Losing the Peace - ethics question (spoilers)

[Sci]

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?

From a Federation perspective, the fact that a Klingon vengeance battle is held in an uncontrolled fashion in which both parties do not have the option of backing out probably means that, again, from the Federation's POV, Worf violated Duras's rights. The Federation is willing to abide by the rights of its citizens, including the right to choose to engage in consensual homicide, but it probably argues that its citizens do not have the right to violate the rights of others, even if foreign states say they do.

In other words: The fact that the Federation is tolerant of, say, the Klingon vengeance battle tradition does not mean that the Federation views Klingons as having a right to do so. There's a difference between being tolerant -- which in this context, means not telling a sovereign foreign power how it ought to run its society -- and refusing to stand up for what you believe is right. Moral relativism within limits.

To make a comparison: Most Americans today would find the concept of female genital mutilation to be horrific and deeply immoral. But there are also many who do not think the United States has the right to tell sovereign foreign states what practices they may or may not allow. The U.S. does have a practice that may be argued to be similar in the form of circumcision -- but, there again, very few men who've been circumcised report any trauma from this. So we can draw a comparison there between two cultures that have related practices with key differences that cause one culture to view its practice as acceptable and the other culture's as unacceptable. The U.S. allows circumcision because it does not view it as causing trauma in those who are circumcised, but it abhors female genital mutilation because of the trauma it causes; the Federation allows ritualized homicide when it's done with mutual consent, but it abhors Klingon vengeance battles because they are not carried out with mutual consent but are forced upon one party by the other.

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

Seems to me that you're confusing tolerance with an absolute belief in moral relativism.

 

[BillJ]

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

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?

From a Federation perspective, the fact that a Klingon vengeance battle is held in an uncontrolled fashion in which both parties do not have the option of backing out probably means that, again, from the Federation's POV, Worf violated Duras's rights. The Federation is willing to abide by the rights of its citizens, including the right to choose to engage in consensual homicide, but it probably argues that its citizens do not have the right to violate the rights of others, even if foreign states say they do.

In other words: The fact that the Federation is tolerant of, say, the Klingon vengeance battle tradition does not mean that the Federation views Klingons as having a right to do so. There's a difference between being tolerant -- which in this context, means not telling a sovereign foreign power how it ought to run its society -- and refusing to stand up for what you believe is right. Moral relativism within limits.

To make a comparison: Most Americans today would find the concept of female genital mutilation to be horrific and deeply immoral. But there are also many who do not think the United States has the right to tell sovereign foreign states what practices they may or may not allow. The U.S. does have a practice that may be argued to be similar in the form of circumcision -- but, there again, very few men who've been circumcised report any trauma from this. So we can draw a comparison there between two cultures that have related practices with key differences that cause one culture to view its practice as acceptable and the other culture's as unacceptable. The U.S. allows circumcision because it does not view it as causing trauma in those who are circumcised, but it abhors female genital mutilation because of the trauma it causes; the Federation allows ritualized homicide when it's done with mutual consent, but it abhors Klingon vengeance battles because they are not carried out with mutual consent but are forced upon one party by the other.

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

Seems to me that you're confusing tolerance with an absolute belief in moral relativism.

But when Spock fought the Koon-ut-kal-if-fee he was deep in the plak tow (blood fever) and not able to make rash decisions. Also, there seemed to be no way of surrendering once the female called for the challenge. So there is a lack of mutual consent.

Admit it... a double standard does exist.

 

[BillJ]

the Federation allows ritualized homicide when it's done with mutual consent, but it abhors Klingon vengeance battles because they are not carried out with mutual consent but are forced upon one party by the other.

This troubles me. You act like Worfs actions exist in a vacuum. Duras was sitting at the bus stop minding his own business when Worf came up and stuck a bat'leth in his chest.

Duras set the events in motion by committing murder and Worf punished him in a way consistent with Klingon law and tradition.

 

[kkozoriz1]

What about Worf killing Gowron in Tacking into the Wind? That wasn't planned or organized. I don't see the Klingons as being big on waiting for someone else to organize something or for the religious leaders to give their blessing. If they see a situation that they believe needs adressing, they address it either with words, fists or Bat'leths.

Just because somethings is done the way humans would do it doesn't mean that all the other races should as well.

 

[Sci]

But when Spock fought the Koon-ut-kal-if-fee he was deep in the plak tow (blood fever) and not able to make rash decisions.

I'll assume you mean "rational" rather than "rash."

I agree that Spock felt an intense biological compulsion to either mate or fight, but I don't agree that this translates to an inability to make the choice. We've seen Spock and other Vulcans make such choices before -- "Blood Fever" on VOY, for instance.

Also, there seemed to be no way of surrendering once the female called for the challenge. So there is a lack of mutual consent.

