Us vs them. Why should we be the ones to go into that long dark night...
Because you seem far too comfortable acting as monstrous as the monsters you fight. Probably best to get rid of you now before you decide that the universe has your back to the wall and it's you or them.
Genocide or no, the weapon is the most ridiculously harmful idea the alliance has ever had.
"He shall be my finest warrior, this generic man who was forced upon me.
Like a badass I shall make him look, and in the furnace of war I shall forge him.
he shall be of iron will and steely sinew.
In great armour I shall clad him and with the mightiest weapons he shall be armed.
He will be untouched by plague or disease; no sickness shall blight him.
He shall have such tactics, strategies and machines that no foe will best him in battle.
He is my answer to cryptic logic, he is the Defender of my Romulan Crew.
He is Tovan Khev... and he shall know no fear."
Because you seem far too comfortable acting as monstrous as the monsters you fight. Probably best to get rid of you now before you decide that the universe has your back to the wall and it's you or them.
You realize that cuts two ways. If you don't sufficiently value your own civilization, its own unique DNA and contributions, the trillions of innocents - maybe we should toss you over the wall where you can demonstrate your high ideals. Minions and servitors typically don't fair well.
Us vs them. Why should we be the ones to go into that long dark night...
Because you seem far too comfortable acting as monstrous as the monsters you fight. Probably best to get rid of you now before you decide that the universe has your back to the wall and it's you or them.
There's no decision to be made. The information we gathered from their own database leaves no uncertainty as to their plans for us. If we don't kill them, they will kill us. They're the last of their kind. Boo hoo. They chose their course of action. It is us or them. Quislings get to face firing squads.
Because you seem far too comfortable acting as monstrous as the monsters you fight. Probably best to get rid of you now before you decide that the universe has your back to the wall and it's you or them.
You realize that cuts two ways. If you don't sufficiently value your own civilization, its own unique DNA and contributions, the trillions of innocents - maybe we should toss you over the wall where you can demonstrate your high ideals. Minions and servitors typically don't fair well.
I guess that is why you are using the avatar from ultima 3 and not 4. You know the one that shows how doing the right thing is not as simple as hitting the bad guy with a sword. Compassion, justice, humility, all just words to be tossed on the trash heap at the first sign that things might not be going in your favor? Sorry I'm just not going to conveniently abandon my morals when dealing with an enemy. If they drop their sword I will let them pick it up, even if they would not do the same. The right choice is not the easy choice, and the time eraser gun is far far too easy a choice for some.
Because you seem far too comfortable acting as monstrous as the monsters you fight. Probably best to get rid of you now before you decide that the universe has your back to the wall and it's you or them.
You realize that cuts two ways. If you don't sufficiently value your own civilization, its own unique DNA and contributions, the trillions of innocents - maybe we should toss you over the wall where you can demonstrate your high ideals. Minions and servitors typically don't fair well.
I guess that is why you are using the avatar from ultima 3 and not 4. You know the one that shows how doing the right thing is not as simple as hitting the bad guy with a sword. Compassion, justice, humility, all just words to be tossed on the trash heap at the first sign that things might not be going in your favor? Sorry I'm just not going to conveniently abandon my morals when dealing with an enemy. If they drop their sword I will let them pick it up, even if they would not do the same. The right choice is not the easy choice, and the time eraser gun is far far too easy a choice for some.
What makes you think that YOUR choice is the right one?
And such lofty idealism and nobility doesn't work in a war of this nature.
The Iconian War is a case of "War to the knife, knife to the hilt". It's not simply a war of territory, empires, resources, etc anymore. It's a war of survival.
I guess that is why you are using the avatar from ultima 3 and not 4. You know the one that shows how doing the right thing is not as simple as hitting the bad guy with a sword. Compassion, justice, humility, all just words to be tossed on the trash heap at the first sign that things might not be going in your favor? Sorry I'm just not going to conveniently abandon my morals when dealing with an enemy. If they drop their sword I will let them pick it up, even if they would not do the same. The right choice is not the easy choice, and the time eraser gun is far far too easy a choice for some.
