circumstances you want nothing more than to die, wouldn't you prefer to not have this disease? And Bill responds Don't be an idiot, of course I would.

Now, if Bill didn't have his illness, it would certainly be wrong of me to inject him, wouldn't it? Your reasoning would seem to imply that it would be wrong of me to inject him even though he does.

OK lets try again: For some reason, one of your criteria is that someone has to be "indifferent to their pending death" By demonstrating that Nero would accept help from the right quarter if it had existed, my counterfactual shows that he wasn’t indifferent to his death even in the actual situation he faced. If someone is indifferent to their death they wouldn’t care if they could be saved. I think we agree Nero would care if only to continue his revenge and his attempts to make the universe safe for Romulans everywhere. By your own rules therefore, you have to hold off on pulling the trigger.

With respect to your example above, I have never argued we should base our decisions on situations that are not the case. But such situations could tell us something about the actual case.

As for whether you would be right to inject poor old Bill, that could depend on a number of factors beyond his illness and his desire for death (how long-term his desire is, pain relief etc). But assuming they are accounted for, I have no issue with voluntary euthanasia. The voluntary bit is important however! Nero didn't volunteer from where I was sitting.

I note with interest that your example only invokes one of your "criteria" (A) above.

Yeah, as I say, clearly we disagree. All I'll say is that your opinions are no less subjective and arbitrary than mine.

I am not being subjective in the sense that I don’t have to try to figure out how someone is feeling in order to decide if its "OK" to kill them or not. That is dangerous. We disagree on how Nero is feeling for example (although I trust that has now changed ). Based on more agreed moral principles, I would say its not OK no matter how he is feeling if I don't have his agreement along with any other relevant criteria (see above). Even then it can be debateable depending on circumstances.

As for my views being arbitrary, all moral principles probably come down to some sort of axiomatic position but generally one that has some social agreement, which yours do not appear to. In fact quite the reverse in my view.

I am saying that given circumstances X, Nero's state of mind is Y, and therefore Z, it is acceptable to pull the trigger.

You are responding by telling me that if circumstances were ¬X, then Nero's state of mind would be ¬Y, and therefore ¬Z (it is not acceptable to pull the trigger). And you are claiming ¬Z even though X is in fact the case.

No, as demonstrated above, my counterfactual showed that Nero's state of mind was never Y, even in the actual situation (that turned out to be your subjective impression), and thus it was never OK to pull the trigger even by your criteria.

However, if a crazed Vulcan is on board the Enterprise who can and will blow up the ship, then it is not possible for Kirk to rescue Nero (even if he beams Nero on to the Enterprise, Nero will die when the Vulcan destroys the ship), (¬A). Therefore Kirk will not save lives by attempting to rescue Nero, (¬B) and therefore Kirk must not rescue him (¬C), and in fact (I would argue) is compelled to pull the trigger (D).

That would at least give Kirk the excuse he so desperately needs. Though it is not the stuff heroes are made of.

[Set Harth]

UFO wrote:

---

I can't help but think you may have differing ethical assumptions to the rest of the known universe.

And you'd be wrong. The people on this site ( and others ) who share the same position exist.

Really, you're now claiming to speak for the known universe. Is this supposed to create the appearance of credibility?

[UFO]

Set Harth wrote:

---

And you'd be wrong. The people on this site ( and others ) who share the same position exist.

Really, you're now claiming to speak for the known universe. Is this supposed to create the appearance of credibility?

Not at all. I would never suggest might is right or the majority view is always best etc. It is just I have never come across those sort of reasons before.

And lets be clear, I am not saying many or even most here don't think Nero "deserved" everything he got. That's understandable in a way. I was only remarking on the reasons put forward in this case for supporting that view point.

Are you aware of anyone who shares those particular criteria?

BTW "The known universe", as an SF reference, was
tongue in cheek. I should have made that clearer.

[yousirname]

UFO wrote:

---

There is no way you can know that.

The whole scene was clearly intended to show Nero was defenceless.

I'll just leave those two sentences side by side without further comment.

I think your average police force would take a contrary view. I note the business about the victim’s mental state is missing form that list however. Preferring death doesn't cover it.

I consider smoking marijuana to be ethically acceptable. Your average police force certainly takes a contrary view. What do I care?

OK lets try again: For some reason, one of your criteria is that someone has to be "indifferent to their pending death"

I chose the word 'indifferent' to describe Nero's state of mind regarding his impending death. If you prefer the word 'resigned', so be it; I won't quibble over that. His state of mind does not change with the word we use to describe it.

