Political systems in Star Trek
- Thread starter The Overlord
- Start date
Then again, the UFP is a society - and those are based on control, which necessarily involves judging and the exercise of power through (sometimes arbitrary) regulation of customs and mores.
I really can't see the UFP intervening with the armed forces at its disposal if a member culture revealed that its funeral practices involved the surviving spouse making passionate love to the deceased for one final time before the corpse was recycled for food in the nearest orphanage. That's just a weird custom - perhaps disgusting, but not harmful to anybody involved. The only reason to regulate/ban that would be to exercise the power of subjugation in order to hold the society together more tightly. And the Feds don't do that much. Kirk swallows his pride when dealing with futuro-hippies ("Way to Eden"), and only brings out the riot gear when being hippie is directly detrimental to the society and to the fundamental biological nature of human(oid) life ("This Side of Paradise"). Picard would probably not have interfered even in the latter case. And if there's gonna be a show about the 25th century or somesuch, I could easily see Starfleet heroes standing back if people choose to be assimilated into the Borg Collective, and musing how barbaric their predecessors were for trying to interfere.
I could well see the UFP military rolling in if the Deep Space Nine were banned from attending school along with the other kids, though. That's a harmful practice, even if it isn't disgusting.
Timo Saloniemi
I really can't see the UFP intervening with the armed forces at its disposal if a member culture revealed that its funeral practices involved the surviving spouse making passionate love to the deceased for one final time before the corpse was recycled for food in the nearest orphanage. That's just a weird custom - perhaps disgusting, but not harmful to anybody involved. The only reason to regulate/ban that would be to exercise the power of subjugation in order to hold the society together more tightly. And the Feds don't do that much. Kirk swallows his pride when dealing with futuro-hippies ("Way to Eden"), and only brings out the riot gear when being hippie is directly detrimental to the society and to the fundamental biological nature of human(oid) life ("This Side of Paradise"). Picard would probably not have interfered even in the latter case. And if there's gonna be a show about the 25th century or somesuch, I could easily see Starfleet heroes standing back if people choose to be assimilated into the Borg Collective, and musing how barbaric their predecessors were for trying to interfere.
I could well see the UFP military rolling in if the Deep Space Nine were banned from attending school along with the other kids, though. That's a harmful practice, even if it isn't disgusting.
Timo Saloniemi
You are a postmodern relativistic sicko who defends necrophilia and denies that there are universal truths like human rights.That obvious untruth? Nope, didn't miss it. Sanctity is a purely religious concept, as it hinges on irrationality aimed at satisfying supernatural demands. Your religion may vary, of course.
Which is more or less the exact opposite of necrophilia, where the corpse is put to good use and a pretty human face is (usually) a desirable aspect.
Another excellent point: there's nothing wrong with murder. According to mankind, that is. No culture known to current research has ever categorically condemned murder, and no known culture has failed to explicitly encourage it on all levels of society. It's just that various cultures have various standards and names for the sorts of murder that are fine and desirable and for those that are not.
In other words, you disqualify yourself from the discussion.
I don't care what happens to my body after I am dead, it's not my personal sh*t I base my argument upon but the universal concept of maintaining human dignity beyond death.Keep in mind that some cultures such as the Zoroastrians or certain Tibetan cultures just leave their dead out in the open to rot or be devoured by dogs they consider to be holy. Does this mean they have lost their humanity? You think your personal beliefs are universal moral concepts, they are not. There is simply no such thing as a universal morality. Also, you are trying to apply human values to non-humans(!), I can't even begin to tell you how wrong you are in that area...
Tibet has been a theocracy, hardly a place where you expect enlightenment principles to flourish. I doubt that the Chinese tolerate such burial practices. And yes, I just implicitly said the the occupiers are more enlightened than the locals who do such stuff.
Communist modernization was far nastier than capitalist modernization but also a path to modernity and while I fear that the Chinese model, i.e. capitalism without democracy, might spread worldwide and while I am opposed to their occupation of Tibet I nonetheless don't view Tibet as this lovely spiritual place all the Westerns think it is.
Reading skills are essential, I used the example of necrophilia to point out the limits of liberal logic. By the way, I am a Prime Directive dogmatist.