"Now you see that evil will always triumph, because good is dumb."
Well, if you can get an entire species to agree with you, can we haz ur stuff? BTW, that was a great one about U3. But Ultima's values weren't meant to be a suicide pact. You may recall there was a lot of knocking heads in U4. The purpose of the Avatar was to save the people, not meekly turn them over.
Dominant species don't become dominant by throwing their daughters to the ravening crowds of Sodom. They become dominant by valuing their DNA enough to defend it.
When "genocide" really is only one species walking away, the moral argument becomes irrelevant. I suspect the only genocide you are taking into account is when a species eliminates/decimates a much weaker culture for strictly reasons of tyranny. Humans have never faced the binary genocide - in RL history all were human after all.
As far as the Borg example, the reason they didn't go ahead with the virus wasn't simply for purely abstract reasons. The Borg are/were enslaved species who the Voyager crew knew could be freed and made independent again. There's little doubt in my mind that had the Borg been a true culture the Federation would have fired off the virus no questions asked.
I am a little bit shocked by the amount of hostility people show about hypothetical discussions based on a fictional situation in a mediocre video game.
^ Memory Alpha.org is not canon. It's a open wiki with arbitrary rules. Only what can be cited from an episode is. ^
"No. Men do not roar. Women roar. Then they hurl heavy objects... and claw at you." -Worf, son of Mogh
"A filthy, mangy beast, but in its bony breast beat the heart of a warrior" - "faithful" (...) "but ever-ready to follow the call of the wild." - Martok, about a Targ
"That pig smelled horrid. A sweet-sour, extremely pungent odor. I showered and showered, and it took me a week to get rid of it!" - Robert Justman, appreciating Emmy-Lou
Well, if you can get an entire species to agree with you, can we haz ur stuff? BTW, that was a great one about U3. But Ultima's values weren't meant to be a suicide pact. You may recall there was a lot of knocking heads in U4. The purpose of the Avatar was to save the people, not meekly turn them over.
Dominant species don't become dominant by throwing their daughters to the ravening crowds of Sodom. They become dominant by valuing their DNA enough to defend it.
When "genocide" really is only one species walking away, the moral argument becomes irrelevant. I suspect the only genocide you are taking into account is when a species eliminates/decimates a much weaker culture for strictly reasons of tyranny. Humans have never faced the binary genocide - in RL history all were human after all.
As far as the Borg example, the reason they didn't go ahead with the virus wasn't simply for purely abstract reasons. The Borg are/were enslaved species who the Voyager crew knew could be freed and made independent again. There's little doubt in my mind that had the Borg been a true culture the Federation would have fired off the virus no questions asked.
There is nothing meek about fighting to the last. I never said that handing over the Milky Way to the Iconians on a plate was the answer, just that abandoning all pretense of morals because you think you are out of options is cowardly.
I would regret if we killed all twelve Iconians in open battle, but I would much prefer it to using some bomb, or other indirect way because that would be flatly dishonorable. The time gun is worse because not only does it kill the twelve left in a way that they can't even resist, but it removes all the lives of all the other Iconians that never did anything to us.Even dead their lives had contributions that resonate in history and I see no reason to rob the dead of that last tether.
So shoot me if you must. Star Trek has this wonderful place called Sto'Vo'Kor for people who die for their honor. The fate of those who abandon honor is much less pleasant.
Because you seem far too comfortable acting as monstrous as the monsters you fight. Probably best to get rid of you now before you decide that the universe has your back to the wall and it's you or them.
You realize that cuts two ways. If you don't sufficiently value your own civilization, its own unique DNA and contributions, the trillions of innocents - maybe we should toss you over the wall where you can demonstrate your high ideals. Minions and servitors typically don't fair well.
