There was a similar situation on DS9, although there someone created a clone of themselves and killed it. When Odo arrested the guy at the end he said "murdering your own clone is still murder."
Pulaski and Riker clone killing ethical?
- Thread starter marsh8472
- Start date
It appears to be completely ethical, both in the sense of it apparently being legal and of it being the morally right thing to do, given that both Pulaski and Riker objected to being assaulted and used for seed in this manner; had one or both of them destroyed the developing lifeforms just for shits and giggles it would have been unethical.
Shinzon was awake, aware and capable of defending himself. If Picard had tried anything, he'd have a fight on his hands.
And unlike the clones in TNG, killing Shinzon WOULD have been murder, because Shinzon was alive and conscious. The TNG clones were neither.
Umm, so killing somebody in his sleep is not quite murder?
As for being alive, Trek people should probably be giving more leeway there than us, not less. We may squabble about whether a fetus or a flatlining coma patient is alive. They need to ponder whether a corpse that has been rotting for two years is "really dead" because he could be revitalized with a single hypospray, uploaded from a computer, re-established through time travel, or be interpreted as an all-new lifeform in the broad zombie category. Conversely, they may have to ask whether the briskly walking and smoothly talking youngster in front of them is "really alive" because he's just a possessed corpse, a hologram, a physically manifesting figment of somebody's imagination, a clone, a mime, an echo...
Timo Saloniemi
As for being alive, Trek people should probably be giving more leeway there than us, not less. We may squabble about whether a fetus or a flatlining coma patient is alive. They need to ponder whether a corpse that has been rotting for two years is "really dead" because he could be revitalized with a single hypospray, uploaded from a computer, re-established through time travel, or be interpreted as an all-new lifeform in the broad zombie category. Conversely, they may have to ask whether the briskly walking and smoothly talking youngster in front of them is "really alive" because he's just a possessed corpse, a hologram, a physically manifesting figment of somebody's imagination, a clone, a mime, an echo...
Timo Saloniemi
What suggests that they haven't in this case? Suspension of disbelief is a pretty important part of this show. If Pulaski has studied their cloning process, & signs off on its destruction during its current developmental stage, is it not reasonable to accept that she knows it's not a live functional organism? In many cases we've seen her to be a competent & ethical doctor. So it's pretty easy to say she is here too. She's been working in their medical facility all day & has familiarized herself with what they're doing. She'd have to be a pretty cruel person to let one be terminated, if she knew otherwise. All accounts point to her not being that kind of person. It's pretty fair to suggest she & Riker know they aren't alive beforehand. At least we have no real verification to say otherwise
This is what I never get about the "It's murder" argument. It baselessly belies everything we know about these characters, in order to fabricate an outrage that just holds no water in this circumstance, imho
Last edited:
Bingo.
She's not perfect though. Her judgement nearly got herself killed during episode "unnatural selection".
but her judgement was to set up conditions such that no one else BUT her could be put in danger. She knew the risk. She knows her duty, to safeguard other people's lives. Besides, that example was of a condition she knew little about. She seemed fully knowledgeable about this cloning process. Remember, they're humans. It's likely a well documented process already. Again, no substantial reason to doubt she knows what she's doing here, & is fully respectful of her ethical responsibility
She may be an authority on medicine but this does not make her an authority on ethics and philosophical issues like what life and sentience are. As I recall she had to come to terms with Data being considered alive when she first started.
There's this dialogue that is telling how far along they are in answering questions like that
DATA: Doctor, what is the definition of life?
CRUSHER: (pause) That is a big question. Why do you ask?
DATA: I am searching for a definition that will allow me to test an hypothesis.
[Crusher's office]
CRUSHER: Well, the broadest scientific definition might be that life is what enables plants and animals to consume food, derive energy from it, grow, adapt themselves to their surroundings and reproduce.
DATA: And you suggest that anything which exhibits these characteristics is considered alive?
CRUSHER: In general, yes.
DATA: What about fire?
CRUSHER: Fire?
DATA: Yes. It consumes fuel to produce energy, it grows, it creates offspring. By your definition, is it alive?
CRUSHER: Fire is a chemical reaction. You could use the same argument for growing crystals, but obviously we don't consider them alive.
DATA: And what about me? I do not grow. I do not reproduce. I am considered to be alive.
CRUSHER: That's true, but you are unique.
DATA: I wonder if that is so.
CRUSHER: Data, if I may ask. Have a seat. What exactly are youe getting at?
DATA: I am curious as to what transpired between the moment when I was nothing more than an assemblage of parts in Doctor Soong's laboratory, and the next moment, when I became alive. What was it that endowed me with life?
