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.
But it's not quite that simple, is it? Sure, we all have our ideas of right and wrong when we're sitting at our computers arguing about ethics and morality, but I often wonder what would happen if I was put into something such as a combat scenario, where most every decision is a matter of life and death. Would I really follow the lofty speech I quoted freely on the Internet? If I'm honest, I don't think I would. Same goes for scenarios like this in the game. Our Starfleet officers may be "moral" people in a comfortable position, but when they are suddenly thrust into a scenario where they are facing not just death, but extinction, their "morality" becomes a luxury, a luxury that they might decide they can no longer afford. Whether this makes them no better than their enemies may seem immaterial when they are given the choice of survival or oblivion.
Your father was captain of a starship for twelve minutes. He saved 800 lives, including your mother's, and yours.
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.
But it's not quite that simple, is it? Sure, we all have our ideas of right and wrong when we're sitting at our computers arguing about ethics and morality, but I often wonder what would happen if I was put into something such as a combat scenario, where most every decision is a matter of life and death. Would I really follow the lofty speech I quoted freely on the Internet? If I'm honest, I don't think I would. Same goes for scenarios like this in the game. Our Starfleet officers may be "moral" people in a comfortable position, but when they are suddenly thrust into a scenario where they are facing not just death, but extinction, their "morality" becomes a luxury, a luxury that they might decide they can no longer afford. Whether this makes them no better than their enemies may seem immaterial when they are given the choice of survival or oblivion.
((And in my case, my main is the Chief of New Romulan Military Intelligence. She looks at a very big picture, and she has the information necessary to see that picture. A few pieces in the puzzle that forms the picture may be missing, but she has enough pieces to see the picture fairly clearly. And so she has no moral qualms about assassinating Sela. She has no qualms about killing every Iconian alive today. She is not terribly concerned with the question of whether it would be good or bad to erase the Iconians from having ever existed. She has a job to do which most do not have the stomach to do, and that job is to ensure the survival and freedom of the citizens of the Republic. She measures ethical questions in her work in light of whether they negatively or positively affect her performance of that job or its fulfillment. If they have a negative effect on that job, they're bad to her. If they have a positive effect on that job, they're good to her. She is not unfeeling. She is a Romulan! Of course she has feelings! But she also knows what her role is as Chief of Military Intelligence. When it comes to her daughters, she has the same duties, to ensure they are alive and free (and well), and she will go to all sorts of lengths as a mother to ensure that such will be the case for them. Some have lived long enough to regret threatening her daughters. She is almost as fierce and, yes, uncompromising, in her protection of the citizens of the Republic. To accuse her of being unethical because of how she views her job and ethical questions related to it is to have no frame of reference by which to judge her. She is not Tal'Shiar. She is not even Section 31. But she is Tal'Diann. Again, she is Romulan, not Human, not Vulcan, not Klingon. Romulan. The values of Humans, Vulcans, Klingons, or any other culture may or may not have any meaning to her.))
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.
But it's not quite that simple, is it? Sure, we all have our ideas of right and wrong when we're sitting at our computers arguing about ethics and morality, but I often wonder what would happen if I was put into something such as a combat scenario, where most every decision is a matter of life and death. Would I really follow the lofty speech I quoted freely on the Internet? If I'm honest, I don't think I would. Same goes for scenarios like this in the game. Our Starfleet officers may be "moral" people in a comfortable position, but when they are suddenly thrust into a scenario where they are facing not just death, but extinction, their "morality" becomes a luxury, a luxury that they might decide they can no longer afford. Whether this makes them no better than their enemies may seem immaterial when they are given the choice of survival or oblivion.
Yeah, I've pondered that at length, and come to the conclusion that pacifists are idiots. Ideals like that lead to losing wars. And when the goal of the enemy is to eradicate your entire race? Allowing them to win the war is immoral.
Why can't we just go back in time 200,000 years and prevent the Iconian genocide at iconia???