I guess that is why you are using the avatar from ultima 3 and not 4. You know the one that shows how doing the right thing is not as simple as hitting the bad guy with a sword. Compassion, justice, humility, all just words to be tossed on the trash heap at the first sign that things might not be going in your favor? Sorry I'm just not going to conveniently abandon my morals when dealing with an enemy. If they drop their sword I will let them pick it up, even if they would not do the same. The right choice is not the easy choice, and the time eraser gun is far far too easy a choice for some.
Compassion and justice are great. But so is the love of freedom and the love of life. Humility (from Latin humilis "low, lowly," from humus "ground, dirt")? You can keep that slave morality; I'll pass.
You can't commit genocide against a people that doesn't exist and never did. If I imagine a people called the qwertans, and then I image they were wiped out by the Death Star, this isn't genocide, since they never existed.
If this thing deletes a people from all time, it can't be genocide, because there was never a time when the 'victims' existed.
Again? In the lore at-hand this is not how it works. Yes, you can extrapolate the scenario and discuss it from different angles, but that does not apply here. The episode outlined the rules, wether or not you agree with it is irrelevant. Similiar to another example above, you can bargain the outcome but the nature of the act doesn't change: You willingly end a species for whatever reason. That's something you have to deal with. (If the game takes that route at all is of course uncertain).
^ Memory Alpha.org is not canon. It's a open wiki with arbitrary rules. Only what can be cited from an episode is. ^
"No. Men do not roar. Women roar. Then they hurl heavy objects... and claw at you." -Worf, son of Mogh
"A filthy, mangy beast, but in its bony breast beat the heart of a warrior" - "faithful" (...) "but ever-ready to follow the call of the wild." - Martok, about a Targ
"That pig smelled horrid. A sweet-sour, extremely pungent odor. I showered and showered, and it took me a week to get rid of it!" - Robert Justman, appreciating Emmy-Lou
He's just trolling in an attempt to turn the discussion into some pseudo-ethical/morality discussion based on real life. Trek canon establishes that this weapon is used to commit genocide.
You are probably right, I forgot who I was quoting. And I lost track of the discussion in this thread anyway because I think that some people are talking in-character RP or about something completely different than the Star Trek episode/basis at hand and some very sad things were said here today. It's probably best to leave the thread now
^ Memory Alpha.org is not canon. It's a open wiki with arbitrary rules. Only what can be cited from an episode is. ^
"No. Men do not roar. Women roar. Then they hurl heavy objects... and claw at you." -Worf, son of Mogh
"A filthy, mangy beast, but in its bony breast beat the heart of a warrior" - "faithful" (...) "but ever-ready to follow the call of the wild." - Martok, about a Targ
"That pig smelled horrid. A sweet-sour, extremely pungent odor. I showered and showered, and it took me a week to get rid of it!" - Robert Justman, appreciating Emmy-Lou
I am a little bit shocked by the amount of hostility people show about hypothetical discussions based on a fictional situation in a mediocre video game.
You are probably right, I forgot who I was quoting. And I lost track of the discussion in this thread anyway because I think that some people are talking in-character RP or about something completely different than the Star Trek episode/basis at hand and some very sad things were said here today. It's probably best to leave the thread now
Which one of these should be quoted for truth.
These kind of thought experiments are the basis for both hard and soft sciences. The OP's dilemma is basically the Trolly problem. There is nothing wrong with making more people aware of the question.
Speaking personally, I'm selfish. I think in terms of the numbers. Not because more numbers are more. Because more numbers really means a bunch of individuals who each will go on to make their own impact. Just because the decision is terrible and tragic doesn't mean we go on auto-pilot.
And that is another moral principle Star Trek tested several times over the history of the franchise. Someone destroyed their own soul so that the many could feel principled and innocent.
I am a little bit shocked by the amount of hostility people show about hypothetical discussions based on a fictional situation in a mediocre video game.
