Pulaski and Riker clone killing ethical?

[Mojochi]

Here's the clone in DS9 episode "A Man Alone" at about the same level of development as far as appearance is concerned.

This is what Bashir says about it

BASHIR: if you know to look for it. We've matched the victim's gene-sequence with the fellow in the jar here. They're definitely both clones.
ODO: What happens to this one?
BASHIR: In about two days, he becomes a living, breathing member of Bajoran society.
ODO: Let's hope he doesn't follow in his donor's footsteps.
(does this imply that the clone is not a living being now? Does calling the clone "he" instead of "it" imply that the clone is already a living organism?)

Then shortly later in that episode

Commander's log, stardate 46421.5. Ibudan has been turned over to the Bajoran authorities just hours after his clone gained consciousness and began a new life.

It seems like he's saying it isn't alive yet, but I'm not too familiar with that DS9 episode. Even still, it's 2 different societies' processes of cloning, which means they may share very little in common by which to compare

Your wrong, they repeatedly refer to what is happening as "cloning." This is a word that has a defined meaning. What I am describing is cloning, starting with a existing sample, and growing this into a new organism.

You seem to be describing having a body form 99.9% out of I don't know what, and then somehow "switching it on."

How is this cloning?

Which again is a term they repeatedly use and has a actual biological meaning.

If anyone is creating a narrative out of completely thin air it is yourself.

No, I'm just not assuming to know what there definition is, & you're applying your definition to the idea of their cloning, & this is a sci-fi show, man. Give them some suspension of disbelief is all I'm saying. We kind of got a pretty good idea that if they had murdered living human clones, more than one guy would have an issue with that. If Will killed Tom Riker, there'd be problems with that. They don't do that stuff on Star Trek, on the whole

 

[cgervasi]

I view it the same way I view abortion.

It's different, though, in that the clones were not having any effect on them. A fetus directly affect the mother carrying it.

 

[Mojochi]

Your wrong, they repeatedly refer to what is happening as "cloning." This is a word that has a defined meaning.

Ultimately, they also use words like warp, phase, & transport on Star Trek too, & those things carry with them entirely new and grander definitions than how we use them. From what we're presented, how could we ever know that the same relationship doesn't also apply to the concept of cloning? They have a way of cloning that could very well be entirely different than ours. It certainly appears as though it is. I'm basing my interpretation on what's being said, who's saying it, what we know of them, what's being shown, & how it's all being presented on the show. All of which indicate that this is a completely ethical act, & it's even debatable as to whether the one guy who used the term murderer was even referring to that act specifically when he said it, especially since he has no further objections about it, when he appears later in the episode. There's just no ethical debate here, or they'd be having it, because that's what they do on Star Trek

 

[Kevman7987]

But the episode got hung up on too many sexual innuendos (In your end-o. Hey-o!) to have an ethics debate. It felt like they were hurrying to get to the scene where where the farmer starts leering at those women after Pulaski informs the Mariposian leader they'll have to become polygamous to avoid inbreeding.

 

[Mojochi]

But the episode got hung up on too many sexual innuendos (In your end-o. Hey-o!) to have an ethics debate. It felt like they were hurrying to get to the scene where where the farmer starts leering at those women after Pulaski informs the Mariposian leader they'll have to become polygamous to avoid inbreeding.

oh... It's definitely a terrible episode. Hahaha

 

[JesterFace]

Murder is not ethical.

I haven't watched this episode in ages, so forgive me if my post has something completely weird in it... but...
No matter where these clowns came from, they're sentient beigns, right? Killing something like that is ending a life.

This makes me think of abortion... that is ending of a life which has the potential to grow into a sentient beign... I don't know, I don't have the answers!

 

[Mojochi]

I haven't watched this episode in ages, so forgive me if my post has something completely weird in it... but...
No matter where these clowns came from, they're sentient beigns, right?

