TOS- Overrated?

[Bixby]

jk82, I'm more of a TOS fan than a TNG fan, but one episode I always enjoy is 'Lower Decks', a one-shot exploration of the lives of a handful of non-main characters. In fact apart from the nurse character none of them were heard from again.

I really like this episode because it managed to reveal more of the character of Picard and Worf in their brief appearance than half a season of the show.

 

[horatio83]

I don't wanna imagine how our history would have looked like if some reptilian aliens had interfered some millions of years ago in order to save their distinct relatives from going extinct. Or to be more precise, I would most likely not be able to imagine it now as these aliens made sure that reptilians will remain respectively become the dominant lifeform on this planet.

This raises the question of whether the Feds should only help fellow intelligent primates or also non-sentient non-primates. The scene from Men in Black where Will Smith steps on a cockroach neatly illustrates this problem. For us it might be just a bug, for someone else it might be utterly precious. Suppose some intelligent locusts would invade us because in their eyes we mistreat their distant relatives. Suppose they allign with the Intergalactic Cow Union and the Spider Alliance to take us into custody for genocide? That'd be utterly lunatic. As I said, interspecies ethics cannot be based on intraspecies ethics unless you wanna see the galaxy burn.


You cannot protect life in the whole quadrant from asteroids by putting verteron arrays on every planet besides a class M planet (What if some aliens interpret them as weapons and think you wanna colonize the universe? Unanticipated side-effects arise, not trivial ones but the kind that could lead to war.) so you have to choose (You volunteer for the job of God, deciding which species lives and which dies?) and you won't be objective. As I already pointed out, your self-interest will mix with your ethics, you will save folks which might prove to be beneficial for you in the future or who look similar to you. That's a very slippery slope.

 

[xortex]

You're dealing in absolutes. Nobody chooses to be god. If a race dies, no help is possible, and the Federation is not the only race out there that could help.

 

[sonak]

I don't wanna imagine how our history would have looked like if some reptilian aliens had interfered some millions of years ago in order to save their distinct relatives from going extinct. Or to be more precise, I would most likely not be able to imagine it now as these aliens made sure that reptilians will remain respectively become the dominant lifeform on this planet.

This raises the question of whether the Feds should only help fellow intelligent primates or also non-sentient non-primates. The scene from Men in Black where Will Smith steps on a cockroach neatly illustrates this problem. For us it might be just a bug, for someone else it might be utterly precious. Suppose some intelligent locusts would invade us because in their eyes we mistreat their distant relatives. Suppose they allign with the Intergalactic Cow Union and the Spider Alliance to take us into custody for genocide? That'd be utterly lunatic. As I said, interspecies ethics cannot be based on intraspecies ethics unless you wanna see the galaxy burn.


You cannot protect life in the whole quadrant from asteroids by putting verteron arrays on every planet besides a class M planet (What if some aliens interpret them as weapons and think you wanna colonize the universe? Unanticipated side-effects arise, not trivial ones but the kind that could lead to war.) so you have to choose (You volunteer for the job of God, deciding which species lives and which dies?) and you won't be objective. As I already pointed out, your self-interest will mix with your ethics, you will save folks which might prove to be beneficial for you in the future or who look similar to you. That's a very slippery slope.

what about your slippery slope whereby fear of unnamed vague, and distant consequences leads you to a paralysis of inaction and a refusal to give help where help is needed?

 

[horatio83]

"Go ahead, help and don't give a sh*t about the consequences" is the motto of the intellectually lazy.
As long as you don't even adress the basic problem that interspecies and intraspecies ethics don't overlap your points are pointless. In interspecies ethics help is not help in the eyes of everybody, what the Spider Alliance would considers to be help we would consider to be an act of war.
I hope for our sorry butts that they are more enlightened that the anti-PD crowd in there, that they have something like a Prime Directive such that when they visit us they won't eradicate us for having mistreated their distant relatives.