It's been a long time since I saw "Amok Time," but I don't recall there being a lack of an ability to back out of the fight and choose to mate rather than fight. And, indeed, we saw Vulcans make the choice to either fight or mate in "Blood Fever" and, later, in that late VOY episode where Tuvok undergoes pon farr. So I'm skeptical of the assertion that there's a lack of mutual consent.

Edited to add: However, in thinking about it, it occurs to me that you may have found another key factor that complicates Federation law with regards to ritualized homicide. If the Federation views one or both parties as being mentally incapable of making a choice not to engage in homicide due to biological factors beyond their control, then Federation law may not hold such individuals accountable for non-consensual homicide even if it does view such rituals as violating the rights of their participants. It may view it as the equivalent of a mental illness preventing the person who does the killing from being able to actually make a choice. This would contrast with the Klingon vengeance battles insofar as neither party has an uncontrollable biological urge to commit homicide and therefore neither party can claim an inability to make another choice. End edit.

the Federation allows ritualized homicide when it's done with mutual consent, but it abhors Klingon vengeance battles because they are not carried out with mutual consent but are forced upon one party by the other.

This troubles me. You act like Worfs actions exist in a vacuum. Duras was sitting at the bus stop minding his own business when Worf came up and stuck a bat'leth in his chest.

Duras set the events in motion by committing murder and Worf punished him in a way consistent with Klingon law and tradition.

Sure. But from a Federation perspective, Duras still had the right to live. In fact, since we know that the Federation doesn't have the death penalty except when it comes to Talos IV ("The Menagerie," TOS), that means that, from a Federation POV, Duras has an absolute right to live no matter what he does, period, and no one else has the right to kill him in vengeance for his murder of K'Ehleyr, period, unless Duras consents to a contest resulting in either party's homicide.

So unless you consent to battle to the death in a Klingon vengeance battle, from a Federation POV, such battles inherently constitute a violation of your right to live, irrelevant of any prior murders you may have committed.

By the way, that's another reason Picard might have been pissed at Worf. K'Ehleyr was a Federation citizen, was in fact the accredited Federation Ambassador to the Klingon Empire, and was murdered aboard a Federation starship (UFP territory, UFP law) by a Klingon citizen. By killing him, Worf denied the Federation of the ability to force the Klingon Empire by treaty to extradite Duras to the Federation and force Duras to face Federation justice for his crime against the Federation.

What about Worf killing Gowron in Tacking into the Wind? That wasn't planned or organized.

Depends on whether or not Gowron can be regarded as having consented to the fight. Since the Klingon Chancellor is always protected by the Yan-Isleth, my inclination is to suspect that Federation law would regard the decision to fight a challenger rather than order the Yan-Isleth to kill or detain said challenger as consent to battle and therefore to mutual potential homicide.

(It's also important to note, however, that the Federation would hardly object to someone killing the Chancellor whose rash decisions are risking the continued survival of the Federation and the rest of the Alpha Quadrant. That is morally inconsistent and a double standard, but it's also the sort of hypocrisy that even good people engage in sometimes.)

Just because somethings is done the way humans would do it doesn't mean that all the other races should as well.

It's not about "the way Humans would do it," it's about ensuring that no one's violating someone else's right to live and that everyone consents to the potential consequences of a fight. And it's not about the Federation controlling other cultures -- the UFP has never that we know of tried to get Klingons to end their violent rituals. It's about the Federation having a legal system that it requires its officers to adhere to if they want to serve in the Federation Starfleet. That's not unreasonable.

 

[Hartzilla2007]

in moral relativism.

But when Spock fought the Koon-ut-kal-if-fee he was deep in the plak tow (blood fever) and not able to make rash decisions. Also, there seemed to be no way of surrendering once the female called for the challenge. So there is a lack of mutual consent.

Admit it... a double standard does exist.[/QUOTE]

Actually Kirk was allowed to backout if he wanted to, he just (stupidly considering that Spock (THE EXPERT ON THE PRINCIPALS OF THIS FIGHT CONSIDERING YOU DIDN'T KNOW ABOUT IT UNTIL HE TOLD YOU) was telling you back out, YOU DUMBASS!(Kirk not the poster)) decided not to back out (because he didn't want to look like he was a wussy in front of T'Pau and the rest of Vulcan).

 

[BillJ]

in moral relativism.

But when Spock fought the Koon-ut-kal-if-fee he was deep in the plak tow (blood fever) and not able to make rash decisions. Also, there seemed to be no way of surrendering once the female called for the challenge. So there is a lack of mutual consent.

Admit it... a double standard does exist.

Actually Kirk was allowed to backout if he wanted to, he just (stupidly considering that Spock (THE EXPERT ON THE PRINCIPALS OF THIS FIGHT CONSIDERING YOU DIDN'T KNOW ABOUT IT UNTIL HE TOLD YOU) was telling you back out, YOU DUMBASS!(Kirk not the poster)) decided not to back out (because he didn't want to look like he was a wussy in front of T'Pau and the rest of Vulcan).

But Spock couldn't back out. T'Pring was simply required to chose another challenger.