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

[Tosk]

The Search for Spock used the S-word first (in this context).

And TOS did it first before that. Kirk saying that Landru did not have a soul.

 

[Nerys Myk]

Part of the charm of Trek, for me, is in the diversity of storytelling. If I want a legal show I can just go watch a legal show.

It can be a legal drama one week. A story on medical ethics the next week. And horror the week after that.

 

[XCV330]

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:



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.

Vulcans do. They keep the silly things in jars, sometimes.

 

[AntonyF]

I have two issues with this idea.

1) I like many people would see it as just that which is you... "I think therefore I am". I think we have souls. I do not think there is a god or an afterlife. I mean when you say a singer has soul, it doesn't mean you're saying they're going to some religious afterlife.
2) It's written by human writers. They use terms that people understand, sometimes imprecisely. Data says myself when he means me. Why would an android get that wrong? Well, because the writers got it wrong. The writers use our muddy language, not always with exacting standards.

As an atheist I see this as such a non-issue.

 

[JirinPanthosa]

I really think she meant the metaphorical soul. Basically saying "Does Data experience life with the same emergent quality of sentience that we do?"

 

[Oddish]

I think it's pretty simple: in the Star Trek universe, souls exist, as a tangible phenomenon. In the ENT Vulcan trilogy, Archer was carrying Surak's katra, in essence his soul. In light of that, a person acknowledging the existence of the "spark of life" as a soul is pretty reasonable.

 

[Skipper]

1) I like many people would see it as just that which is you... "I think therefore I am". I think we have souls. I do not think there is a god or an afterlife. I mean when you say a singer has soul, it doesn't mean you're saying they're going to some religious afterlife.

Of course I understand that 'soul' is a term that varies depending on the context. If someone tells me a chef put his soul into preparing a dish, I understand they haven't extracted its spiritual essence and used it as an ingredient.
The problem is that what we're seeing is essentially a trial (yes, I know it's technically a hearing, but they're essentially debating whether or not to sentence Data to death). So there shouldn't be any ambiguity, and up to that point the discussion has been strictly technical. And it's not defined what "soul" means in that particular context. And JAG herself says she doesn't know if she has one.
So we're talking about something undefined, whose definition is ambiguous, the "judge" himself can't say if it exists, and is that the basis for whether Data will be free or not?
It's an excellent precedent for similar trials in the future. It's such a vague definition that one might even say we don't know whether a rock has a soul and therefore we should give it the same rights as all the others.

I really think she meant the metaphorical soul. Basically saying "Does Data experience life with the same emergent quality of sentience that we do?"

That's literally what they've been discussing up until that point. Until the JAG says, "STOP EVERYONE!!!! Does he have a SOUL!?!"

I think it's pretty simple: in the Star Trek universe, souls exist, as a tangible phenomenon. In the ENT Vulcan trilogy, Archer was carrying Surak's katra, in essence his soul. In light of that, a person acknowledging the existence of the "spark of life" as a soul is pretty reasonable.

If they were talking of a tangible and demonstrable phenomenon, then there were the means to prove its existence. But JAG herself claims not to know if she has one.
No, her argument was purely metaphysical.

 

[AntonyF]

The problem is that what we're seeing is essentially a trial (yes, I know it's technically a hearing, but they're essentially debating whether or not to sentence Data to death). So there shouldn't be any ambiguity, and up to that point the discussion has been strictly technical.

It had been strictly technical as you're conflating the trial with her comments after the verdict.

The trial was to decide if Data was the property of Starfleet. That was the question that was setup. That is what was debated. And her decision was that he was not property.

She sort of postscripts it with that "We have all been dancing around the basic issue." So she acknowledges that the trial was for the question about property... but they were was the elephant in the room: is he alive, does he have a soul, is he sentient etc? But that was a postscript.

The trial was clear: was he property or not, and the decision was not he wasn't property. No question was asked, no question answered, on whether he had a soul or otherwise. That only came up after the decision and him having a soul was never discussed before the verdict.

 

[Skipper]

That only came up after the decision and him having a soul was never discussed before the verdict.

I reread a transcript and the JAG talks about the soul BEFORE issuing the verdict.

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. But 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.

It is clear that the question of "soul" (whatever that means) is absolutely central to JAG's decision.