I hope for more traditional space battles

[Opus]

No. I'm Gates McFadden.

I'm Gates McFadden and so's my wife.

 

[Franklin]

No. I'm Gates McFadden.

I'm Gates McFadden and so's my wife.

Winner!

 

[UFO]

So in other words, X is wrong because it is X?

Pretty much. I was just cutting to the chase.

However small it is, there is a chance Nero could pull a rabbit out of his hat and survive the collapse of the Narada. If he survived (remember he had a collection of craft aboard), he could become a huge problem somewhere else in the timeline.

To me his chances look like zero but because the visuals are a bit ambiguous its a pity that wasn't covered in the movie.

It is mostly wrong because we are robbing Nero or anyone in his position of their remaining life and that hasn't been removed.

However small it is, there is a chance Nero could pull a rabbit out of his hat and survive the collapse of the Narada. If he survived (remember he had a collection of craft aboard), he could become a huge problem somewhere else in the timeline.

This sounds more like an argument that Kirk is wrong for simply doing something any other rational being would do in his place. It's not about the action taken, it's about whose taking the action.


I count seven photon torpedoes fired from that clip, four from the Enterprise and three from the Excelsior. with there being three separate firings (1,2,1 from Enterprise and 2,1 from Excelsior) and no one stopped to even give Chang the chance to surrender.

His ship was still a threat since they couldn't see it, only the explosion from the first torp and they had to stop an assassination.

Exactly. There was no time to stop and ask Chang how badly he was hit. Nor did they have another gas seeking missile ready to go. In that situation you keep firing till the battle is over or someone surrenders. That scene was nothing like the one with Nero where the shooting had well and truly stopped.

Ignoring sensors, observed damage, and such like, the fact that Nero is talking rather than shooting might be clue. If he is so offended by Kirk I am not even sure there was a point in talking anyway.

I am not ignoring sensors or damage. The information Kirk has is not sufficient to establish that Nero is weaponless, that's all.

There is no way you can know that. On the other hand. Nero (a guy not known for his diplomacy) wasn't firing and neither was Kirk. That should tell you something. If Nero was a threat, Kirk would have demanded his surrender first, before offering help. The whole scene was clearly intended to show Nero was defenceless.

And I don’t agree we (nor Kirk) know the things you went on to assume we do. Eg. We don’t know Krik can save Nero. Kirk barely saved himself! Not that knowing them would justify anything in my view. The assumption it does is your unsupported opinion.

I don't really care if Kirk can or can't save Nero. Indeed, if he can't, all that does is remove one of the reasons why killing him would be wrong. But he appears to think that he can, so I dealt with that issue anyway.

Yeah, it's pretty clear that you and I approach the issue differently and with differing ethical assumptions.

I can't help but think you may have differing ethical assumptions to the rest of the known universe. Which is not to say you are "wrong", however let's look at the ones that supposedly combine to make killing people (I'm still thinking mostly Nero) "OK":

His death is imminent and inevitable

It can be avoided with Kirk's help

Given the exhaustive and compulsory choice 'Die or accept Kirk's help' Nero prefers death

Kirk can reasonably suppose that attempting to forcibly rescue Nero represents an unacceptable risk to him or to his crew or to his ship, or to all of the above

No-one currently exists who will mourn Nero

What the above facts do is remove, one by one, every objection I can raise to Kirk pulling the trigger.

I think your average police force would take a contrary view. I note the business about the victim’s mental state is missing form that list however. Preferring death doesn't cover it.

This is just a word game. Suppose that my very dear friend is suffering from a painful and debilitating illness. So crippling is this affliction that, though his pain is such that he wants nothing more than to die, he is unable even to end his own life. This friend asks me to assist in his suicide. Initially I agree, since I have determined using my criteria that it is not wrong to do so.