At the risk of getting a temporal headache, I'll just refer to Annorax. It's never as cut-and-dry as simply removing a particular event in time. The Krenim superweapon resulted in massive changes in the timeline without a particular element, no matter how small it may be. Chakotay wants to erase a small harmless asteroid with the Krenim superweapon, but in doing so he changes the course of history as that tiny asteroid was responsible for seeding life on another planet millions of years ago, and without that life there, the balance of power in the quadrant shifts dramatically.
Without the Iconian genocide, it is possible the galaxy would be so drastically altered, since our own growth and development could be dependant on that genocide happening over 200,000 years ago.
It's also why simply erasing the Iconians from time itself is not a smart move either. Without the Iconians to tyranically rule over the galaxy, there would have been no need for them to be overthrown and the servitor species striking off on their own.
Yeah, I've pondered that at length, and come to the conclusion that pacifists are idiots. Ideals like that lead to losing wars. And when the goal of the enemy is to eradicate your entire race? Allowing them to win the war is immoral.
A good example of this from another fictional universe is Satine Kryze from Star Wars: The Clone Wars. She was genuinely a good person with good intentions. However, her fanatical devotion to pacifism eventually led to
her death and her planet falling under the control of Darth Maul.
Your father was captain of a starship for twelve minutes. He saved 800 lives, including your mother's, and yours.
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.
Not entirely correct. I agree we may very well have to kill them, at this point it's the most sure option for our survival.
However using the temporal weapon to do so is completely self destructive, and a stupid idea for that reason. We do NOT have the data to find a way to use it which will not end up erasing us as well, or even just us. Temporal mechanics when dealing with a TRIBBLE-up weapon of this magnitude is not an exact science and that's a massive understatement.
THE QUESTION OF USING THE DEVICE, IN THE CONTEXT OF WHETHER OR NOT TO KILL THE ICONIANS IS A FALSE QUESTION.
It's NOT the only way to defeat them and anyone who's been paying attention to what we know about Star Trek and the story so far should see it if they think about it for a minute.
"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."
People, read the latest Tales of the War THE KRENIM WEAPON IS OFF THE TABLE. Unless you prefer all this wailing and nashing about on morale dilemmas give it a rest.
'But to be logical is not to be right', and 'nothing' on God's earth could ever 'make it' right!'
Judge Dan Haywood
'As l speak now, the words are forming in my head.
l don't know.
l really don't know what l'm about to say, except l have a feeling about it.
That l must repeat the words that come without my knowledge.'
People, read the latest Tales of the War THE KRENIM WEAPON IS OFF THE TABLE. Unless you prefer all this wailing and nashing about on morale dilemmas give it a rest.
I don't think so. It said "We rejected the Krenim ship because it would take too long to build. Because the questions of time alteration are too thorny. Because there should be lines we shouldn't cross. That we can't cross."
But in the very next breath, it said "Those lines seem hazy today. If the choice is morality or destruction, I fear that many even in Starfleet will choose the option that gives us a chance to see tomorrow."
The outcome and ending of Broken Circle CLEARLY states that the weapon is going ahead.
Your father was captain of a starship for twelve minutes. He saved 800 lives, including your mother's, and yours.
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?
you push the button to end the iconians and things transpire such that you erase your family from time.. a wife, 2 children and your siblings.. how could you possibly file that particular memory and reality as false? it may seem a rational argument and an easy construct for justifying the use of that weapon against an enemy, but when you try and hold that up against something personal, it takes on a whole different meaning.
False comparison. The woman would never have had those children without outside intervention.
Going back in time and erasing the man she would have married normally from the timeline with the intention of insuring their children are never born and that she marries the other man is more along the lines we are talking here.
Also, the person did exist at one point in order to be removed. And at that point that they were removed, they were murdered. And for them to be removed, someone had to decide to remove them. The (metaphorical) bullet might have hit before the trigger was pulled, but we have a perpetrator, a murder weapon in the form of time manipulation, and a motive. And all of it premeditated.
