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.
Oh it is quite true that using the weapon is a bad idea, but unless you use it to erase a species from history, it's not immoral any more than any other weapon.
I didn't see a lot of legalistic arguments. I've seen a few arguments about whether the effect of the weapon can be described as genocide, and a few people have mentioned the Temporal Prime Directive. But I don't think anyone's really based an argument against the use of the Weapon on the Temporal Prime Directive -- which would be legalistic in the narrow sense. And I doubt anyone's objecting to it because they believe it simply happens to meet the formal definition of genocide. Rather, I think people object because the effects of the Weapon seem superlatively horrible, and genocide seems the most apt available word to describe it.
Personally, I feel like describing its effects as genocide is somehow an understatement, that the effects of the Weapon is actually worse than what the Iconians are planning to do. The part I had the hardest time accepting about "Year of Hell" was not the weird time travel business, but that Chakotay could even tolerate the thought of using it.
Oh it is quite true that using the weapon is a bad idea, but unless you use it to erase a species from history, it's not immoral any more than any other weapon.
That I can agree with, assuming you can use it in a way that does not remove the species and it's roots you target but could, for example, just remove a structure, although the Voyager episode established that it is a WMD. It might be even more stupid to use this weapon in that case as opposed to any regular weapon, mind you as the temporal shenanigans will definitely have an ironic effect causing more harm than good, but in that case it wouldn't really be any more ammoral than to use regular weaponry.
(...) Personally, I feel like describing its effects as genocide is somehow an understatement, that the effects of the Weapon is actually worse than what the Iconians are planning to do. The part I had the hardest time accepting about "Year of Hell" was not the weird time travel business, but that Chakotay could even tolerate the thought of using it.
I agree with what you said and this part in this case being discussed in particular, as the temporal spiel includes not only the destruction of the 12 Iconians but of every Iconian ever existed, so you basically kill people of the past with it (if you use it in the way as outlined in the episode).
^ 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 agree with what you said and this part in this case being discussed in particular, as the temporal spiel includes not only the destruction of the 12 Iconians but of every Iconian ever existed, so you basically kill people of the past with it (if you use it in the way as outlined in the episode).
And you destroy everything that those people spent their lives creating and preserving.
There's a saying that you can kill a person, but you can't kill an idea. This is a weapon that can kill ideas.
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?
Ethics is the science of conduct; it is a branch of Philosophy, the Queen and Mother of the Sciences. Many ways exist of conceiving of the study of Ethics. Generally, types of ethical systems are divided into four:
1. Legalism: affirms that acts in themselves are good or bad.
2. Consequentialism: affirms that acts are not good or bad in themselves, but rather, that consequences of acts are good or bad. A well-known type of Consequentialism is Utilitarianism, which affirms that "the greatest good for the greatest number" is the aim of an ethically praiseworthy person.
3. Intentionalism: affirms that acts are not good or bad in themselves, and that consequences ignore motivations and so cannot be relied upon to determine good or bad, but that the intentions or motivations in which an act is done, or the attitudes behind the acts, are good or bad.
4. Situationism: affirms that context must be taken into account when judging good or bad.
Legalism insists on Laws as the standard of conduct. Consequentialism, Intentionalism, and Situationism advocate Principles, rather than Laws, as the standard of conduct.
All of these have flaws. Legalism is famous in the flaw of the Catch-22 situation, where one is in a situation in which no matter what choice he/she makes, she/he violates the ethical laws by which he/she seeks to live. Consequentialism is famous in the flaw of expressing the notion that "the end justifies the means" (and Utilitarianism would rationalize harm to a minority based on its aim being fulfilled for the majority). Intentionalism is flawed in that one may have entirely heroic motivations and still fail to accomplish good. Situationism's flaw is that it tends to intense relativism, with extremely vague principles which fail to provide sufficient guidance for conduct.
I propose a fifth division, which should probably be called something like "Holistic Ethics," which would not completely disregard the act itself, but which would subordinate the act to the consequences, and which would in turn subordinate the consequences to the motivation/intention/attitude and the context taken together, and which would advocate Principles as the standard of conduct.
I watched the Year of hell episodes from Voyager the other day and don't understand the "all or nothing" approach to temporal elimination of problems.
Possible Spoilers: When Chakotay wants to eliminate a comet that detoured Voyager through Kenim space, why not just smash the comet at that time period rather than eliminating it's existence entirely?
That way you only need to deal with future events rather than millions of years in the past.
(...)
I propose a fifth division, which should probably be called something like "Holistic Ethics," which would not completely disregard the act itself, but which would subordinate the act to the consequences, and which would in turn subordinate the consequences to the motivation/intention/attitude and the context taken together, and which would advocate Principles as the standard of conduct.
Wouldn't that just be something akin to a pragmatic form of intentionalism, then?
^ 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 watched the Year of hell episodes from Voyager the other day and don't understand the "all or nothing" approach to temporal elimination of problems.
Possible Spoilers: When Chakotay wants to eliminate a comet that detoured Voyager through Kenim space, why not just smash the comet at that time period rather than eliminating it's existence entirely?
