Trek morality

[T'Girl]

^ You don't think there would be diplomatic repercussions? First contact often (but not always) implies the possession of warp drive. If these people (the OP should give them a name) should come to feel alienated with regard to the Federation, they may seek interstellar allies elsewhere.

Possible to the detriment of the Federation.

Asylum is more than the person simply leaving, it's you basically taking them in and protecting them. If they can get off their world and disappear into the Federation, without any assistance from the Federation, then that's not asylum.

 

[sonak]

Asylum all the way.

What they do in their own society is none of my business, but if someone wants to get out and leave, he should. Essentially he leaves their society. They should be glad they got rid of him instead of feeling insulted. And it's also none of their business what we do in our society, so they should leave him be.

um, why would they not feel insulted?


He broke the laws of their culture and then fled to escape punishment, and those granting asylum are essentially letting him thumb his nose at that society. Whether you agree with the culture's laws or standards or not, I can't see how you'd think they WOULDN'T be insulted.

 

[Xhiandra]

On a personale level, I'd want to grant the asylum: letting a sentient being die because you risk offending people that like making up rules for others to follow under "divine" punishment? No.
Consequences, consequences: nothing happens when you're offended; when you're killed, you die. Let them be offended and insulted all they want if it'll spare bloodshed.

The "role reversal" idea is flawed in 2 ways as far as I can make out:
1. Assuming a society that doesn't view murder as a crime would survive. I don't think such a society could exist outside of the hypothesis, rendering said hypothesis void.
2. Ok, now consider another angle: what if you are the "criminal"? Putting oneself in other's people shoes is a good idea, but one would be more advised to put himself/herslef in the oppressed's shoes rather than the oppressor's.


But that's all my own morality; and if I'm going to start acting on my own feelings without even considering Starfleet regulations, I might as well change my name to "Benjamin Sisko" on the spot... and Starfleet regulations would hinge on whether the prime directive applies (asylum denied) or not (asylum granted).
Whether the prime directive applies or not depends on the circumstances surrounding the event. From the OP's vague description, I'd have to say it applies.

 

[MacLeod]

Asylum all the way.

What they do in their own society is none of my business, but if someone wants to get out and leave, he should. Essentially he leaves their society. They should be glad they got rid of him instead of feeling insulted. And it's also none of their business what we do in our society, so they should leave him be.

Then why grant asylum, if what they do in their soceity is none of your buisness?

 

[R. Star]

^
Trek applies such circular logic to interference issues, so why not here?

 

[Edit_XYZ]

The "role reversal" idea is flawed in 2 ways as far as I can make out:
1. Assuming a society that doesn't view murder as a crime would survive. I don't think such a society could exist outside of the hypothesis, rendering said hypothesis void.
2. Ok, now consider another angle: what if you are the "criminal"? Putting oneself in other's people shoes is a good idea, but one would be more advised to put himself/herslef in the oppressed's shoes rather than the oppressor's.

Your arguments are contradictory:
1 - assumes that the crime committed is murder.
2 - assumes that the poor "oppressed" person's crime is something FAR less grave than murder. When it comes to a murderer, the term 'oppressed' is misplaced; his deed is too grave for such a label. And of course his self-interest is to evade punishment; a goal I have no sympathy for.

 

[JarodRussell]

Asylum all the way.

What they do in their own society is none of my business, but if someone wants to get out and leave, he should. Essentially he leaves their society. They should be glad they got rid of him instead of feeling insulted. And it's also none of their business what we do in our society, so they should leave him be.

Then why grant asylum, if what they do in their soceity is none of your buisness?

I see a difference between passively granting asylum to someone who flees from (draconic) punishment, and actively interfering with the (judicial) system of that country.

Let's take Iraq as a concrete example. Granting asylum to those who want to escape Saddam's regime, fine. Invading Iraq to remove Saddam, none of my business.


That guy I grant asylum, he's already standing on the lawn of my embassy or even on any lawn inside my state. He already made it into my country on his own, he's out of their jurisdiction and well inside mine. I don't force my way into that country and take him to mine.

 

[T'Girl]

I see a difference between passively granting asylum to someone who flees from (draconic) punishment, and actively interfering with the (judicial) system of that country.

But if you make it so that criminals within their society can not be held responsible for their actions, then you are in fact interfering with their judicial system.

By labeling their punishments "draconian," you (as the Federation) are saying that they can only impose punishments that you the outsider approve of. And can have only those laws the you the outsider agree that they can have.

That guy I grant asylum, he's already standing on the lawn of my embassy ...

The OP seem (to me) to be saying this guy is on his home planet, inside his nation of birth, and that he want you to remove him, take him somewhere else, and isolate him from his societies laws.