Erasing someone from existence is murder. Erasing someone from existence before they were born could arguably be worse because it removes their potential and their legacy. And of course, the butterfly effect in all its glory will ensure that even those who aren't removed may very well have their entire lives, personalities and memories rewritten-and personality/memory manipulation in itself is a pretty nasty thing in itself.
Yeah, I've pondered that at length, and come to the conclusion that pacifists are idiots. Ideals like that lead to losing wars. And when the goal of the enemy is to eradicate your entire race? Allowing them to win the war is immoral.
Pacifism does not equal passiveness. The term itself is a general term for a number of different schools of thinking and anything but absolute pacifism, which is almost never practiced (aside from the Mizarians, to keep it Star Trek), grants the individual or community the right of self-defense. Military action that will by thorough estimation lead to more stable peace and less violence in the long run is even reconcilable with most interpretations of pacifism. Being able to "push around" a pacifist or a pacifist society is a false stereotype. It's advisable to think about stuff like that before you insult a lot of people with your general statement.
^ 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.
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?
you push the button to end the iconians and things transpire such that you erase your family from time.. a wife, 2 children and your siblings.. how could you possibly file that particular memory and reality as false? it may seem a rational argument and an easy construct for justifying the use of that weapon against an enemy, but when you try and hold that up against something personal, it takes on a whole different meaning.
People sometimes have hallucinations, they see things that aren't there, and remember them.
Having to face the trauma of painful false memories might be a high price to pay, but potential operators of the time weapon would be able to know that going in, and take the risk.
Yeah, I've pondered that at length, and come to the conclusion that pacifists are idiots. Ideals like that lead to losing wars. And when the goal of the enemy is to eradicate your entire race? Allowing them to win the war is immoral.
Albert Einstein, Mahatma Gandhi, John Lennon, Leo Tolstoy, Dr. Martin Luther King Jr, Nelson Mandela, Mother Teresa, Linus Pauling, Helen Keller.
Genocide is bad. Using weapons of mass destruction is bad. That's the gist of the episode. It was never intended to be a philosophical morality debate about time travel.
Some thought / think that dropping two nukes on Japan saved more lives than it took, shortened the continuation of WWII, and avoided a possible US or Chinese or Russian occupation of Japan (or some kind of split Korea version of Japan) -- and even avoided another front for the US in the Korea or even Vietnam wars.
Others think only of the deaths the two nukes caused .
While both arguments have merit, what isn't debated is that it takes a hard heart & mind to order such an order .
The last (badly written) Blog had an Admiral bellyaching over a few hundred deaths (when it should have been a few thousand) made; t sound like he was not the guy who'd drop nukes ... , if you catch my meaning .
A time eraser doesn't kill anyone, since in order for people to be killed, there would have to be some point in time where they exist.
It's why you don't go to jail for 'murdering' people who won't be born for 200 years, when you make decisions that affect the identities of people that will be alive in 200 years.
Say for example, a beautiful woman is being courted by two men. She chooses to marry one over the other. Is she guilty of 'killing' the kids she would have had with the other man, if she had married him? Of course not. In order for a person to be the object of an action like killing, there must be some point in time where the person exists.
If the time erases makes it so that there is no point in time where the target exists, then the target cant be the object of any action.
But this is ignoring the larger universe of alternate timelines (which one must acknowledge if one creates a device which removes elements from a timeline). If you are in a "place" in time which transcends the normal time continuum, your memory is not subject to the normal time continuum, meaning that what you remember is true, from your perspective. Also, if you remove an element from time, it means that that element did exist in another version of the timestream. It existed "before" the weapon was used, which means whoever or whatever fired the weapon did, in fact, ultimately destroy it. It is immaterial that the element does not exist in the new timeline, because it existed in the other timeline, meaning that from a "multiversal" perspective, it was destroyed.
Your father was captain of a starship for twelve minutes. He saved 800 lives, including your mother's, and yours.
Can we change the thread subject to 'Why is this still being discussed?'?
'But to be logical is not to be right', and 'nothing' on God's earth could ever 'make it' right!'
