I think I would rather die with my values intact than live without them.
In The Pale Moonlight-Would you do it?
- Thread starter WarsTrek1993
- Start date
Let's just say that I strongly disagree with your final two points. I don't think that moral principles must be absolute to be relevant(see famous critique of Kantian absolutism with the question of "do you lie to protect a group that is hiding from persecution when secret police come to your door?") I mean, deliberate lying is wrong, right? But isn't more harm done by not lying?
And it's nice to think there's always another way, but it's not the case. There are plenty of such examples. Not everyone responds to reasonable negotiation and compromise.
As for your preference of death over compromising your principles, that is your personal choice and it is a valid one for you.
No government should make that choice on behalf of its citizens.
It can be moral to lie. That very example you quoted, for instance.
But those citizens would not WANT their government to abandon its principles. Lots of people don't like the current direction the US government is taking, what with the warrantless searches, the waterboarding, the Patriot Act, etc.
they don't make the decision to allow themselves to be defeated and have their citizens enslaved because they refused to do something that was underhanded.
You're seriously OK with a government voluntarily allowing itself to lose a war for survival rather than compromise its principle?
I mean it's one thing if you're playing devil's advocate for discussion purposes, but rather baffling if you really believe that, since survival is a government's first priority.
the US isn't risking collapse and conquest if it repeals the PATRIOT act. Bit of a difference.
And your "it can be moral to lie" recognizes flexible morality. Lying generally is wrong, but in certain situations it CAN be justified.
much like oh..... Sisko lying to the Romulans?
The lie to secret poliece doesent equate to sisko's decision...
One lie's direct effect is meant to safeguard someones life...
The other lie, the fabrication of evidence, which goes far beyond a simple lie in a desperate instance, is a pre-meditated falsehood with the intent of costing the lives of another people out of fear of defeat.
A better analogy would be an ally nation dressing up in Japanese uniforms manning submarines and Zero's and attacking Pearl Harbor in order to draw the United States into WW2.
Thats not immoral...
" The most immoral thing you can do in a war is lose " and philosaphies of the like are a ratiolazation meant to greenlight the sacrifice of princapals... a justification of cowardly clining to the hope of victory by sacrificing morality. When in the end all your left with is a society thats not worth saving. Situational morality isnt moral truely moral at all.
You cant save the soul by selling it.
One lie's direct effect is meant to safeguard someones life...
The other lie, the fabrication of evidence, which goes far beyond a simple lie in a desperate instance, is a pre-meditated falsehood with the intent of costing the lives of another people out of fear of defeat.
A better analogy would be an ally nation dressing up in Japanese uniforms manning submarines and Zero's and attacking Pearl Harbor in order to draw the United States into WW2.
Thats not immoral...
" The most immoral thing you can do in a war is lose " and philosaphies of the like are a ratiolazation meant to greenlight the sacrifice of princapals... a justification of cowardly clining to the hope of victory by sacrificing morality. When in the end all your left with is a society thats not worth saving. Situational morality isnt moral truely moral at all.
You cant save the soul by selling it.
If survival is a government's first priority, then is the United States entitled to use nuclear weapons on all hostile powers if it finds itself on the losing end of a war?
What about the Middle Eastern nations that are violently suppressing citizen uprisings? What about if the nation was in the middle of a war during said uprising? After all, those uprisings threaten to destroy the government and perhaps the country, right? Of course, it's all a matter of perspective...but then, that kind of cuts to the heart of this discussion.
there's a difference between the physical survival of a free country and the survival of a particular REGIME. The uprisings you mention in the ME are against particular regimes, and peaceful transitions could be an option. At the stage of war in "ITPM" it didn't seem like compromise short of surrender and conquest was possible.
Your analogy goes way too far, that's not what happened. Using your analogy, what happened was:
An Allied Nation faked a recording of a meeting of the enemy plotting an attack against Pearl Harbor, and then killed the single person carrying that proof of the enemies plot. While both actions are indeed shady/immoral, this is nowhere as bad as if an Allied Nation had actually attacked Pearl Harbor.
What if the President knew about the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor ahead of time, and did nothing about warning/perparing Pearl Harbor, and just allowed it to happen, because the president knew the world needed the US involved in WWII. If this actually was proven to have happened, would it make you believe we shouldn't have saved the world by allowing this action to drag us into the War?
there is in fact a prominent conspiracy theory about FDR doing that very thing. Did you bring that up knowingly or was it just coincidence?