You are probably right, I forgot who I was quoting. And I lost track of the discussion in this thread anyway because I think that some people are talking in-character RP or about something completely different than the Star Trek episode/basis at hand and some very sad things were said here today. It's probably best to leave the thread now
Which one of these should be quoted for truth.
These kind of thought experiments are the basis for both hard and soft sciences. The OP's dilemma is basically the Trolly problem. There is nothing wrong with making more people aware of the question.
Speaking personally, I'm selfish. I think in terms of the numbers. Not because more numbers are more. Because more numbers really means a bunch of individuals who each will go on to make their own impact. Just because the decision is terrible and tragic doesn't mean we go on auto-pilot.
And that is another moral principle Star Trek tested several times over the history of the franchise. Someone destroyed their own soul so that the many could feel principled and innocent.
In this case, they missed the mark.
A weapon of mass destruction that kills the target? The space God man who killed The husenock? That's a story with a certain definite moral implication.
But a hypothetical time-eraser? If they wanted it to be a moral struggle, they did a bad job with their hypothetical.
If the weapon makes it so that there was never a point in time where the target existed, it can't be bad or wrong, since it doesn't harm anyone in any way. In order to be harmed, a person must first exist. If there was never a point in time where the person existed, it follows very clearly that no action could ever harm him.
The writers presented us with a paradox- the krenims "remembered" using the weapon. But they didn't finish the thought. The paradox is easily resolved if we understand that memories of things that couldn't possibly have happened are -false- memories.
Any moral qualms about using the time eraser can be set aside when we remember that if the time weapon erases the target from time, it was also never actually used against anyone.
Because sentient beings (humans, us!) have the faculty of reason, we can work out ahead of time that if we use the weapon, it won't be wrong, because we cant harm or wrong somone who never existed at any point in time. We can know ahead of time that choosing to use the time eraser might cause us to have false memories, but also at the same time realize that because these are false memories, they don't matter.
There is also data from when the weapon was targeted, what it was targeted at, when the weapon fired, the fact that your finger print is on the trigger, ect. An action did take place, the data is there whether you want to call what you saw a false memory or not. () There were a series of numbers in those bracket before I deleted them. You never saw them exist, but I did and I removed them. The krenim weapon is the same.
This weapon does not work like you seem to think it does.
I am a little bit shocked by the amount of hostility people show about hypothetical discussions based on a fictional situation in a mediocre video game.
You are probably right, I forgot who I was quoting. And I lost track of the discussion in this thread anyway because I think that some people are talking in-character RP or about something completely different than the Star Trek episode/basis at hand and some very sad things were said here today. It's probably best to leave the thread now
Which one of these should be quoted for truth.
These kind of thought experiments are the basis for both hard and soft sciences. The OP's dilemma is basically the Trolly problem. There is nothing wrong with making more people aware of the question.
Speaking personally, I'm selfish. I think in terms of the numbers. Not because more numbers are more. Because more numbers really means a bunch of individuals who each will go on to make their own impact. Just because the decision is terrible and tragic doesn't mean we go on auto-pilot.
And that is another moral principle Star Trek tested several times over the history of the franchise. Someone destroyed their own soul so that the many could feel principled and innocent.
In this case, they missed the mark.
A weapon of mass destruction that kills the target? The space God man who killed The husenock? That's a story with a certain definite moral implication.
But a hypothetical time-eraser? If they wanted it to be a moral struggle, they did a bad job with their hypothetical.
If the weapon makes it so that there was never a point in time where the target existed, it can't be bad or wrong, since it doesn't harm anyone in any way. In order to be harmed, a person must first exist. If there was never a point in time where the person existed, it follows very clearly that no action could ever harm him.
The writers presented us with a paradox- the krenims "remembered" using the weapon. But they didn't finish the thought. The paradox is easily resolved if we understand that memories of things that couldn't possibly have happened are -false- memories.
Any moral qualms about using the time eraser can be set aside when we remember that if the time weapon erases the target from time, it was also never actually used against anyone.
