Losing the Peace - ethics question (spoilers)

[Christopher]

The problem here is that in all of these situations the characters were of sound mind, and able to make a logical decision regarding whether or not they wanted to continue living. It is very clear that this was not the case with Sasdren, he was very clearly severely depressed, and was very obviously not of sound mind.

Exactly. This is the critical point that keeps being ignored. He was not competent to make an informed, rational decision.

And the other critical point that keeps being ignored is that cultures are not the same things as individuals. So what if S'ti'ach culture did have some kind of "suicide is okay" belief? It's nothing more than racial profiling to assume that any given individual S'ti'ach must share the general belief of his culture. For all Crusher knew, when Sasdren was in his right mind, he would've been vehemently opposed to his culture's (hypothetical) acceptance of suicide. This is why you simply DO NOT allow someone to die based on any kind of assumptions or speculations or guesses, let alone racial stereotypes -- you only do it if that SPECIFIC individual has a DNR on file. You default to saving the patient. You never default to letting them die. That should be screamingly obvious.

 

[kkozoriz1]

The problem is then that there was no context given. We never even saw Sasdren conscious. The only insight we got into his state of mind was Crushers statement that he was deliberately not using his healing trance. Even after he was healed we didn't see him or get an indication of his mental state. It was just "he's healed and the tricorder showed no more damage so he checked himself out". If Crusher thought he was suicidal shouldn't she have had him restrained to prevent him leaving?

Sasdren might as well have been a bog standard human for all we saw. In your scenario he's presented as acting and reacting exactly the same as a human would. Crusher treats him exactly as she would a human. How would it have been different if it were presented, as said earlier, as a human who just happened to pull out his IV? Whoopsie, let's just pop that back in. The little hints of his alien nature ended up making no difference at all. Should a Vulcan be sedated if they refuse to enter a healing trance? They have the ability.

We don't know that Sasdren wasn't competent. We were given no context. So Crusher is shown as saving a patient. It was considered important enough to even get a follow up later in the book. But it came off as Crusher putting a bandage on a skinned knee and later wondering if he would skin the other one.

I'd just prefer my aliens to have alien outlooks and motivations rather than being presented as humans in make-up. The books can get more into this than the TV shows can.

 

[BillJ]

I'd just prefer my aliens to have alien outlooks and motivations rather than being presented as humans in make-up. The books can get more into this than the TV shows can.

Then you probably need to skip the Trek books and read real science-fiction.

 

[kkozoriz1]

I do read "real" science fiction. Is it too much to ask that the books take the Trek concept further that the TV shows can due to having to tell their story in 45 minutes broken up by ads?

 

[BillJ]

I do read "real" science fiction. Is it too much to ask that the books take the Trek concept further that the TV shows can due to having to tell their story in 45 minutes broken up by ads?

I think as long as Star Trek is "human-centric" that will continue to be the only value set respected.

 

[kkozoriz1]

Sad but true. It would be nice to see the humans learn something from the aliens values rather that the other way around.

 

[BillJ]

Sad but true. It would be nice to see the humans learn something from the aliens values rather that the other way around.

This exchange from Reunion always depressed me:

PICARD: Mister Worf, your service aboard the Enterprise has been exemplary. Until now.
WORF: Sir, I have acted within the boundaries of Klingon law and tradition.
PICARD: The High Council would seem to agree. They consider the matter closed. I don't. Mister Worf, the Enterprise crew currently includes representatives from thirteen planets. They each have their individual beliefs and values and I respect them all. But they have all chosen to serve Starfleet. If anyone cannot perform his or her duty because of the demands of their society, they should resign. Do you wish to resign?
WORF: No, sir.

Seems to me he is saying that you can only serve in Starfleet if you respect human values.

 

[William Leisner]

At first, I thought to myself, "What irony that a long thread on LtP would start up during a self-imposed break from the TrekBBS board!"

Then as I read through it, I thought, "Boy, am I glad I haven't been reading this all along."

Is it too much to ask that the books take the Trek concept further that the TV shows can due to having to tell their story in 45 minutes broken up by ads?

Yes, in this case, it is too much to ask. You're talking about one small story beat in a 362-page novel about the aftereffects of an overwhelming humanitarian disaster. A side digression into S'ti'ach ethics and this one-off character's personal story would only have served to bloat and derail the scene, not to mention undercutting the themes of recovery and hope, and the character of Dr. Beverly Crusher.