 

[Arpy]

Sure you'd like to grant asylum but the issue is to get a better idea how badly the aliens will take it. If the cost is war, then the answer is no. In peace you have the ability to reason with and persuade the other culture to see things as yours does. Think of all those you could have saved getting the aliens to change themselves compared to the one life you saved at first contact and the millions killed and traumatized by war. And whether your side will even be around when the war's over.

 

[RPJOB]

In Justice the Edo basically had no way to enforce their conviction of Wesley so Picard just let him off the hook. It doesn't matter that the crime was committed, the perpetrator was prosecuted and convicted all according to the laws of the Edo. Picard didn't see the Edo as a threat so he had no reason to turn Wesley over to them. I'm sure the situation would have turned out a lot different if the were on the Klingon home world.

In A Taste of Armageddon we had a similar situation except the Enterprise was even specifically told not to approach. Once they were in the system they should have been under the laws of Eminiar VII. Once more, the law doesn't apply to Starfleet.

 

[Ian Keldon]

Where Trek morality falls down is when it subscribes to the idea of moral relativism, defining Good and Evil in relative terms, and making it a matter of cultural perspective.

There are some things that are moral constants regardless of culture (the sanctity of innocent life, basic human rights, etc), and any culture that does not subscribe to those things is wrong.

 

[T'Girl]

There are some things that are moral constants regardless of culture (the sanctity of innocent life, basic human rights, etc), and any culture that does not subscribe to those things is wrong.

But what (and does not) constitutes a right changes as you travel from culture to culture. There is no universal agreement concerning this matter, even on this one world.

 

[BillJ]

Where Trek morality falls down is when it subscribes to the idea of moral relativism, defining Good and Evil in relative terms, and making it a matter of cultural perspective.

There are some things that are moral constants regardless of culture (the sanctity of innocent life, basic human rights, etc), and any culture that does not subscribe to those things is wrong.

It is all a matter of cultural perspective. And will be more so if/when we meet intelligent life in the cosmos.

Humanity will quickly find itself backed into a corner if it goes out with the "my way or the highway" mindset when dealing with other folks. Hell, the U.S. has done much to damage its own credibility by trying to dictate morality (one it usually doesn't follow itself) to other nations.

 

[RPJOB]

Where Trek morality falls down is when it subscribes to the idea of moral relativism, defining Good and Evil in relative terms, and making it a matter of cultural perspective.

There are some things that are moral constants regardless of culture (the sanctity of innocent life, basic human rights, etc), and any culture that does not subscribe to those things is wrong.

CHEKOV
We do NOT impose democracy on
others. We do believe that every
planet has a sovereign claim to
human rights.

AZETBUR
(spits)
"Human rights." Even the name is
racist. The Federation is
basically a "homo sapiens" only
club...

 

[Kamen Rider Blade]

This topic reminds me of the "Star Trek: Enterprise" episode "Cogenitor" (S2.E22).

What's considered moral, right, wrong will change between cultures.

There is a reason why the Prime Directive is the way it is. Besides the fact that it is used as a way to create drama for the writers / audience, there are real world implications to the concept.

The UFP have their own views on what is Good / Evil, each society has it's own view on the same issue.

Societies are bound to clash. Is it right for us to declare what actions are Good / Evil? We know that the Klingons are far from the nicest people, but us going up to them and telling them that taking over ships / territories is wrong is just going to lead to more violence. Especially if they look our way and declare that the UFP is more trouble than it's worth. Then they'll come start another war and more lives will be lost.

Dealing with real people and trying to solve a problem of different values is never easy. Look at our real world. Each ethnicity / Country / group has different values. We can't even agree on a lot of issues for numerous reasons. Would you like one group to go to another and start preaching what is right and wrong?

Coming to a real consensus takes far longer than a hour length TV episode. Getting everybody on the same page for big issue topics like morality is never easy, that's why the UFP doesn't want to interfere, they would rather slowly get everybody to agree on the same issue through open communication so that there is a lasting result on the same issue. It's a long term view of the situation.

 

[T'Girl]

What's considered moral, right, wrong will change between cultures.

And not just between cultures. Look at the morals and ethics of just the lead starship captains on the show. Kirk (then a century later) Picard, Sisko, and Janeway all have very different ways of viewing other peoples rights, and how the prime directive applies to them. Just in the episode Pen Pals, we see that Picard's senior officers don't even agree with each other on the prime directive, and they're a pretty small bunch.

There is a reason why the Prime Directive is the way it is.

Constantly changing?

The UFP have their own views on what is Good / Evil, each society has it's own view on the same issue.

