Star Trek: INS- Son'a/Dominion Question

[sonak]

Probably becuase by doing so the federation would become one of those badguy planet conquering empires they usually fight against.

I'm not a believer in rigidly deontological ethics. Context matters when evaluating ethical decisions- they're not "conquering" anyone, they're relocating a small village for a vastly greater good. If you can't see that, then you're probably one of those who think a starving person should go to jail for ten years for stealing a loaf of bread.


"but he was starving!"


"it was STEALING!" "He's a thief, context doesn't matter, it's all about rigid rules that are totally devoid of the context of the situation!"

This is why you prioritize values, otherwise they constantly come into conflict. A person's right to live is more valuable than a baker's revenue, so while stealing a loaf of bread so you don't starve is illegal, it would be difficult to argue that it's unethical.

Self-determination and sovereignty are some of the most important Western values there are, values which the Federation also appears to hold as sacred. Given that, being willing to violate those principles for the sake of acquiring some dubious medical technology puts in doubt how much the Federation actually values those supposed rights.

Wait didn't Picard say that the Federation respects people's sovereignty and right to self-determination a few times on the show.

Wait didn't Starfleet remove a group of migrants, from a planet that wasn't theirs, so they would not be harmed?

(Ensigns of Command)

And don't forget, at no point in the movie do the Baku state that they consider the ring planet to be "theirs." This comes solely from Picard.

The migrants were Federation citizens, on a planet the Federation had ceded (by treaty) to the Sheliak. Apples and oranges since the Federation had legal jurisdiction over those settlers, but not the Ba'ku.

I agree that the Ba'ku should have actually been part of the discussion regarding what to do with them and their planet. Had the Federation bothered to go down that road, no conflict or "insurrection" should have been necessary.

1. claiming that the medical technology is "dubious" is a way of rigging the argument in your favor. There is nothing in the movie to indicate that the procedure wouldn't work as advertised.

2. Self-determination and sovereignty aren't being threatened here, PROPERTY is. The Baku would have simply been relocated to have sovereignty and self-determination on a different planet, they would have remained independent and sovereign, it wasn't an issue of conquest. So the "values clash" you refer to is actually that of the property rights of a few vs. the vastly greater good of the many.

3 the "Baku weren't asked" argument is one that gets brought up a lot, but it's kind of a silly one. There is a point in this movie when they realize exactly why they are being faced with removal, and they give no indication that they would consider doing so. The argument is basically a technicality-yes, there was never a point where Dougherty went down to the planet and directly asked "would you voluntarily relocate so that we can get this resource? We will find you a new planet and give you compensation."

It is however, pretty clear from the Baku attitude in the movie that they would have said no.

 

[Robert Maxwell]

I'm not a believer in rigidly deontological ethics. Context matters when evaluating ethical decisions- they're not "conquering" anyone, they're relocating a small village for a vastly greater good. If you can't see that, then you're probably one of those who think a starving person should go to jail for ten years for stealing a loaf of bread.


"but he was starving!"


"it was STEALING!" "He's a thief, context doesn't matter, it's all about rigid rules that are totally devoid of the context of the situation!"

This is why you prioritize values, otherwise they constantly come into conflict. A person's right to live is more valuable than a baker's revenue, so while stealing a loaf of bread so you don't starve is illegal, it would be difficult to argue that it's unethical.

Self-determination and sovereignty are some of the most important Western values there are, values which the Federation also appears to hold as sacred. Given that, being willing to violate those principles for the sake of acquiring some dubious medical technology puts in doubt how much the Federation actually values those supposed rights.

Wait didn't Starfleet remove a group of migrants, from a planet that wasn't theirs, so they would not be harmed?

(Ensigns of Command)

And don't forget, at no point in the movie do the Baku state that they consider the ring planet to be "theirs." This comes solely from Picard.

The migrants were Federation citizens, on a planet the Federation had ceded (by treaty) to the Sheliak. Apples and oranges since the Federation had legal jurisdiction over those settlers, but not the Ba'ku.

I agree that the Ba'ku should have actually been part of the discussion regarding what to do with them and their planet. Had the Federation bothered to go down that road, no conflict or "insurrection" should have been necessary.

1. claiming that the medical technology is "dubious" is a way of rigging the argument in your favor. There is nothing in the movie to indicate that the procedure wouldn't work as advertised.

It's dubious because it was being sold to the Federation by the Son'a, who were not the most trustworthy folks to begin with.

2. Self-determination and sovereignty aren't being threatened here, PROPERTY is. The Baku would have simply been relocated to have sovereignty and self-determination on a different planet, they would have remained independent and sovereign, it wasn't an issue of conquest. So the "values clash" you refer to is actually that of the property rights of a few vs. the vastly greater good of the many.

