Spoilers "Measure of a man": I really dislike that the secular world of Star Trek they speak of "soul" as a requirement to prove that a being deserve freedom

[Skipper]

Many consider "Measure of a Man" to be one of the best Star Trek episodes. While I appreciate the actors' great performances, I'm a little less enthusiastic.

A quick recap: Data is ordered to undergo a dangerous experiment that could destroy his personality and memories. Data refuses and decides to resign from Starfleet.

A legal hearing is held to determine whether Data is a person with the right to make his own choices, or simply Starfleet property. Captain Picard argues that Data is a sentient being and that treating him as property could lead to the creation of an entire race of artificial slaves. The discussion up to that point had largely focused on what it means to be sentient and whether Data fit the definition. Before the hearing, the JAG had ruled against Data, saying he (it?) was Star Fleet property based on the "Cumberland Acts."

At the end of the hearing, no new facts had emerged compared to the beginning. A definitive definition of sentience had not been reached. It had not been proven whether Data fit into it or not.

Then the JAG does this bizarre spech:

Is Data a machine? Yes. Is he the property of Starfleet? No. We have all been dancing around the basic issue. Does Data have a soul? I don't know that he has.

Woman. What. The. Heck. You are talking about?!?

This is so wrong on so many levels that I don't know where to begin.

1. We don't know how to precisely define sentience, let alone a soul.
2. Defining the soul as a requirement for freedom reminds me a little too much of the reasoning of those who wanted to enslave indigenous people by claiming they didn't have souls.
3. I think if a judge used the word "soul" today, IRL, in a legal proceeding, there would be such a ruckus that it would end up in the textbooks.

Some have tried to defend the use of the word "soul" by arguing that in the context of the episode, it isn't used in the religious sense we understand today. It's a shame the episode doesn't explain what she means.

As I mentioned in the title, in the secular world of Star Trek, the use of the word "soul" is very annoying. Yes, I know some might cite the example of the katra and whatever. But it's clear that the episode isn't talking about anything like that.

Furthermore, the use of the "soul" argument in the context of the episode makes no sense. Neither Picard nor Riker mentioned "soul." The crux of the hearing was whether or not Data's case fell under the nebulous "Acts of Cumberland" (which we, the audience, are told practically nothing about and therefore can't even form an opinion).

It's only the JAG at the end that shifts the case to a spiritual/metaphysical level. They should be talking about law and rules, not abstract discussions. If she felt she wasn't capable of judging the case, she could have simply postponed the decision until more competent people could decide (in the episode, it's not even clear why there's such a rush to reach a decision).

I've noticed, however, that I'm pretty much the only one bothered by the use of the word "soul" in this episode, and I'm wondering if I'm missing something. I understand that "soul" could be shorthand for something else, but unfortunately the episode doesn't specify what that "something else" is supposed to be.

So I'm curious to hear your opinions. Am I misunderstanding something?

 

[Catboots]

Yeah it bothers me too, but I am bothered by real life courts asking folk to swear on the bible, yet will dismiss "the Devil made me do it" "God asked me to kill him" as unscientific/unprovable defences. Seems like a double standard?

For the episode in question, I'm also surprised they didn't raise the issue of Data's creator, Soong. It's been a while since I watched it, but was he believed dead at the time? Because we know he wasn't dead (he turns up very much alive in a later episode), and surely ownership rights would require Starfleet to prove Soong was dead and thus unable to claim ownership of Data. I mean I don't think Soong should claim ownership, but if Starfleet can, then Soong damn well could as well. Imagine the legal fuss if they claimed ownership of Data, dismantled him completely, then Soong showed up and said "Hey guys, anyone seen my android?".

I seem to recall the nitpickers guide book raising the issue as well that Data had to be recognised as a sapient individual with rights in order to join Starfleet and hold a commission. Otherwise a toaster could hold the rank of Lt Cmdr as well! So the matter of his legal status should have been answered the moment he applied to Starfleet Academy and was granted a place there.

Mentioning a soul is silly though. Does Data have a soul? I dunno, do any of us? Do any of you in the court? Really? Can you prove it?

 

[Tosk]

You left out the next line she says.

"We have all been dancing around the basic issue. Does Data have a soul? I don't know that he has. I don't know that I have."


I take "Does Data have a soul" more to generally mean something more like "Does Data contain that ineffable spark of life or is he a simulation of life?"

"Soul" remains a way of expressing certain things, such as the way they often refer to how many "souls on board" when a ship is lost with all hands (As happened recently on SNW) or when a location is seemingly empty, "Not a soul around". ...When something stirs the soul, soul searching, etc.

Edit: In regards to the thread title. "I really dislike that the secular world of Star Trek they speak of "soul" as a requirement to prove that a being deserve freedom"

I don't agree with that assessment. Louvois mentions it once, asks herself if Data has a soul. Admits she doesn't know if she does. Then immediately says, "...I have got to give him the freedom to explore that question himself. It is the ruling of this court that Lieutenant Commander Data has the freedom to choose."