 

[sonak]

"Go ahead, help and don't give a sh*t about the consequences" is the motto of the intellectually lazy.
As long as you don't even adress the basic problem that interspecies and intraspecies ethics don't overlap your points are pointless. In interspecies ethics help is not help in the eyes of everybody, what the Spider Alliance would considers to be help we would consider to be an act of war.
I hope for our sorry butts that they are more enlightened that the anti-PD crowd in there, that they have something like a Prime Directive such that when they visit us they won't eradicate us for having mistreated their distant relatives.

I never said "don't consider consequences." Arguments must be frustrating for you when you don't respond to your opponent's actual points.

 

[horatio83]

It is more of a monologue than an argument. I would not be frustrated but greatly enjoy it if you actually joined the discussion with some real points that reveal that you actually thought about the issue. Vague gut feelings are no substitute for thinking.
So yeah, I am looking forward to read your short essay about interspecies ethics. Don't keep us waiting, maestro.

 

[Misfit Toy]

Comment on the post, not the poster, please. Thanks.

 

[xortex]

I believe the Klingon's motto is more like 'The weak should die.' It's more important to be good than to be smart. How exactly would a spider help us?

 

[sonak]

It is more of a monologue than an argument. I would not be frustrated but greatly enjoy it if you actually joined the discussion with some real points that reveal that you actually thought about the issue. Vague gut feelings are no substitute for thinking.
So yeah, I am looking forward to read your short essay about interspecies ethics. Don't keep us waiting, maestro.

writing an essay on interspecies ethics would be pointless. As I indicated in an earlier response to Anwar, the problem with the PD is that it is a black-and-white, one size fits all approach.

Consideration of intervention should depend on issues of resources, knowledge of the situation, political effects,etc. In other words, it's about being flexible and pragmatic and not rigidly relying on doctrines that can result in horrible and avoidable outcomes.


If the only argument against intervention is that there may be some vague, unlikely, and difficult to foresee consequences, that's not much of an argument.

 

[xortex]

Keeping in mind, of course that death, is the natural evolution of all things and war, for some is the answer to everything. Unless of course you think they want or more to the point, deserve to be hit by an asteroid and die. Non interference refers to the natural evolution of a people.

 

[YARN]

I think all this talk of calculated consequences and unforeseen consequences puts us a little too close to the territory of Act Utilitarianism.

The problem with the unforeseen consequences argument (hereafter, UCA) in favor of the TNG-PD is that it assumes that UCA only cuts one way (i.e., in favor of non-intervention). The problem with the unforeseen is that it is unforeseen, it can go either way. Intervention could (unforeseeably) lead to bad things as could non-intervention. The unforeseen divides out of the equation in any given instance.

A utilitarian would also point out that there is a difference between an objectively right action (one which is based on foreseeable consequences) and an absolutely right action (based on actual infinite consequences in their totality which only God can know). We can only make objectively right actions, so as long as we aren't being hasty or negligent, that is as good as can be expected.

Finally, we should seriously consider whether the PD should be exclusively legislated on Act Utilitarian grounds rather than rights and responsibilities (i.e., deontology).

 

[BillJ]

I don't wanna imagine how our history would have looked like if some reptilian aliens had interfered some millions of years ago in order to save their distinct relatives from going extinct. Or to be more precise, I would most likely not be able to imagine it now as these aliens made sure that reptilians will remain respectively become the dominant lifeform on this planet.

If you wan to look a million years down the road, you could never set foot on any world, any where for fear of disturbing a world's ecological balance. Who knows what you may be carrying that could interact poorly with a planetary ecosystem.

We live in the here and now and most decisions reflect that. We can try to keep an eye to the future. But we can't make decisions based on a possibility that a worm could become sentient in a billion years.

This raises the question of whether the Feds should only help fellow intelligent primates or also non-sentient non-primates. The scene from Men in Black where Will Smith steps on a cockroach neatly illustrates this problem. For us it might be just a bug, for someone else it might be utterly precious. Suppose some intelligent locusts would invade us because in their eyes we mistreat their distant relatives. Suppose they allign with the Intergalactic Cow Union and the Spider Alliance to take us into custody for genocide? That'd be utterly lunatic. As I said, interspecies ethics cannot be based on intraspecies ethics unless you wanna see the galaxy burn.