Because sentient beings (humans, us!) have the faculty of reason, we can work out ahead of time that if we use the weapon, it won't be wrong, because we cant harm or wrong somone who never existed at any point in time. We can know ahead of time that choosing to use the time eraser might cause us to have false memories, but also at the same time realize that because these are false memories, they don't matter.
There is also data from when the weapon was targeted, what it was targeted at, when the weapon fired, the fact that your finger print is on the trigger, ect. An action did take place, the data is there whether you want to call what you saw a false memory or not. () There were a series of numbers in those bracket before I deleted them. You never saw them exist, but I did and I removed them. The krenim weapon is the same.
This weapon does not work like you seem to think it does.
How do you mean? If you apparently remember something that you know for a fact can't possibly have happened, isn't part of being sane and reasonable realizing that this memory is false? Also, if you think you have evidence of something happening, when you know,for sure it didn't happen, isn't that when you realize it must be false evidence?
Because I know it did happen, and that observers not within the field of the ship are incorrect.
What you are describing seems more like the mental gymnastics that someone on a ship that just erased billions of lives would tell themselves so they can look in the mirror the next day. After all we are already talking about an object that is removed from time and so does not exist, with people on it taking actions, which would mean they are moving linearly in time, (which they can't), and directly effecting real objects(Which something that does not exist shouldn't). I would call this Schrodinger's time ship on account of it both existing and not existing, but his experiment was to highlight the absurdity of that line of thinking.
I am a little bit shocked by the amount of hostility people show about hypothetical discussions based on a fictional situation in a mediocre video game.
You are probably right, I forgot who I was quoting. And I lost track of the discussion in this thread anyway because I think that some people are talking in-character RP or about something completely different than the Star Trek episode/basis at hand and some very sad things were said here today. It's probably best to leave the thread now
Which one of these should be quoted for truth.
These kind of thought experiments are the basis for both hard and soft sciences. The OP's dilemma is basically the Trolly problem. There is nothing wrong with making more people aware of the question.
Speaking personally, I'm selfish. I think in terms of the numbers. Not because more numbers are more. Because more numbers really means a bunch of individuals who each will go on to make their own impact. Just because the decision is terrible and tragic doesn't mean we go on auto-pilot.
And that is another moral principle Star Trek tested several times over the history of the franchise. Someone destroyed their own soul so that the many could feel principled and innocent.
In this case, they missed the mark.
A weapon of mass destruction that kills the target? The space God man who killed The husenock? That's a story with a certain definite moral implication.
But a hypothetical time-eraser? If they wanted it to be a moral struggle, they did a bad job with their hypothetical.
If the weapon makes it so that there was never a point in time where the target existed, it can't be bad or wrong, since it doesn't harm anyone in any way. In order to be harmed, a person must first exist. If there was never a point in time where the person existed, it follows very clearly that no action could ever harm him.
The writers presented us with a paradox- the krenims "remembered" using the weapon. But they didn't finish the thought. The paradox is easily resolved if we understand that memories of things that couldn't possibly have happened are -false- memories.
Any moral qualms about using the time eraser can be set aside when we remember that if the time weapon erases the target from time, it was also never actually used against anyone.
Because sentient beings (humans, us!) have the faculty of reason, we can work out ahead of time that if we use the weapon, it won't be wrong, because we cant harm or wrong somone who never existed at any point in time. We can know ahead of time that choosing to use the time eraser might cause us to have false memories, but also at the same time realize that because these are false memories, they don't matter.
There is also data from when the weapon was targeted, what it was targeted at, when the weapon fired, the fact that your finger print is on the trigger, ect. An action did take place, the data is there whether you want to call what you saw a false memory or not. () There were a series of numbers in those bracket before I deleted them. You never saw them exist, but I did and I removed them. The krenim weapon is the same.
This weapon does not work like you seem to think it does.
How do you mean? If you apparently remember something that you know for a fact can't possibly have happened, isn't part of being sane and reasonable realizing that this memory is false? Also, if you think you have evidence of something happening, when you know,for sure it didn't happen, isn't that when you realize it must be false evidence?
