Pulaski and Riker clone killing ethical?

[Mojochi]

Given that Riker and Pulaski were the victims and upset, their ethical judgements could be suspect. And I wouldn't use their actions or reactions as the sole basis to define the ethical standards in that situation.

I don't see that, seeing how anything you've presented is not even close to a level of damning evidence that could suggest either of them are wholly unethical enough to engage in the murder of helpless individuals. None of the examples you provide equate to that, only that they've faced different & lesser moral dilemmas (& shown solid, stable, & compassionate character therein, by near universal account)

However, even if it were damning enough to question their ethics, my point is that you're still bypassing... e v e r y o n e... else in the episode, who does not condemn the act. They are not living in a void where they did this. They exist in a reality wherein other people, more influential, superiors, etc... exist, & yet none of them are even heard voicing a single objection, let alone taking any action against what they did. So you're not just saying Riker & Pulaski are unethical enough to have committed this alleged unethical act. You're charging that the entire Enterprise crew & their superiors are also unethical, on the whole, for allowing them to do it without consequence. Are you accusing the whole of Starfleet?

 

[marsh8472]

I don't see that, seeing how anything you've presented is not even close to a level of damning evidence that could suggest either of them are wholly unethical enough to engage in the murder of helpless individuals. None of the examples you provide equate to that, only that they've faced different & lesser moral dilemmas (& shown solid, stable, & compassionate character therein, by near universal account)

However, even if it were damning enough to question their ethics, my point is that you're still bypassing... e v e r y o n e... else in the episode, who does not condemn the act. They are not living in a void where they did this. They exist in a reality wherein other people, more influential, superiors, etc... exist, & yet none of them are even heard voicing a single objection, let alone taking any action against what they did. So you're not just saying Riker & Pulaski are unethical enough to have committed this alleged unethical act. You're charging that the entire Enterprise crew & their superiors are also unethical, on the whole, for allowing them to do it without consequence. Are you accusing the whole of Starfleet?

There's this bit at the beginning of the episode

RIKER [OC]: I'm having a little debate with the colony's leader. It seems
PICARD: There's no time, Number One. Initiate the transport.
RIKER [OC]: But, sir
PICARD: Whatever the problem, we'll handle it up here.
...
PICARD: What are these animals doing here, Number One.
RIKER: I'm sorry, sir. It was either this or arguing till hell froze over.
DANILO: Captain Picard, sir, we can't leave our animals here to die. Besides, how could we build our future without our animals?

Riker's ethics doesn't seem to include animal rights. He was prepared to argue "until hell froze over" to leave those animals behind to die. Just because the crew was not sympathetic to an animal rights does not mean it's ethical to leave animals somewhere to die.



Then going back to the main issue

GRANGER: Stop! Murderers!
RIKER: Like hell! You're a damn thief!
PULASKI: Gentlemen, please.
GRANGER: What else could we do? We asked for your help and you refused us. We're desperate. Desperate!
RIKER: And that gave you the right to assault us, to rob us.
GRANGER: We have the right to survive!

Granger called them murderers after seeing what they've done. I know you're pretending he's not calling vaporizing the clones an act of murder but most people would agree that's exactly what he's talking about.

There was also not much time left in the episode to give them any to argue about the ethics of what they did. Except for this:

PICARD: Doctor, how desperate is the colony's situation?
PULASKI: They've got two or three generations, then the fading will be terminal. They're among the walking dead now. They just haven't been buried.
RIKER: I want the cloning equipment inspected. Who knows how many tissue samples were stolen. We certainly have a right to exercise control over our own bodies.
PULASKI: You'll get no argument from me.
TROI: I know the Mariposan culture seems alien, even frightening, but really, we do have much in common. They're human beings fighting for survival. Would we do any less?
PICARD: Are you saying we should give them the DNA samples they require?
PULASKI: That's just postponing the inevitable. If they get an infusion of fresh DNA, in fifteen generations they'll just go back to the same problems. Cloning isn't the answer. What they need is breeding stock.

Because Pulaski said this was not a permanent solution, we never got an answer to the question about whether giving the DNA was the right thing to do since an alternative solution was found.

It's probably not as immoral as killing a fully formed adult because they're not completely organisms, not fully human, not fully sentient. Borrowing a pen without returning it can also be considered unethical but not to the extreme where we expect people around them to talk about not returning the pen and showing outrage over it and having long heated debates over it. Similarly the crew not showing outrage onscreen over clone killing does not prove it was an ethical act.