Judge Dan Haywood
'As l speak now, the words are forming in my head.
l don't know.
l really don't know what l'm about to say, except l have a feeling about it.
That l must repeat the words that come without my knowledge.'
Pacifism does not equal passiveness. The term itself is a general term for a number of different schools of thinking and anything but absolute pacifism, which is almost never practiced (aside from the Mizarians, to keep it Star Trek), grants the individual or community the right of self-defense. Military action that will by thorough estimation lead to more stable peace and less violence in the long run is even reconcilable with most interpretations of pacifism. Being able to "push around" a pacifist or a pacifist society is a false stereotype. It's advisable to think about stuff like that before you insult a lot of people with your general statement.
Albert Einstein, Mahatma Gandhi, John Lennon, Leo Tolstoy, Dr. Martin Luther King Jr, Nelson Mandela, Mother Teresa, Linus Pauling, Helen Keller.
Thank you both. I considered replying to the post you replied to, but I was so flabbergasted by the innane claim he made that I decided to not post anything instead of posting something out of character that I'd regret later.
Now I see that both of you have captured what I wanted to say in a more profound way that I would have while aggravated, so I thank you again for that.
Yeah, I've pondered that at length, and come to the conclusion that pacifists are idiots. Ideals like that lead to losing wars. And when the goal of the enemy is to eradicate your entire race? Allowing them to win the war is immoral.
Pacifism does not equal passiveness. The term itself is a general term for a number of different schools of thinking and anything but absolute pacifism, which is almost never practiced (aside from the Mizarians, to keep it Star Trek), grants the individual or community the right of self-defense. Military action that will by thorough estimation lead to more stable peace and less violence in the long run is even reconcilable with most interpretations of pacifism. Being able to "push around" a pacifist or a pacifist society is a false stereotype. It's advisable to think about stuff like that before you insult a lot of people with your general statement.
This isn't an individual or community level event though, it's an all-out war against an enemy who wants to exterminate not one but several species utterly.
Yeah, I've pondered that at length, and come to the conclusion that pacifists are idiots. Ideals like that lead to losing wars. And when the goal of the enemy is to eradicate your entire race? Allowing them to win the war is immoral.
Albert Einstein, Mahatma Gandhi, John Lennon, Leo Tolstoy, Dr. Martin Luther King Jr, Nelson Mandela, Mother Teresa, Linus Pauling, Helen Keller.
Yeah... there's only 2 people on that list I'd want to have involved with leading a war effort... and even then only as an advisor.
Yeah, I've pondered that at length, and come to the conclusion that pacifists are idiots. Ideals like that lead to losing wars. And when the goal of the enemy is to eradicate your entire race? Allowing them to win the war is immoral.
Albert Einstein, Mahatma Gandhi, John Lennon, Leo Tolstoy, Dr. Martin Luther King Jr, Nelson Mandela, Mother Teresa, Linus Pauling, Helen Keller.
Albert Einstein might have been a pacifist, but he certainly didn't oppose leading a war, and he did actually lobby for the nuclear bomb - he later regretted this.
But not a single real world pacifist had to worry about the last 12 members of a species deciding to enslave or eradicate them all. And I suspect most of them would have said that in this case, killing the 12 would be okay and preferable to keep the war going (or lose it.)
It didn't require killing every US slave owner to abolish slavery. But that might have been because there wasn't a dozen of them that remained steadfast and had a giant, overwhelming army at their disposal that would follow their commands. The army on their side was "overwhelmable".
Star Trek Online Advancement: You start with lowbie gear, you end with Lobi gear.
If it's true that every decision creates a branching timeline, then noting can possibly be right or wrong. If you kill somone, it isn't wrong, because in an alternate branch, you didn't kill him so he is still alive.
If we believe that any action is wrong, then we accept that a certain timeline is privileged, in a moral way, above others. If we accept this, then we must also accept that the memories of time weapon operators are false memories, because in the time line that matters, the things they remember didn't actually exist.
At this point, this sounds like you're a little obsessed with playing devil's advocate. Either that or you're just obfuscating stupidity.