Speaking in terms of the numbers is one thing, pulling the trigger knowing that you are erasing everything a person/race/planet/object/ect. ever did and/or will do and that the full consequences of such an action are unknowable is an entirely different thing.
But a hypothetical time-eraser? If they wanted it to be a moral struggle, they did a bad job with their hypothetical.
No one is disputing Brannon Braga can't write worth a ****. Poorly written as the episode was, the fact is the ship was a weapon and it was used to commit genocide. This was clear as day. Star Trek is polluted with episodes and references on how interfering with the time line is a bad thing. Using this weapon is bad according to canon.
Shockingly, I have to agree with Druk on how the Annorax story was actually WELL written. The premise of a weapon that can simply cause your enemy to never have existed is absurd. But... this is Star Trek and absurd story concepts are like steak and potatoes here. The story wasn't just a matter of using a doomsday weapon, it was also a matter of showing WHY that doomsday weapon was such a bad idea and fundamentally flawed concept to begin with.
I think a lot of folks are missing the fact that Genocide can be defined in far broader terms than simply murdering everyone within a group.
What the Krenim did would absolutely be classified as Genocide.
Baffling that folks think that erasing a group from a timeline is more moral than killing them. By that yardstick, erasing the vulcans from time with the krenim weapon and thus preventing the formation of the Federation is somehow more moral than dropping a genesis device on the planet in the present day. I don't buy that at all.
Using temporal weapons to erase a group from the timeline erases their legacy, their potential, their hopes and dreams, their triumphs and failures. There is no more complete destruction than the type that the Krenim weapon offered. If anything, it's the ultimate form of genocide.
I think a lot of folks are missing the fact that Genocide can be defined in far broader terms than simply murdering everyone within a group.
What the Krenim did would absolutely be classified as Genocide.
Baffling that folks think that erasing a group from a timeline is more moral than killing them. By that yardstick, erasing the vulcans from time with the krenim weapon and thus preventing the formation of the Federation is somehow more moral than dropping a genesis device on the planet in the present day. I don't buy that at all.
Using temporal weapons to erase a group from the timeline erases their legacy, their potential, their hopes and dreams, their triumphs and failures. There is no more complete destruction than the type that the Krenim weapon offered. If anything, it's the ultimate form of genocide.
I agree with the entirety of this post.
I think it is time that I excuse myself and go find a more light hearted thread. I think you have gotten the idea across more eloquently and concisely than I have been able.
I don't think it's a good idea to use the weapon, not because I have any qualms about killing every last Iconian still around (which is still genocide, whether anyone wants to admit it or not), and not because I'm overly concerned about erasing a species which were tyrannical overlords of the galaxy in the past, but because I don't think Fleet Admirals and Chiefs of Military Intelligence and so on are quite as incapable of critical thought as Cryptic sometimes forces our characters to act, and would instead recognize the uncertainty involved in using the weapon, no matter how many computer simulations were run. Cryptic forces us to behave in ways that we would not, because that's how linear story progression works. I certainly would not have played nice with Sela, for example, but would have shot her on the spot. Heck, I was trying to shoot her from the moment we first saw her on the Elachi ship before she was captured and handed over to the civilian government, and I've tried to shoot her every time I've seen her since then, but the game would not let me do it (but I'll keep trying every time I see her again, if I see her again, and hopefully I will eventually be allowed to kill her). But back to the critical thought: of course we're going to wind up using it (because that's how the mission will go), and the use of it will cause more problems than the removal of the Iconians was worth. And then we'll have to undo it, and then some other solution will be found (personally, I still like the solution proposed by Dahar Master Rrueo of the KDF here).
