True or False: Dear Dr. is most morally bankrupt trek episode evar

So Rachel Garrett was wrong to help the Klingons because her actions could cause a war with the Romulans? A simple 'yes' or 'no' will suffice or you can try to backtrack on your previous comment...

 

Uncalled for.

From Anakin's POW, the Jedi were evil.

From my own POW, those priests and nuns who abused your grandmother (and who knows how many other helpless kids) should be skull-raped. In hell.

 

Unlike you I do not simplify complicated issues.

The episode was, again no coincidence, about unanticipated consequences, what would have happened if she had not assisted the Klingons.
She heard a distress call, went to help and then the Romulans attacked. In other words, she had no choice. But let's suppose for argument's sake that she had medically assisted the Klingons and learned about the Romulan sneak attack. Her duty would have been to inform Starfleet command of the matter and then to get out of there. So in a scenario with more time in which she has options staying to fight alongside the Klingons is not an option.
But this is more a matter of balance of power and military alliances and stuff like that than the Prime Directive.

So in other words, it has little to do with the issue at hand. Another failed comparison by the people who believe that humans can behave in space like they do on Earth, by the people who have not thought long enough about interspecies ethics.

 

Bullshit. Narendra III was already under attack. Why would there be a distress call if they weren't under attack?

You keep trying to justify your position with this nebulous "inter-species" ethics that you simply cannot prove. Humans will go out into space with the ethics that got them into space to begin with. They will make mistakes but they'll never quit being human. They will make good choices and bad.

You could ignite a war or dire consequences by not helping just as easily as you do by helping.

 

The Enterprise isn't leaving the Valakians to die. The Enterprise is not giving them a cure to a genetic defect that is a fundamental part of Valakian evolution. A genetic defect is what is killing the Valakians, not the Enterprise. Phlox never said the Menks weren't evolving, he is saying that the fact the Valakians are dying off may well mean the Menk become the dominant speicies on the planet and he cannot interfere in the evolution of the planet.

One that had failed to identify the problem as a genetic defect and was treating it like a plague. Could they really reproduce the cure? If they couldn't, would expect the Enterprise stay and help build that infrastructure?

Actually, that is kindness not playing god. They have a great deal to do with self-preservation and boosting our own self-esteem.

 

But if we're meant to die, why is someone else playing God by interfering in the process? Regardless of why you're doing it, you're still playing God.

 

The line doesn't actually make it clear whether they learned that the Klingons were attacked by Romulans in the distress call or whether they learned about the Romulan attack once they arrived.
If she knew beforehand her decision was probably in violation of a lot of rules, including the rule number one.

Not that this requires a court martial, she reacted like a human being. But even without the PD it makes little sense to interfer into the conflict of two major powers with whom you have cold war like relations. Drawing Starfleet into this conflict could be catastrophical but in this instance it involuntarily turned out to be beneficial. Once again we deal with unanticipated consequences.

Just because they could be good doesn't mean that the PD makes no sense as it is far more likely that they turn out to be bad which would have implied in this instance a war with the Romulan Star Empire.

There is nothing nebulous about interspecies ethics, I already explained in depth why the morals that have evolved over thousands of years and are hard-wired into us work down here where they have evolved and not up there. Of course there are plenty of ethical problems down here that also require actual thinking; they wouldn't be problems if our naturally evolved morals could solve them.
This is the heart of the issue and I see not point in continuing to discuss the issue with people who refuse to acknowledge that there are such problems to begin with.

 

I guess I misinterpreted what you meant.

But I really don't remember Anakin ever thinking the Jedi were evil? Darth Vader seemed pretty clear on the concept of, "The Dark Side of the Force."

 

So you get mad when people don't see things your way and go home crying to Mama?

I'll hang onto my humanity, thank you very much.

 

So it's okay when you do it...

 

I didn't say "too lazy to actually think about the issue", which is insulting. I simply thought we reached an impasse and weren't going to see eye to eye on the issue. But I'm game to keep repeating the same points over and over if you are?

 

I agree, we've reached an impasse on the issue.

 

Yep. Giving homeless people something to eat and drink is of course a nice deed but it merely deals with the symptoms and not the cause of the problem.

To quote Oscar Wilde: They find themselves surrounded by hideous poverty, by hideous ugliness, by hideous starvation. It is inevitable that they should be strongly moved by all this. The emotions of man are stirred more quickly than man’s intelligence; and, as I pointed out some time ago in an article on the function of criticism, it is much more easy to have sympathy with suffering than it is to have sympathy with thought.

I am not mad, I just fail to see the point in continuing a discussion about ethical problems with people like yourself who refuses to acknowledge that there is a problem to begin with. In your opinion there is no ethical dilemma, natural morals suffice.

 

You should double-check anything horatio83 says - especially when it's about history or morality.
He's into political correctness/moral relativity propaganda - and he takes it really bad when you prove him wrong.
I can ascertain this from past interactions with him.

 

Ah, the islamophob right-winger is back.

 

No need to double-check anything. We simply have a heated difference of opinion. We'll both be long gone by the time any of this gets sorted out in the real world.

 

BillJ

See what I'm talking about, BillJ?
When he runs out of arguments (and passable straw-men), horatio83 always recourses to baseless name-calling.

Do you actually think you can reach a fact-based conclusion with such a character? Well - good luck with this.

 

We're all just people on the internet. I take this about as seriously as I take a bowel movement.

 

Yep, just a hated discussion, no putting people into airlocks. Well, not yet.

I like it when Trek is controversial and still talked about years later. Nothing against these message kind of episodes that already give an answer but it is more interesting if the story opens up a discussion.

Perhaps this illustrates what I mean:
There is an ancient Jewish parable which illustrates this, in which two rabbis are arguing over a verse in the Torah, an argument that has gone on for over twenty years. In the parable God gets so annoyed by the endless discussion that he comes down and he tells them that he will reveal what it really means. However, right at this moment they respond by saying, "What right do you have to tell us what it means? You gave us the words, now leave us in peace to wrestle with them."

Ah, the ugly look in the mirror.
When you start with ad hominem crap you cannot bitch when you get some of it back.