Your father was captain of a starship for twelve minutes. He saved 800 lives, including your mother's, and yours.
We don't have to erase the Iconians from history, just send them back in time a short distance. If we can hit them with the weapon when they are all together and send them back in time a predetermined distance, say an hour or a day, it would, according to Sela, destroy their minds. Hence the Iconians are defeated without damaging the timeline.
The sad part is we don't need the weapon for that. The weapon doesn't even DO that.
It wouldn't DESTROY their minds though, but it might make em forget about attacking us.
"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."
This isn't an individual or community level event though, it's an all-out war against an enemy who wants to exterminate not one but several species utterly.
Doesn't really change anything. The community in that case would be the attacked. A pacifist society is not a defenseless society, one could even argue (and maybe it has even been said) that the UFP unserstands itself as a pacifist society.
Of course we are talking about a fictional and in it's entirety unplausible scenario in this case, but your statement basically boils down to you considering everybody an idiot who is not willing to perform preemptive war crimes and abandon every single one of their principles once things take a dark turn. You can of course do so, but int his context I hope you never complain about anyone's lack of integrity.
But the whole issue is done anyway. If the weapon would be used in the context of the Voyager episode in question it is obvious that it's use would even cause more harm, that's established fact. To harp on using it under these circumstances can't even be called "persistent" anymore. You are advocating blowing yourself up before even half of your options are depleted.
^ 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
This isn't an individual or community level event though, it's an all-out war against an enemy who wants to exterminate not one but several species utterly.
Doesn't really change anything. The community in that case would be the attacked. A pacifist society is not a defenseless society, one could even argue (and maybe it has even been said) that the UFP unserstands itself as a pacifist society.
Of course we are talking about a fictional and in it's entirety unplausible scenario in this case, but your statement basically boils down to you considering everybody an idiot who is not willing to perform preemptive war crimes and abandon every single one of their principles once things take a dark turn. You can of course do so, but int his context I hope you never complain about anyone's lack of integrity.
What I'm seeing are not people espousing principles of behavior, but instead advocating laws of behavior:
* The notion that the mere use of the weapon in itself, the act of pushing the button or pulling the trigger or whatever is done to cause the weapon to "fire," the act of "firing" the weapon, the act itself, mind you, is bad.
* The insistence that there are no motivations or attitudes in which its use could be good, that there could never be a context in which its use would be good.
* The idea that the motivations, the attitudes, the intentions, the context, and the consequences are all irrelevant, and that only the act itself need be considered. That's not principlism. That's legalism.
What I'm seeing are not people espousing principles of behavior, but instead advocating laws of behavior:
* The notion that the mere use of the weapon in itself, the act of pushing the button or pulling the trigger or whatever is done to cause the weapon to "fire," the act of "firing" the weapon, the act itself, mind you, is bad.
* The insistence that there are no motivations or attitudes in which its use could be good, that there could never be a context in which its use would be good.
* The idea that the motivations, the attitudes, the intentions, the context, and the consequences are all irrelevant, and that only the act itself need be considered. That's not principlism. That's legalism.
I don't see it that way, but then again I can only look up the term "legalism" and judge by the very first brief explanation I could gather as my studies have been of sciences and not of arts. But I think you are referring to "In its narrower versions, legalism may endorse the notion that the pre-existing body of authoritative legal materials already contains a uniquely pre-determined right answer to any legal problem that may arise."
At least I never thought about it this way. Whatever the legal body inc harge of the decision would say about it is irrelevant when you decide wether or not your personal ethics and principals would accept the consequences of the weapon's use. After all, if we keep the games' context in mind all legal bodies basically voted to use the weapon. As the episode the weapon is based on showed it is considered a WMD and it's use on the Iconians (if that is what's planned, we actually don't know) would mean the removal of a species and it's associated history from existence. Wether or not this is cosnidered "genocide" in the legal definition is rather irrelevant as in the end weapon use in this context would cause the extinction of a species' past, present and future and the species itself (the conservation biologist in me might also have a say about this without the whole sci-fi war context). If you disregard genocide/'extinction war' as a matter of 'resolving' conflict than you can not use the weapon (in this way, again, we don't know that from the games' context). If you do or support it, even on basis of "it's us versus them" your principles/ethics are of no integrity and even if you persist through the conflict, you lost morally and you can never undo that damage.