But as to the question of the ethicality of removing the Iconians from existence entirely, that's not innately good or bad. It's an act. Acts are simply acts, and to dictate that certain acts are bad in themselves is to paint yourself into a corner, such that you will eventually find yourself in a situation where you have several options, and all of them are acts which you have already defined as "bad," so you condemn yourself by your own eagerness to declare acts bad in themselves. Further, such a perspective does not take into account the consequences, the motivations, or the contexts in which those acts are performed. This is why all murder is killing, but not all killing is murder. This is why there is such a thing as "involuntary manslaughter." This is why there is such a thing as "justifiable homicide." This is why there are several other types of homicide which are not "murder." Some of them are criminal and some are not. Because the act itself is simply killing. Killing is an act, and is neither good nor bad in itself. To determine whether it be good or bad requires consideration of things beyond the mere act.
Comments
Because you seem far too comfortable acting as monstrous as the monsters you fight. Probably best to get rid of you now before you decide that the universe has your back to the wall and it's you or them.
"He shall be my finest warrior, this generic man who was forced upon me.
Like a badass I shall make him look, and in the furnace of war I shall forge him.
he shall be of iron will and steely sinew.
In great armour I shall clad him and with the mightiest weapons he shall be armed.
He will be untouched by plague or disease; no sickness shall blight him.
He shall have such tactics, strategies and machines that no foe will best him in battle.
He is my answer to cryptic logic, he is the Defender of my Romulan Crew.
He is Tovan Khev... and he shall know no fear."
There's no decision to be made. The information we gathered from their own database leaves no uncertainty as to their plans for us. If we don't kill them, they will kill us. They're the last of their kind. Boo hoo. They chose their course of action. It is us or them. Quislings get to face firing squads.
I guess that is why you are using the avatar from ultima 3 and not 4. You know the one that shows how doing the right thing is not as simple as hitting the bad guy with a sword. Compassion, justice, humility, all just words to be tossed on the trash heap at the first sign that things might not be going in your favor? Sorry I'm just not going to conveniently abandon my morals when dealing with an enemy. If they drop their sword I will let them pick it up, even if they would not do the same. The right choice is not the easy choice, and the time eraser gun is far far too easy a choice for some.
What makes you think that YOUR choice is the right one?
And such lofty idealism and nobility doesn't work in a war of this nature.
The Iconian War is a case of "War to the knife, knife to the hilt". It's not simply a war of territory, empires, resources, etc anymore. It's a war of survival.
"Now you see that evil will always triumph, because good is dumb."
Dominant species don't become dominant by throwing their daughters to the ravening crowds of Sodom. They become dominant by valuing their DNA enough to defend it.
When "genocide" really is only one species walking away, the moral argument becomes irrelevant. I suspect the only genocide you are taking into account is when a species eliminates/decimates a much weaker culture for strictly reasons of tyranny. Humans have never faced the binary genocide - in RL history all were human after all.
As far as the Borg example, the reason they didn't go ahead with the virus wasn't simply for purely abstract reasons. The Borg are/were enslaved species who the Voyager crew knew could be freed and made independent again. There's little doubt in my mind that had the Borg been a true culture the Federation would have fired off the virus no questions asked.
Get the Forums Enhancement Extension!
There is nothing meek about fighting to the last. I never said that handing over the Milky Way to the Iconians on a plate was the answer, just that abandoning all pretense of morals because you think you are out of options is cowardly.
I would regret if we killed all twelve Iconians in open battle, but I would much prefer it to using some bomb, or other indirect way because that would be flatly dishonorable. The time gun is worse because not only does it kill the twelve left in a way that they can't even resist, but it removes all the lives of all the other Iconians that never did anything to us.Even dead their lives had contributions that resonate in history and I see no reason to rob the dead of that last tether.
So shoot me if you must. Star Trek has this wonderful place called Sto'Vo'Kor for people who die for their honor. The fate of those who abandon honor is much less pleasant.
Compassion and justice are great. But so is the love of freedom and the love of life. Humility (from Latin humilis "low, lowly," from humus "ground, dirt")? You can keep that slave morality; I'll pass.