Sorry to be so blunt but it is tiresome to talk with people who distort one's views and deny the universality of European enlightenment. I don't tolerate postmodern crap.
Obviously, most of us are. Otherwise the world wouldn't be like it is. It's just that some of us are less honest about it than others.
Denial and defense are part of your arsenal as well, which is only natural. Narrowmindedness, too. Categorical cruelty towards others is less universal, though, and you are bordering on that if arguing that all lifestyles (and deathstyles) but one are unacceptable. It's merely incidental (and a bit comical) that by doing so you are already defeating yourself in the hopeless argument for universal morals.
Timo Saloniemi
I think there is a difference between people who don't understand and people who are just bullies. I think most people don't understand everything hence there are so many people in different groups. There's left and right; there's people in the middle; there's Christians; there's hippies, and there's PETA people. I think horatio83 is border line bullying. People have to moderate their behavior according to what is expected of them in their cultures, according to Budhhsim; that goes for everyone. But what is acceptable in different cultures that is different from us is totally different. You can't judge other culture base on our standards.
Where I come from not tolerating necrophilia and murder and standing up for human rights is not bullying but common decency.
You can play the postmodern game all you want, cannibalism, necrophilia and murder are universally wrong. I doubt that you would want to live next door to Hannibal Lector and a fellow who regularly makes love to your grandmother on the graveyard, I doubt that you would repeat the standard postmodern tale of "there are many cultures, many truths and many ways", I guess that you would call the police or deal with these folks yourself in a not-so-tolerant fashion.
You obviously do not understand that human rights are not our rights but universal rights.
You can play the postmodern game all you want, cannibalism, necrophilia and murder are universally wrong. I doubt that you would want to live next door to Hannibal Lector and a fellow who regularly makes love to your grandmother on the graveyard, I doubt that you would repeat the standard postmodern tale of "there are many cultures, many truths and many ways", I guess that you would call the police or deal with these folks yourself in a not-so-tolerant fashion.
I guess living next door to an intolerant person would be the more difficult ordeal, really. And even there the option of calling the police certainly exists - although intolerance is but an opinion, it's among those opinions one can be heftily fined or jailed for.
The relativism in the UFP goes the full nine lightyears both ways, though; there's no evidence of thought police there, and extremists are not sanctioned for their thoughts, merely for their actions. Which often means the cavalry arrives too late, but there you have it.
A right is always given by somebody in a position to do so - no rights exist in a vacuum. And the range of somebodies in this world is so broad and diverse that there can never be any universality to rights. Which, if you bothered to have a look around, would be what you saw. Nobody condemns murder. People just find pretty words to describe those types of murder they love, and ugly ones for the types they loathe. Not "liberal" or "relativist" people, but everybody from the darkest redneck to the most love-intoxicated hippie. If we ever manage to wrangle "rights" out of that, it's only by understanding each other, not by insisting that our words are the prettiest.
Timo Saloniemi
The relativism in the UFP goes the full nine lightyears both ways, though; there's no evidence of thought police there, and extremists are not sanctioned for their thoughts, merely for their actions. Which often means the cavalry arrives too late, but there you have it.
A right is always given by somebody in a position to do so - no rights exist in a vacuum. And the range of somebodies in this world is so broad and diverse that there can never be any universality to rights. Which, if you bothered to have a look around, would be what you saw. Nobody condemns murder. People just find pretty words to describe those types of murder they love, and ugly ones for the types they loathe. Not "liberal" or "relativist" people, but everybody from the darkest redneck to the most love-intoxicated hippie. If we ever manage to wrangle "rights" out of that, it's only by understanding each other, not by insisting that our words are the prettiest.
Timo Saloniemi
Do you mean liberty when you are saying people trying to understand each other? People having different view can tolerate one another without killing or acting out against the others? I don't think you have to completely understand someone to love someone, do you? I think that's what's great about love, and I also believe people should respect one another no matter what their believes and their differences are. People having different view is not necessary a bad thing; sometime others are right and sometime you're right. We all can learn from one another.
If you put the nazis or Khmer Rouge in there it becomes obvious why your postmodern relativist thinking is wrong. Why not tolerate thier diversity, why not try to understand them and listen to their stories?