"You can still have your self-determination and sovereignty, but we're going to force you to have it somewhere else." Uh, no. That right there is blatantly infringing on their right to self-determination.

3 the "Baku weren't asked" argument is one that gets brought up a lot, but it's kind of a silly one. There is a point in this movie when they realize exactly why they are being faced with removal, and they give no indication that they would consider doing so. The argument is basically a technicality-yes, there was never a point where Dougherty went down to the planet and directly asked "would you voluntarily relocate so that we can get this resource? We will find you a new planet and give you compensation."

It is however, pretty clear from the Baku attitude in the movie that they would have said no.

Well, why should the Federation be able to come in and demand things of the Ba'ku? That would make them bullies. A supposedly enlightened culture would be willing to engage in negotiation and compromise. Maybe the Ba'ku wouldn't want to be moved, but would be willing to allow the Federation to set up an orbital research station to the study the rings and determine how to duplicate their effects. But since the Federation opted to use deception, the Ba'ku could hardly be blamed for not automatically assuming good faith.

 

[BillJ]

Self-determination and sovereignty are some of the most important Western values there are, values which the Federation also appears to hold as sacred. Given that, being willing to violate those principles for the sake of acquiring some dubious medical technology puts in doubt how much the Federation actually values those supposed rights.

If sovereignty and self-determination were ever that important to the Federation, they wouldn't be pulling planets out from under their own people and using them as bargaining chips. Like seen in Journey's End.

But the Federation government still has to do what's best for the bulk of the Federation population in any given matter.

 

[Robert Maxwell]

Self-determination and sovereignty are some of the most important Western values there are, values which the Federation also appears to hold as sacred. Given that, being willing to violate those principles for the sake of acquiring some dubious medical technology puts in doubt how much the Federation actually values those supposed rights.

If sovereignty and self-determination were ever that important to the Federation, they wouldn't be pulling planets out from under their own people and using them as bargaining chips. Like seen in Journey's End.

But the Federation government still has to do what's best for the bulk of the Federation population in any given matter.

Given that it was the result of negotiation to end a lengthy, costly, bloody war, it's pretty obvious the Federation considered it a worthy trade to swap some planets with the Cardassians. Displacing Federation citizens was hardly ideal, but when the alternative was continued bloody conflict, it makes sense that you start sacrificing land in order to save lives.

In any case, the Federation wound up letting the colonists remain, with the understanding that they would no longer be under Federation jurisdiction--again, this was a decision they were allowed to make, albeit only because they pushed back against the Federation bureaucracy.

 

[BillJ]

Given that it was the result of negotiation to end a lengthy, costly, bloody war, it's pretty obvious the Federation considered it a worthy trade to swap some planets with the Cardassians.

So the needs of the many outweighed the needs of the few.

 

[Robert Maxwell]

Given that it was the result of negotiation to end a lengthy, costly, bloody war, it's pretty obvious the Federation considered it a worthy trade to swap some planets with the Cardassians.

So the needs of the many outweighed the needs of the few.

Well, you know, thanks for ignoring the rest of my post, which indicated that the people still got to stay on their planets.

And if you think repeating "the needs of the many outweighs the needs of the few" is clever, here's a newsflash: it's not. It's a slogan, not a rhetorical basis for sound policy.

 

[BillJ]

And if you think repeating "the needs of the many outweighs the needs of the few" is clever, here's a newsflash: it's not. It's a slogan, not a rhetorical basis for sound policy.

Your more than welcome to think what you like. But any government that isn't making decisions on what's best for their citizens really isn't doing their job.

And as I've said many times before, the act of moving the Ba'ku (for me) has little to do with with the meta-phasic radiation itself (I've said many times before that I don't believe it's a game-changer). The act of moving the Ba'ku ensures that I don't find myself trying to protect six hundred pacifists somewhere down the road from another power trying to grab meta-phasics for themselves. Also, it ensures that if such a scenario were to arise that the Ba'ku don't get wiped out in the process. Like they nearly did at the end of Insurrection.

 

[T'Girl]

Federation had legal jurisdiction over those settlers

The Human migrants were living on a planet outside of the boundaries of the Federation, exactly how does the Federation have legal jurisdiction?

It's dubious because it was being sold to the Federation by the Son'a, who were not the most trustworthy folks to begin with.

And when the Sona brought the idea to the Federation, Starfleet's best scientific minds looked at it.

And the Sona were truthful about the particles, where they were, and what they could do.

Their "family problems" were a outside matter, and none of the Federation's business.

 

[sonak]

And if you think repeating "the needs of the many outweighs the needs of the few" is clever, here's a newsflash: it's not. It's a slogan, not a rhetorical basis for sound policy.