Not yet they aren't. They aren't even finished becoming clones yet... & before we get off on the "Their cloning process is just like embryonic development" tangent again, there's nothing specifically in the episode that states it is. They see partially made clones. They destroy them (Because they're made from stolen DNA) & then it's forgotten by e v e r y b o d y... because clearly no one thought is was a life ending act. Even the one guy who called them murderers may have been speaking wrongly or even just generally about their community & not about the "would be" clones themselves, and he too just lets it slide in the end

 

[marsh8472]

Not yet they aren't. They aren't even finished becoming clones yet... & before we get off on the "Their cloning process is just like embryonic development" tangent again, there's nothing specifically in the episode that states it is. They see partially made clones. They destroy them (Because they're made from stolen DNA) & then it's forgotten by e v e r y b o d y... because clearly no one thought is was a life ending act. Even the one guy who called them murderers may have been speaking wrongly or even just generally about their community & not about the "would be" clones themselves, and he too just lets it slide in the end

But was it ethical to break into the lab, access equipment without authorization, and potentially damage equipment by firing a phaser near the cloning machine? Can it be partially unethical to destroy a partial clone? Or does it have to be black/white either ethical or not ethical?

 

[Mojochi]

But was it ethical to break into the lab, access equipment without authorization, and potentially damage equipment by firing a phaser near the cloning machine? Can it be partially unethical to destroy a partial clone? Or does it have to be black/white either ethical or not ethical?

So breaking & entering, destruction of property, including genetic material, & potentially equipment is the charge? Not really the thread topic, but since I've babbled endlessly on that point anyhow, I'll play along. lol

I don't think it's a valid charge, or anymore an unethical act that hacking a website that's been releasing your stolen copyrighted material, in order to shut it down. It's kind of like a citizen's arrest. They stole the DNA. If you developed a super plant of some kind, to which you owned the rights, and someone stole some of your seeds, & then grew their own plants, even the ones that didn't grow from the stolen seeds are still contraband, and since Starfleet is known to police wrongs done to them, I can't really see how this is different

 

[JesterFace]

Not yet they aren't. They aren't even finished becoming clones yet...

I was thinking about this yesterday after my previous post, if something has the potential / possibility to become a sentient beign, does it have the same rights as a sentient beign that has reached that "level"?

It's not exactly in the same category, but for example I have the potential to become a musician after about 20 years of playing guitar, but it doesn't mean I'll ever be a recording and touring artist.

I guess I mean one has to become sentient (or a musician) before killing the embryo / blank slate clone becomes unethical.

I mean, I guess, these are questions above me... Like I said earlier, I don't have the answers!
(Does anyone have?)

 

[Mojochi]

I was thinking about this yesterday after my previous post, if something has the potential / possibility to become a sentient beign, does it have the same rights as a sentient beign that has reached that "level"?

It's not exactly in the same category, but for example I have the potential to become a musician after about 20 years of playing guitar, but it doesn't mean I'll ever be a recording and touring artist.

I guess I mean one has to become sentient (or a musician) before killing the embryo / blank slate clone becomes unethical.

I mean, I guess, these are questions above me... Like I said earlier, I don't have the answers!
(Does anyone have?)

All the matter we are made of was once just inanimate stuff strewn about the universe. None of its destruction is an ethical atrocity IMHO, until it becomes alive

 

[JesterFace]

All the matter we are made of was once just inanimate stuff strewn about the universe. None of its destruction is an ethical atrocity IMHO, until it becomes alive

I think I agree with this...

 

[marsh8472]

It seems like he's saying it isn't alive yet, but I'm not too familiar with that DS9 episode. Even still, it's 2 different societies' processes of cloning, which means they may share very little in common by which to compare


No, I'm just not assuming to know what there definition is, & you're applying your definition to the idea of their cloning, & this is a sci-fi show, man. Give them some suspension of disbelief is all I'm saying. We kind of got a pretty good idea that if they had murdered living human clones, more than one guy would have an issue with that. If Will killed Tom Riker, there'd be problems with that. They don't do that stuff on Star Trek, on the whole

Ironically Tom Riker did murder Cardassians indiscriminately in DS9 episode "The Defiant" and presumably during other missions while with the Maquis. If only a few years of different memory's separate the Rikers, why should Rikers moral judgement be trusted here given the extremist ideology of Tom Riker?

