It's interesting to speculate how the Admiral reckoned her level of satisfaction in doing what she did, an act that would help the alternate timeline Voyager, but would have no impact on her own.
The Worst Decision by a Starfleet Cpt/Cdr.
- Thread starter Azure-Dynamo
- Start date
It's interesting to speculate how the Admiral reckoned her level of satisfaction in doing what she did, an act that would help the alternate timeline Voyager, but would have no impact on her own.
Not in the UK, but try telling one they shouldn't.
It's basically a matter of human nature in the actual instance. The law has the luxury of being value free to a greater extent, whilst a human being faced with an imminent decision defers to their emotional response almost without hesitation, largely because the sentiments mitigating those responses are coded on a genetic level. Perpetuation of one's genes is a biological paramount and even when the child is not a relative the proximal cues (small, helpless person needing my assistance) influence the individuals perception. Thus the instinct is to save the child for most.
This is the reason ambulances are statistically more likely to crash en route to an incident involving a child, the driver is more likely to take chances in order to get there faster. (and no, sorry, no reference on that, it was simply a fact delivered in my training)
I agree with this 100%! In situations of imminent danger, yes, there is an instinct to save the child. But when the law has time to chew things over, and also when society has the time, adults are put first (in the structure of society).
I bet if you did a straw poll, most people would place greater value on children than adults.
Of course different soceities may place greater value over adults than children.
If an adult hurts another adult do we view that the same as an adult hurting a child, of course not. In a trial if we could decide on sentantcing would we give the same sentance for the same injury done by an adult upon an adult, or would we deal more harsly with an adult who hurts a child. I suspect we would want to deal more harsly.
Of course different soceities may place greater value over adults than children.
If an adult hurts another adult do we view that the same as an adult hurting a child, of course not. In a trial if we could decide on sentantcing would we give the same sentance for the same injury done by an adult upon an adult, or would we deal more harsly with an adult who hurts a child. I suspect we would want to deal more harsly.
Completely discounting Kirk keeping the whole affair secret from Starfleet.
Captain Terrell has his supporters here, but (assuming the info was in his computer) the ultimate responsibility for Khan's release is in Terrell's hands. Again assuming the info was in the Defiant's computer, Terrell should have routinely checked infomation on the system he was entering. It was obvious from Terrell questions after capture that he never heard of Khan.
Why would there be any reason to classify this information inside Starfleet above confidential (or there abouts), meaning "fairly low level secret?" Terrell should of had access, he just didn't avail himself of it.
I could see Starfleet not telling the general public the whole story to keep history buffs and historians away from Khan, but at the same time there could have been a general advisory to civilian starship captains to keep clear of the planet (minimal) or the entire system.
Unspecified threat, do not visit.
Kirk spoke of checking up on Khan in a century or so, I don't see any reason that Starfleet would feel the need to periodically look in on Khan. He was yesterday's news.
Last edited:
Ceti Alpha V was barely inhabitable, so there would be no real reason for anyone to visit the system. Ceti Alpha VI could have just been churned out in a list of planets that meet the Genesis criteria. Had they looking for planets which meet Ceti Alpha V's criteria then it might have thrown up an advisory that travel to this planet is restircted under some Starfleet Directive.
I imagine it would've been really tough keeping 429 people quiet about the affair, no matter how loyal they are. The 430th was missing completely and Kirk would have to explain what happened to Lt. Marla McGivers.
Probably.
Garth of Izar's decision and order (not implemented by his crew) to annihilate the Antosians. Has any other Starfleet captain actually ordered a genocide? (Kirk's General Order 24 on Emeniar would have been devastating, but I doubt genocidal.)
Last edited:
Seriously? Morals and ethics are supremely important because of logic/reason/rational thought. Logic =/= correct. Many highly unethical decisions can be very logical. One of them being, the needs of the many, outweigh the needs of the few or one. This is strictly logical, especially if we are considering only something like the basic resource of water. However, the needs of the many, are the needs of the mob. How many times in human history have democracies, dictators, autocrats and "committees of public safety", undertaken action for the good of the many? Often times it happens at the rights and the very lives of the few.
Vulcans are great and logical reasoning is a wonderful tool, but it certainly must be constrained to the context of something to make it ethically sound or else it is just rationalization for the extreme abuse of a few, at the hands of the many.
It's two different types of moral arguments really. The first is the utilitarian ethic of "the most good", put forth by John Stuart Mill and the second falls somewhere in the realm of deontological ethics for which Kant was famous.
The principle of utilitarian ethics is simply that which brings the most good, for the greatest number of people as an outcome of a particular moral question.
Deontological ethics have the principles of duty, a perfect duty or an imperfect duty. These are determined by willing that your ethical solution be universalized.
Personally, I'm a deontologist. I believe that morals are centered around personal duty. That means that I have a duty to protect the lives and rights of individuals regardless of how many will be saved.
In this instance Picard may have believed that this program could have destabilized/destroyed the Borg collective. This may have saved many potential lives. This scenario requires that both scenarios play out to their potential, that both the Borg are crippled and in-turn, this saves millions+ lives. But if we save Hugh's life we also have the knowledge that one real person's life was most certainly saved, not just millions of potential lives which might be saved.
Yes, unethical decisions can be logical. Such as "needs of many outweigh needs of few". But they are logical. So they are good.
I would always choose Logical Reasoning over morals. Morals must be constrained. Not logic, as you suggest.
Well I believe that all life has the same value even if it is not created equal (babies can be born with different weight). So more lives means more. And I believe that Hugh, as an individual, is only one person. As a piece of the Collective, he is Billions of lives. Then he is more important.
@PhaserLightShow
The Vulcans fought a civil war with the Rihansu that nearly decimated Vulcan, they were adult anarchists that willingly took up arms against a peaceful race. In the end, the Vulcans offered them either continued bloodshed, or their obsolete warp ships to take a long journey someplace else.
They chose the latter, and now we have "Romulans".
"A single death is a tragedy; the death of millions is a statistic".
-Stalin
And my point is that we do not mourn or sympathize with the millions, but with the individual. Likewise when we rationalize, logical, but immoral decisions- we quickly forget the millions who died, the victims of such decisions.
All deaths are statistics - and tragedies!
And maybe most do not mourn for the millions, but I do not mourn at all: death is a natural part of life. I always choose logic over morals.
@PhaserLightShow