Your more than welcome to think what you like. But any government that isn't making decisions on what's best for their citizens really isn't doing their job.

And as I've said many times before, the act of moving the Ba'ku (for me) has little to do with with the meta-phasic radiation itself (I've said many times before that I don't believe it's a game-changer). The act of moving the Ba'ku ensures that I don't find myself trying to protect six hundred pacifists somewhere down the road from another power trying to grab meta-phasics for themselves. Also, it ensures that if such a scenario were to arise that the Ba'ku don't get wiped out in the process. Like they nearly did at the end of Insurrection.

no no no, the Federation is supposed to be obligated to give 24/7 protection to this small band of self-centered, hypocritical pacifists, despite them not being in Federation territory and not being citizens. They're supposed to do this out of the goodness of their hearts despite it being a completely one-sided arrangement in which the Federation gets screwed because... a government would actually agree to do something that ridiculous .

 

[HaventGotALife]

wrong thread.

 

[Robert Maxwell]

And if you think repeating "the needs of the many outweighs the needs of the few" is clever, here's a newsflash: it's not. It's a slogan, not a rhetorical basis for sound policy.

Your more than welcome to think what you like. But any government that isn't making decisions on what's best for their citizens really isn't doing their job.

And as I've said many times before, the act of moving the Ba'ku (for me) has little to do with with the meta-phasic radiation itself (I've said many times before that I don't believe it's a game-changer). The act of moving the Ba'ku ensures that I don't find myself trying to protect six hundred pacifists somewhere down the road from another power trying to grab meta-phasics for themselves. Also, it ensures that if such a scenario were to arise that the Ba'ku don't get wiped out in the process. Like they nearly did at the end of Insurrection.

no no no, the Federation is supposed to be obligated to give 24/7 protection to this small band of self-centered, hypocritical pacifists, despite them not being in Federation territory and not being citizens. They're supposed to do this out of the goodness of their hearts despite it being a completely one-sided arrangement in which the Federation gets screwed because... a government would actually agree to do something that ridiculous .

You guys have sure put a lot of work into those straw men, just to tear them down.

 

[{ Emilia }]

And if you think repeating "the needs of the many outweighs the needs of the few" is clever, here's a newsflash: it's not. It's a slogan, not a rhetorical basis for sound policy.

Your more than welcome to think what you like. But any government that isn't making decisions on what's best for their citizens really isn't doing their job.

That doesn't mean putting the needs of "the many" over the needs of "the few". I guess you hate protecting minorities, too. Best to just kill them all if it serves "the many" in any way?

Government represents "everybody", not "the many". And that's why the needs of "the few" sometimes outweigh the needs of "the many". And sometimes... they don't.

Damn, life is so complex.


ETA: And damn, the way Sonak keeps misrepresenting and over-simplifying RobMax' nuanced opinion is just appalling. Strawmen everywhere. Just makes for a very annoying and fruitless discussion.

 

[BillJ]

I guess you hate protecting minorities, too. Best to just kill them all if it serves "the many" in any way?

Really? Surprised it took someone this long to go there...

Government represents "everybody", not "the many". And that's why the needs of "the few" sometimes outweigh the needs of "the many". And sometimes... they don't.

Damn, life is so complex.

Government represents everyone who is part of the nation in which they govern. Since the Ba'ku are not Federation citizens, the Federation does owe them jack-shit.

And let's not pretend this is the "trail of tears" or some other atrocity that has happened in the past. No one here is being abused, merely returned to their normal evolutionary state.

ETA: And damn, the way Sonak keeps misrepresenting and over-simplifying RobMax' nuanced opinion is just appalling. Strawmen everywhere. Just makes for a very annoying and fruitless discussion.

If you or a close member of your family was in Starfleet, would you be willing to sacrifice your or their lives in order to protect six hundred people who refuse to protect themselves?

Would you want a cure for cancer blocked because six hundred people couldn't be moved?

 

[Robert Maxwell]

I guess you hate protecting minorities, too. Best to just kill them all if it serves "the many" in any way?

Really? Surprised it took someone this long to go there...

It is the natural conclusion of your position. If a large group is made materially better off through the death of a smaller group, it follows that exterminating the smaller group is not only prudent and practical, it is the morally proper thing to do.

Government represents "everybody", not "the many". And that's why the needs of "the few" sometimes outweigh the needs of "the many". And sometimes... they don't.

Damn, life is so complex.

Government represents everyone who is part of the nation in which they govern. Since the Ba'ku are not Federation citizens, the Federation does owe them jack-shit.

And let's not pretend this is the "trail of tears" or some other atrocity that has happened in the past. No one here is being abused, merely returned to their normal evolutionary state.