By demonstrating that Nero would accept help from the right quarter if it had existed, my counterfactual shows that he wasn’t indifferent to his death even in the actual situation he faced. If someone is indifferent to their death they wouldn’t care if they could be saved. I think we agree Nero would care if only to continue his revenge and his attempts to make the universe safe for Romulans everywhere. By your own rules therefore, you have to hold off on pulling the trigger.

But I have already demonstrated, using the same logic that you have used above, that Kirk is ethically compelled to pull the trigger. And I see below that you seem to have ignored that.

With respect to your example above, I have never argued we should base our decisions on situations that are not the case. But such situations could tell us something about the actual case.

That's exactly what you're doing. You're arguing that Kirk must not pull the trigger because Nero would accept help from a Romulan, even though there is no Romulan there.

As for whether you would be right to inject poor old Bill, that could depend on a number of factors beyond his illness and his desire for death (how long-term his desire is, pain relief etc). But assuming they are accounted for, I have no issue with voluntary euthanasia. The voluntary bit is important however! Nero didn't volunteer from where I was sitting.

The voluntary part is only relevant insofar as it underscores the error in your reasoning. What matters is the logical form of the argument. Again, it follows the form of your Romulan rescuer argument - because Bill would prefer not to be ill, I must not euthanise him, despite his fervent pleas that I do so.

ETA this has nothing to do with your own ethical principles. It is given in this scenario that it is my principles we are considering; so any objection you may or may not have to euthanasia in and of itself isn't relevant, since we are starting from my ethical principles.

I am not being subjective in the sense that I don’t have to try to figure out how someone is feeling in order to decide if its "OK" to kill them or not. That is dangerous. We disagree on how Nero is feeling for example (although I trust that has now changed ). Based on more agreed moral principles, I would say its not OK no matter how he is feeling if I don't have his agreement along with any other relevant criteria (see above). Even then it can be debateable depending on circumstances.

I'm not saying that you're "being subjective". I'm simply noting that we clearly start from differing ethical principles.

I would note, however, that much of your argument has consisted of inserting your ethical principles into my reasoning and noting that once that's done, my conclusion no longer follows from the facts. It's no surprise that you arrive at a different conclusion from mine if you start from a different set of assumptions. It's also not at all persuasive.

As for my views being arbitrary, all moral principles probably come down to some sort of axiomatic position but generally one that has some social agreement, which yours do not appear to. In fact quite the reverse in my view.

Not that I care a fig for social agreement, but I will say, there's a reason those box-office-obsessed Hollywood producers put that scene in the climax of a tentpole summer release. And I'm not sure that reason is "Everyone agrees with UFO".

No, as demonstrated above, my counterfactual showed that Nero's state of mind was never Y, even in the actual situation (that turned out to be your subjective impression), and thus it was never OK to pull the trigger even by your criteria.

You have 'demonstrated', if I've understood you correctly, that you don't feel 'indifferent' is a suitable label for Nero's state of mind. You might as well be telling me that you prefer 'W' to 'Y'. Regardless of the label, Nero's state of mind regarding his death being what it is (viz. "I would rather die in agony than accept help from [Kirk]), then with everything else being as before, there's no change in my position.

That would at least give Kirk the excuse he so desperately needs.

So... you're not responding to the fact that the argument is logically identical to your Romulan rescuer argument and leaves Kirk ethically compelled to pull the trigger (a stronger view than the one I actually hold)?

[yousirname]

UFO wrote:

---

Are you aware of anyone who shares those particular criteria?

I would guess that most utilitarians or consequentialists would take a broadly similar view in their criteria, whether or not they actually agreed with me.

[King Daniel Into Darkness]

Back to STVI. Chang was dead after the first torpedo hit. The bridge blew up, the ship was crippled and no threat. Yet Kirk and Sulu kept firing until the ship was destroyed - executing the rest of the crew needlessly.

[EyalM]

How about Insurrection? The Enterprise left Rua'fu to be blow up even thought they could have beamed him on board.
And his only crime was trying to heal billions...

[Franklin]

King Daniel wrote:

---

Back to STVI. Chang was dead after the first torpedo hit. The bridge blew up, the ship was crippled and no threat. Yet Kirk and Sulu kept firing until the ship was destroyed - executing the rest of the crew needlessly.

How would they know Chang was on the bridge?

Chang fired on them, first. The shots to the Klingon ship came in quick succession. Frankly, the point was not to disable the ship, but to destroy it. It was a war-like situation.
I personally don't think the right word for the fate of the rest of the crew is "executed." That would insinuate a war crime. It's not like they were trying to surrender and Kirk and Sulu kept firing, anyway. (If Klingons do surrender.)

On another note, let's not forget that Kirk offered to beam the survivors of the Romulan ship he had just fought over to the Enterprise in "Balance of Terror".