To me, this is what has been argued. Or did I misunderstand what you meant?
^ 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
Comments
But it's not quite that simple, is it? Sure, we all have our ideas of right and wrong when we're sitting at our computers arguing about ethics and morality, but I often wonder what would happen if I was put into something such as a combat scenario, where most every decision is a matter of life and death. Would I really follow the lofty speech I quoted freely on the Internet? If I'm honest, I don't think I would. Same goes for scenarios like this in the game. Our Starfleet officers may be "moral" people in a comfortable position, but when they are suddenly thrust into a scenario where they are facing not just death, but extinction, their "morality" becomes a luxury, a luxury that they might decide they can no longer afford. Whether this makes them no better than their enemies may seem immaterial when they are given the choice of survival or oblivion.
Your father was captain of a starship for twelve minutes. He saved 800 lives, including your mother's, and yours.
I dare you to do better.
((And in my case, my main is the Chief of New Romulan Military Intelligence. She looks at a very big picture, and she has the information necessary to see that picture. A few pieces in the puzzle that forms the picture may be missing, but she has enough pieces to see the picture fairly clearly. And so she has no moral qualms about assassinating Sela. She has no qualms about killing every Iconian alive today. She is not terribly concerned with the question of whether it would be good or bad to erase the Iconians from having ever existed. She has a job to do which most do not have the stomach to do, and that job is to ensure the survival and freedom of the citizens of the Republic. She measures ethical questions in her work in light of whether they negatively or positively affect her performance of that job or its fulfillment. If they have a negative effect on that job, they're bad to her. If they have a positive effect on that job, they're good to her. She is not unfeeling. She is a Romulan! Of course she has feelings! But she also knows what her role is as Chief of Military Intelligence. When it comes to her daughters, she has the same duties, to ensure they are alive and free (and well), and she will go to all sorts of lengths as a mother to ensure that such will be the case for them. Some have lived long enough to regret threatening her daughters. She is almost as fierce and, yes, uncompromising, in her protection of the citizens of the Republic. To accuse her of being unethical because of how she views her job and ethical questions related to it is to have no frame of reference by which to judge her. She is not Tal'Shiar. She is not even Section 31. But she is Tal'Diann. Again, she is Romulan, not Human, not Vulcan, not Klingon. Romulan. The values of Humans, Vulcans, Klingons, or any other culture may or may not have any meaning to her.))
My character Tsin'xing
At the risk of getting a temporal headache, I'll just refer to Annorax. It's never as cut-and-dry as simply removing a particular event in time. The Krenim superweapon resulted in massive changes in the timeline without a particular element, no matter how small it may be. Chakotay wants to erase a small harmless asteroid with the Krenim superweapon, but in doing so he changes the course of history as that tiny asteroid was responsible for seeding life on another planet millions of years ago, and without that life there, the balance of power in the quadrant shifts dramatically.
Without the Iconian genocide, it is possible the galaxy would be so drastically altered, since our own growth and development could be dependant on that genocide happening over 200,000 years ago.
It's also why simply erasing the Iconians from time itself is not a smart move either. Without the Iconians to tyranically rule over the galaxy, there would have been no need for them to be overthrown and the servitor species striking off on their own.
A good example of this from another fictional universe is Satine Kryze from Star Wars: The Clone Wars. She was genuinely a good person with good intentions. However, her fanatical devotion to pacifism eventually led to
Your father was captain of a starship for twelve minutes. He saved 800 lives, including your mother's, and yours.
I dare you to do better.
Not entirely correct. I agree we may very well have to kill them, at this point it's the most sure option for our survival.
