Pulaski and Riker clone killing ethical?

[marsh8472]

In regards to the killing of the clones of Pulaski and Riker during episode "Up the Long Ladder", was that an ethical act? Did they have the right to terminate them?

(Riker, La Forge and Pulaski beam straight in, and find adult-sized replicas of themselves in cloning tubes. With Kate's consent, Riker phasers them out of existence)
GRANGER: Stop! Murderers!
RIKER: Like hell! You're a damn thief!
PULASKI: Gentlemen, please.

"Killing your own clone is still murder." according to Odo in episode "A Man Alone"

 

[Ar-Pharazon]

I suppose it depends on whatever laws have been passed by the 24th century, or if there's still debate on when "life" begins.

 

[Tenacity]

was that an ethical act

Hard to say if it was illegal or murder, personally I find Riker's actions (and Pulaski's permission) be unethical. The two clones did nothing wrong, perform no offense, they stole no genetic material from either Riker or Pulaski.

So why kill them?

And specifically Pulaski, what about "do no harm?"

 

[Timo]

Does the Hippocratic Oath still exist in the future? Bashir readily shoots to kill, even if his victims usually didn't sign on as his patients first. And the only time our doctors struggled with the ethics of euthanasia was when McCoy had a personal stake.

(Yes, the EMH swears by it, literally. But this could be a safeguard specific to those dumb automatons.)

(And yes, Crusher in "Ethics" says the first tenet of good medicine is never making the patient any worse. But dead isn't necessarily "worse" for her - she does agree to an almost certainly lethal procedure there, and at the behest of her medical superiors, no less!)

I suppose it depends on whatever laws have been passed by the 24th century, or if there's still debate on when "life" begins.

Another factor is the extent of powers a Starfleet officer holds. The powers have a direct effect on ethics: what's wrong for a robber may be right for a cop, and what's wrong for a civilian may be right for a soldier, in the ethical sense. While there's no death penalty in Trek as such (indeed, "penalty" is replaced by "medical help" as a whole!), our heroes do exercise the power to kill dangerous opponents, even in situations where the danger is by no means direct, immediate or personal. If the existence of an illegal clone posed a danger to the society, specific rules might well exist that allow Riker and Pulaski to kill them, but forbid Jake Sisko or Mott the Barber from doing the same. Or then at least social mores would favor authorized soldiers exercising their professional judgement while frowning on civilians doing the same, regardless of the letter of law.

Timo Saloniemi

 

[Mr. Laser Beam]

"Killing your own clone is still murder." according to Odo in episode "A Man Alone"

That's different, because in that episode, Ibudan created his OWN clone with the express intent to kill it once it matured.

The clones of Riker and Pulaski were created without their knowledge or consent.

 

[Tenacity]

The clones of Riker and Pulaski were created without their knowledge or consent.

But also created without the consent of the clones themselves, they were not the offending parties.

If Riker wanted to punish someone for stealing the cells to make the clones, Riker's phaser was pointing in the wrong direction.

 

[Mr. Laser Beam]

Also, the clones were not yet mature. They weren't "alive".

I hate to do this, but...if it's legal for unborn babies to be aborted, why is it not legal for those clones to be terminated? If a mother has the right to do what she wishes with her body (including the fetus inside), why do Riker and Pulaski not also have the right to control what happens to clones that are created from THEIR bodies?

 

[Timo]

I guess the real difference in the above case would lie in whose law applies. Odo works on a station shared by Bajorans and Feds, but previously worked for Cardassians, and there's no indication he gives more than lip service to the laws of any of those parties. His own personal judgment rules supreme, and if he feels killing one's own clone is murder, he won't shy away from saying so.

Significantly, different Trek societies have very different ideas on right and wrong. That extends to all sorts of issues, but also to differences between UFP members. One can but conclude that laws and ethics don't play much of a role inside the UFP, except in the sense of favoring those who get dibs on a particular case.

Timo Saloniemi

 

[Kevman7987]

I view it the same way I view abortion.

Is it ethical in that it's legal? Yes.

Is it moral in my spiritual/religious view? No.

Now I am surprised however, that Will didn't vaporize Tom while yelling "NO MOAR CLONES!"

 

[Ar-Pharazon]

Another factor is the extent of powers a Starfleet officer holds. The powers have a direct effect on ethics: what's wrong for a robber may be right for a cop, and what's wrong for a civilian may be right for a soldier, in the ethical sense. While there's no death penalty in Trek as such (indeed, "penalty" is replaced by "medical help" as a whole!), our heroes do exercise the power to kill dangerous opponents, even in situations where the danger is by no means direct, immediate or personal. If the existence of an illegal clone posed a danger to the society, specific rules might well exist that allow Riker and Pulaski to kill them, but forbid Jake Sisko or Mott the Barber from doing the same. Or then at least social mores would favor authorized soldiers exercising their professional judgement while frowning on civilians doing the same, regardless of the letter of law.