Now suppose that, just as I am about to painlessly inject him with a lethal dose of morphine, a thought occurs to me. Say, Bill, I ask him, even though in your current circumstances you want nothing more than to die, wouldn't you prefer to not have this disease? And Bill responds Don't be an idiot, of course I would.

Now, if Bill didn't have his illness, it would certainly be wrong of me to inject him, wouldn't it? Your reasoning would seem to imply that it would be wrong of me to inject him even though he does.

OK lets try again: For some reason, one of your criteria is that someone has to be "indifferent to their pending death" By demonstrating that Nero would accept help from the right quarter if it had existed, my counterfactual shows that he wasn’t indifferent to his death even in the actual situation he faced. If someone is indifferent to their death they wouldn’t care if they could be saved. I think we agree Nero would care if only to continue his revenge and his attempts to make the universe safe for Romulans everywhere. By your own rules therefore, you have to hold off on pulling the trigger.

With respect to your example above, I have never argued we should base our decisions on situations that are not the case. But such situations could tell us something about the actual case.

As for whether you would be right to inject poor old Bill, that could depend on a number of factors beyond his illness and his desire for death (how long-term his desire is, pain relief etc). But assuming they are accounted for, I have no issue with voluntary euthanasia. The voluntary bit is important however! Nero didn't volunteer from where I was sitting.

I note with interest that your example only invokes one of your "criteria" (A) above.

Yeah, as I say, clearly we disagree. All I'll say is that your opinions are no less subjective and arbitrary than mine.

I am not being subjective in the sense that I don’t have to try to figure out how someone is feeling in order to decide if its "OK" to kill them or not. That is dangerous. We disagree on how Nero is feeling for example (although I trust that has now changed ). Based on more agreed moral principles, I would say its not OK no matter how he is feeling if I don't have his agreement along with any other relevant criteria (see above). Even then it can be debateable depending on circumstances.

As for my views being arbitrary, all moral principles probably come down to some sort of axiomatic position but generally one that has some social agreement, which yours do not appear to. In fact quite the reverse in my view.

I am saying that given circumstances X, Nero's state of mind is Y, and therefore Z, it is acceptable to pull the trigger.

You are responding by telling me that if circumstances were ¬X, then Nero's state of mind would be ¬Y, and therefore ¬Z (it is not acceptable to pull the trigger). And you are claiming ¬Z even though X is in fact the case.

No, as demonstrated above, my counterfactual showed that Nero's state of mind was never Y, even in the actual situation (that turned out to be your subjective impression), and thus it was never OK to pull the trigger even by your criteria.

However, if a crazed Vulcan is on board the Enterprise who can and will blow up the ship, then it is not possible for Kirk to rescue Nero (even if he beams Nero on to the Enterprise, Nero will die when the Vulcan destroys the ship), (¬A). Therefore Kirk will not save lives by attempting to rescue Nero, (¬B) and therefore Kirk must not rescue him (¬C), and in fact (I would argue) is compelled to pull the trigger (D).

That would at least give Kirk the excuse he so desperately needs. Though it is not the stuff heroes are made of.

 

[Set Harth]

I can't help but think you may have differing ethical assumptions to the rest of the known universe.

And you'd be wrong. The people on this site ( and others ) who share the same position exist.

Really, you're now claiming to speak for the known universe. Is this supposed to create the appearance of credibility?

 

[UFO]

I can't help but think you may have differing ethical assumptions to the rest of the known universe.

And you'd be wrong. The people on this site ( and others ) who share the same position exist.

Really, you're now claiming to speak for the known universe. Is this supposed to create the appearance of credibility?

Not at all. I would never suggest might is right or the majority view is always best etc. It is just I have never come across those sort of reasons before.

And lets be clear, I am not saying many or even most here don't think Nero "deserved" everything he got. That's understandable in a way. I was only remarking on the reasons put forward in this case for supporting that view point.

Are you aware of anyone who shares those particular criteria?