Star Trek has been on the other side of this in Enterprise episode "Damage"

ARCHER: Let's talk about your ship. We know a way to insulate against the anomalies. There's a substance called trellium-D.
ILLYRIAN: I've heard of it. It's extremely rare.
ARCHER: I have sixty kilos sitting in my cargo bay.
ILLYRIAN: Perhaps we can work out some sort of trade.
ARCHER: That's what I had in mind.
ILLYRIAN: Given the condition of my vessel, I don't know what we can offer you.
ARCHER: Our warp engine is badly damaged.
ILLYRIAN: We could probably spare a few plasma injectors, maybe some antimatter.
ARCHER: I was thinking more along the lines of a warp coil.
ILLYRIAN: I'm afraid that's one thing we can't spare.
ARCHER: Maybe we can make it worth your while. We have certain technology that you'd probably find useful.
ILLYRIAN: Without a warp coil, the journey back to our system would take three years. We're not equipped for a voyage of that length.
ARCHER: The Xindi have already wiped out seven million of my people. Now they're building a weapon to destroy our entire world. I have to stop them. Without warp drive, I won't succeed.
ILLYRIAN: I sympathise, Captain. I will help you in any other way, but I won't jeopardize the lives of my crew. I'm sorry.
(The Illyrian ship flies off.)
...
ARCHER: How long have you been a doctor?
PHLOX: Nearly forty years.
ARCHER: And in all that time, did you ever do anything you thought was unethical?
PHLOX: Twice. Why?
ARCHER: I'm about to step over a line, a line I thought I would never cross. And given the nature of our mission, it probably won't be the last.
PHLOX: Probably not. May I ask what you're planning to do?
ARCHER: There could be more casualties.
PHLOX: I'll be ready.
...
ARCHER: Put together an armed boarding party.
REED: Who are we boarding, sir?
ARCHER: The alien ship we docked with.
REED: I don't understand.
ARCHER: We need their warp coil. They won't give it to us, so we're going to have to take it.
REED: Captain.
ARCHER: Get your men together!

 

[marsh8472]

See Pulaski's reaction there?

 

[JesterFace]

Could the thread title be put simply: Is killing ethical? Maybe not, but... I don't know.

 

[Nyotarules]

Could the thread title be put simply: Is killing ethical? Maybe not, but... I don't know.

We kill germs all the time, we kill bacteria, we kill for survival...

 

[JesterFace]

We kill germs all the time, we kill bacteria, we kill for survival...

Maybe the difference is that clones (depending on how the clones are created) are most likely sentient, bacteria and germs are not.
Killing something that isn't self aware isn't killing, I guess? Just ending life functions...

 

[Mojochi]

See Pulaski's reaction there?

It looks like she finds it gross, or at least unpleasant, given that it looks like her. That she finds it unpleasant doesn't make it unethical. Grabbing at straws, much like when you equated animal rights to human rights, or tried to use the societal debate about whether they should give them DNA. None of that has anything to do with the OP of whether killing these clones was unethical? Nothing in the episode indicates that it was, because nothing indicates that they are alive yet. They are not most likely sentient. They likely aren't even functioning yet

Similarly the crew not showing outrage onscreen over clone killing does not prove it was an ethical act.

It does if you think the crew are an ethical group of people. Are you telling me the entire crew is wholly unethical where murder is concerned? Because that is not the show I know, & if destroying THESE clones had been unethical, they'd have spared a few lines of dialog to mentioned that, because that's what they do on Star Trek: The Next Generation. They don't just kill people & then never bring that up again. I'm amazed I have to explain that. So, without evidence to the contrary, they clearly must not have done that

 

[marsh8472]

It looks like she finds it gross, or at least unpleasant, given that it looks like her. That she finds it unpleasant doesn't make it unethical.

Feelings do play a part in ethics. Crew members do not behave that way when they delete a hologram that looks like them. At the very least if we could reasonably conclude that given that it looks like her, it can also look like murder.

Grabbing at straws, much like when you equated animal rights to human rights, or tried to use the societal debate about whether they should give them DNA. None of that has anything to do with the OP of whether killing these clones was unethical?

Not equating human rights to animals rights, I was equating animal rights to your argument form: the crew did not object to X, therefore X is not unethical. You did not really respond to the counter-example either. Because crew members do not object does not mean vaporizing clones is not unethical. I gave you the example: There was no reaction from the crew to the idea of leaving the animals behind, if anything leaving the animals behind was preferable to Riker and Picard. This does not prove that leaving animals behind to die would not be unethical. That was a counter-example to your argument form, which was not responded to.

Nothing in the episode indicates that it was, because nothing indicates that they are alive yet. They are not most likely sentient. They likely aren't even functioning yet

Riker looked at Palaski and got a nod from her before he vaporized her clone. Why is that kind of reassurance or confirmation needed if there's no issues with vaporizing the clone? There are also episodes where scientists make decisions that inadvertently murder sentient beings that they did not consider sentient beings like TNG "Home Soil" and TNG "The Quality of Life". Except for what you're calling suspension of disbelief, there's nothing in that episode to suggest they know exactly when something is a living organism with the right to live.