CRUSHER: I remember Wesley asking me a similar question when he was little, and I tried desperately to give him an answer, but everything I said sounded inadequate. Then I realised that scientists and philosophers had been grappling with that question for centuries without coming to any conclusion.
DATA: Are you saying the question cannot be answered?
CRUSHER: No, I think I'm saying that we struggle all our lives to answer it, but it's the struggle that's important. That's what helps us to define our place in the universe.
DATA: I believe I understand, Doctor.
CRUSHER: I don't think I've been very much help, Data.
DATA: On the contrary, you have been a great deal of help. Thank you.
Laws and Ethics have a strained relationship. They are currently separated, working on an amicable divorce.
Who gets the kids?
I can't remember the details at the moment, but can we assume that the clones were not just "unconscious," but had no consciousness at all and were basically brain dead? There are laws that specifically address life support for brain-dead patients, which might merit some comparison.
I think one thing to keep in mind in this kind of discussion is that morals, laws, and ethics are three separate things that will not always overlap.
Kor
I think one thing to keep in mind in this kind of discussion is that morals, laws, and ethics are three separate things that will not always overlap.
Kor
Poor, poor little Rights & Bureaucracy. I suspect they will be caught in the middle and be permanently messed up.
Still... 2 very different things. In all the times I've ever complained about her treatment of Data, I've only ever said it bugged me because it came off as bigoted in how it was written or presented. I've never said she herself was a bigot. She just didn't seem to know any better... which is understandable, as Data is unique at that point.
However, these are human clones we're talking about. I'm pretty sure she'd be capable of knowing what constitutes a living human... being one herself, & having spent a career studying & practicing on them. The Hippocratic Oath is a declaration of ethical standards, which she, by all other accounts, has a pretty firm moral grasp on. Even Picard, who doesn't seem to like her much, attests to her worth as a reliable & trusted healer. I'd stack her up against anyone else we've ever seen on Trek, as a doctor of the highest ethical & professional standard. I actually think she's a better doctor than Crusher
The point being, what... specifically... about THIS situation should bring about a doubt in her that has never been present in any other time we've seen her? What facts exist to suggest she is behaving out of character? People want to just think of this action as wrong, even though everything else in this episode demonstrates that it must not be, except for one detail, the guy yelling murderer at them. This, a guy who is shown throughout the episode to be bitterly close-minded about anything outside of his way of thinking. It's pretty clear we're supposed to know they're in the right in this situation, & in the absence of contrary evidence, there's no reason to try to refute that. Pulaski is the CMO of the Enterprise, & it's highly unlikely she'd support the destruction of a living being willy-nilly, even one cloned from herself. So, unless there's something here which suggests that they ARE somehow alive (Excepting the testimony of one terribly biased & close-minded objector) It's just poor form to assume she's in the wrong, especially since they don't even look alive or fully formed yet
If they weren't alive, why did Riker feel the need to fire his phaser?
^ They may not have been alive then, but they soon would be.
See how Odo rationalized holograms as being alive during episode "Shadow play"
RURIGAN: She's not real.
ODO: Technically, I suppose you're right. Maybe by our definition, Taya's not real. Her memories are stored in a computer. Her body is made up of omicron particles. But who's to say that our definition of life is the only valid one. I'm sure if you asked her, she'd say she was real. She thinks, she feels.
RURIGAN: She only seems to. It's all an illusion. An illusion that I created.
ODO: You said you created the village thirty years ago. Taya's only ten.
RURIGAN: I designed the programme so the villagers could have children if they wanted to.
DAX: Then Taya's personality is a combination of her parent's personalities.
ODO: Just like a real child. You had nothing to do with it.
RURIGAN: But she's still a hologram.
ODO: Maybe, but I saw the way you held her hand when she was sad. I saw the way you tried to comfort her when she was frightened.
RURIGAN: I didn't want her to get hurt.
ODO: If she's not real, what does it matter?
RURIGAN: It matters. It matters to me.
ODO: Why should it matter to you if a hologram cries?
RURIGAN: Because I love her.
DAX: And she loves you.
ODO: Don't you see? She's real to you, and she's real to me too. They're all real. And you can't turn your back on them now.
Whether the clones are considered a living human is dependent on their definition of life and human. I'd say in the strictest sense the clones are living since presumably they are multicellular lifeforms whose cells are dividing. Cells are considered alive. They are made of human DNA which could make them human.
But the real question I think is whether the clones were sentient yet which is then dependent on the definition of sentient. It's the same problem with definitions as with definitions of life and human.