However using the temporal weapon to do so is completely self destructive, and a stupid idea for that reason. We do NOT have the data to find a way to use it which will not end up erasing us as well, or even just us. Temporal mechanics when dealing with a TRIBBLE-up weapon of this magnitude is not an exact science and that's a massive understatement.
THE QUESTION OF USING THE DEVICE, IN THE CONTEXT OF WHETHER OR NOT TO KILL THE ICONIANS IS A FALSE QUESTION.
It's NOT the only way to defeat them and anyone who's been paying attention to what we know about Star Trek and the story so far should see it if they think about it for a minute.
"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."
l don't know.
l really don't know what l'm about to say, except l have a feeling about it.
That l must repeat the words that come without my knowledge.'
I don't think so. It said "We rejected the Krenim ship because it would take too long to build. Because the questions of time alteration are too thorny. Because there should be lines we shouldn't cross. That we can't cross."
But in the very next breath, it said "Those lines seem hazy today. If the choice is morality or destruction, I fear that many even in Starfleet will choose the option that gives us a chance to see tomorrow."
The outcome and ending of Broken Circle CLEARLY states that the weapon is going ahead.
Your father was captain of a starship for twelve minutes. He saved 800 lives, including your mother's, and yours.
I dare you to do better.
False comparison. The woman would never have had those children without outside intervention.
Going back in time and erasing the man she would have married normally from the timeline with the intention of insuring their children are never born and that she marries the other man is more along the lines we are talking here.
Also, the person did exist at one point in order to be removed. And at that point that they were removed, they were murdered. And for them to be removed, someone had to decide to remove them. The (metaphorical) bullet might have hit before the trigger was pulled, but we have a perpetrator, a murder weapon in the form of time manipulation, and a motive. And all of it premeditated.
Erasing someone from existence is murder. Erasing someone from existence before they were born could arguably be worse because it removes their potential and their legacy. And of course, the butterfly effect in all its glory will ensure that even those who aren't removed may very well have their entire lives, personalities and memories rewritten-and personality/memory manipulation in itself is a pretty nasty thing in itself.
Pacifism does not equal passiveness. The term itself is a general term for a number of different schools of thinking and anything but absolute pacifism, which is almost never practiced (aside from the Mizarians, to keep it Star Trek), grants the individual or community the right of self-defense. Military action that will by thorough estimation lead to more stable peace and less violence in the long run is even reconcilable with most interpretations of pacifism. Being able to "push around" a pacifist or a pacifist society is a false stereotype. It's advisable to think about stuff like that before you insult a lot of people with your general statement.
Get the Forums Enhancement Extension!
Albert Einstein, Mahatma Gandhi, John Lennon, Leo Tolstoy, Dr. Martin Luther King Jr, Nelson Mandela, Mother Teresa, Linus Pauling, Helen Keller.
Some thought / think that dropping two nukes on Japan saved more lives than it took, shortened the continuation of WWII, and avoided a possible US or Chinese or Russian occupation of Japan (or some kind of split Korea version of Japan) -- and even avoided another front for the US in the Korea or even Vietnam wars.
Others think only of the deaths the two nukes caused .
While both arguments have merit, what isn't debated is that it takes a hard heart & mind to order such an order .
The last (badly written) Blog had an Admiral bellyaching over a few hundred deaths (when it should have been a few thousand) made; t sound like he was not the guy who'd drop nukes ... , if you catch my meaning .
But this is ignoring the larger universe of alternate timelines (which one must acknowledge if one creates a device which removes elements from a timeline). If you are in a "place" in time which transcends the normal time continuum, your memory is not subject to the normal time continuum, meaning that what you remember is true, from your perspective. Also, if you remove an element from time, it means that that element did exist in another version of the timestream. It existed "before" the weapon was used, which means whoever or whatever fired the weapon did, in fact, ultimately destroy it. It is immaterial that the element does not exist in the new timeline, because it existed in the other timeline, meaning that from a "multiversal" perspective, it was destroyed.
Your father was captain of a starship for twelve minutes. He saved 800 lives, including your mother's, and yours.