It does if you think the crew are an ethical group of people. Are you telling me the entire crew is wholly unethical where murder is concerned? Because that is not the show I know,

They're capable of making mistakes. Like Picard said in episode "The Enemy"

PICARD: Lieutenant, sometimes the moral obligations of command are less than clear. I have to weigh the good of the many against the needs of the individual, and try to balance them as realistically as possible. God knows, I don't always succeed.

These are the rights of the individual to be unique and right's to exercise control over their bodies
Episode "Second Chances"
DATA: But Commander Riker and Lieutenant Riker are. Yet they seem to have trouble getting along with each another. I have found that humans value their uniqueness, that sense that they are different from every one else. The existence of a double would preclude that feeling.

Episode "Up The Long Ladder"
RIKER: It's not a question of harm. One William Riker is unique, perhaps even special. But a hundred of him, a thousand of him diminishes me in ways I can't even imagine.
...
RIKER: I want the cloning equipment inspected. Who knows how many tissue samples were stolen. We certainly have a right to exercise control over our own bodies.

& if destroying THESE clones had been unethical, they'd have spared a few lines of dialog to mentioned that, because that's what they do on Star Trek: The Next Generation.

Even though nothing was said about the animals? I'd say they did not know whether it was murder and they weighed that uncertainty against their rights and the consequences of what would happen if they did not stop the clones from developing further. That or maybe they thought they knew but could still be wrong like scientists were wrong in TNG "Home Soil" and TNG "The Quality of Life".

They don't just kill people & then never bring that up again. I'm amazed I have to explain that. So, without evidence to the contrary, they clearly must not have done that

I'm amazed I have to explain something that's already been stated in an episode already:
DATA: I am curious as to what transpired between the moment when I was nothing more than an assemblage of parts in Doctor Soong's laboratory, and the next moment, when I became alive. What was it that endowed me with life?
CRUSHER: I remember Wesley asking me a similar question when he was little, and I tried desperately to give him an answer, but everything I said sounded inadequate. Then I realised that scientists and philosophers had been grappling with that question for centuries without coming to any conclusion.

There are situations like this:

In episode "A Matter of Time"
PICARD: I'm faced with a dilemma. There is a planet beneath us which is slowly turning to ice, and unless we do something about it, I'm told that in a matter of weeks thousands, maybe tens of thousands, will die.
RASMUSSEN: That'd be a shame.
PICARD: Yes, it would. It would be quite a shame.
RASMUSSEN: So, what's your dilemma?
PICARD: Commander La Forge has a possible solution. The margins of error are extremely critical, but if successful, there'll be no more threat.
RASMUSSEN: And if it's not successful?
PICARD: Every living thing on the planet will perish.
RASMUSSEN: So do nothing and thousands will die. Do something and millions could die. That's a tough choice.

Riker could have weighed his own certainty level that killing the clone at its present stage of development could fall into the category of murder versus the certain consequence of doing nothing and ending up with a society full of clones of himself.

Episode "Penpals"

RIKER: Wes, responsibility and authority go hand in hand. I know you're responsible, now we've got to teach you a little bit of authority. One of the reasons you've been given command is so you can make a few right decisions, that will establish a pattern of success and help build self-confidence. If you don't trust your own judgment, you don't belong in the command chair.
WESLEY: But what if I'm wrong?
RIKER: Then you're wrong. It's arrogant to think you'll never make a mistake.
WESLEY: But what if it's something really important. I mean, not just a mineral survey. What if someone dies because I made a mistake?
RIKER: In your position, it's important to ask yourself one question. What would Picard do?

According to Riker, it's arrogant to use suspension of disbelief to assume they were not wrong to kill the clones.

 

[galad2003]

Ultimately this is a TV show so all of this just becomes a metaphor for abortion which is a subject I won't touch in an online forum like this. So good luck to you that choose to jump into this one.

 

[Mojochi]

Ultimately this is a TV show so all of this just becomes a metaphor for abortion which is a subject I won't touch in an online forum like this. So good luck to you that choose to jump into this one.

But in this case it wasn't. That's my whole point. They weren't making a metaphor about abortion. They weren't even treating these two clones as if they had been endowed with life at all. People have taken perhaps the weakest story construct to have ever had even a remote similarity to it and run wild trying to lump it into a debate about abortion, when in this sci-fi setting, & by all accounts in the episode, to do so is just making a mountain out of a mole hill

Crew members do not behave that way when they delete a hologram that looks like them.

