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

[Hopeful Romantic]

Uh, folks... nasty much?

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.

It would really help if you all could back away from tossing around accusations about "people" being morally, intellectually, or ethically deficient or superior. Please aim your fire at the issues, not each other.

Which part of "if you cure the genetic disease the Menk might not become the dominant species of the planet" did you not understand?

What part of "you're still playing God" do you not understand?

And I think we've just about run this phrase into the ground. Time to put it away.

From my own POW, those priests and nuns who abused your grandmother (and who knows how many other helpless kids) should be skull-raped. In hell.

Good gravy, I haven't even had breakfast yet. What does this have to do with "Dear Doctor"? Take it somewhere else.

Ease down, okay? It's a TV show.

 

[BillJ]

In your opinion there is no ethical dilemma, natural morals suffice.

See, I never said that. I simply disagree with your interpretation. No decision is ever black and white and there are possibly troubling ramifications either way you go, which I've tried to point out in a thoughtful manner without needing to insult you.

By saving the Valakians, you could stunt the growth of the Menk. By not saving the Valakians, you could be leaving such a wasteland that it destroys the Menk anyways.

But between the two, I'll err on the side that saves billions.

 

[Edit_XYZ]

About 'Dear doctor'.
It's one in a rather long line of episodes (see 'Homeward') that are both scientifically absurd and morally unsupportable:

They amount to - you shouldn't save this drowning person, because there's a chance he'll become Stalin.
In these episodes, the scenarists/crew take a barely possible future and elevate it to the rank of certainty. And, for this nebulouse future, they sacrifice the lives of millions, presently in danger, that can be saved.

If one were to follow this so-called 'morality', then one should NOT ever get out of his house - after all, there's the possibility that doing so will have disastrous consequences.

PS

When he runs out of arguments (and passable straw-men), horatio83 always recourses to baseless name-calling.

Do you actually think you can reach a fact-based conclusion with such a character? Well - good luck with this.

Ah, the ugly look in the mirror.
When you start with ad hominem crap you cannot bitch when you get some of it back.

horatio83, it may come as a shock to you, but what is practically quoting history books does NOT qualify as 'ad hominem crap' just because it demolishes your beliefs.

 

[BillJ]

Good gravy, I haven't even had breakfast yet.

It's what you get for sleeping so late...

 

[horatio83]

See, I never said that. I simply disagree with your interpretation. No decision is ever black and white and there are possibly troubling ramifications either way you go, which I've tried to point out in a thoughtful manner without needing to insult you.

By saving the Valakians, you could stunt the growth of the Menk. By not saving the Valakians, you could be leaving such a wasteland that it destroys the Menk anyways.

But between the two, I'll err on the side that saves billions.

I doubt it. What do you mean with wasteland, horrible wars before the species dies? Seems unlikely to me, why should they fight. I guess they are just gone one day and the Menk are on their own.
The beginning might very well be tough as they are not used to care for themselves but sooner or later they will start to prosper. It's perhaps a bit like with children, of course they will stumble and mess up once you give them less support and more freedom but they will also grow.

I'd rather not choose between two species. It is not really about biology or evolution but about plain power. Staying out of the business of other people might not be the right choice but I think it is best way to live alongside other species. I doubt that the Federation could be as large and as enduring as it is without the Prime Directive.

horatio83, it may come as a shock to you, but what is practically quoting history books does NOT qualify as 'ad hominem crap' just because it demolishes your beliefs.

I am not interested in refreshing an old discussion, this thread is the wrong place for that. If you start here with ad hominem crap here you will get some of it back so stop pretending that you did not do it and think twice about it in the future lest somebody holds up a mirror for you again.

 

[Edit_XYZ]

horatio83
You keep talking about mirrors - take a look at yourself once in a while instead of hiding behind name-calling.

'ad hominem crap' again? You don't even read posts that contradict your belief system any longer.

 

[horatio83]

Go on and embarrass yourself via pretending that you did not write this.


Ignoring the troll and coming back to the issue, I think that Cogenitor shows perhaps better than the controversial borderline case of Dear Doctor why human ethics cannot be applied in space. Obviously the cogenitor is mistreated from a human perspective. Universal human ethics are very important in reality but in the fictional world depicted in Trek they do not extend beyond ourselves as there are other species out there. Either we impose our ethics upon them which implies imperialism or we form a group of people who think alike on some basic issues yet stop messing with other folks.
Trek obviously depicts the latter. Even in the Federation the common denominator is probably pretty small. Lwaxana's Mr.Homm, basically a servant / slave, certainly isn't acceptable from a human point of view.

