Anyone think Picard and Data were dead wrong in SILICON AVATAR?

[Mr. Laser Beam]

Dr. Marr was there on a mission of scientific discovery. She abused her authority as a scientist when she destroyed the C.E. What she did is akin to a surgeon intentionally killing someone (or something, as sentience is still in question) they were operating on because they (it) had done something to hurt them.

I don't see it exclusively that way. She did it partly for those reasons, and also partly because the CE is an inherent danger to all life it encounters. That thing destroys entire planets. IMHO, she was justified in killing it.

To put it another way: Why was she not justified in destroying the CE, but Kirk and crew *were* justified in destroying the Doomsday Machine? Both did exactly the same thing: Destroy planets.

 

[Renvar]

I don't see it exclusively that way. She did it partly for those reasons, and also partly because the CE is an inherent danger to all life it encounters. That thing destroys entire planets. IMHO, she was justified in killing it.

To put it another way: Why was she not justified in destroying the CE, but Kirk and crew *were* justified in destroying the Doomsday Machine? Both did exactly the same thing: Destroy planets.

Was the Doomsday Machine a life-form? I thought it was a weapon created by beings from another galaxy. That would make it akin to a tool, not a life-form.

Let's assume for the moment that it was justifiable to destroy the C.E. Lets say that the C.E. was sentient, and that it knew it fed upon life that was also sentient and didn't care that it was killing by the thousands. Dr. Marr still did not have the right to be the executioner of this creature alone, without the support of the rest of the crew. She even locked out the controls because she knew they would try to stop her.

To append the metaphor I cited earlier, lets make that surgery patient be a dictator of a corrupt government, responsible for the deaths of thousands of people. Does the surgeon have the right to take the law into his own hands?

 

[Nardpuncher]

I don't see it exclusively that way. She did it partly for those reasons, and also partly because the CE is an inherent danger to all life it encounters. That thing destroys entire planets. IMHO, she was justified in killing it.

To put it another way: Why was she not justified in destroying the CE, but Kirk and crew *were* justified in destroying the Doomsday Machine? Both did exactly the same thing: Destroy planets.

Was the Doomsday Machine a life-form? I thought it was a weapon created by beings from another galaxy. That would make it akin to a tool, not a life-form.

Let's assume for the moment that it was justifiable to destroy the C.E. Lets say that the C.E. was sentient, and that it knew it fed upon life that was also sentient and didn't care that it was killing by the thousands. Dr. Marr still did not have the right to be the executioner of this creature alone, without the support of the rest of the crew. She even locked out the controls because she knew they would try to stop her.

To append the metaphor I cited earlier, lets make that surgery patient be a dictator of a corrupt government, responsible for the deaths of thousands of people. Does the surgeon have the right to take the law into his own hands?

No, he wouldn't have the right...but that wouldn't stop it from being a good idea.
Like Picard in I,Borg. He should've done the deed and sucked it up. He was almost too selfish because he wasn't willing to take the blame...if there would have been any.

Here's the other thing about that episode...How many Borg would you shoot down if they came down the corridor at you? What if they kept pilling up? When would you stop?

 

[LutherSloan]

I think that Picard and Data were right for the most part, because it didn't seem to me like the CE grasped that it was killing other sentient beings. It seemed like a force of nature to me.

 

[Timo]

I wouldn't think either "lifeness" or "sentience" would be decisive factors here. The DDM and the CE would be similar in basic nature: they'd be difficult to understand and a menace to humanoid colonies if let be.

But in one sense, they'd be exact opposites. The DDM was nigh-indestructible while the CE was extremely fragile. That alone should give our heroes the luxury of studying, communicating and toying with the CE as they pleased. Marr could have killed this particular CE individual at her leisure, after key intelligence had been gained. She could have rented a shuttlecraft and destroyed the thing with that if she wanted.

Without the intelligence, though, the CE continues to be a menace. There still exists no known means of tracking it down, or getting an early warning of its approach, or predicting where it will strike next. If that intelligence had been gained, the CE would be harmless enough, as it already demonstrated a capacity to learn polite behavior as a survival trait in "Datalore". It could easily be dissuaded from striking at Federation colonies, then. If it absolutely needs to feed on humanoids, one can choose to exploit the intelligence for luring in and exterminating the entire species, or (if one is in evil enough a mood) one can turn it into a menace that only haunts UFP enemies.