 

[Mojochi]

Ironically Tom Riker did murder Cardassians indiscriminately in DS9 episode "The Defiant" and presumably during other missions while with the Maquis. If only a few years of different memory's separate the Rikers, why should Rikers moral judgement be trusted here given the extremist ideology of Tom Riker?

Seriously? Overlooking the fact that Maqui acts are debatable themselves, You don't think Tom has had some different stimuli in his life that pushed him toward that kind variation in personality? 8 years, abandoned by Starfleet. Returned to a life where not only does he find out some other version of him has been living the high life, & his lover doesn't just leave him, but marries the other guy? Because I gotta tell you, given enough time & the right circumstances ALL of us can become the worst versions of ourselves than we'd ever thought possible, & would NEVER have become otherwise.

Judging Will Riker based on the outcome of Tom is like judging Miles O'Brien based on the actions & behavior of "Smiley" O'Brien. We all know pretty well that Will isn't an extremist or a murderer in this situation.

I have to laugh, that I'm the one here defending Riker's character, when I'm usually the one bashing him for being a crappy XO to Jellico, or if not for aiding a rogue captain to violate the Treaty of Algeron, certainly for being complicit in its cover-up, which he personally might have benefited from in career advancement, & without a doubt that he's a royally pompous, & elitist d-bag to outsiders & subordinates on occasion.

However none of the awful things I might think Riker is, makes him a heartless murderer capable of executing some helpless clone for no reason but being personally pissed about it. It just don't jive, & if we suspend any disbelief on this show, that tiny amount is fair to afford.

 

[marsh8472]

Seriously? Overlooking the fact that Maqui acts are debatable themselves, You don't think Tom has had some different stimuli in his life that pushed him toward that kind variation in personality? 8 years, abandoned by Starfleet. Returned to a life where not only does he find out some other version of him has been living the high life, & his lover doesn't just leave him, but marries the other guy? Because I gotta tell you, given enough time & the right circumstances ALL of us can become the worst versions of ourselves than we'd ever thought possible, & would NEVER have become otherwise.

Judging Will Riker based on the outcome of Tom is like judging Miles O'Brien based on the actions & behavior of "Smiley" O'Brien. We all know pretty well that Will isn't an extremist or a murderer in this situation.

I have to laugh, that I'm the one here defending Riker's character, when I'm usually the one bashing him for being a crappy XO to Jellico, or if not for aiding a rogue captain to violate the Treaty of Algeron, certainly for being complicit in its cover-up, which he personally might have benefited from in career advancement, & without a doubt that he's a royally pompous, & elitist d-bag to outsiders & subordinates on occasion.

However none of the awful things I might think Riker is, makes him a heartless murderer capable of executing some helpless clone for no reason but being personally pissed about it. It just don't jive, & if we suspend any disbelief on this show, that tiny amount is fair to afford.

Tom and Will's experience started diverging after by their mid-twenties. Most of their personality development should have been established by then.

Tom destroyed outpost 47, attacked ships, and fired a phaser at Kira. Then he was put in prison for it. He's not afraid to sacrifice lives for what he considers the greater good. He could have rationalized the death of a clone as the greater good over the implications of having a society made up of clones of himself.

Riker may have the same demons inside him as Tom that tempt him to radical actions when he feels strongly about something. It was his idea to go down there and destroy those clones. I'm not sure he can be trusted.

Smiley O'Brien and Prime O'Brien share the same genetics but none of the same life experiences at all. Tom and Will share 26 years of the same life experiences. There is a difference there.