This, quite frankly, is nonsense. You seem to spend alot of time typing yet say nothing, hiding behind name-calling and pseudo-intellectual fluff. If you were an American, I'd swear you were a member of the Tea Party.

You cannot protect life in the whole quadrant from asteroids by putting verteron arrays on every planet besides a class M planet (What if some aliens interpret them as weapons and think you wanna colonize the universe? Unanticipated side-effects arise, not trivial ones but the kind that could lead to war.) so you have to choose (You volunteer for the job of God, deciding which species lives and which dies?) and you won't be objective. As I already pointed out, your self-interest will mix with your ethics, you will save folks which might prove to be beneficial for you in the future or who look similar to you. That's a very slippery slope.

No one ever said anything about going around and installing defense grids on every planet in the galaxy. What I'm saying is that while spending all these resources on exploration, if you run into a situation where you can help, you should. No different than helping a motorist with a flat tire. Can it go wrong? Sure. But life is full of unintended consequences, if we can't handle that we should go back to hiding in caves like our ancestors did.

I'll close with a another great Star Trek line. I'll let you guess who spoke it...

If we're going to be damned, let's be damned for what we really are.

 

[BillJ]

I think all this talk of calculated consequences and unforeseen consequences puts us a little too close to the territory of Act Utilitarianism.

The problem with the unforeseen consequences argument (hereafter, UCA) in favor of the TNG-PD is that it assumes that UCA only cuts one way (i.e., in favor of non-intervention). The problem with the unforeseen is that it is unforeseen, it can go either way. Intervention could (unforeseeably) lead to bad things as could non-intervention. The unforeseen divides out of the equation in any given instance.

A utilitarian would also point out that there is a difference between an objectively right action (one which is based on foreseeable consequences) and an absolutely right action (based on actual infinite consequences in their totality which only God can know). We can only make objectively right actions, so as long as we aren't being hasty or negligent, that is as good as can be expected.

Finally, we should seriously consider whether the PD should be exclusively legislated on Act Utilitarian grounds rather than rights and responsibilities (i.e., deontology).

Nice post.

I apologize to Admiral Screed for turning his thread into a Prime Directive pissing match.

 

[horatio83]

This, quite frankly, is nonsense. You seem to spend alot of time typing yet say nothing, hiding behind name-calling and pseudo-intellectual fluff. If you were an American, I'd swear you were a member of the Tea Party.

Actually I am a social democrat so, as usually, you totally missed. As an imperialist you have for more in common with such right-wing populists.

It is not pseudo-intellectual just because an anti-intellectual understand that there is a difference between inter- and intra-species ethics. This is the core of the Prime Directive and as expected the anti-PD crowed does not adress it. You cannot talk about something if you fail to understand it.

 

[horatio83]

writing an essay on interspecies ethics would be pointless.

If I may translate this and add capital letters which you seem to dislike so immensly: "I am incapable of either thinking about the issue of interspecies ethics or expressing my thoughts about it via written language.

Let me explain it to the anti-PD crowd again really slow.
We don't need something like the PD on Earth because we are one species with one set of ethic principles. The difference among cultures are negilible.
We do need the PD in space because Klingon ethics differ from Ferengi ethics which differ from human ethics. Suppose you meet a bunch of Klingons for the first time and they brawl with each other. Your human reaction would be to interfere and seperate the fighters, this is after all what you would do in the case of any bar fight. Yet these very Klingons do not appreciate the interference, they do actually enjoy the fight.
Suppose they wanna execute one of their people. This is totally wrong from a human / UFP point of view but if we interfered all hell would break loose.

About the black-and-white stuff, this means that Starfleet captains can do whatever the hell they want. If you are in the right mood you help, if you aren't you don't. In other words, you evade the ethical issue via charity. I kinda prefer something less arbitrary.


What the anti-PD crowed advocates is that humankind should conquer the galaxy during the day and rcompensate for this in the evening via doing some charity. This is utterly wicked and gladly it has nothing to do with Trek at all.

 

[BillJ]

This, quite frankly, is nonsense. You seem to spend alot of time typing yet say nothing, hiding behind name-calling and pseudo-intellectual fluff. If you were an American, I'd swear you were a member of the Tea Party.