BTW "The known universe", as an SF reference, was
tongue in cheek. I should have made that clearer.

 

[yousirname]

There is no way you can know that.

The whole scene was clearly intended to show Nero was defenceless.

I'll just leave those two sentences side by side without further comment.

I think your average police force would take a contrary view. I note the business about the victim’s mental state is missing form that list however. Preferring death doesn't cover it.

I consider smoking marijuana to be ethically acceptable. Your average police force certainly takes a contrary view. What do I care?

OK lets try again: For some reason, one of your criteria is that someone has to be "indifferent to their pending death"

I chose the word 'indifferent' to describe Nero's state of mind regarding his impending death. If you prefer the word 'resigned', so be it; I won't quibble over that. His state of mind does not change with the word we use to describe it.

By demonstrating that Nero would accept help from the right quarter if it had existed, my counterfactual shows that he wasn’t indifferent to his death even in the actual situation he faced. If someone is indifferent to their death they wouldn’t care if they could be saved. I think we agree Nero would care if only to continue his revenge and his attempts to make the universe safe for Romulans everywhere. By your own rules therefore, you have to hold off on pulling the trigger.

But I have already demonstrated, using the same logic that you have used above, that Kirk is ethically compelled to pull the trigger. And I see below that you seem to have ignored that.

With respect to your example above, I have never argued we should base our decisions on situations that are not the case. But such situations could tell us something about the actual case.

That's exactly what you're doing. You're arguing that Kirk must not pull the trigger because Nero would accept help from a Romulan, even though there is no Romulan there.

As for whether you would be right to inject poor old Bill, that could depend on a number of factors beyond his illness and his desire for death (how long-term his desire is, pain relief etc). But assuming they are accounted for, I have no issue with voluntary euthanasia. The voluntary bit is important however! Nero didn't volunteer from where I was sitting.

The voluntary part is only relevant insofar as it underscores the error in your reasoning. What matters is the logical form of the argument. Again, it follows the form of your Romulan rescuer argument - because Bill would prefer not to be ill, I must not euthanise him, despite his fervent pleas that I do so.

ETA this has nothing to do with your own ethical principles. It is given in this scenario that it is my principles we are considering; so any objection you may or may not have to euthanasia in and of itself isn't relevant, since we are starting from my ethical principles.

I am not being subjective in the sense that I don’t have to try to figure out how someone is feeling in order to decide if its "OK" to kill them or not. That is dangerous. We disagree on how Nero is feeling for example (although I trust that has now changed ). Based on more agreed moral principles, I would say its not OK no matter how he is feeling if I don't have his agreement along with any other relevant criteria (see above). Even then it can be debateable depending on circumstances.

I'm not saying that you're "being subjective". I'm simply noting that we clearly start from differing ethical principles.

I would note, however, that much of your argument has consisted of inserting your ethical principles into my reasoning and noting that once that's done, my conclusion no longer follows from the facts. It's no surprise that you arrive at a different conclusion from mine if you start from a different set of assumptions. It's also not at all persuasive.

As for my views being arbitrary, all moral principles probably come down to some sort of axiomatic position but generally one that has some social agreement, which yours do not appear to. In fact quite the reverse in my view.

Not that I care a fig for social agreement, but I will say, there's a reason those box-office-obsessed Hollywood producers put that scene in the climax of a tentpole summer release. And I'm not sure that reason is "Everyone agrees with UFO".

No, as demonstrated above, my counterfactual showed that Nero's state of mind was never Y, even in the actual situation (that turned out to be your subjective impression), and thus it was never OK to pull the trigger even by your criteria.

You have 'demonstrated', if I've understood you correctly, that you don't feel 'indifferent' is a suitable label for Nero's state of mind. You might as well be telling me that you prefer 'W' to 'Y'. Regardless of the label, Nero's state of mind regarding his death being what it is (viz. "I would rather die in agony than accept help from [Kirk]), then with everything else being as before, there's no change in my position.