 

[Mojochi]

Tom and Will's experience started diverging after by their mid-twenties. Most of their personality development should have been established by then.

Tom destroyed outpost 47, attacked ships, and fired a phaser at Kira. Then he was put in prison for it. He's not afraid to sacrifice lives for what he considers the greater good. He could have rationalized the death of a clone as the greater good over the implications of having a society made up of clones of himself.

Riker may have the same demons inside him as Tom that tempt him to radical actions when he feels strongly about something. It was his idea to go down there and destroy those clones. I'm not sure he can be trusted.

Smiley O'Brien and Prime O'Brien share the same genetics but none of the same life experiences at all. Tom and Will share 26 years of the same life experiences. There is a difference there.

Tell someone they are exactly the same person after 8 years of prison at that age. 8 years of solitary confinement. Tom very likely had to come to terms with thinking he'd die there alone. Just that one singular influence can alter a person for the rest of their lives, & shape them in incalculable ways. Shit can change a person at any age. It's unjust to assume Will is morally questionable about murder, based on who he is there, using a person who suffered that experience as a template.

Add to that, the fact the he is only 1 of two people who agreed these "would be" clones could be destroyed, & the other is a renowned medical doctor!

 

[marsh8472]

Tell someone they are exactly the same person after 8 years of prison at that age. 8 years of solitary confinement. Tom very likely had to come to terms with thinking he'd die there alone. Just that one singular influence can alter a person for the rest of their lives, & shape them in incalculable ways. Shit can change a person at any age. It's unjust to assume Will is morally questionable about murder, based on who he is there, using a person who suffered that experience as a template.

Add to that, the fact the he is only 1 of two people who agreed these "would be" clones could be destroyed, & the other is a renowned medical doctor!

Psychologically they should be similar enough given this dialogue from Crusher

CRUSHER: That's why I compared their brain scans. Brain organisation patterns are as unique as fingerprints. Except for minor, minor differences, theirs are identical.

Pulaski and Laforge could have just been following Riker without morally evaluating it. That's a well documented affect demonstrated in the Milgram experiment.

Riker has a few questionable things in his past too like his involvement in a top secret project on the Pegasus in violation of the Treaty of Algeron and was accused of murdering Doctor Apgar. During his hearing it's alleged he sexually assaulted Apgar's wife, threatened and attacked Doctor Apgar. They were unable to get enough evidence for a conviction. Not saying he did those things but to be objective we can't use Riker's moral judgement in the heat of the moment like that.

 

[urbandefault]

Riker has a few questionable things in his past too like his involvement in a top secret project on the Pegasus in violation of the Treaty of Algeron and was accused of murdering Doctor Apgar. During his hearing it's alleged he sexually assaulted Apgar's wife, threatened and attacked Doctor Apgar. They were unable to get enough evidence for a conviction. Not saying he did those things but to be objective we can't use Riker's moral judgement in the heat of the moment like that.

So it's not the nature of the evidence, but the seriousness of the charge?

 

[Mojochi]

Psychologically they should be similar enough given this dialogue from Crusher
CRUSHER: That's why I compared their brain scans. Brain organisation patterns are as unique as fingerprints. Except for minor, minor differences, theirs are identical.

She didn't do a psychological brain scan on the Rikers. She did a physiological brain scan. It's pretty clear the one psychologically trained professional, Troi, considered them to be quite different

Riker has a few questionable things in his past too like his involvement in a top secret project on the Pegasus in violation of the Treaty of Algeron.

His involvement was that he was, by his own admission, too stupid & naïve to know what a poor decision it was to defend his captain. At no point was it ever said that he agreed with what Pressman was doing, only that he didn't know any better

During his hearing it's alleged he sexually assaulted Apgar's wife, threatened and attacked Doctor Apgar. They were unable to get enough evidence for a conviction.

Actually, they discovered evidence to prove his innocence. Big difference

Pulaski and Laforge could have just been following Riker without morally evaluating it. That's a well documented affect demonstrated in the Milgram experiment.