Actually I am a social democrat so, as usually, you totally missed. As an imperialist you have for more in common with such right-wing populists.

It is not pseudo-intellectual just because an anti-intellectual understand that there is a difference between inter- and intra-species ethics. This is the core of the Prime Directive and as expected the anti-PD crowed does not adress it. You cannot talk about something if you fail to understand it.

Seems you really have no clue what an imperialist is...

Wouldn't you call someone who lands on foreign soil without asking permission, someone who builds facilities for spying on said populace, someone who brings weapons to foreign soil without permission and someone who dictates to said populace when and where any meetings will take place an imperialist?

Guess what? The Federation participated in all of those actions during the run of TNG. I'm sure you'll now come back with, "but, but, but... you see it really wasn't like that..." nonsense.

So you can take your "unintelligent, imperialist" horseshit and shove it where the sun doesn't shine.

 

[sonak]

writing an essay on interspecies ethics would be pointless.

If I may translate this and add capital letters which you seem to dislike so immensly: "I am incapable of either thinking about the issue of interspecies ethics or expressing my thoughts about it via written language.

Let me explain it to the anti-PD crowd again really slow.
We don't need something like the PD on Earth because we are one species with one set of ethic principles. The difference among cultures are negilible.
We do need the PD in space because Klingon ethics differ from Ferengi ethics which differ from human ethics. Suppose you meet a bunch of Klingons for the first time and they brawl with each other. Your human reaction would be to interfere and seperate the fighters, this is after all what you would do in the case of any bar fight. Yet these very Klingons do not appreciate the interference, they do actually enjoy the fight.
Suppose they wanna execute one of their people. This is totally wrong from a human / UFP point of view but if we interfered all hell would break loose.

About the black-and-white stuff, this means that Starfleet captains can do whatever the hell they want. If you are in the right mood you help, if you aren't you don't. In other words, you evade the ethical issue via charity. I kinda prefer something less arbitrary.


What the anti-PD crowed advocates is that humankind should conquer the galaxy during the day and rcompensate for this in the evening via doing some charity. This is utterly wicked and gladly it has nothing to do with Trek at all.

Your translation was very funny. Kudos. I am a Social Democrat, too, what a cool coincidence! Let's hear it for the welfare state!


(so how can you be a Social Democrat and have Socially Darwinist views on the PD? )


by the way, Human cultures disagree on ethics too, so bringing in alien cultures changes little in that sense.

 

[BillJ]

Suppose you meet a bunch of Klingons for the first time and they brawl with each other. Your human reaction would be to interfere and seperate the fighters, this is after all what you would do in the case of any bar fight. Yet these very Klingons do not appreciate the interference, they do actually enjoy the fight.

We learn by doing.

Seems to pretty well cover it.

 

[horatio83]

Your translation was very funny. Kudos. I am a Social Democrat, too, what a cool coincidence! Let's hear it for the welfare state!


(so how can you be a Social Democrat and have Socially Darwinist views on the PD? )


by the way, Human cultures disagree on ethics too, so bringing in alien cultures changes little in that sense.

You and I have far more in common than we have with a Klingon. We value life, he values death, he values aristocracy, we value democracy. The only way to peacefully coexist is to not force our values upon him. Lets be honest, who doesn't feel at least that this wouldn't be too bad, if these foul-smelling brutes learned to regularly take a bath, to eat normal food, to stop their fights, to drop their honour concept ... but that's why we have the Prime Directive, to remind us that our instincts, our intuitions and our common sense that cries "let's educate and civilize these brutes" is wrong.

The question is, how come you watch Trek if it is advocates social Darwinism? To adress your question seriously, let's take "Dear Doctor", probably the Trek story which is closest to your PD reading to illustrate why it is a wrong reading.
Phlox might claim it is about evolution but it actually is about the power structure of two groups.
If you help the Valakans you gotta help the Menk unless you wanna empower the former at the cost of the latter. You help both groups and before you blink you are the alien force behind a civil war.

Starfleet is not out there to either assist A at the cost of B or in order to set up A against B and vice versa. Or in other words, it might seem like help on the first glance but once you actually think about you realize that it is actually favourism or something even worse.