Holograms are not flesh & blood that resembles her. It's kind of gross to watch flesh & blood be destroyed, even when it's not a living person

Not equating human rights to animals rights, I was equating animal rights to your argument form: the crew did not object to X, therefore X is not unethical. You did not really respond to the counter-example either. Because crew members do not object does not mean vaporizing clones is not unethical. I gave you the example: There was no reaction from the crew to the idea of leaving the animals behind, if anything leaving the animals behind was preferable to Riker and Picard. This does not prove that leaving animals behind to die would not be unethical. That was a counter-example to your argument form, which was not responded to.

Because it was only a wild attempt to write a narrative in which we must now think of them as wholly unethical people, all of them...The whole crew. You are basically judging the whole crew as unethical, & trying endlessly to pick apart a 7 year show about people we know are ethical, to support your concocted narrative to the contrary. I won't address that point by point. You might just go find a show that does hold up to your distorted scrutiny... which is none of them, I'm sorry to say.

Riker looked at Palaski and got a nod from her before he vaporized her clone. Why is that kind of reassurance or confirmation needed if there's no issues with vaporizing the clone?

because he might simply have been checking with her, to see if she was still unwilling to have clones of herself made. If she'd decided to be a DNA donor, he might have not destroyed hers. I'm pretty sure if he'd suspected he was about to kill living things, he wouldn't have done so & then checked for doctor permission after already killing one

I'd say they did not know whether it was murder and they weighed that uncertainty against their rights and the consequences of what would happen if they did not stop the clones from developing further. That or maybe they thought they knew but could still be wrong like scientists were wrong in TNG "Home Soil" and TNG "The Quality of Life".

Both examples are unknown lifeforms. These are human clones made by techniques Pulaski admits knowledge about. They know what a living human is, & they seem fairly knowledgeable about their cloning process. To suggest that they unwittingly allowed living humans to be killed, because they don't know enough about what constitutes a living human, doesn't hold water either. She is a doctor

I'm amazed I have to explain something that's already been stated in an episode already:
DATA: I am curious as to what transpired between the moment when I was nothing more than an assemblage of parts in Doctor Soong's laboratory, and the next moment, when I became alive. What was it that endowed me with life?
CRUSHER: I remember Wesley asking me a similar question when he was little, and I tried desperately to give him an answer, but everything I said sounded inadequate. Then I realised that scientists and philosophers had been grappling with that question for centuries without coming to any conclusion.

That conversation doesn't even have to do with the function of living human beings. It's about the origins of life & the understanding of consciousness. This is my point. You're endlessly trying to pick apart all the characters of the show, to support a narrative you've created, that supposes them capable of unwittingly or indiscriminately allowing murder of cloned humans, & nothing you're putting forth can fairly do so. Even the leader of the Mariposan people, who had lodged the original objection, lets it go. There's nothing wrong here for him to continue objecting about

According to Riker, it's arrogant to use suspension of disbelief to assume they were not wrong to kill the clones.

Ok.. you might not understand what suspension of disbelief means. It's a term that applies to a dramatic construct, that grants the characters the benefit of the doubt when, due to the overall story telling process, they omit a thing or too. For example, I know that Data can move incredibly fast, but there's times when he could get the drop on an armed assailant, but he doesn't. Suspension of disbelief means that, for the sake of the story being told, I have to literally put aside my belief that Data should've been faster

In this case, any inadvertent omissions, that would specifically indicate lifelessness in these clones, should be overlooked, because it's clear they were not trying to give the impression that they were alive. They just didn't do well enough to indicate they weren't (At least for you). So we should suspend not believing they were non-living, which you're totally unwilling to do. You'd prefer to character assassinate every last TNG character, to support the claim that they'd be unethical enough to be party to the murder of humans, when everything else about the show contradicts that

 

[Logopolis]

I was actually watching this episode last night as part of my TNG re-watch and was thinking of the ethics. Then I thought of The Measure Of A Man.

Did these clones have a consciousness? An intelligence? Did they have unique qualities? I don't think we really saw enough of them to know. But, at the very least, they were on the way to being developed as beings.

 

[Kor]

As I said earlier in this thread but apparently nobody saw, I believe that a more apt comparison than abortion would be the ethics of end-of-life treatment and stopping life support in cases of brain death, as these clones were clearly just brain-dead lumps of biological material.

Kor

 

[marsh8472]

Holograms are not flesh & blood that resembles her. It's kind of gross to watch flesh & blood be destroyed, even when it's not a living person

You'd think that Doctors are accustomed to looking at things that are kind of gross. On the other hand people react that way also when they are seeing something that is emotionally moving, such as witnessing something that is ethically questionable to them.