Thankfully the allied forces have not played your disgusting postmodern game, they have not tolerated nazi crimes but bombed the sh*t out of my country to end the evil of the nazis.
I am all ears my necrophilia-defending friend, will you also defend the nazis? If you follow your denial of human rights line consequently you'd have to.
It is really strange to encounter people who don't care about the enlightenment on a Trek board. After all Trek is about the continuation of the enlightenment legacy and not one of these postmodern relativization games.
And lest our favourite necrophiliac distorts what I write again, so far we have talked about intraspeces ethics. Interspecies ethics is a totally different problem, here I am a PD dogmatist.
I think killing people should be illegal; slavery should be illegal. Those two things I will not tolerate, but I'm not going to bomb their country just because I think they are wrong. But WW II and the rise of the Nazi was the result of Allies interference and the rise of Khmer Rouge was the direct result of America interefernce; that's why I think interefering in foreign cultures and countries is wrong. We end up making things 100 times worse for the natives. America back Pol Pot, the leader of the Khmer Rouge, to fight the communists and he turned out to be a sociopath that murder millions of Cambodians. America installed a military junta in Thailand so the government would back America in Vietnam War allowing it to use Thailand for air strips in order to lauch air strike against the Vietnamese communists, and the worst part is Thailand has always been a peaceful nation. That's why we should stay from interfering in other country's political and societal affairs.
Nonsense, the rise of the nazis was not the result of Allied interference, they came to power in '33. You mistake cause and effect. The US liberated my country from the nazis, that's more like making things 100 times better for the natives.
I am the first one to view Western alliances with thugs during the Cold War in a critical light but you cannot generalize and claim that interference is always wrong. I'd even say that to bomb the sh*t out of Hitler and Milosevic was an ethical imperative.
I am the first one to view Western alliances with thugs during the Cold War in a critical light but you cannot generalize and claim that interference is always wrong. I'd even say that to bomb the sh*t out of Hitler and Milosevic was an ethical imperative.
Im talking about after WW I when the Bristish and French got together to humiliate the Germans by making them sign treaties that gave their territory away and trying to govern them accordingly. In a series of speeches of promises Hitler won the hearts of the German people. He promise them to deliver them out of poverty.
Sure, the reperations in Versailles treaty were too high but the deflationary policies during the Great Depression were the main cause of persistent unemployment which might have droven some Germany into the arms of the NSDAP. In other words, Brüning bears far more responsibility for Hitler than the Entente.
Back to the main issue, do you think that the world should behaved like tolerant postmodern relativist and allow Hitler to simply "tell his story" which means, after one has de-euphemized it, to conquer the world and eradicate the Jews?
Back to the main issue, do you think that the world should behaved like tolerant postmodern relativist and allow Hitler to simply "tell his story" which means, after one has de-euphemized it, to conquer the world and eradicate the Jews?
Nazi germany was only one of past civilisations who happily engaged in conquest/genocide/racism/etc.
And the 'it wasn't their fault' excuse is a straw-man - the germans and the ones before them had free will, they were not robots; they chose of their own accord what to be.
Moral relativism - I agree one should have such a view, but ONLY to a point.
After said point, you betray your own morals by having such a view - tolerating everything, simply because said behaviour is permisible by the perpetrator's morals. And you are being suicidal.
Would you allow a person to rape your wife and daughter because, in this person's culture, said actions are honourable and, indeed, desirable?
Would you allow such a person to kill you - or some other poor souls who cry for your help?
I wouldn't. And I view this as a reason of pride.
And the 'it wasn't their fault' excuse is a straw-man - the germans and the ones before them had free will, they were not robots; they chose of their own accord what to be.
Moral relativism - I agree one should have such a view, but ONLY to a point.
After said point, you betray your own morals by having such a view - tolerating everything, simply because said behaviour is permisible by the perpetrator's morals. And you are being suicidal.
Would you allow a person to rape your wife and daughter because, in this person's culture, said actions are honourable and, indeed, desirable?
Would you allow such a person to kill you - or some other poor souls who cry for your help?
I wouldn't. And I view this as a reason of pride.