Yes, that was precisely why I brought it up. Saw it in a WWII movie or Miniseries in the 1990s. I believe it was WWII: When Lions Roared with Bob Hoskins playing Churchill. Been intrigued by the ramifications of the Conspiracy being true ever since
If you want to be 100% moral during a war, you should surrender from the beginning, allowing the citizens you were sworn to protect to wallow in oppression, misery and suffering under the boot of their conqueror.
Which makes the decision to surrender itself quite immoral.
If you choose to fight, that means killing enemies - if you want to win the war, rather than committing suicide, that is.
Which is immoral.
Sisko had the choice between the federation being conquered and its citizens enslaved or the romulans getting a bloody nose in war losses. The episode makes clear there was no third option - not one, that is, with chances of happening larger than winning the lottery.
Sisko prioritized his own people, whom he was sworn to protect. His decision was morally gray - but the least dark of his available choices.
Plus, there were a lot of mitigating circumstances - the high probability that the federation would have fallen, the high probability that the dominion would have come for the romulans after it was finished with the federation, the fact that the federation owed the romulans nothing positive (cold warriors, lately with the romulans letting the jem'hadar cross their territory to kill federation citizens), the fact that Sisko only did the forgery and Garak planned and did the murders, etc.
It's easy to enumerate quite a few historical decisions that are a LOT more 'gray' than what Sisko did and are looked upon with pride by americans/whomever.
Which makes the decision to surrender itself quite immoral.
If you choose to fight, that means killing enemies - if you want to win the war, rather than committing suicide, that is.
Which is immoral.
Sisko had the choice between the federation being conquered and its citizens enslaved or the romulans getting a bloody nose in war losses. The episode makes clear there was no third option - not one, that is, with chances of happening larger than winning the lottery.
Sisko prioritized his own people, whom he was sworn to protect. His decision was morally gray - but the least dark of his available choices.
Plus, there were a lot of mitigating circumstances - the high probability that the federation would have fallen, the high probability that the dominion would have come for the romulans after it was finished with the federation, the fact that the federation owed the romulans nothing positive (cold warriors, lately with the romulans letting the jem'hadar cross their territory to kill federation citizens), the fact that Sisko only did the forgery and Garak planned and did the murders, etc.
It's easy to enumerate quite a few historical decisions that are a LOT more 'gray' than what Sisko did and are looked upon with pride by americans/whomever.
Last edited:
Knight Templar
Commodore
What makes Sisko's decisions in In the Pale Moonlight such a big deal is that they are taken in the context of more than a decade of modern Trek preaching about how 24th century Earth is "paradise" (Sisko's own words) and how 24th century humans have "evolved" (Picard and others many times it seemed).
In the context of the 20th century Sisko's decision looks pretty much like a no brainer.
In the context of the 20th century Sisko's decision looks pretty much like a no brainer.
Killing soldiers on the battlefield is not, as I see it, immoral. Provided both sides follow generally accepted rules of conduct.
Indeed, to refuse to fight a war which clearly has a noble purpose (such as the fight against the Axis powers in World War II), WOULD be immoral. If you have the power to eliminate the enemy by legal, accepted and orderly rules of war, but refuse to use it, why is that not immoral?
'enemy' - that sounds so...sanitized.
For example, most 'enemy' soldiers who fought in WWII were not crazed axe murderers; they were young people indoctrinated and encouraged to enter the war, with little say in or even knowledge of the major political decisions being made; if they refused to enter the war, the social - and legal - consequences would have been severe.
That can be said about both axis and allied soldiers.
You think killing such people is so clearly not 'immoral'?
One can only say it if one views war as a chess table filled with peons, numbers, not human beings.
By the high moral standards used by some posters in this thread, killing such people IS immoral (as holy man have been affirming).
Also - legal, accepted and orderly rules is not equivalent to moral; not even close.
A quick read from a history book more than proves this point. Just because some order to kill has the blessing of some politician, general or religious leader doesn't make it moral.
My point? In ANY situation, war is a messy, wasteful and decidedly immoral thing.
At best, when it's fought for a 'noble' cause, it's the lesser of two evils. And, of course, 'noble' is a VERY loosely defined term - very relative, too.
Last edited:
Hopefully I'll be dead before that comes to pass. If not, suicide might start to seem like a viable alternative.
I think there's been far too much casual disregard for honesty in history, especially when it's rationalized with "for the greater good".
Knight Templar
Commodore
Hopefully I'll be dead before that comes to pass. If not, suicide might start to seem like a viable alternative.
I think there's been far too much casual disregard for honesty in history, especially when it's rationalized with "for the greater good".
When it comes down to "deception" or "saving lives of people I'm sworn to protect" then it is a no brainer to me.
You have a responsibility to the people you are responsible for.