Because it was only a wild attempt to write a narrative in which we must now think of them as wholly unethical people, all of them...The whole crew. You are basically judging the whole crew as unethical, & trying endlessly to pick apart a 7 year show about people we know are ethical, to support your concocted narrative to the contrary. I won't address that point by point. You might just go find a show that does hold up to your distorted scrutiny... which is none of them, I'm sorry to say.

https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/tools/lp/Bo/LogicalFallacies/30/Appeal-to-Extremes <-- appeal to extremes on your part. I already said they could have thought they were behaving ethically and just been mistaken. Flawed reasoning does not make the whole crew unethical mass murderers.

because he might simply have been checking with her, to see if she was still unwilling to have clones of herself made. If she'd decided to be a DNA donor, he might have not destroyed hers. I'm pretty sure if he'd suspected he was about to kill living things, he wouldn't have done so & then checked for doctor permission after already killing one

Why would he check with her about that if she could always simply give her DNA to them later in case she changes her mind? If using suspension of disbelief implies that you can conclude they just know those clones were not alive, why can't we say the same thing about them knowing more about ethics than us too? Maybe they consider killing those clones ethical even if they're living, like a rape victim getting an abortion.

Both examples are unknown lifeforms. These are human clones made by techniques Pulaski admits knowledge about. They know what a living human is, & they seem fairly knowledgeable about their cloning process. To suggest that they unwittingly allowed living humans to be killed, because they don't know enough about what constitutes a living human, doesn't hold water either. She is a doctor

And they are not experts at what they don't know. Even if they have the knowledge to examine when the clones are developed enough to have conscious experience and made sure they were not at that point, the clones could still have some kind of soul. Afterall, some people believe life begins at conception. In Voyager episode "Cathexis" Chakotay was braindead and yet his consciousness existed outside of his body.

I'm sure there are countless alien races in the star trek universe that would consider vaporizing the clones an unethical act based on whatever beliefs they have. That does not make Riker an unethical person, he could still be acting ethical according to his own judgement. Like Worf's Mauk-to'Vor ritual was not considered murder to him but was considered murder to others. That does not make his actions right, which is the point of the whole thread--That Riker could be wrong and asking whether he was or not.

That conversation doesn't even have to do with the function of living human beings. It's about the origins of life & the understanding of consciousness. This is my point. You're endlessly trying to pick apart all the characters of the show, to support a narrative you've created, that supposes them capable of unwittingly or indiscriminately allowing murder of cloned humans, & nothing you're putting forth can fairly do so. Even the leader of the Mariposan people, who had lodged the original objection, lets it go. There's nothing wrong here for him to continue objecting about

Appealing to extremes again. The clone Riker vaporized was not indiscriminate, it was a clone of him. Granger did not call them murderers again just like Riker did not call them thieves again. That does not mean they are not thieves or that Riker's act was not murder. Granger was too busy accusing them of blackmail from threatening to take away their ability to make any clones here:

PICARD: Now stop! I will not allow posturing and bigotry to destroy this meeting. Now please, sit down. Now, Commander Riker has asked that your laboratories be inspected for stolen tissue samples, and I understand his concern. We may have to transport all your equipment here, to the Enterprise.
GRANGER: I see. When reason fails, you'll resort to blackmail.
PICARD: Fine. Destroy yourselves.

The crew does make decisions to kill lifeforms when they weigh the consequences of not killing them. Like when Riker vaporized Yuta in episode "Justice" or when the crew was going to allow the Boraalans to die in episode "Homeward". In the case of 'Homeward" they did it for the principle of the Prime Directive. Similarly Riker could have killed that clone knowing it was alive because of his principles like to preserve his uniqueness and right to control his own body.

Ok.. you might not understand what suspension of disbelief means. It's a term that applies to a dramatic construct, that grants the characters the benefit of the doubt when, due to the overall story telling process, they omit a thing or too. For example, I know that Data can move incredibly fast, but there's times when he could get the drop on an armed assailant, but he doesn't. Suspension of disbelief means that, for the sake of the story being told, I have to literally put aside my belief that Data should've been faster

I've already said you're not applying suspension of disbelief correctly.

The term suspension of disbelief or willing suspension of disbelief has been defined as a willingness to suspend one's critical faculties and believe the unbelievable; sacrifice of realism and logic for the sake of enjoyment.

There's no reason to pretend that Data should have been faster if you can come up with a logical reason why he was slower or decided to not move faster. Suspension of disbelief is more like pretending the show is real and ignore anything that suggests otherwise. In real life, people do not always do the right thing. Riker's ethical judgement could be wrong, beliefs could be wrong, could have acted out of anger, could have still been under the influence of drugs left over from the DNA extraction. There's plenty of logical reasons to explain Riker's actions without having to assume Riker does no wrong just because.