 

[Skipper]

You left out the next line she says.

"We have all been dancing around the basic issue. Does Data have a soul? I don't know that he has. I don't know that I have."


I take "Does Data have a soul" more to generally mean something more like "Does Data contain that ineffable spark of life or is he a simulation of life?"

"Soul" remains a way of expressing certain things, such as the way they often refer to how many "souls on board" when a ship is lost with all hands (As happened recently on SNW) or when a location is seemingly empty, "Not a soul around". ...When something stirs the soul, soul searching, etc.

Edit: In regards to the thread title. "I really dislike that the secular world of Star Trek they speak of "soul" as a requirement to prove that a being deserve freedom"

I don't agree with that assessment. Louvois mentions it once, asks herself if Data has a soul. Admits she doesn't know if she does. Then immediately says, "...I have got to give him the freedom to explore that question himself. It is the ruling of this court that Lieutenant Commander Data has the freedom to choose."

Even if it was the real meaning, what does this have to do with the case in question? Now, to know if an alien species is sentient, you have to figure out whether it has a soul or not?

But if the whole issue is about the soul or not, why had the JAG already decided against Data before the hearing? And why does it become an issue after the hearing, given that no one had mentioned a "soul." The discussion was whether Data was a machine (which no one denied) and whether he was property of Starfleet (which no one during the hearing offered evidence either for or against). But suddenly it becomes a metaphysical issue?

 

[Skipper]

Incidentally, I don't know if I have a soul either, and I don't know if my smartphone does either. Since we can't know, should we give it the freedom to discover it for itself, along with all the associated liberties?

 

[Catboots]

I don't agree with that assessment. Louvois mentions it once, asks herself if Data has a soul. Admits she doesn't know if she does. Then immediately says, "...I have got to give him the freedom to explore that question himself. It is the ruling of this court that Lieutenant Commander Data has the freedom to choose."

See, I don't think her qualifier there contradicts the issue the op raised. She isn't effectively saying "You don't need a soul for freedom in the Federation", what I read that as is "I don't know if I or Data have a soul, but just in case he does have one I'll give him the benefit of the doubt and grant him freedom". Which sounds like yes a soul is important for being recognised as a free being, but since they can't be certain one way or the other, they'd rather grant him freedom just in case than risk denying freedom to someone who does have a soul.

Sorta like saying "We can't prove you're innocent or guilty, so we're gonna let you go free rather than risk sentencing an innocent man to death. But if you were guilty we'd totes execute you."

Which is kinda effed up. And does feel like a religious bias slipping into the writing IMO.

Edit: To clarify, the analogy I used was meant to illustrate that it sounds as if Data not having a soul is a crime, and a crime punishable by death no less! And that they are only sparing him in this case because they aren't 100% certain he is guilty of that crime. But that being a crime at all, much less one punishable by death (being dismantled) is ... really messed up in Star Trek. It implies that if someone in a Trek court can prove a sapient being doesn't have a soul (somehow), then said being would be stripped of all rights and freedom. Which sounds bad!

 

[Mudd]

The Federation is a secular Utopia. The notion that humanity as a whole species will march under that flag was always nonsense.

 

[BillJ]

I think this thread is nonsense and I say that as someone who is agnostic.

She’s just using shorthand for whatever spark that makes us what we are. She doesn’t know if Data has that spark.

 

[Skipper]

I think this thread is nonsense and I say that as someone who is agnostic.

She’s just using shorthand for whatever spark that makes us what we are. She doesn’t know if Data has that spark.

You can say that for everything.

And since we don't know if Data has it (and she doesn't even know if she has it herself) and it's something unknowable, why talk about it at all? Especially since it's used as an argument in favor of the decision?

 

[BillJ]

You can say that for everything.

And since we don't know if Data has it (and she doesn't even know if she has it herself) and it's something unknowable, why talk about it at all? Especially since it's used as an argument in favor of the decision?

They had forty-eight minutes to tell the story. And there is a spark that makes us what we are. Soul is just as good of word as any to use as shorthand for it.

This episode premiered when I was seventeen and far more hostile to religion and the ideas that drove it and I had no issue picking up what they were putting down.

I’m glad they didn’t try to get into the nuts and bolts of existence, it would’ve made the episode more of a slog than it already was.

