Value of culture is subjective so not everybody agrees. So we must defer to logic to find the correct course of action rather than basing our choices on flawed and illogical opinions and emotions. The same applies to your opinion on Insurrection.
This point right here. Regardless of how others might argue it, the point the film was trying to make is that what the Federation was doing was wrong, morally wrong, and the Enterprise crew had to stop it. However, as the memo from the Paramount execs shows, the situation they crafted was difficult to defend siding with the Ba'ku.
In the TNG episode "Homeward," Picard was OK with moving the primitive Boraalans to another planet without them ever realizing it, all the while keeping their whole culture intact and untainted, using the transporters and holodecks. Why wasn't he OK with orchestrating something similar with the Bak'u?
Kor
Well, I agree. The planet belonged to Ba'ku and the Federation had no right to claim it. There could have been only one Ba'ku there and it still would have been wrong to take the planet. Are people really saying that the Federation should go around conquering planets for natural resources?
Hey, I got to ask this second time in this thread: surely this means we can kill you and donate your organs to save several people? Needs of the many and all that.
The situation wasn't really comparable. In that case it was the natural causes destroying the planet of the aliens, so they had to be relocated. And the aliens were smuggled to Enterprise against his will. At that point he had little choice, he really couldn't push them out of the airlock.
What's next, conquering planets for dilithium? You are advocating becoming conquerors like Klingons. No, this is not what Federation stands for. Picard was absolutely right. What you suggest would lead to Terran Empire.
Ba'ku had been on that planet longer than Federation had existed, it was theirs. But yes, I agree that the proper way to approach the issue would have been to try to negotiate some sort of an agreement with the Ba'ku.
There are always justifications for conquest. Doesn't make it okay.
But the issue isn't black and white either, at least as presented. That's my larger point is the film does a terrible job of it, and everyone comes off looking rather dickish.
It's like the ethics question I had in undergrad. A pharmacist invents a life saving drug but demands an extraordinary price for it. Is a man justified in stealing it to save his wife?
Even when the resources are not yours to take? Mega rich person practises tax avoidance to reduce their tax bill to the state, the same state which uses tax revenue to build society's infrastructure, educate and defend its citizens etc. Party X denouces all tax avoidance schemes and states in their next manifesto that everyone earning/inherits over £500k will have to pay more taxes. Guess what Party X NEVER wins an election...