In this case, any inadvertent omissions, that would specifically indicate lifelessness in these clones, should be overlooked, because it's clear they were not trying to give the impression that they were alive. They just didn't do well enough to indicate they weren't (At least for you). So we should suspend not believing they were non-living, which you're totally unwilling to do. You'd prefer to character assassinate every last TNG character, to support the claim that they'd be unethical enough to be party to the murder of humans, when everything else about the show contradicts that

Nearly half of everyone who voted did not vote this as an ethical act. The writer's intended for us to see that these clones were of them which ends up giving us the impression that they may very well be alive and sentient living beings already. If argued properly, which you are not doing, Riker could have still behaved morally while knowingly killing a living being if he was justified by some form of consequentialism.

Like in "Silicon Avatar" Riker justified the murder of a sentient being while at the same time possibly allowing his feelings to inadvertently cloud his judgement:
RIKER: Permission to speak freely, sir?
PICARD: Of course.
RIKER: I've been thinking maybe Doctor Marr is right. Maybe we should destroy the Entity.
PICARD: Why do you think that?
RIKER: It's already killed thousands. It will undoubtedly continue to kill unless we stop it. I don't want those deaths on my conscience.
PICARD: Are you sure that that's it, Number One, or are you being influenced by personal feelings?
RIKER: With all due respect, sir, I'm not a raw cadet. I've lost people on missions before. If we take time to try to communicate with this thing, we may lose our chance to destroy it. And I don't think we can risk that. I think I'll go write that letter to Carmen's family.

Just like he could feel justified because of the consequence of having copies of him all over the planet or acting in a sense of cosmic justice by not allowing the Mariposans to benefit from what they did to him while at the same time allowing his emotions to cloud his judgement from just being assaulted and having his DNA stolen.

 

[Mojochi]

You'd think that Doctors are accustomed to looking at things that are kind of gross.

You'd like to think that, but not always

Flawed reasoning does not make the whole crew unethical mass murderers.

But what inescapable reasons do we really have to think a doctor would have flawed reasoning about when a human being is alive? If anybody on that whole show would know, it's her

If using suspension of disbelief implies that you can conclude they just know those clones were not alive, why can't we say the same thing about them knowing more about ethics than us too?

Because the entire purpose of suspension of disbelief is that in the absence of every single detail being explained to you, we offer the characters the benefit of the doubt. In watching a fantasy show, they get afforded that, but you're doing the exact opposite. You give your own interpreted narrative every benefit of the doubt instead of them. This episode is pretty poorly written, and you're trying to use that foible to wrangle them into the charge of being murderers, when by the overall account of these characters, we should know that's not what they are, & even if this situation has a few unexplainable angles to it that might lead someone like yourself astray from that baseline, you then have to just say "Well, maybe I'm reading into it too much, and the characters should get the benefit of the doubt"

I've already said you're not applying suspension of disbelief correctly.

Of course I am. When everything isn't explained well enough, you trust the characters, if we know them to be trusted characters. You're choosing to trust that the characters murdered and either didn't know it or didn't care, instead of trusting that since they aren't proved murderers or even accused of it again, then they essentially aren't, & any other interpretation is just finding nits to pick, in order to draw your desired conclusion

Riker's ethical judgement could be wrong, beliefs could be wrong, could have acted out of anger, could have still been under the influence of drugs left over from the DNA extraction.

Could have, could have, could have... All notions that presuppose your unfounded interpretation over one that grants the trusted characters the befit of the doubt

Nearly half of everyone who voted did not vote this as an ethical act.

12 people thinking along similar lines to you, instead of just accepting that a poorly written episode didn't do enough to dissuade that doubt, like it clearly intended, is hardly damning

 

[marsh8472]

You'd like to think that, but not always

But often enough where it's reasonable enough to assume that's not the case. But you are throwing out hypothetical just like I am. Though when I do it you say "Could have, could have, could have"

Because the entire purpose of suspension of disbelief is that in the absence of every single detail being explained to you, we offer the characters the benefit of the doubt. In watching a fantasy show, they get afforded that, but you're doing the exact opposite. You give your own interpreted narrative every benefit of the doubt instead of them. This episode is pretty poorly written, and you're trying to use that foible to wrangle them into the charge of being murderers, when by the overall account of these characters, we should know that's not what they are, & even if this situation has a few unexplainable angles to it that might lead someone like yourself astray from that baseline, you then have to just say "Well, maybe I'm reading into it too much, and the characters should get the benefit of the doubt"

The purpose of suspension of disbelief is to enjoy the show by ignoring aspects of the show that make it less enjoyable and I'm capable of enjoying the how just fine while morally evaluating the actions of the characters. If the show was called "Riker the benevolent commander" you might have something there. But the show is called "Star Trek", what does that title have to do with assuming Riker cannot behave immorally?

