most "wrong" episode...
- Thread starter magarity
- Start date
False analogy is false.
Did or did not the Valakians come to the stars and ask for help?
Application of the Prime Directive? I always thought it was called the "Prime" Directive because it was the first one tossed out the airlock when it was inconvenient. Either that or because it was the first one trotted out as an excuse for inaction when providing assistance would be time consuming or otherwise expensive.
Eh, I agree it was wrong, but it's not the same thing because nobody on that colony died. They just ended up switching places with the gassed Cardassian settlement.
I think the argument of molecular pre-destination as a replacement for the religious concept of fate is a little ridiculous. Even if it's true that, did we know the exact location of every particle in the universe, we could absolutely predict the future of the universe, then the ship arriving at that planet is part of that destiny.
And also, even if molecular predistination is true, from our perspective, we are making decisions in an uncertain future, and all we can do is predict the possible consequences of our actions. Archer knew the result of his actions was a civilization dying.
Getting back to Vreenak, the Bajorans were forced to kill way more innocent people than Vreenak in order to drive away the Cardassians. I don't see how you can make the 'The ends don't justify the means' argument here without advocating absolute pacificism in the face of all kinds of tyranny.
Inaction that causes people to die is exactly the same as action that causes people to die.
A good episode is one in which both sides of a moral issue can be intelligently defended. "Dear Doctor" does not qualify. Phlox's position is based on religious dogma, pure and simple. Dogma that's especially appalling coming from a medical doctor. There's no logical reason he wouldn't apply those beliefs to any and every patient.
"Bat'leth to the gut? Sorry pal. If you were dumb enough to piss off that Klingon, you deserve to die. Evolution."
"Bat'leth to the gut? Sorry pal. If you were dumb enough to piss off that Klingon, you deserve to die. Evolution."
Except there is no guarantee that said Maquis colony would be able to fully evacuate without any causalities, and Sisko never checked if said colony would have enough transports to evacuate everyone as well.
I really don't think the continuation of the status quo justifies the extreme action Sisko conducted, which, as highlighted throughout the episode, was much more based on a personal vendetta, not his Starfleet duty.
yep, also, Phlox is the same guy who was perfectly fine with transporting a slug from its natural environment and dropping it off on an entirely new planet!!! But he won't "interfere with evolution" when it comes to saving billions of sentient beings.
One of the "heroes," ladies and gentlemen-he cares more about a slug than a sentient civilization.
For the same reason that a handful of do-gooder passengers stopping the attackers on 9/11 is different than another handful of do-gooders building a time machine so they can go back and stop the hijackers.
Whether it be time travelers with prior knowledge or explorers from another realm, it is irresponsible to influence the cogs of that alien mechanism. The PD is there to define (or is supposed to define) where that mechanism begins and ends.
It's not perfect. I was never meant to be. Its purpose is to ensure that emotions and ethics never become a variable.
Of course it never works that way because no one can ever agree on where those defined boarders are supposed to be. But that's due more to the discrepancy in the writing than the imperative itself.
Like I said before, it's not moral; it's dubiously ethical at best; and it's certainly not just; but it has to be there in any civilization that wants to explore the universe and learn from it, not influence it. Because doing so would ultimately be counter productive.
I still haven't seen the episode, and at this point I just don't care. As a rule, Enterprise is pretty terrible; that's why I haven't watched it in eight years. But to be fair, all the other shows have fumbled with the problem. They can never seem to get it right. Granted, "Pen Pals" presented the issue much better--even if Picard had ultimately said "no."
I am, however, now interested in what the group's take on The Trolley Problem would be.
I'm not sure what you're implying here, but intellectual evolution =/= biological evolution. Knowledge is only one stage of intellectual development. However, being handed the knowledge skips over the prior steps and ultimately stunts their intellectual growth. As Bertrand Russell said, "Every increase in knowledge requires and increase in wisdom." There was no wisdom gained.
I'm sure you could teach people of Mesopotamia how to use a smart phone. But you'd never do it--for the same reason that, when your kid asks "Dad, what does pedantic mean?" You say, "Look it up."
I'm sure you could teach people of Mesopotamia how to use a smart phone. But you'd never do it--for the same reason that, when your kid asks "Dad, what does pedantic mean?" You say, "Look it up."
But I'm not going to allow the older sibling to die so the younger one can figure it out the hard way.
For the same reason that a handful of do-gooder passengers stopping the attackers on 9/11 is different than another handful of do-gooders building a time machine so they can go back and stop the hijackers.
Whether it be time travelers with prior knowledge or explorers from another realm, it is irresponsible to influence the cogs of that alien mechanism. The PD is there to define (or is supposed to define) where that mechanism begins and ends.
It's not perfect. I was never meant to be. Its purpose is to ensure that emotions and ethics never become a variable.
Of course it never works that way because no one can ever agree on where those defined boarders are supposed to be. But that's due more to the discrepancy in the writing than the imperative itself.
Like I said before, it's not moral; it's dubiously ethical at best; and it's certainly not just; but it has to be there in any civilization that wants to explore the universe and learn from it, not influence it. Because doing so would ultimately be counter productive.
I still haven't seen the episode, and at this point I just don't care. As a rule, Enterprise is pretty terrible; that's why I haven't watched it in eight years. But to be fair, all the other shows have fumbled with the problem. They can never seem to get it right. Granted, "Pen Pals" presented the issue much better--even if Picard had ultimately said "no."
I am, however, now interested in what the group's take on The Trolley Problem would be.
I'm not sure what you're implying here, but intellectual evolution =/= biological evolution. Knowledge is only one stage of intellectual development. However, being handed the knowledge skips over the prior steps and ultimately stunts their intellectual growth. As Bertrand Russell said, "Every increase in knowledge requires and increase in wisdom." There was no wisdom gained.
I'm sure you could teach people of Mesopotamia how to use a smart phone. But you'd never do it--for the same reason that, when your kid asks "Dad, what does pedantic mean?" You say, "Look it up."
sorry but this is nonsense on a lot of levels. First, you admit you haven't seen the episode-the basis of Phlox' decision is pure pseudoscience, a complete misunderstanding of evolution. He COULD NOT BE A DOCTOR if he had those beliefs, which was BillJ's point-a doctor "interferes" with the course of nature all the time. Just because it's another planet doesn't change the equation. You can't explore and make contact the way Enterprise does if you held to a rigid "non-inteference" doctrine, it would force you into isolationism for fear you'd be interfering.
Of course that's just the point. The PD hadn't been developed. And the point of the early seasons was to capture the naivete of the crew, and the dilemma's of interfering with a culture because they had to, wanted to, needed to, or just thought they were doing the right thing, versus the unknown ramifications of doing so.
yes! exactly-the "dilemma" doesn't work, nor is it meant to even be a dilemma-from the presentation of the episode from Phlox' point of view, we are meant to see that Archer "saw the light" when Phlox approves of him for basically accepting his nonsense pseudoscience.
This wasn't like "Tuvix"-the viewer wasn't meant to wonder about the decision, they were meant to overlook or ignore the misunderstanding of evolution on display here and respect Archer's decision.
Basically, it was a story that they had the end to before ever putting anything to paper. They didn't want any debate, they just wanted a pat on the back for their "bold" storytelling.
Much like Insurrection, they attempt to drive home that there is only one "correct" solution. At least Tuvix attempted to show that there was no correct decision.
It's funny, the two pieces of Trek I despise the most are the two that I know the best because of arguments like these.
Similar threads