Then even if we classified the clones as sentient what makes killing them immoral? Picard killed his copy in episode "Time Squared". If it's considered moral as long as there is no sentience does that mean it's moral to erase the EMH doctors program as long as he's turned off at the time and not sentient when they do it? It just comes down to the definition of moral then. It just all comes down to these fluid definitions, that's how I'm seeing it.
But these specific holograms are a consciousness. Data is a consciousness. Even the Exocomps are arguably a consciousness. I never felt good about Picard killing his 2nd self in Time Squared, but that's a very gray area, because the nature of linear time is the matter, if that Picard is supposed to be dead in order to heal this Picard's space/time continuum or what have you. I've never been able to make much sense of that episode, in truth. lol. but I never did understand why the alt Picard had to be killed. I just trust that he knew something we didn't maybe
But what we're talking about here are clones that aren't finished yet. When they are finished, then yes. They are living, sentient, sapient, human beings, & should not be killed just because they're clones. I doubt anyone one would argue that. We'd all agree with Odo's take on killing a clone, but there's no indication that these ones are alive yet. All indications point to them still being in a state of cellular generation. As I stated in my OP, human physiology is not capable of function under such circumstances. There's nothing here to say that these things are a consciousness yet. Their very brains might be the same kind of gelatinous mush that the torso looks like it is, in my picture. I say might, because there's no real knowing for us... BUT Pulaski would know. She's studied this & them, & by all accounts would not just nonchalantly let them be killed, unless she considered them nonliving. They eradicated a biological experiment in a stage of maturation, which wasn't a complete organism yet, & therefore not yet a functional living being
Similarly in Pulaski's first episode they were talking about aborting Deanna's baby when it was about a third of the way developed already. It was growing quickly and had the same DNA as hers. Pulaski was not objecting to the idea of aborting the pregnancy there either
PICARD: This is Doctor Katherine Pulaski. We will handle the formal introduction later. Counsellor Deanna Troi is pregnant. She is going to have a baby.
RIKER: Baby? This is a surprise.
(Deanna is sitting alone at the end, somewhat embarrassed)
TROI: More so for me.
PULASKI: This pregnancy is unlike anything I have ever encountered. Since she came to me a few hours ago, I have done two complete examinations of Counsellor Troi. (goes to wall screen) This is from the first examination. The foetus is about halfway through the first trimester, about six weeks old. Now, understand we believe conception took place eleven hours ago.
RIKER: What?
PULASKI: It gets better. This is the second exam one hour later. Now, it's consistent, except for the fact that it appears the foetus is several weeks older. At this growth rate, Counsellor Troi will have her baby in about thirty six hours. The normal gestation rate for a Betazoid is ten months.
RIKER: I don't mean to be indelicate, but who's the father?
TROI: Last night, while I slept, something which I can only describe as a presence, entered my body.
PICARD: A life form of unknown origin and intent is breeding right now inside Counsellor Troi. Our purpose here is to determine what is to be done about this very unusual situation. Discussion.
RIKER: No, wait. Let me get this straight. Deanna was impregnated by by what? Doctor, what do the tests show? Is it a humanoid? An alien?
PULASKI: It's a male human, or in this case half-human half-Betazoid.
RIKER: Exactly the same as Deanna.
PULASKI: In every way. In fact, there is nothing to indicate that there are any genetic patterns other than hers.
RIKER: I don't think this is a random occurrence. I think there's a purpose here. A reason. What, I don't know.
WORF: Captain, obviously the pregnancy must be terminated for the safety of the ship and crew.
RIKER: Worf, you can't assume the intent was belligerent.
WORF: That is the safest assumption.
DATA: Captain, this is a life form. Not to allow it to develop naturally would deny us the opportunity to study it.
WORF: If the foetus is aborted, laboratory analysis is still possible.
RIKER: Doctor, is there any health risk to Counsellor Troi if the foetus is aborted?
TROI: Captain, do whatever you feel is necessary to protect the ship and the crew, but know this. I'm going to have this baby.
PICARD: Then it seems that the discussion is over.
But in this case the developing organism is not inside anyone. Maybe it's then an immoral act for different reasons. Riker and Pulaski needed to beam into the lab without permission, access equipment without authorization, and fire a weapon near the equipment potentially causing damage to it. The clone could be considered property of the Mariposan government. In our time a warrant is needed with proper authorization before they can legally search a facility. What Riker did could be similar to the kind of thing OJ Simpson went to prison for.
Last edited:
Those two always get a raw deal, don't they?