I did not vote that their actions were ethical or not ethical. I voted "don't know". All I've been doing is typing the doubts that come up from your reasons you voted to know one way or another.

Could have, could have, could have... All notions that presuppose your unfounded interpretation over one that grants the trusted characters the befit of the doubt

It makes no sense to do that in the star trek universe. Like DS9 episode "Rules of Engagement" for example. Worf orders the crew to fire on a ship they did not identify. No one objected at the time to him giving that order. At this point using your logic we should not question Worf's motives if we treat Worf the same way you want to treat Riker. But the whole point of the episode was to question his motives. Why would it only be acceptable to question motives when the plot allows it instead of anywhere applicable? I treat Riker's actions the same way I would if cloning were a reality. By treating the actions like reality I am suspending my belief that the show is not real.

Not applying suspension of disbelief would be like saying "Riker did not really vaporize that clone, it's just special effects and no one was murdered since it's all an act".

12 people thinking along similar lines to you, instead of just accepting that a poorly written episode didn't do enough to dissuade that doubt, like it clearly intended, is hardly damning

I haven't seen any dialogue from the writers that suggests what they intended for the clone vaporizing to mean. I think what you're trying to say is you think the writers gave no thought to the script and as a result introduced their own pro-choice bias into the plot. And because some of the writers may have no problem with terminating a lifeform early enough in development that makes it okay to not morally evaluate Riker's behavior.

I do think it's okay for the characters to do an immoral thing sometimes. It doesn't ruin the show for me that the characters to do the wrong thing sometimes. Maybe they do soul searching in a later episode and regret it later. Even if they don't, it's okay to not agree with the actions characters rather than always agree via benefit of the doubt.

 

[Hey Missy]

You have to hand it to the writers. They knew fans would talk about episodes such as this or Tuvix 20 years later.

 

[Mojochi]

But often enough where it's reasonable enough to assume that's not the case. But you are throwing out hypothetical just like I am. Though when I do it you say "Could have, could have, could have"

Only in so much as it applies to granting the benefit of doubt TO the characters

The purpose of suspension of disbelief is to enjoy the show by ignoring aspects of the show that make it less enjoyable and I'm capable of enjoying the how just fine while morally evaluating the actions of the characters. If the show was called "Riker the benevolent commander" you might have something there. But the show is called "Star Trek", what does that title have to do with assuming Riker cannot behave immorally?

Not the title, but the nature of the show. I'd say it's pretty clear we're to assume that the vast majority of the time these are moral characters. Hell, there's even people that suggest theirs is an evolved society on par with some kind of utopian ideology, with peace on Earth, & equity, and prosperity from embracing virtue. I'm not saying they're incapable of immorality. I'm saying that in the absence of definitive proof otherwise we should assume that they'd normally be moral

It makes no sense to do that in the star trek universe. Like DS9 episode "Rules of Engagement" for example. Worf orders the crew to fire on a ship they did not identify. No one objected at the time to him giving that order. At this point using your logic we should not question Worf's motives if we treat Worf the same way you want to treat Riker. But the whole point of the episode was to question his motives. Why would it only be acceptable to question motives when the plot allows it instead of anywhere applicable?

Because that is an episode specifically written for us to do so. You're subjecting a 30 second section of another episode, in which the morality of their act isn't even in question & subjecting it to the scrutiny of a story that is written for the sole purpose of examining morality, when you have no real evidence to say this was wrong at all

I haven't seen any dialogue from the writers that suggests what they intended for the clone vaporizing to mean. I think what you're trying to say is you think the writers gave no thought to the script and as a result introduced their own pro-choice bias into the plot.

No. What I'm saying is that it was not there intention to create ANY statement about the nature of abortion, & they've mistakenly tripped into some territory, where people who have a personal interest in arguing the subject have superimposed that debate onto an innocuous section of a poorly written episode, and are so invested in arguing it, that they ignore almost everything about the episode and the characters of the show

I do think it's okay for the characters to do an immoral thing sometimes. It doesn't ruin the show for me that the characters to do the wrong thing sometimes. Maybe they do soul searching in a later episode and regret it later. Even if they don't, it's okay to not agree with the actions characters rather than always agree via benefit of the doubt.

But if that happens there must be some intention to explore that dramatically. Personally, I don't think they behave all that morally in the episode Journey's End, when they are faced with forcibly removing settlers, but that dilemma is the WHOLE subject of the drama, not some off-hand 30 second scene that never gets brought up again. To assume they're just wrong without any further mention does the characters & the show a disservice. That's not what Star Trek does. If questioning morality is on the table, you can be damn sure they'll spend the whole hour digging into it.