The Federation is composed of a large number of different species, each (likely) with multiple separate cultures. What the Federation has (imho) is a composite opinion, a compromise, as it's official ethical position.

We saw the prime directive change from a fairly practical policy in Kirk's time, into the confused and ridiculous policy of Picard's time. The supposed total hands-off, let the primitives die, we alway just fuck it up directive.

I've interpreted this as the Federation membership disagreeing to the point they basically threw up their hands and told Starfleet that the prime directive means "don't get involved, it isn't our business. don't do anything."

Rush (The song Freewill): "If you choose not to decide, you still have made a choice."

 

[R. Star]

Where Trek morality falls down is when it subscribes to the idea of moral relativism, defining Good and Evil in relative terms, and making it a matter of cultural perspective.

There are some things that are moral constants regardless of culture (the sanctity of innocent life, basic human rights, etc), and any culture that does not subscribe to those things is wrong.

CHEKOV
We do NOT impose democracy on
others. We do believe that every
planet has a sovereign claim to
human rights.

AZETBUR
(spits)
"Human rights." Even the name is
racist. The Federation is
basically a "homo sapiens" only
club...

I'm actually glad that someone at least in one instance called the Federation out on that. It's a pity the morality of the Federation wasn't challenged more in Trek. Especially in regards to their western human dominance.

 

[BillJ]

Where Trek morality falls down is when it subscribes to the idea of moral relativism, defining Good and Evil in relative terms, and making it a matter of cultural perspective.

There are some things that are moral constants regardless of culture (the sanctity of innocent life, basic human rights, etc), and any culture that does not subscribe to those things is wrong.

CHEKOV
We do NOT impose democracy on
others. We do believe that every
planet has a sovereign claim to
human rights.

AZETBUR
(spits)
"Human rights." Even the name is
racist. The Federation is
basically a "homo sapiens" only
club...

I'm actually glad that someone at least in one instance called the Federation out on that. It's a pity the morality of the Federation wasn't challenged more in Trek. Especially in regards to their western human dominance.

I always love the DS9 episode, For the Cause...

EDDINGTON [on monitor]: I know you. I was like you once, but then I opened my eyes. Open your eyes, Captain. Why is the Federation so obsessed about the Maquis? We've never harmed you, and yet we're constantly arrested and charged with terrorism. Starships chase us through the Badlands and our supporters are harassed and ridiculed. Why? Because we've left the Federation, and that's the one thing you can't accept. Nobody leaves paradise. Everyone should want to be in the Federation. Hell, you even want the Cardassians to join. You're only sending them replicators because one day they can take their rightful place on the Federation Council. You know, in some ways you're worse than the Borg. At least they tell you about their plans for assimilation. You're more insidious. You assimilate people and they don't even know it.

 

[Kamen Rider Blade]

There is a reason why the Prime Directive is the way it is.

Constantly changing?

More like constantly re-interpreting the exact same words.
TOS era, non-interference only applied to non Warp capable species.
TNG+ era, non-interference also applied to the internal matters of alien species.
Humans are equally guilty of it. The sheer number of ways of interpreting the constitution. The sheer number of different copies of the bible with different interpretations from the original.

The UFP have their own views on what is Good / Evil, each society has it's own view on the same issue.

The Federation is composed of a large number of different species, each (likely) with multiple separate cultures. What the Federation has (imho) is a composite opinion, a compromise, as it's official ethical position.

We saw the prime directive change from a fairly practical policy in Kirk's time, into the confused and ridiculous policy of Picard's time. The supposed total hands-off, let the primitives die, we alway just fuck it up directive.

I've interpreted this as the Federation membership disagreeing to the point they basically threw up their hands and told Starfleet that the prime directive means "don't get involved, it isn't our business. don't do anything."

Rush (The song Freewill): "If you choose not to decide, you still have made a choice."

Yeah it's hard coming up with a consensus opinion, but not interfering in the internal matters as a public policy seems to be a logical evolution of the original interpretation. Granted that hasn't actually stopped them from interfering. The sheer number of times they've actually interfered without politcally interfering is too numerous.

Picard forming his fleet and stopping the supplies to help stop the Klingon Civil War. That's interfering by using a loop hole in the Prime Directive (not getting involved with the Klingon Civil War itself, but by going after the Romulan arms suppliers).

Sisko and infiltrating the Klingons to find the changeling. That effectively brought the Klingons back as allies. That's a blatant violation, if they didn't catch the changeling, the sheer fallout from the failure in their mission would've been disastorous.

 

[BillJ]

Not too mention Sisko and Garak murdered a Romulan senator to bring them into a war they had no interests in fighting.