If there is inherent worth in the survival of this magnificient entity, then I'd say there is inherent worth regardless of its level of sentience or lifeness. The DDM could be declared a protected species, too, no matter whether it was life as we know it, Jim, or an artificial construct.

Timo Saloniemi

 

[Bosch571]

Dr. Marr was there on a mission of scientific discovery. She abused her authority as a scientist when she destroyed the C.E. What she did is akin to a surgeon intentionally killing someone (or something, as sentience is still in question) they were operating on because they (it) had done something to hurt them.

I don't see it exclusively that way. She did it partly for those reasons, and also partly because the CE is an inherent danger to all life it encounters. That thing destroys entire planets. IMHO, she was justified in killing it.

To put it another way: Why was she not justified in destroying the CE, but Kirk and crew *were* justified in destroying the Doomsday Machine? Both did exactly the same thing: Destroy planets.

Picard was in a position to try to talk to it, he could destroy it at any time and he would if it saved a millions of people. No one was in immediate danger, thy where just starting to communicate with it and it wasn’t her place to be jury judge and executioner in one. That isn’t acceptable now and it hopefully won’t be in the 24th century.

 

[Mr. Laser Beam]

Let's assume for the moment that it was justifiable to destroy the C.E. Lets say that the C.E. was sentient, and that it knew it fed upon life that was also sentient and didn't care that it was killing by the thousands. Dr. Marr still did not have the right to be the executioner of this creature alone

Stop right there. You just answered your own question.

If you acknowledge that the CE was all of those things - an extremely dangerous, fully intelligent predator which killed indiscriminately and against which there is no defense - then *anyone* with the ability to kill it had the right, indeed the obligation, to do so.

And to those who doubt that the CE was intelligent: What do you think Lore was saying to it? He was in full communication with the entity. He LURED the damn thing to Omicron Theta.

To append the metaphor I cited earlier, lets make that surgery patient be a dictator of a corrupt government, responsible for the deaths of thousands of people. Does the surgeon have the right to take the law into his own hands?

No, because doctors are a special case. They are bound by the Hippocratic Oath.

 

[Timo]

...then *anyone* with the ability to kill it had the right, indeed the obligation, to do so.

Actually, in our society, anybody acting on such an "obligation" would himself have to be executed for being a menace to said society.

The right to self-defense is the one that must be denied first and foremost if one is to form a coherent society. There can be no society unless the act of sanctions against disruptive behavior is outsourced. It doesn't matter much whether it is outsourced to a police force in uniform and under parliamentary-democratic control, or the neighborhood watch, or one's spouse. What matters is that it absolutely must be taken away from self. A society outsourcing certain sanctions to the neighborhood watch is divided into a hierarchial level of neighborhoods. And any society that is divided to a hierarchial level of individuals in the matter of self-defense is but an anarchy.

Timo Saloniemi

 

[Bosch571]

If you acknowledge that the CE was all of those things - an extremely dangerous, fully intelligent predator which killed indiscriminately

If the C.E. was sentient, if knew it fed upon life that was also sentient If didn't care that it was killing by the thousands. Thats why its a good idea to learn more about it.

and against which there is no defense - then *anyone* with the ability to kill it had the right, indeed the obligation, to do so.

They did have a defence, it was no thread to the Enterprise or any other lifeform at the moment, and as Timo said killing when not out self defence is not a right or even legal. You can't just go out killing becouse you just feel like it

And to those who doubt that the CE was intelligent: What do you think Lore was saying to it? He was in full communication with the entity. He LURED the damn thing to Omicron Theta.

If it is intelligent it at least deserves a trial.

 

[Timo]

What do you think Lore was saying to it? He was in full communication with the entity.

I know many a person who is "in full communication with" his or her cat, fish, or broom closet. Just because said cat, fish or broom closet may respond to certain promptings in a certain manner doesn't mean the communication is as comprehensive as the person likes to believe.

In "Datalore", Lore seemed to think he was able to tell the CE to stand by when a person calling himself Data hails it. And sure enough, the CE stood by when Lore in Data guise hailed it. Doesn't mean the CE really understood the first thing being said - standing by would be the natural thing for it to do in any case, after having found it futile to rub against the starship's shields. We could be looking at a very rudimentary type of behavior where the CE associates a subspace comm signal with the opportunity to feed.