Again? In the lore at-hand this is not how it works. Yes, you can extrapolate the scenario and discuss it from different angles, but that does not apply here. The episode outlined the rules, wether or not you agree with it is irrelevant. Similiar to another example above, you can bargain the outcome but the nature of the act doesn't change: You willingly end a species for whatever reason. That's something you have to deal with. (If the game takes that route at all is of course uncertain).
Get the Forums Enhancement Extension!
You are probably right, I forgot who I was quoting. And I lost track of the discussion in this thread anyway because I think that some people are talking in-character RP or about something completely different than the Star Trek episode/basis at hand and some very sad things were said here today. It's probably best to leave the thread now
Get the Forums Enhancement Extension!
Which one of these should be quoted for truth.
These kind of thought experiments are the basis for both hard and soft sciences. The OP's dilemma is basically the Trolly problem. There is nothing wrong with making more people aware of the question.
Speaking personally, I'm selfish. I think in terms of the numbers. Not because more numbers are more. Because more numbers really means a bunch of individuals who each will go on to make their own impact. Just because the decision is terrible and tragic doesn't mean we go on auto-pilot.
And that is another moral principle Star Trek tested several times over the history of the franchise. Someone destroyed their own soul so that the many could feel principled and innocent.
There is also data from when the weapon was targeted, what it was targeted at, when the weapon fired, the fact that your finger print is on the trigger, ect. An action did take place, the data is there whether you want to call what you saw a false memory or not. () There were a series of numbers in those bracket before I deleted them. You never saw them exist, but I did and I removed them. The krenim weapon is the same.
This weapon does not work like you seem to think it does.
Because I know it did happen, and that observers not within the field of the ship are incorrect.
What you are describing seems more like the mental gymnastics that someone on a ship that just erased billions of lives would tell themselves so they can look in the mirror the next day. After all we are already talking about an object that is removed from time and so does not exist, with people on it taking actions, which would mean they are moving linearly in time, (which they can't), and directly effecting real objects(Which something that does not exist shouldn't). I would call this Schrodinger's time ship on account of it both existing and not existing, but his experiment was to highlight the absurdity of that line of thinking.
The line must be drawn here. This far no further.
Speaking in terms of the numbers is one thing, pulling the trigger knowing that you are erasing everything a person/race/planet/object/ect. ever did and/or will do and that the full consequences of such an action are unknowable is an entirely different thing.
My character Tsin'xing
What the Krenim did would absolutely be classified as Genocide.
Baffling that folks think that erasing a group from a timeline is more moral than killing them. By that yardstick, erasing the vulcans from time with the krenim weapon and thus preventing the formation of the Federation is somehow more moral than dropping a genesis device on the planet in the present day. I don't buy that at all.
Using temporal weapons to erase a group from the timeline erases their legacy, their potential, their hopes and dreams, their triumphs and failures. There is no more complete destruction than the type that the Krenim weapon offered. If anything, it's the ultimate form of genocide.
I agree with the entirety of this post.
I think it is time that I excuse myself and go find a more light hearted thread. I think you have gotten the idea across more eloquently and concisely than I have been able.
But as to the question of the ethicality of removing the Iconians from existence entirely, that's not innately good or bad. It's an act. Acts are simply acts, and to dictate that certain acts are bad in themselves is to paint yourself into a corner, such that you will eventually find yourself in a situation where you have several options, and all of them are acts which you have already defined as "bad," so you condemn yourself by your own eagerness to declare acts bad in themselves. Further, such a perspective does not take into account the consequences, the motivations, or the contexts in which those acts are performed. This is why all murder is killing, but not all killing is murder. This is why there is such a thing as "involuntary manslaughter." This is why there is such a thing as "justifiable homicide." This is why there are several other types of homicide which are not "murder." Some of them are criminal and some are not. Because the act itself is simply killing. Killing is an act, and is neither good nor bad in itself. To determine whether it be good or bad requires consideration of things beyond the mere act.