I'd just like to say that the phrase "normal evolutionary state" indicates such an appallingly poor grasp of the mechanisms of evolution that I can scarcely believe my eyes. I could write a book on what's wrong with that statement.

Suffice it to say, you are completely wrong on this point.

ETA: And damn, the way Sonak keeps misrepresenting and over-simplifying RobMax' nuanced opinion is just appalling. Strawmen everywhere. Just makes for a very annoying and fruitless discussion.

If you or a close member of your family was in Starfleet, would you be willing to sacrifice your or their lives in order to protect six hundred people who refuse to protect themselves?

Would you want a cure for cancer blocked because six hundred people couldn't be moved?

This is nuts. First of all, Federation lives were already put at risk through the joint operation with Son'a, so that one doesn't even wash.

Secondly, forcibly relocating people to get your cure for cancer is wrong. You're basically putting a natural resource above people's lives. Not the kind of thing a benevolent organization like the Federation ought to be pursuing.

 

[{ Emilia }]

I guess you hate protecting minorities, too. Best to just kill them all if it serves "the many" in any way?

Really? Surprised it took someone this long to go there...

I know, right?

Government represents "everybody", not "the many". And that's why the needs of "the few" sometimes outweigh the needs of "the many". And sometimes... they don't.

Damn, life is so complex.

Government represents everyone who is part of the nation in which they govern. Since the Ba'ku are not Federation citizens, the Federation does owe them jack-shit.

I'm sorry to interrupt your arrogant neo-conservative shtick, but I live in a country that starts its constitution with the sentence "Human dignity is inviolable". It doesn't say "The human dignity of the people in this country is inviolable. We owe the rest of the world jack-shit and if we need something we'll take it from you, suckers."

And I think the phrase "All men are created equal" should ring a bell to you. It's not "All men are created equal, unless you're not American in which case we'll treat you like shit, steal your stuff and tell you: We don't owe you jack-shit."

And that's not taking into account international agreements like the UN Carta. Which says you don't meddle in the affairs of sovereign nations. Who knows: Maybe there's some kind of interplanetary agreement on this in the Star Trek Galaxy, too.

And let's not pretend this is the "trail of tears" or some other atrocity that has happened in the past. No one here is being abused, merely returned to their normal evolutionary state.

It's a shame you don't understand the concept of evolution. Or the fact that "culture" has in many aspects replaced "nature" in the progress of civilisations.


Shame you deleted the "your highness" comment. I like to talk to peasants once in a while.

 

[BillJ]

I'd just like to say that the phrase "normal evolutionary state" indicates such an appallingly poor grasp of the mechanisms of evolution that I can scarcely believe my eyes. I could write a book on what's wrong with that statement.

Suffice it to say, you are completely wrong on this point.

They were alive when they hit the planet, they will live on (as the S'ona show) long after they leave the planet. Maybe I worded it wrong, but they are simply returning to the state they were in when they landed on the planet.

Secondly, forcibly relocating people to get your cure for cancer is wrong. You're basically putting a natural resource above people's lives. Not the kind of thing a benevolent organization like the Federation ought to be pursuing.

Huh?

Your putting the property rights of six hundred people above the well being of possibly trillions of beings. How is that anymore "right"?

EDIT: Sorry I missed this...

This is nuts. First of all, Federation lives were already put at risk through the joint operation with Son'a, so that one doesn't even wash.

Federation lives weren't at stake until Picard got involved.

 

[BillJ]

I'm sorry to interrupt your arrogant neo-conservative shtick, but I live in a country that starts its constitution with the sentence "Human dignity is inviolable".

Your from Germany, right?

 

[{ Emilia }]

I'm sorry to interrupt your arrogant neo-conservative shtick, but I live in a country that starts its constitution with the sentence "Human dignity is inviolable".

Your from Germany, right?

No, I live there.

But good job ignoring every single point I made. Classy.

 

[BillJ]

I'm sorry to interrupt your arrogant neo-conservative shtick, but I live in a country that starts its constitution with the sentence "Human dignity is inviolable".

Your from Germany, right?

No, I live there.

But good job ignoring every single point I made. Classy.

I just hate being painted with a broad brush because I disagree with someone over a point in a movie. So you can take your "arrogant neo-conservative shtick" comment and cram it where the sun don't shine.

And try not to judge us too harshly since your nation of residence has had a major hand in two World Wars costing millions of lives.

 

[{ Emilia }]

And try not to judge us too harshly since your nation of residence has had a major hand in two World Wars costing millions of lives.

Oh, make no mistake. I knew your comment was trying to godwin the discussion. I just figured I'd give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you're not going for such a lame cheap shot that has absolutely nothing to do with the discussion at hand or the people having it.

I don't have to paint you with a broad brush to make your posts look shallow, petty and vile.