I dare you to do better.
l don't know.
l really don't know what l'm about to say, except l have a feeling about it.
That l must repeat the words that come without my knowledge.'
Thank you both. I considered replying to the post you replied to, but I was so flabbergasted by the innane claim he made that I decided to not post anything instead of posting something out of character that I'd regret later.
Now I see that both of you have captured what I wanted to say in a more profound way that I would have while aggravated, so I thank you again for that.
My character Tsin'xing
But not a single real world pacifist had to worry about the last 12 members of a species deciding to enslave or eradicate them all. And I suspect most of them would have said that in this case, killing the 12 would be okay and preferable to keep the war going (or lose it.)
It didn't require killing every US slave owner to abolish slavery. But that might have been because there wasn't a dozen of them that remained steadfast and had a giant, overwhelming army at their disposal that would follow their commands. The army on their side was "overwhelmable".
At this point, this sounds like you're a little obsessed with playing devil's advocate. Either that or you're just obfuscating stupidity.
Your father was captain of a starship for twelve minutes. He saved 800 lives, including your mother's, and yours.
I dare you to do better.
I like that idea.
The sad part is we don't need the weapon for that. The weapon doesn't even DO that.
It wouldn't DESTROY their minds though, but it might make em forget about attacking us.
"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."
Doesn't really change anything. The community in that case would be the attacked. A pacifist society is not a defenseless society, one could even argue (and maybe it has even been said) that the UFP unserstands itself as a pacifist society.
Of course we are talking about a fictional and in it's entirety unplausible scenario in this case, but your statement basically boils down to you considering everybody an idiot who is not willing to perform preemptive war crimes and abandon every single one of their principles once things take a dark turn. You can of course do so, but int his context I hope you never complain about anyone's lack of integrity.
But the whole issue is done anyway. If the weapon would be used in the context of the Voyager episode in question it is obvious that it's use would even cause more harm, that's established fact. To harp on using it under these circumstances can't even be called "persistent" anymore. You are advocating blowing yourself up before even half of your options are depleted.
Get the Forums Enhancement Extension!
What I'm seeing are not people espousing principles of behavior, but instead advocating laws of behavior:
* The notion that the mere use of the weapon in itself, the act of pushing the button or pulling the trigger or whatever is done to cause the weapon to "fire," the act of "firing" the weapon, the act itself, mind you, is bad.
* The insistence that there are no motivations or attitudes in which its use could be good, that there could never be a context in which its use would be good.
* The idea that the motivations, the attitudes, the intentions, the context, and the consequences are all irrelevant, and that only the act itself need be considered.
That's not principlism. That's legalism.
I don't see it that way, but then again I can only look up the term "legalism" and judge by the very first brief explanation I could gather as my studies have been of sciences and not of arts. But I think you are referring to "In its narrower versions, legalism may endorse the notion that the pre-existing body of authoritative legal materials already contains a uniquely pre-determined right answer to any legal problem that may arise."
At least I never thought about it this way. Whatever the legal body inc harge of the decision would say about it is irrelevant when you decide wether or not your personal ethics and principals would accept the consequences of the weapon's use. After all, if we keep the games' context in mind all legal bodies basically voted to use the weapon. As the episode the weapon is based on showed it is considered a WMD and it's use on the Iconians (if that is what's planned, we actually don't know) would mean the removal of a species and it's associated history from existence. Wether or not this is cosnidered "genocide" in the legal definition is rather irrelevant as in the end weapon use in this context would cause the extinction of a species' past, present and future and the species itself (the conservation biologist in me might also have a say about this without the whole sci-fi war context). If you disregard genocide/'extinction war' as a matter of 'resolving' conflict than you can not use the weapon (in this way, again, we don't know that from the games' context). If you do or support it, even on basis of "it's us versus them" your principles/ethics are of no integrity and even if you persist through the conflict, you lost morally and you can never undo that damage.
To me, this is what has been argued. Or did I misunderstand what you meant?
Get the Forums Enhancement Extension!