Timo Saloniemi

 

[Mr. Laser Beam]

The right to self-defense is the one that must be denied first and foremost if one is to form a coherent society. There can be no society unless the act of sanctions against disruptive behavior is outsourced. It doesn't matter much whether it is outsourced to a police force in uniform and under parliamentary-democratic control, or the neighborhood watch, or one's spouse. What matters is that it absolutely must be taken away from self.

So if somebody breaks into your house in the middle of the night, or jumps out at you on the street, and tries to kill you, what would you do? Just sit there and let them? The authorities will take time to get there. Time you may not be able to afford to waste.

 

[Renvar]

So if somebody breaks into your house in the middle of the night, or jumps out at you on the street, and tries to kill you, what would you do? Just sit there and let them? The authorities will take time to get there. Time you may not be able to afford to waste.

Your analogy is not valid. As has been said many times, the Enterprise was in no immediate danger. There was no direct threat to the ship or anyone on it, including the killer, Dr. Marr. Eventually, the crew may have come to the conclusion that they could not reason with the creature, and only then would they be within their rights to destroy it. Dr. Marr was not willing to wait for that possibility. She saw a chance to avenge her son, and she took it.

I really think we should examine the motive behind Dr. Marr's actions. A lot of arguments are based on the assumption that it was for the preservation of lives. She did not care about those lives; she was only thinking of her son, and the rage she felt towards the C.E. because it took him away from her. Revenge is quite a different thing than self-preservation.

No, because doctors are a special case. They are bound by the Hippocratic Oath.

Scientists have an obligation to use their knowledge to further the understanding of the universe. Dr. Marr abused the authorities granted to her position in order to destroy the C.E. I doubt very much she would have been given access to the deflector of a starship if she was not in a position of authority. She destroyed something she did not fully understand, and used the tools of her trade to do it. No matter the reason, she should lose her standing as a reputable scientist on that fact alone. It sounds harsh when it's possible she also saved thousands of potential victims. I really hate using clichés, but the ends do not justify her means.

 

[Trekker4747]

Anyone who thinks Data and Picard were wrong in this episode obviously missed the entire point of Star Trek and its "message."

 

[Robert Maxwell]

I agree with those who said Dr. Marr acted too hastily. They had only begun to communicate with it. It may have been possible to reason with the Entity and come to an arrangement. Had communications failed, they could have resorted to destroying it. But destroying it out of hand was a bad call, and not Dr. Marr's to make.

 

[msbae]

Certainly sacrificing two or three more colonies would be a prudent measure if it helped establish something useful about the entity, such as how to track it before it reaches its victims.

Try telling that to the people of those two or three more colonies...

 

[Mr. Laser Beam]

So if somebody breaks into your house in the middle of the night, or jumps out at you on the street, and tries to kill you, what would you do? Just sit there and let them? The authorities will take time to get there. Time you may not be able to afford to waste.

Your analogy is not valid. As has been said many times, the Enterprise was in no immediate danger.

Actually, I was responding to Timo with that statement. He apparently believes that the right of self defense itself, in general, should be abolished - that if somebody attacks me, I should be denied the right to fight back to preserve my own life. I strongly disagree, of course.

 

[Renvar]

Actually, I was responding to Timo with that statement. He apparently believes that the right of self defense itself, in general, should be abolished - that if somebody attacks me, I should be denied the right to fight back to preserve my own life. I strongly disagree, of course.

So you were, my mistake. I too agree that, if imminent unavoidable threat is perceived to oneself or another, then lethal force may be used. I did not interpret Timo's remarks to mean that he opposed that viewpoint. At the same time, I don't think that the C.E. scenario qualifies as justifiable under that viewpoint, mostly due to a lack of information.

 

[Mr. Laser Beam]

I too agree that, if imminent unavoidable threat is perceived to oneself or another, then lethal force may be used. I did not interpret Timo's remarks to mean that he opposed that viewpoint.

I did:

The right to self-defense is the one that must be denied first and foremost if one is to form a coherent society.

...

What matters is that it absolutely must be taken away from self.

It seems fairly clear to me. If Timo wishes to clarify his remarks, he's welcome to do so.