 

[Mojochi]

Eh... I agree it was a dumb way for her to have worded it, under the circumstances, which I chalk up to 80s tv writers were rather sappy & soapy. I don't agree that "Does he have a soul?" is what this all boils down to anyhow. The crux of the trial wasn't about whether he has a soul or a spark of uniquely higher sapience, like we possess etc... Ultimately, it's about things like personhood & free will, and how we recognize those, as a default outside of the metaphysical

It's interesting to note that the episode's dialog was heavily altered from the working script. Her particular ruling wasn't even completed here, & then they probably cut & changed things for time constraints
https://www.st-minutiae.com/resources/scripts/135.txt

The whole episode is marinaded in conceits & plot holes, that you have to just accept, dismiss (or in my case imagine your own head canon for) for the sake of having the story be presentable at all. Her offhanded phrasing is by far not the most egregious foible imho

 

[Skipper]

The whole episode is marinaded in conceits & plot holes, that you have to just accept, dismiss (or in my case imagine your own head canon for) for the sake of having the story be presentable at all. Her offhanded phrasing is by far not the most egregious foible imho

The more you think about it, the less sense the story makes. For example, why is there such a rush and can't they wait for someone more qualified to discuss the matter? I know, the answer is "because otherwise there wouldn't have been an episode," but no one in-universe explains why there's this metaphorical ticking bomb and everything has to be rushed.

I think this episode is held in high regard because (aside from the excellent performances by the actors) simply because what came before wasn't very good.

 

[Skipper]

Yeah it bothers me too, but I am bothered by real life courts asking folk to swear on the bible, yet will dismiss "the Devil made me do it" "God asked me to kill him" as unscientific/unprovable defences. Seems like a double standard?

Every time I see someone swearing during a trial in an American movie or TV show, I'm perplexed. Why involve God? So, is an atheist free to perjure?

I recently had to testify during a trial here in Italy, and this is what I had to say (Google translation)

Aware of the moral and legal responsibility that I assume with my deposition, I undertake to tell the whole truth and to hide nothing of what is in my knowledge.

For the episode in question, I'm also surprised they didn't raise the issue of Data's creator, Soong. It's been a while since I watched it, but was he believed dead at the time? Because we know he wasn't dead (he turns up very much alive in a later episode), and surely ownership rights would require Starfleet to prove Soong was dead and thus unable to claim ownership of Data. I mean I don't think Soong should claim ownership, but if Starfleet can, then Soong damn well could as well. Imagine the legal fuss if they claimed ownership of Data, dismantled him completely, then Soong showed up and said "Hey guys, anyone seen my android?".

Yes, at the time, he was believed to be dead, and he was fine with that. And he probably didn't even need to know exactly where Data was. He had this distant call to make him come wherever he was.

I seem to recall the nitpickers guide book raising the issue as well that Data had to be recognised as a sapient individual with rights in order to join Starfleet and hold a commission. Otherwise a toaster could hold the rank of Lt Cmdr as well! So the matter of his legal status should have been answered the moment he applied to Starfleet Academy and was granted a place there.

We'd actually already discussed this in another thread. The general consensus was that the famous panel that had decided to admit him to the Academy didn't also have the authority to make him a full citizen of the Federation. A bit far-fetched, but I'll accept it.

Mentioning a soul is silly though. Does Data have a soul? I dunno, do any of us? Do any of you in the court? Really? Can you prove it?

Yep! And this was also one of the key points for ruling in favor of Data!

 

[Skipper]

They had forty-eight minutes to tell the story. And there is a spark that makes us what we are. Soul is just as good of word as any to use as shorthand for it.

So can we say that the ending of the episode simply doesn't make much sense, and that it's not the masterpiece everyone says it is?

 

[BillJ]

So can we say that the ending of the episode simply doesn't make much sense, and that it's not the masterpiece everyone says it is?

I think I already made my feelings about the episode known…

…it would’ve made the episode more of a slog than it already was.

 

[BillJ]

So can we say that the ending of the episode simply doesn't make much sense, and that it's not the masterpiece everyone says it is?

It was a slavery allegory. The soul thing doesn’t come out of no where. Minorities not having a soul is what many Americans used to comfort themselves when exploiting them.

 

[Skipper]

It was a slavery allegory. The soul thing doesn’t come out of no where. Minorities not having a soul is what many Americans used to comfort themselves when exploiting them.

The problem is that this allegory comes completely out of nowhere. Up until that point, there had been a debate, quite an interesting one, about whether Data was sentient or not.

Then, BAM!, the Jag says "We have all been dancing around the basic issue. Does Data have a soul?".

What did the Jag want? For Picard and Ryker to engage in a theological discussion about whether androids have souls?

 

[Mudd]

You can say that for everything.

Of course.

The show made as much sense as Trek's moral commentary ever does.

 

[Tosk]

Even if it was the real meaning, what does this have to do with the case in question?

"Does Data contain the spark of what we call life or is he a simulation" is the whole point. The JAG is ruminating and decides that Data is not property, he is a person. She's using flowery terms to state her thinking process to the people in attendance.

Now, to know if an alien species is sentient, you have to figure out whether it has a soul or not?

No. The Data thing only happens because he is not "alive".

 

[BillJ]

The problem is that this allegory comes completely out of nowhere. Up until that point, there had been a debate, quite an interesting one, about whether Data was sentient or not.

It really doesn’t as Picard and Guinan have a discussion about disposable people.

I’m not as enamored by the episode as most folks, but I give them credit for trying.