If some minor act that can't be proven immoral pops up in a weakly thought out scene, it's pretty unfair to rake them over the coals by scrutinizing every possible way they should be considered wrong, instead of just accepting that since it's not a big deal to ANYONE thereafter, then maybe the assumption should be that nothing wrong happened here. Otherwise, YOU'RE writing Star Trek, by filling in the would be blanks that were not even intended as blanks by the original writers. This episode isn't about abortion. It's barely even about cloning, but because it glosses over a scene that abortion debaters can jump on, it has since become the only thing people want to focus on

 

[marsh8472]

Only in so much as it applies to granting the benefit of doubt TO the characters

Why is giving the benefit of the doubt more correct than just saying you don't know?

Not the title, but the nature of the show. I'd say it's pretty clear we're to assume that the vast majority of the time these are moral characters. Hell, there's even people that suggest theirs is an evolved society on par with some kind of utopian ideology, with peace on Earth, & equity, and prosperity from embracing virtue. I'm not saying they're incapable of immorality. I'm saying that in the absence of definitive proof otherwise we should assume that they'd normally be moral

That may be the nature of the show to you. I just see it as exploring the unknown. They can do that with or without moral characters. In a series like Voyager where a portion of their crew are outlaws and later Borg and Deep Space Nine with all of their political, war issues, and Quark morality is not necessary for the show.

Riker felt justified in killing his clone. Even though we don't know the exact medical state of the clones we do know that inside the pod was something that was growing into a sentient lifeform. That part of it is a fact right. Which means, if we take your approach, implies that it's moral to terminate something in the process of forming into a new lifeform. Unless of course people are allowed to think for themselves and judge Riker's actions as moral or immoral outside of the benefit of the doubt approach. Given the debate in current society with even embryonic stem cells, an ethical debate about Riker's actions is unavoidable.

Other things that can be ethically questioned in the episode are: wanting to leave the animals behind on the planet to die, Pulaski scanning one of the clones without their permission, Riker having sex with Brenna right after meeting her, Picard threatening to remove the Mariposan's cloning technology, and at the end of the episode Pulaski telling them each woman needs to mate with 3 men. Is it not appropriate to morally question them there either?

If some minor act that can't be proven immoral pops up in a weakly thought out scene, it's pretty unfair to rake them over the coals by scrutinizing every possible way they should be considered wrong, instead of just accepting that since it's not a big deal to ANYONE thereafter, then maybe the assumption should be that nothing wrong happened here. Otherwise, YOU'RE writing Star Trek, by filling in the would be blanks that were not even intended as blanks by the original writers. This episode isn't about abortion. It's barely even about cloning, but because it glosses over a scene that abortion debaters can jump on, it has since become the only thing people want to focus on

Right, but at the same time is it not also unfair, especially to potential victims, to assume characters are behaving morally with very little evidence even if it looks suspicious? It's like taking sides before you've seen any proof either way. That's the kind of thinking that would protect people like Bill Cosby just because he was regarded as a positive person some people assumed he would not behave otherwise unless they had evidence. Why assume at all if it was an ethical act instead of something like saying you don't know and leave it at that.

But in this case we see a lot of the facts except for how far along the clones have developed. But even without that fact some people can still make a moral judgement on the matter. Riker wanted to avoid having a clone made of himself and did not want those people to benefit from stealing his DNA. Does that justify what he did or make it the right thing to do? Maybe him discovering Tom Riker later on had some karma there.

 

[Tenacity]

This episode isn't about abortion. It's barely even about cloning, but because it glosses over a scene that abortion debaters can jump on, it has since become the only thing people want to focus on

Hardly the only thing, there's the stereotype depiction of the Irish, and Pulaski's casual rewriting of the colonists sexual social rules at the end.

And there is a aspect of abortion to the death scene, it's the assigning of "non-personhood" to someone in order to make it more acceptable to end their life.

 

[publiusr]

That and basic training--and war propaganda films.

 

[Mojochi]

Hardly the only thing, there's the stereotype depiction of the Irish, and Pulaski's casual rewriting of the colonists sexual social rules at the end.

And there is a aspect of abortion to the death scene, it's the assigning of "non-personhood" to someone in order to make it more acceptable to end their life.

Right, but not if they actually aren't a person yet, which this episode never clearly states one way or the other, in which case I lean toward giving them the benefit of the doubt, because in the absence of proof otherwise, they are normally moral folks is all, but yeah in general, it clumsily blunders all over the place

 

[tomswift2002]

With cloning in Star Trek, I've always thought the Federation categorized it as part of Eugenics, and that it wasn't done in the Federation except at the level of cloning a heart or kidney. Even Bashir had a hard Time recognizing that Ibudam was cloning himself.