C'mon. Really? You can truly believe that? The renowned & vastly experienced Doctor Kate Pulaski is deferring to the judgement of a 1st officer she barely knows yet, who has no medical experience at all, & limited science experience as well, on what is or is not a living being about to be destroyed? Wow... that's really stretching credibility..... and my point is this.

You have to lean extremely far on abstract interpretations of his history & this event, in order to defend this position, & yet, you can't let yourself bend even the slightest toward accepting what was clearly the intent of the episode, that once the deed is done, & only one person even uses the word murderer (Which may have not even been specifically directed toward the clones per say) There is literally NO mention of the act EVER again. So clearly no charges were brought, no accusations even levied. It's all just forgotten, & the likeliest reason is because there ultimately was no harm done.

Unless of course, you're saying that the entire command crew is implicated in a cover-up, & coercion of the Mariposan people to let two acts of murder slide. You're not saying that, are you? That the reason it's not an issue afterward is because The Enterprise crew told the Mariposans "Go suck eggs. We can kill your people all we want & there's nothing you can do about it"? or worse, that an entire trial was held, which we didn't see, wherein Riker somehow miraculously didn't get convicted?

I'm just saying, you're way down the rabbit hole trying to trash Riker's character, enough to suggest he could be a heartless murderer, but not willing to just see the episode for what's there & draw conclusions based on that? That's more bias than I can continue to debate, I'm afraid

 

[marsh8472]

She didn't do a psychological brain scan on the Rikers. She did a physiological brain scan. It's pretty clear the one psychologically trained professional, Troi, considered them to be quite different
His involvement was that he was, by his own admission, too stupid & naïve to know what a poor decision it was to defend his captain. At no point was it ever said that he agreed with what Pressman was doing, only that he didn't know any better
Actually, they discovered evidence to prove his innocence. Big difference
C'mon. Really? You can truly believe that? The renowned & vastly experienced Doctor Kate Pulaski is deferring to the judgement of a 1st officer she barely knows yet, who has no medical experience at all, & limited science experience as well, on what is or is not a living being about to be destroyed? Wow... that's really stretching credibility..... and my point is this.

You have to lean extremely far on abstract interpretations of his history & this event, in order to defend this position, & yet, you can't let yourself bend even the slightest toward accepting what was clearly the intent of the episode, that once the deed is done, & only one person even uses the word murderer (Which may have not even been specifically directed toward the clones per say) There is literally NO mention of the act EVER again. So clearly no charges were brought, no accusations even levied. It's all just forgotten, & the likeliest reason is because there ultimately was no harm done.

Unless of course, you're saying that the entire command crew is implicated in a cover-up, & coercion of the Mariposan people to let two acts of murder slide. You're not saying that, are you? That the reason it's not an issue afterward is because The Enterprise crew told the Mariposans "Go suck eggs. We can kill your people all we want & there's nothing you can do about it"? or worse, that an entire trial was held, which we didn't see, wherein Riker somehow miraculously didn't get convicted?

I'm just saying, you're way down the rabbit hole trying to trash Riker's character, enough to suggest he could be a heartless murderer, but not willing to just see the episode for what's there & draw conclusions based on that? That's more bias than I can continue to debate, I'm afraid

We are our brains though. If their brains are almost identical then their personalities are almost identical. Given Rikers moral imperfections along with his personal involvement as the victim of DNA theft, and the value he holds being unique in the universe I wouldn't rely on him as an objective moral compass on whether or not terminating the clone was ethical or not.

Based on voyager episode lineage, tampering with an embryo is considered unethical

TORRES: I'm not destroying anything. Gene resequencing isn't a weapon, it's a tool, like a hyperspanner.
PARIS: She's not a machine, She's our daughter.

[Ready room]

JANEWAY: I'm not exactly sure what you want me to do.
TORRES: I want you to order the Doctor to genetically alter my child.
PARIS: Do you see what I'm dealing with here?
JANEWAY: What you're asking for is ethically questionable. The Doctor has reservations. Your husband is against it.