 

[Edit_XYZ]

Go on and embarrass yourself via pretending that you did not write this. You are obviously looking for a petty fight. Look somewhere else, I am not interested.

I DID write it. And it's entirely justified, based on your 'performance' in that other thread. This is 'holding up the mirror' to you, horatio83, not an 'ad hominem'.

And what was your reaction? As said, you jumped to name-calling ( http://www.trekbbs.com/showpost.php?p=6418702&postcount=115 ) instead of looking at the mirror I 'held up to you'.



The situation in 'Dear doctor' has only superficial similarities with 'Congenitor' - for example, regarding probability of the negative outcome.

In the first case, the doctor/Archer's actions were utterly immoral.

In the second, Tucker's course of action was astonishingly uninspired/flawed (but morally defensible); it was far from the only possible course of action - nor was that situation an 'either-or' one.
In this case, the 'moral relativism' POV is condoning slavery simply because it's practiced by another culture. That's a pretty fundamental part of humanity's moral code you want to betray, horatio83; if you're willing to make such HUGE 'compromises', you can't even really say you have a morality.

 

[horatio83]

Dude, nobody cares about you being pissed off about me because of an old discussion. Stop disrupting this thread.

 

[sonak]

there is no ethical dilemma here. None. "Nature" and "evolution" do not have courses. There is no such thing as a species being "selected" to die, or one being "selected" to be superior.

If you're near-sighted, you don't say "I was selected to not see well," you put on glasses or get your vision corrected.

I understand why folks feel the need to bring up those absurd concepts, because without them, the episode comes down to

"Archer and Phlox conspire to allow billions to die on the altar of pseudoscience."


I recommend looking up SFdebris' review of this awful episode on his site or youtube. He actually has a fair background in science, and he points out how awful the episode was better than a lot of posters here could.

 

[horatio83]

In this case, the 'moral relativism' POV is condoning slavery simply because it's practiced by another culture. That's a pretty fundamental part of humanity's moral code you want to betray, horatio83; if you're willing to make such HUGE 'compromises', you can't even really say you have a morality.

Do you even read my posts before you respond? I clearly distinguished between universal human ethics and interspecies ethics so stop with this relativism bullshit. As I said I believe in universal human ethics and slavery is obviously wrong. I am the first one to condemn any postmodern "but it is their way of life" nonsense.
But we are not on Earth, we are in space. When you shove universal human ethics down the throats of non-humans the UFP would become an imperial power at best and something like the Borg at worst. That is not merely immoral, it is utterly wicked. Not intentionally but as a consequence of intellectual laziness.

Once again the anti-PD folks refuse to think about interspecies ethics. The universality of human ethics starts and ends with humankind, that's why they are called human ethics. If a species in the quadrant applied its ethics on other species war would be inevitable. There is no in-between solution, either you view human ethics as absolute and do what has do be done to implement (which implies in this case to break all communication with this species and actively tell the cogenitors like Trip did that they are exploited and help them in their struggle which might imply civil war; just abstractly saying that human ethics are universal while not doing anything is obviously hypocritical) them or you don't and thus don't mess with other species.

 

[Miss Lemon]

"Archer and Phlox conspire to allow billions to die on the altar of pseudoscience."

Isn't Star Trek full of absurd pseudoscience?

 

[sonak]

"Archer and Phlox conspire to allow billions to die on the altar of pseudoscience."

Isn't Star Trek full of absurd pseudoscience?

perhaps, but they're not usually justifying passive genocide through that pseudoscience. Yes, "it's just television," but it's disturbing to see folks take the arguments presented in this episode seriously.

Suppose you start trying to apply them to the real world? Should you not try to cure genetic defects, because if it's "genetic" then evolution "fated" it to happen?


Before you respond "that's not fair," realize that ALL I DID was change the scenario from the fictitious Trekverse to the real world. Otherwise, same basic concept.

 

[horatio83]

Apples and oranges. There are no aliens and hence no need for interspecies ethics in the real world where the decision of Archer would obviously not merely be wrong but a crime of vast proportions.

 

[sonak]

Apples and oranges. There are no aliens and hence no need for interspecies ethics in the real world where the decision of Archer would obviously not merely be wrong but a crime of vast proportions.