That's a tough question, but remember most of these thing started with foriegn powers interference. The rise of Hitler and Pol Pot. Hitler was bent on conquering the world and the Axis Powers bombed the U.S. at Pearl Harbor; we had no choice but to join the war because it would eventually dragged us into it. But the problem started with foreign interference. I don't think it would have been that bad if we left the people of that nation to solve their own problem; but that's not what happened, did it? They didn't need to start WWI to begin with... We can try to be friends with other developing nations, trade with them and finding a diplomatic solution in order to change their mind instead of bombing them like we see in Vietnam. IF people prosper from the trade, then they're not going to kill each other, but instead right after WWI we see the Allied humiliating the Germany and we cause the politics in their country to turn down the wrong way because of it. The Shar of Iran wasn't that bad either, but because of the U.S. interference we allowed the Islamist extremists to come to power.
AFter you get rid of one ruler, who do you intend to replace him with? An extremist? They're not going to tell you that they are because they want control of the country.
AFter you get rid of one ruler, who do you intend to replace him with? An extremist? They're not going to tell you that they are because they want control of the country.
Paradon
This isn't about overanalysing how Assyria...Pol Pot's Cambodgia...Nazi Germany end up the way they did (noone forced them to become gruesome killers - of their own people or of others).
That's a diversion you came up with to avoid answering the questionn I posed you.
This is about what you do after they chose to become what they were and started acting on it - conquering, stealing and killing.
You think it's a tough question whether or not:
"Would you allow a person to rape your wife and daughter because, in this person's culture, said actions are honourable and, indeed, desirable?
Would you allow such a person to kill you - or some other poor souls who cry for your help?"
Really?
Frankly, I find your position grotesque.
And I would not want to be a part of your family or your neighbour.
This isn't about overanalysing how Assyria...Pol Pot's Cambodgia...Nazi Germany end up the way they did (noone forced them to become gruesome killers - of their own people or of others).
That's a diversion you came up with to avoid answering the questionn I posed you.
This is about what you do after they chose to become what they were and started acting on it - conquering, stealing and killing.
You think it's a tough question whether or not:
"Would you allow a person to rape your wife and daughter because, in this person's culture, said actions are honourable and, indeed, desirable?
Would you allow such a person to kill you - or some other poor souls who cry for your help?"
Really?
Frankly, I find your position grotesque.
And I would not want to be a part of your family or your neighbour.
No, i will not allow the person to rape my daughter or my children. I'll break all his teeth.
Let me ask you this? Have you ever had any relatives die in a war? that's what happened in WWI! People died and they were humilated! How would you like it if you father got kill in the war by the opposing nations and then they wasted your country away. This is why starting a war is bad. Every great military tactician and strategist, like Tsung Su, said so. You can make angry people happy again, but you can't bring back dead people. that's what Tsung su said!
Let me ask you this? Have you ever had any relatives die in a war? that's what happened in WWI! People died and they were humilated! How would you like it if you father got kill in the war by the opposing nations and then they wasted your country away. This is why starting a war is bad. Every great military tactician and strategist, like Tsung Su, said so. You can make angry people happy again, but you can't bring back dead people. that's what Tsung su said!
Good to know you at least have limits to your moral relativism.
Of course I would suffer and I would be pissed if my father died in a war!
But I would not react to this by supporting a genocidal conquest program.
About Sun Tzu (that's his name):
First - it's not connnected with the main conversation subject.
Second - Paradon, WW2 was started by nazi Germany. The extermination of jews was utterly gratuitous - and also started by Germany.
Third - Sun Tzu never said starting a war is 'bad' in all cases - he wasn't very politically correct (that's because the world we live in isn't politically correct).
He - and all other strategists deserving of the name - also said the only way to win a war (any war) is to gain the initiative AKA 'staing' neutral and hoping your genocidal neighbours won't attack/kill you when they're ready is suicidal.
You know sometimes when you have someone in power you kindda go with the group. That's called group mentality. It is wrong in the case of Nazi Germany. It is revolting, but this sort of things do happen when people actually got blown to pieces! This is why Christianity and Buddhism preach forgiveness.
Similar threads