And just because prose writers aren't limited to 45 minutes, or to 80K or 90K to tell their stories, that doesn't mean we can just go on and on as if we have diarrhea of the keyboard, or as if we're only writing for the internet. The Sasdren scenes serve a specific purpose in the novel, and they are exactly as long and detailed as they need to be to serve that purpose. If you want more... well, just keep your fingers crossed that some other author decides to explore it.

 

[Sci]

Sad but true. It would be nice to see the humans learn something from the aliens values rather that the other way around.

This exchange from Reunion always depressed me:

PICARD: Mister Worf, your service aboard the Enterprise has been exemplary. Until now.
WORF: Sir, I have acted within the boundaries of Klingon law and tradition.
PICARD: The High Council would seem to agree. They consider the matter closed. I don't. Mister Worf, the Enterprise crew currently includes representatives from thirteen planets. They each have their individual beliefs and values and I respect them all. But they have all chosen to serve Starfleet. If anyone cannot perform his or her duty because of the demands of their society, they should resign. Do you wish to resign?
WORF: No, sir.

Seems to me he is saying that you can only serve in Starfleet if you respect human values.

No, it's saying that you can only serve in Starfleet if you are willing to abide by Starfleet regulations and military law and by Federation law. You know -- the way any military organization would demand of its officers and crew.

 

[JD]

Well, if the shrinks and Dr.s do their jobs right, he won't want to. And as long as he does then obviously they haven't and will keep working with him until he does not. It kind of defeats the whole point of saving him if you're just going to let him kill himself as soon as he wakes up.

"Well, if the shrinks and Dr.s do their jobs right, he won't want to."
So, the only ones who want to commit suicide are either nut-cases or highly unbalanced individuals? This assumption on your part is debatable. Even more so in the trekverse, where 'normal' persons can commit suicide in vulcan, klingon, etc societies.

"And as long as he does then obviously they haven't and will keep working with him until he does not."
So, the individual is kept in a cell/under close supervision - in order to prevent him from comitting suicide - while he continulously undergoes therapy sessions, despite the fact that the tests show him as being 'normal' aka 'not unbalanced'?
This blatantly breaks this individual's right to freedom.

We DO have the right to live.
Do we have the obligation to live? in some cases, at least, my opinion is that we DO have the obligation to live.

You're not seriously saying that suicide is really a legitimate solution for people with social problems are you? I can see maybe if you have a medical problem that will cause pain and death, but (and I'm talking as a person who has contemplated suicide in the past here) pretty much all social problems can be solved in an other way. I know looking back, I would have wanted to have been treated if I had actually gone through with what I was thinking about.

I said social problems and an infirmity - being in a situation where the future will hold only more suffering. A situation which has similarities to being ill without any chance of a cure.

Of course, throughout history, there were situations where healthy, sane individuals commited suicide for a cause, in order to save loved ones, etc.

Ok, first off I am only talking about a situation like Sasdren's where the individual is very clearly depressed, and in that case the Dr.s and shrinks goal is to keep the patient alive and keep them from attempting suicide again, that is all I meant. As for the other situations you mention, they are totally different and really have no impact whatsoever on Sasdren's. I understand that perhaps there are extreme situations where it is understandable, such as for a terminally ill patient, or a cultural requirement (I don't really agree with this one personally, but I'm not from one of the those cultures).

 

[kkozoriz1]

Ok, first off I am only talking about a situation like Sasdren's where the individual is very clearly depressed, and in that case the Dr.s and shrinks goal is to keep the patient alive and keep them from attempting suicide again, that is all I meant. As for the other situations you mention, they are totally different and really have no impact whatsoever on Sasdren's. I understand that perhaps there are extreme situations where it is understandable, such as for a terminally ill patient, or a cultural requirement (I don't really agree with this one personally, but I'm not from one of the those cultures).

Where is it shown that Sasdren i depressed, let alone very clearly shown? He's unconscious the first time we meet him and he's gone for the second part of the story. We've seen cultures where suicide is not only accepted but required. Without knowing why he did what he did we cannot comment on his actions. It's treating an alien using human values. I;m not saying it needed to be pages and pages of background. A paragraph or two where we could have seen what led him to his decision would have been helpful. As it is we're expecting an alien being to react exactly as a human would. If suicide is a sign of mental illness and this can never be permitted why aren't Jehovah's Witnesses required to get blood transfusions to save their lives? They are permitted to refuse treatment, even if it will cost them their lives. It would not apply to their children, although many in their faith would disagree, because the child cannot make an informed decision.

 

[BillJ]

Sad but true. It would be nice to see the humans learn something from the aliens values rather that the other way around.