Timo Saloniemi

Was the society in the Federation (I really can't remember)? If not, the prime directive should forbid them from imposing SF/Fed morals upon them. If yes, I'm not sure the law would allow them to kiil the clones. I don't think they could claim self-defense.
Possibly they could punish those who violated them by taking their genetic material without permission. Would any loophole also allow them to confiscate the clones?

 

[Mr. Laser Beam]

The colony was not part of the Federation. It was established several decades before the Federation ever existed.

And Riker and Pulaski aren't imposing their morals, they're exercising control over what was done with their own bodies. Besides, it could be argued that the introduction of their clones into the colony would itself be a violation of the Prime Directive, and thus they're acting to nullify that interference...

Also, yes, it is self defense. It was a violation for the genetic material to be extracted in the first place without RIker and Pulaski's consent. The mere existence of those clones, done without their authorization, is also a violation against them. Terminating the clones is self defense.

 

[JirinPanthosa]

Two differences between unborn babies and clones. Clones have a fully developed prefrontal cortex and thus are capable of thought and identity, and clones do not enlist the body of a third party for their survival.

 

[Armus]

In regards to the killing of the clones of Pulaski and Riker during episode "Up the Long Ladder", was that an ethical act? Did they have the right to terminate them?

(Riker, La Forge and Pulaski beam straight in, and find adult-sized replicas of themselves in cloning tubes. With Kate's consent, Riker phasers them out of existence)
GRANGER: Stop! Murderers!
RIKER: Like hell! You're a damn thief!
PULASKI: Gentlemen, please.

Great scene. Since Riker and Pulaski emphatically refused to donate their tissue, and their clones were still unconscious, I'd say it wasn't unethical for them to kill their clones.

 

[Mr. Laser Beam]

clones do not enlist the body of a third party for their survival.

Except on the second season of War of the Worlds.

 

[Tenacity]

they're exercising control over what was done with their own bodies

But the clones didn't steal the cells, they did nothing wrong.

and their clones were still unconscious

You can kill unconscious people?

(it's not like they're in a position to say no)

Defendant: "You see your Honor, at the time I raped the young man, he was unconscious."

 

[Mr. Laser Beam]

But the clones didn't steal the cells, the did nothing wrong.

You can kill unconscious people?

The clones weren't UN-conscious, they were NEVER conscious.

You can't kill what was never alive.

 

[tharpdevenport]

In my opinion, it is ethical. Human life has certain unalienable rights granted by the Creator, including life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, but a clone is not a creation of the Creator and does not have these rights, further more permission to do this wasn't even given.

A human life is trivial and meaningless if so easily replicated, and who you are as a person is diminished if you can simply be Xeroxed. Riker took a right stand.


Now, if a scientist wants to create some kind of unique clone that is not of any one person and has permission from the parities who were used as the templates, that's a different arugment. It may not have unalienable rights, but shouldn't it at least be given a chance to be him or herself?

 

[Mojochi]

One of the regularly debated topics from TNG. I'm still of the opinion that if it's being formed, cell by cell, directly into a fully adult human clone, (Pictured below) before it's a functional person (Unlike the more realistic embryonic type of cloning) then there is no way its organ function would possibly be capable of sustaining life during whatever that process would be. So, It's not a living being yet. Look at the picture. It looks like a jello molded glob. Human physiology would not be possible under those developmental conditions. It's a pile of lifeless, human shaped, biological matter. Therefore, not murder, not unethical, not even really all that disturbing

 

[φ of π]

Why didn't Picard kill Shinzon as soon as they found out he was a clone? After all, that DNA sample was taken without Picard's consent too...

 

[marsh8472]

Here's more arguments from the episode

They use the right to have control of their own bodies as justification to terminate clones

PICARD: Doctor, how desperate is the colony's situation?
PULASKI: They've got two or three generations, then the fading will be terminal. They're among the walking dead now. They just haven't been buried.
RIKER: I want the cloning equipment inspected. Who knows how many tissue samples were stolen. We certainly have a right to exercise control over our own bodies.
PULASKI: You'll get no argument from me.

They are against the idea of being cloned to stay unique

GRANGER: We need an infusion of fresh DNA. I was hoping that you would be willing to share some tissue samples.
RIKER: You want to clone us?
GRANGER: Yes.
RIKER: No way, not me.
GRANGER: How can you possibly be harmed?
RIKER: It's not a question of harm. One William Riker is unique, perhaps even special. But a hundred of him, a thousand of him diminishes me in ways I can't even imagine.
GRANGER: You would be preserving yourself.
RIKER: Human beings have other ways of doing that. We have children.
PICARD: I think you will find that attitude prevalent among all the Enterprise people.

Right to survive argument used as justification for stealing DNA. Stealing DNA used as justification to terminate clones.


(Riker, La Forge and Pulaski beam straight in, and find adult-sized replicas of themselves in cloning tubes. With Kate's consent, Riker phasers them out of existence)
GRANGER: Stop! Murderers!
RIKER: Like hell! You're a damn thief!
PULASKI: Gentlemen, please.
GRANGER: What else could we do? We asked for your help and you refused us. We're desperate. Desperate!
RIKER: And that gave you the right to assault us, to rob us.
GRANGER: We have the right to survive!