 

[Mojochi]

We are our brains though. If their brains are almost identical then their personalities are almost identical. Given Rikers moral imperfections along with his personal involvement as the victim of DNA theft, and the value he holds being unique in the universe I wouldn't rely on him as an objective moral compass on whether or not terminating the clone was ethical or not.

You wouldn't, but you're stretching, to the point of bias, & more importantly everybody else in not only the episode, but in the entirety of Starfleet, that eventually gave the man his own starship, disagrees with your very thin interpretation of the man's character. I'm pretty sure they don't generally consider murderers the best candidates for starship command. So, you're not just saying his moral compass is suspect, you're saying everybody's moral compass on the show is off, for considering him a man of good moral character. Picard calls him the finest officer with whom he's ever served. You're denying all of that to support this claim, & also all the proper perspectives in which this episode is to be taken, that I've laid out. You might need to find a new show to watch. This one on the whole doesn't seem to agree with your sensibilities lol

 

[marsh8472]

You wouldn't, but you're stretching, to the point of bias, & more importantly everybody else in not only the episode, but in the entirety of Starfleet, that eventually gave the man his own starship, disagrees with your very thin interpretation of the man's character. I'm pretty sure they don't generally consider murderers the best candidates for starship command. So, you're not just saying his moral compass is suspect, you're saying everybody's moral compass on the show is off, for considering him a man of good moral character. Picard calls him the finest officer with whom he's ever served. You're denying all of that to support this claim, & also all the proper perspectives in which this episode is to be taken, that I've laid out. You might need to find a new show to watch. This one on the whole doesn't seem to agree with your sensibilities lol

Just playing devil's advocate here. I've seen suspension of disbelief mainly used for not questioning technical inaccuracies, not for establishing an ethical standard like this. Especially star trek of all shows has episodes designed to make people question their ethics.

There are countless episodes of captains or admirals behaving immorally. Having a high rank in starfleet does not make someone a saint.

Here's another example of Riker making an ethically questionable statement and Picard calls him out on it accusing him of having his judgement influenced by his personal feelings

TNG "Silicon Avatar"

PICARD: Very well. Oh, one thing, Number One. Starfleet will be notifying Carmen Davila's family of her death and returning her personal effects. Would you care to enclose a letter?
RIKER: Yes, sir. I'd like that very much.
PICARD: Is there something more, Number One?
RIKER: Permission to speak freely, sir?
PICARD: Of course.
RIKER: I've been thinking maybe Doctor Marr is right. Maybe we should destroy the Entity.
PICARD: Why do you think that?
RIKER: It's already killed thousands. It will undoubtedly continue to kill unless we stop it. I don't want those deaths on my conscience.
PICARD: Are you sure that that's it, Number One, or are you being influenced by personal feelings?
RIKER: With all due respect, sir, I'm not a raw cadet. I've lost people on missions before. If we take time to try to communicate with this thing, we may lose our chance to destroy it. And I don't think we can risk that. I think I'll go write that letter to Carmen's family.

Given that Riker and Pulaski were the victims and upset, their ethical judgements could be suspect. And I wouldn't use their actions or reactions as the sole basis to define the ethical standards in that situation.

Speaking for myself I'm just undecided. I think ethics is a human invention and finding patterns to categorize something into groups like living/non-living, sentient/non-sentient, human/non-human, ethical/unethical is also a human invention.

The question of whether their actions are considered ethical or not is really asking whether we should amend the definition of moral or immoral to include whatever they did in our classification system of moral or immoral acts.

 

[Timo]

The problem there is, their actions are not part of our frame of reference: we have nothing comparable to the cloning shown (as evidenced by discussion here up to date).

OTOH, it's clear that our heroes could have that cloning, but evidently and universally don't. Which in itself tells us volumes about their ethical standards.

Timo Saloniemi