This exchange from Reunion always depressed me:

PICARD: Mister Worf, your service aboard the Enterprise has been exemplary. Until now.
WORF: Sir, I have acted within the boundaries of Klingon law and tradition.
PICARD: The High Council would seem to agree. They consider the matter closed. I don't. Mister Worf, the Enterprise crew currently includes representatives from thirteen planets. They each have their individual beliefs and values and I respect them all. But they have all chosen to serve Starfleet. If anyone cannot perform his or her duty because of the demands of their society, they should resign. Do you wish to resign?
WORF: No, sir.

Seems to me he is saying that you can only serve in Starfleet if you respect human values.

No, it's saying that you can only serve in Starfleet if you are willing to abide by Starfleet regulations and military law and by Federation law. You know -- the way any military organization would demand of its officers and crew.

Which are overwhelmingly human in nature.

The problem with this particular scene is that Worf isn't on duty. He doesn't commit this act of "cultural revenge" on Federation/Starfleet property or against Federation/Starfleet personnel. He committed an act that was proper for his culture.

For the life of me I cannot think where an alien culture has overridden a human one in Star Trek, with the exception of the Prime Directive retcon in Enterprise. Even then the human officers ignore it with impunity.

 

[JD]

Well, I think it's pretty self explanatory that he was depressed, and I can guarantee you that if any of what you've been talking about were actually the case it would have been mentioned in the book. That's one thing that really is important in this situation, it's book and if there was any reason why Crusher should not have saved him, it would have been mentioned. As a general rule, if there is something we need to know about the situation the author will tell us, and if they don't then it's obviously not important.

 

[kkozoriz1]

It's not self explanatory. There's no explanation at all. It may be self explanatory if the character were human but he's not.

It's like how NuSpock was only shown in a sympathetic light when he was rejecting his Vulcan side. When he told off the Science Academy and his romantic moment with Uhura. The rest of the time he's played as an uptight jerk. Kirk is played as a drunk and a general creep and he's the freaking hero. Why? because it seems that Alien = bad and Human = good. Aliens only seem to grow when they embrace human culture.

"Human rights. Why the very name is racist."
- Azetbur

 

[BillJ]

Well, I think it's pretty self explanatory that he was depressed, and I can guarantee you that if any of what you've been talking about were actually the case it would have been mentioned in the book. That's one thing that really is important in this situation, it's book and if there was any reason why Crusher should not have saved him, it would have been mentioned. As a general rule, if there is something we need to know about the situation the author will tell us, and if they don't then it's obviously not important.

Of course, Star Trek has taught us that humans are the pinnacle of virtue and should never be questioned. Without more information you'll never know if Crusher made the right decision for that particular patient.

 

[JD]

It's not self explanatory. There's no explanation at all. It may be self explanatory if the character were human but he's not.

It's like how NuSpock was only shown in a sympathetic light when he was rejecting his Vulcan side. When he told off the Science Academy and his romantic moment with Uhura. The rest of the time he's played as an uptight jerk. Kirk is played as a drunk and a general creep and he's the freaking hero. Why? because it seems that Alien = bad and Human = good. Aliens only seem to grow when they embrace human culture.

"Human rights. Why the very name is racist."
- Azetbur

Uh, just look at the situation he was in. That's really all the evidence we need to know he was depressed, and like I said before it's a book, and if he wasn't just depressed William Leisner would have told us. If any of what you guys have mentioned was the case it would have been brought up in the book. I'm sorry to say this but it's a book, and if we needed anymore information we would have been given it, and since we weren't then obviously it wasn't important.

Well, I think it's pretty self explanatory that he was depressed, and I can guarantee you that if any of what you've been talking about were actually the case it would have been mentioned in the book. That's one thing that really is important in this situation, it's book and if there was any reason why Crusher should not have saved him, it would have been mentioned. As a general rule, if there is something we need to know about the situation the author will tell us, and if they don't then it's obviously not important.

Of course, Star Trek has taught us that humans are the pinnacle of virtue and should never be questioned. Without more information you'll never know if Crusher made the right decision for that particular patient.

But if we needed more information it would have been given to us.
I'm sorry, but as much as some of us may hate to admit it, these are simply stories, and sometimes you really do need to take that into consideration when you're thinking about these kinds of things.

 

[Sci]

This exchange from Reunion always depressed me:



Seems to me he is saying that you can only serve in Starfleet if you respect human values.

No, it's saying that you can only serve in Starfleet if you are willing to abide by Starfleet regulations and military law and by Federation law. You know -- the way any military organization would demand of its officers and crew.