I keep seeing you repeat that view, and I must say that I find it an odd one. Ethics is based on sentience and self-awareness, and a concept of rights, not whether one is an alien or not.

Are you saying that if an alien species of intelligent advanced beings were discovered, ethics wouldn't apply to them?

 

[Miss Lemon]

Before you respond "that's not fair," realize that ALL I DID was change the scenario from the fictitious Trekverse to the real world. Otherwise, same basic concept.

I won't. A few pages back I was asking another poster the same thing actually. In a less accusatory way, I hope.

I'm just wondering why you are so emotional about this whole thing and using words as genocide which really don't apply to this particular episode, IMO.

 

[horatio83]

I keep seeing you repeat that view, and I must say that I find it an odd one. Ethics is based on sentience and self-awareness, and a concept of rights, not whether one is an alien or not.

Are you saying that if an alien species of intelligent advanced beings were discovered, ethics wouldn't apply to them?

I am not saying that we should fly out there and deny who we are. We should certainly stand behind our values and apply them.
Most of the times this is probably not a problem, when you meet a ship in distress you help those folks.

But when you meet e.g. folks like the Klingons you encounter a species that is in many ways the literal opposite of yourself. You are life-loving and democratic, they are death-loving and aristocratic. If we were on Earth I would not hesitate to say that they have to be crushed (ideologically) as they violate our universal principles. But in space this is not possible unless you wanna wage war against them.
What actually happened, a fragile alliance after centuries of conflict with somebody who is so very unlike yourself, is the better way.


Obviously I am not caring about pragmatic solutions but about the radical implications of ethics. Down here slavery is something which has to be crushed as it violates an absolute human value. But not up there as we have no right to postulate our human absolutes as universally, galaxy-wide absolutes. If everybody did that this would lead to total war.

So in my opinion the very absoluteness of our values paradoxically forbids us from applying them to other species. Naturally a more pragmatic view upon ethics would come to different conclusions.

 

[Edit_XYZ]

In this case, the 'moral relativism' POV is condoning slavery simply because it's practiced by another culture. That's a pretty fundamental part of humanity's moral code you want to betray, horatio83; if you're willing to make such HUGE 'compromises', you can't even really say you have a morality.

Do you even read my posts before you respond? I clearly distinguished between universal human ethics and interspecies ethics so stop with this relativism bullshit. As I said I believe in universal human ethics and slavery is obviously wrong. I am the first one to condemn any postmodern "but it is their way of life" nonsense.

They're called 'moral values' and they are applicable to any conscious/intelligent being.

You want to restrict their applicability to humans - as in condoning slavery/murder/etc at aliens because they're not humans?
And you actually think that's not moral relativism?

And that in the trekverse, where the similarity of aliens to humans removes even the 'but they're too different' shallow excuse?


Here's a question - what if a alien tries to kill you and your family? Do you even defend yourself or do you just let it happen - because it's 'their way' and fully justified in your extreme moral relativism view?
Or what if a human enslaves aliens? I guess he's entitled to it - after all, 'human' morality has no jurisdiction on aliens.

But we are not on Earth, we are in space. When you shove universal human ethics down the throats of non-humans the UFP would become an imperial power at best and something like the Borg at worst. That is not merely immoral, it is utterly wicked. Not intentionally but as a consequence of intellectual laziness.

Nonsense.
The difference is choice.

The borg impose their values by force.

If you follow moral values, you ask this alien being - do you want to die or do you want to live? Do you want to live as a slave or as a free being?
And EVERY conscious/intelligent being has the power/right to make these decisions for himself/herself.

 

[Miss Lemon]

For someone claiming other people are trolls you are using the smiley a bit too much. Not really helpful to the discussion.

 

[Edit_XYZ]

Before you respond "that's not fair," realize that ALL I DID was change the scenario from the fictitious Trekverse to the real world. Otherwise, same basic concept.

I won't. A few pages back I was asking another poster the same thing actually. In a less accusatory way, I hope.

I'm just wondering why you are so emotional about this whole thing and using words as genocide which really don't apply to this particular episode, IMO.

Words like 'genocide' most definitely DO apply to the episode - the dissappearance not just of an ethnic group, but of an entire species.
Archer/Phlox could have stopped all this, but chose not to - and this is why this blood stains their hands as well.

It's genocide by inaction, as opposed to genocide by action. And genocide by inaction (you could have stopped it with little risk, but chose not to) is a crime as per criminal law.