That would at least give Kirk the excuse he so desperately needs.

So... you're not responding to the fact that the argument is logically identical to your Romulan rescuer argument and leaves Kirk ethically compelled to pull the trigger (a stronger view than the one I actually hold)?

 

[yousirname]

Are you aware of anyone who shares those particular criteria?

I would guess that most utilitarians or consequentialists would take a broadly similar view in their criteria, whether or not they actually agreed with me.

 

[F. King Daniel]

Back to STVI. Chang was dead after the first torpedo hit. The bridge blew up, the ship was crippled and no threat. Yet Kirk and Sulu kept firing until the ship was destroyed - executing the rest of the crew needlessly.

 

[EyalM]

How about Insurrection? The Enterprise left Rua'fu to be blow up even thought they could have beamed him on board.
And his only crime was trying to heal billions...

 

[Franklin]

Back to STVI. Chang was dead after the first torpedo hit. The bridge blew up, the ship was crippled and no threat. Yet Kirk and Sulu kept firing until the ship was destroyed - executing the rest of the crew needlessly.

How would they know Chang was on the bridge?

Chang fired on them, first. The shots to the Klingon ship came in quick succession. Frankly, the point was not to disable the ship, but to destroy it. It was a war-like situation.
I personally don't think the right word for the fate of the rest of the crew is "executed." That would insinuate a war crime. It's not like they were trying to surrender and Kirk and Sulu kept firing, anyway. (If Klingons do surrender.)

On another note, let's not forget that Kirk offered to beam the survivors of the Romulan ship he had just fought over to the Enterprise in "Balance of Terror".

 

[Shazam!]

Of all the arguments to have over Star Trek, Kirk and co. blowing up the bad guys at the end is about as low down on the list as it gets.

 

[Saul]

Back to STVI. Chang was dead after the first torpedo hit. The bridge blew up, the ship was crippled and no threat. Yet Kirk and Sulu kept firing until the ship was destroyed - executing the rest of the crew needlessly.

We saw the bridge blow up and knew Chang was dead, Kirk and Sulu did not. They saw an explosion, could have been anywhere on the ship. Supposedly the tail pipe should have been hit which was the far end of the ship away from the bridge.

How about Insurrection? The Enterprise left Rua'fu to be blow up even thought they could have beamed him on board.
And his only crime was trying to heal billions...

I think Riker didn't know about Rua'fu, Picard forgot to mention that.

Of all the arguments to have over Star Trek, Kirk and co. blowing up the bad guys at the end is about as low down on the list as it gets.

My nachos are flavorless without good nerd argument.

 

[blueziggy]

im looking at it this way...

STII - kirk offers kahn the opportunity to surrender, live and stat trial and sentencing for war crimes... kahn uses opportunity to try and kill kirk with genesis, kirk even tries to beam aboard to stop it but is told he cant

STIII - kirk tries to offer kruge a hand while on the mountain cliff... kruge uses opportunity to try an pull kirk off the ledge first, kirk saves himself by killing kruge

STVI - kirk finally finds the ship that has been trying to destroy his... after a lucky shot, kirk (and sulu) destroy the BoP to prevent it from recloaking and being difficult to detect again. oh and he prevents a full out war that would have resulted should the assassin be successful.

seems like kirk learned over the first two situations that offering a chance leads to being attacked again and put into a life or death situation that could cost countless lives.

STXI - kirk knows that nero's ship survived a direct ramming by another federation ship to come back and kill millions of people (he read pikes dissertation)... kirk still offers help but when forced to be judge and jury (nero basically pled guilty and showed no remorse) he finds nero guilty and proceeds with sentencing which in this case is death.

 

[F. King Daniel]

Back to STVI. Chang was dead after the first torpedo hit. The bridge blew up, the ship was crippled and no threat. Yet Kirk and Sulu kept firing until the ship was destroyed - executing the rest of the crew needlessly.