Which are overwhelmingly human in nature.

No, the Klingon Defense Force wouldn't let you serve if you didn't abide by Defense Force regulations and military law and by Klingon law, either.

The problem with this particular scene is that Worf isn't on duty. He doesn't commit this act of "cultural revenge" on Federation/Starfleet property or against Federation/Starfleet personnel. He committed an act that was proper for his culture.

He committed an act that was proper for one of his cultures.

Remember, Worf is not just a Klingon citizen. He is a Federation citizen, too, and has an obligation to abide by Federation law as well. It's entirely possible that in the Federation, killing someone without their consent is a crime that's covered under the concept of extra-territoriality -- it is illegal to kill someone except in self-defense if you are a Federation citizen, period, no matter whether or not you're actually in Federation territory or on a Federation ship. Or maybe it's covered under the Uniform Code rather than civilian Federation law. (Actually, given the "Blood Fever" fights that can legally occur on Vulcan, this seems more likely.)

Now, given that the act was legal under Klingon law and that Worf is also a Klingon citizen, it's improbable, even if homicide was extra-territorial for the UFP, that Starfleet would do much other than reprimand him. But he committed what is obviously a serious breach of ethics under the Federation and/or Starfleet code(s), and as such I don't think it's mere ethnocentrism of them to reprimand him for it.

The Federation has the right to demand that its officers and crew obey Federation dictates, too, y'know.

For the life of me I cannot think where an alien culture has overridden a human one in Star Trek,

Considering how often people point out that the Federation doesn't have absolute power over its Members' practices, I think that's unfair. It's improbable that Human culture allows ritual homicide in competing for a mate, for instance, but it's allowed on Vulcan.

 

[kkozoriz1]

For the life of me I cannot think where an alien culture has overridden a human one in Star Trek,

Considering how often people point out that the Federation doesn't have absolute power over its Members' practices, I think that's unfair. It's improbable that Human culture allows ritual homicide in competing for a mate, for instance, but it's allowed on Vulcan.

That's an intersting point. Would Spock be considered to be in his right mind wihile under the influence of Plak Tow? If he had actually killed Kirk would it be murder or would he be found not guilty by reason of insanity? Or would Starfleet not even consider charging him since it occured on Vulcan and was not part of his Starfleet duties?

 

[Sci]

For the life of me I cannot think where an alien culture has overridden a human one in Star Trek,

Considering how often people point out that the Federation doesn't have absolute power over its Members' practices, I think that's unfair. It's improbable that Human culture allows ritual homicide in competing for a mate, for instance, but it's allowed on Vulcan.

That's an intersting point. Would Spock be considered to be in his right mind wihile under the influence of Plak Tow? If he had actually killed Kirk would it be murder or would he be found not guilty by reason of insanity? Or would Starfleet not even consider charging him since it occured on Vulcan and was not part of his Starfleet duties?

My guess would be that Federation law probably specifically allows the Vulcan kal-if-fee if it's held in the controlled, ritualized manner that we saw in "Amok Time" -- officiated by a Vulcan religious or government authority, and thereby characterized as a consensual battle to the death that both parties have the right to refuse to enter if they so wish prior to its start.

A Klingon vengeance battle like we saw in "Reunion," though, would probably be a different matter -- those battles do not occur within the context of Federation law, and they are not organized beforehand by a government or religious authority, nor are they heavily ritualized and pre-planned. And it doesn't seem to me like both participants have the option of refusing to enter the battle -- if someone wants vengeance against you, you're pretty much forced to battle your way to your death or his/hers.

And I rather imagine that Federation law only allows consensual homicide in the context of specified battle rituals; I don't think that you can just waltz up to a guy on the street and say, "Hey, wanna battle to the death?" without one of you getting charged with murder. So Federation law probably recognizes the legitimacy of consensual homicide in the context of the Vulcan kal-if-fee ritual or the Andorian Ushaan, but not in a non-Federation ritual (especially one whose levels of consent are questionable), and not in a non-organized, non-ritualized, non-long-recognized-by-cultural-tradition context.

 

[BillJ]

non-long-recognized-by-cultural-tradition context.

Sir, I have acted within the boundaries of Klingon law and tradition.

But it is recognized as Klingon tradition and Picard says as much in Reunion.

Plus I'm confused why the Federation would deny rights to its' citizens that come from outside its' borders that it grants to those who are from Federation members?

Seems to me the Federation is full of double standards when it comes to morality.