At the same time, I don't think that the C.E. scenario qualifies as justifiable under that viewpoint, mostly due to a lack of information.

I can understand (though not agree with) that view. It would have probably been more clear if it had been someone other than Dr. Marr, who had a personal vendetta. If one of the ship's crew had decided to destroy the creature, then *their* motivations would have probably been better.

 

[Red Ranger]

Anyone who thinks Data and Picard were wrong in this episode obviously missed the entire point of Star Trek and its "message."

Trekker4747:

Agreed 100%. However, I think a little more perpective is required here. I think Picard, Data, and Marr were wrong, but for different reasons, and they were right, for different reasons. And that's what I take away from this ep.

Let me start by saying I didn't entirely agree with the high-handed manner in which both Picard and Data treated Dr. Marr. It's interesting they showed more compassion toward a life form that was dangerous and, as far as they knew, responsible for the deaths of thousands of innocent being, than they did to a human being who was obviously suffering. Dr. Marr faced a horrible tragedy and it forever altered her life and possibly even corrupted her morals in her own search for her "white whale."

On the other hand, Picard and Data were right to deplore the destruction of a life form that they had not yet determined if (a) it was sentient, or (b) it willfully and wantonly killed other beings to survive without concern for its actions. It's possible the C.E. didn't know it was attacking other intelligent life forms, any more than our heroes knew whether it was intelligent.

Dr. Marr was right in this sense: the C.E. had proven to be destructive, and had she not destroyed it, it might well have continued to threaten thousands if not millions more life forms.

As I see it, while we're supposed to take Picard and Data's side in the argument, we are also given enough evidence for people to feel sympathy and even approval of Dr. Marr's actions.

And that's where the brillliance of many TNG eps lies -- how it can argue more than one moral to its story. I think this is what many posters, especially our dear Picard-hating friend Robert Scorpio, fail to realize. We are dealing with people of a different time who have different sensibilities than we do about life in its infinite diversity.

Let's take this further. Many people of just a few centuries ago saw nothing wrong with slavery, or with the economic and social upheaval caused by the Industrial Revoluton. Centuries earlier, people who denied the primacy of one church were tortured and killed as heretics -- I'm referring to the Inquisition.

We can argue there are people with similar views today, but we can also make the argument that such opinions are no longer "mainstream."

By the same token, people in the 24th century exist who cherish life, and others, like Dr. Marr, cherish only humanoid life that is easy to understand, and have no problem engaging in Hammurabi's Code: An eye for an eye!

It's a big galaxy out there, is the message inherent in ST in general, and TNG in particular. In this instance, reason doesn't prevail, as it did in The Devil in the Dark. For that, TNG should be applauded, not derided.

Those of you who don't get that and view life through your biases against what you derisively call political correctness obviously have more issues than Time magazine! IMO!

Red Ranger

 

[Timo]

It seems fairly clear to me. If Timo wishes to clarify his remarks, he's welcome to do so.

Okay; apologies for not responding earlier, and for going a bit off-topic.

I should have clarified that I was speaking of self-defense commeasurate with the offense or more. That is, I feel a society cannot exist unless it condemns the sort of self-defense where lethal force is countered with lethal force or worse, nonlethal mugging is countered with nonlethal mugging or worse, and property vandalization is countered with property vandalization or worse.

The practical implications are clear: no preemptive strikes, and no escalating or even sustaining vendettas, can be allowed to exist.

Which is basically the best way to proceed anyway, as there is no particular upside to such things anyway, from the viewpoint of protecting self. If somebody threatens you with deadly force, odds are that threatening back with deadly force or trying to apply it will only make matters worse for you. Say, if a gun is pulled at you, you just lowered your survival odds significantly by pulling a gun against the offender. Even in practical terms, the best defense lies in the "Yeah? You and what army?" "This army!" approach: that is, outsourcing your defenses to an organization that can bring overwhelming force to bear and can exist as a deterrent.

In "Silicon Avatar", we loiter rather far from the situation of self-defense. Picard himself is in no danger. The society he represents, the one that has outsourced its defenses to Picard, is in danger, but not in a manner that should or even could be resolved by blasting the CE to bits. Picard has the luxury of pondering his options, and he has the upper hand vs. the CE anyway - clear counterindications for the use of deadly force in any situation.

Timo Saloniemi