We saw the bridge blow up and knew Chang was dead, Kirk and Sulu did not. They saw an explosion, could have been anywhere on the ship. Supposedly the tail pipe should have been hit which was the far end of the ship away from the bridge.

Except the ship was decloaked and crippled by that first shot. It made no further aggresive moves. They kept firing. Did they even attempt to board? Or scan? It wouldn't have been hard to tell where they'd hit.

 

[Squiggy]

According to the movie, here's the NTSB accident report

1701-A: Fired torpedo
Impact. Bridge destroyed, bridge crew killed, damaged Bird of Prey decloaked
2000: Targeted impact, fired 2 torpedos
1701-A: Fired 2 torpedos
4 torpedos impact
2000: Fired torpedo
Impact
1701-A: Fired torpedo
Impact, BoP detroyed

 

[blueziggy]

Back to STVI. Chang was dead after the first torpedo hit. The bridge blew up, the ship was crippled and no threat. Yet Kirk and Sulu kept firing until the ship was destroyed - executing the rest of the crew needlessly.

We saw the bridge blow up and knew Chang was dead, Kirk and Sulu did not. They saw an explosion, could have been anywhere on the ship. Supposedly the tail pipe should have been hit which was the far end of the ship away from the bridge.

Except the ship was decloaked and crippled by that first shot. It made no further aggresive moves. They kept firing. Did they even attempt to board? Or scan? It wouldn't have been hard to tell where they'd hit.

no guarantee that the ship is crippled, all the audience sees is a fire infront of chang. kirk and sulu cant see that. plus, sulu specifically states "target that explosion and fire" why would he say that if we can now see the ship? when i view the scene i see the BoP becoming fully visible only after being hit a few more times by torpedoes.

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

You can say it's some sort of evolutionary improvement and we'll "never go back..."

It's an evolutionary improvement and we'll never go back.

That's just the truth.

Yes, in time it will appear dated, just as the effects from older Star Trek movies and TV shows - or older Star Wars, for that matter - appear limited now. That said, the current techniques and approach will be superceded by something else new that people respond to - not a return to the "traditions" that older viewers are longing for.

 

[Saul]

Back to STVI. Chang was dead after the first torpedo hit. The bridge blew up, the ship was crippled and no threat. Yet Kirk and Sulu kept firing until the ship was destroyed - executing the rest of the crew needlessly.

We saw the bridge blow up and knew Chang was dead, Kirk and Sulu did not. They saw an explosion, could have been anywhere on the ship. Supposedly the tail pipe should have been hit which was the far end of the ship away from the bridge.

Except the ship was decloaked and crippled by that first shot. It made no further aggresive moves. They kept firing. Did they even attempt to board? Or scan? It wouldn't have been hard to tell where they'd hit.

It still looked cloaked to me even as they continued to fire, though Squiggy's report says otherwise. If they had fired once and the ship moves from that position then they've lost their one and only chance of defeating that ship. Either the Enterprise or both are destroyed and the Federation president is assassinated thanks to Kirk's showing of mercy.

BTW to Tech heads. Do Birds of Prey have second bridges? Surely torpedo control can be accessed somewhere else on the ship.

 

[Franklin]

For what it's worth, it seems as if the first torpedo the Enterprise fired hit the bridge as it's filmed from Chang's point of view. But the explosion as it appears from space is more vague about where the torpedo hit, and the bridge section of the ship looks intact. Indeed, the bridge section of the bird of prey is actually the last thing to blow up when the entire ship finally explodes.

The first shot by the Enterprise is fired at 4:25 in this video:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XSqCJ-UGYns

(Why does, "Back, and to the left. Back, and to the left," keep going through my mind?)

 

[BillJ]

If the first torpedo hit the impulse exhaust without shields, its easy to see a power surge destroying every EPS counduit through the entire ship.

How's that fer some nerd speak?