That way you only need to deal with future events rather than millions of years in the past.
It may be the weapon can't do that.
Star Trek Online Advancement: You start with lowbie gear, you end with Lobi gear.
I watched the Year of hell episodes from Voyager the other day and don't understand the "all or nothing" approach to temporal elimination of problems.
Possible Spoilers: When Chakotay wants to eliminate a comet that detoured Voyager through Kenim space, why not just smash the comet at that time period rather than eliminating it's existence entirely?
That way you only need to deal with future events rather than millions of years in the past.
The weapon cannot do that. It doesn't time travel, it just eliminates anything it hits from existence, past, present and future. In case of the comet, eliminating it after it detoured Voyager would change the course of time so it never detoured Voyager because it didn't exist. It also, however, didn't exist millions of years before and nothing it caused would have happened - maybe at one point it caused a intelligent species to develop a culture or it created some form of life, it would have never been created which may or may not mean the astronomical body it derived from would never have been created, removing entire star systems - nothing like that would happen, changing basically everything in the process.
^ 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
As far as we know, and this is what is shown in year of hell, there's no reason to think that a temporal focusing couldn't be developed allowing the alliance to wipe out the Iconians at a specific point in time, perhaps splitting our reality from theirs. Anything is possible in fiction, especially SciFi, I think it's a mistake to talk about something 'made up' as if it were real and had to follow real physical laws.
But it makes sense to use the rules the source material established when discussing these things. Because otherwise they could just stop basing this game on it and just go with whatever. Year of hell used total removal (of species) in order to portray the weapon as a WMD. This is what it does. If you now just out of the blue change how it works to make your story work you could have made an antirely different story altogether.
(This is, btw, I think STOs current approach of "recognition no matter what"-inclusion of every little TRIBBLE left in canon in STO as problematic.)
^ 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
Oh it is quite true that using the weapon is a bad idea, but unless you use it to erase a species from history, it's not immoral any more than any other weapon.
That I can agree with, assuming you can use it in a way that does not remove the species and it's roots you target but could, for example, just remove a structure, although the Voyager episode established that it is a WMD. It might be even more stupid to use this weapon in that case as opposed to any regular weapon, mind you as the temporal shenanigans will definitely have an ironic effect causing more harm than good, but in that case it wouldn't really be any more ammoral than to use regular weaponry.
Actually... the first time we saw it used it was used to erase a Zahl city on a minor Zahl colony world. So yeah, it CAN be used in ways that aren't genocide.
Actually... the first time we saw it used it was used to erase a Zahl city on a minor Zahl colony world. So yeah, it CAN be used in ways that aren't genocide.
Yeah, but it's still wiping out a city, so it is a WMD rather than a sniper rifle or anything and should be handled like a WMD. Wether or not you can just, as I said, remove a structure or anything without hundreds of people in it it would be just a very dangerous tool (because if the structure didn't exist resources and labor wouldn't have been moved etc. etc.). and last but not least, the epsidoe suggested that every action will have an ironic twist to it.
^ 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
As far as we know, and this is what is shown in year of hell, there's no reason to think that a temporal focusing couldn't be developed allowing the alliance to wipe out the Iconians at a specific point in time, perhaps splitting our reality from theirs. Anything is possible in fiction, especially SciFi, I think it's a mistake to talk about something 'made up' as if it were real and had to follow real physical laws.
You know, we really don't know what all the capabilities this weapon has. We only see how Annorax used it: To eliminate things from the time stream to alter the present.
What if: they could use this weapon simply to send the Iconians back to an earlier time in their history when they weren't a threat to anyone?
Didn't Sela say that Iconians couldn't time travel, because it destroyed their minds? I think that's an Easter egg there.
It could be that you don't have to eliminate them, simply move them in time? MAYBE, all they have to do is take the Iconians out of phase with our timeline, (like the way the Krenim have been hiding).
Just speculating out loud. -
Now how would Sela fit in to all of this I wonder.....hmmmmm
Actually... the first time we saw it used it was used to erase a Zahl city on a minor Zahl colony world. So yeah, it CAN be used in ways that aren't genocide.
Yeah, but it's still wiping out a city, so it is a WMD rather than a sniper rifle or anything and should be handled like a WMD. Wether or not you can just, as I said, remove a structure or anything without hundreds of people in it it would be just a very dangerous tool (because if the structure didn't exist resources and labor wouldn't have been moved etc. etc.). and last but not least, the epsidoe suggested that every action will have an ironic twist to it.
Well, more like, causing ripples and eddies in the time stream that we lack the knowledge to predict. Like how he accidentally erased that one race by zapping a comet....
(...)
I propose a fifth division, which should probably be called something like "Holistic Ethics," which would not completely disregard the act itself, but which would subordinate the act to the consequences, and which would in turn subordinate the consequences to the motivation/intention/attitude and the context taken together, and which would advocate Principles as the standard of conduct.
Wouldn't that just be something akin to a pragmatic form of intentionalism, then?
Not entirely, no. It's certainly strongly intentionalist, but by taking context as equal with motivation, it becomes something more.
And "pragmatic" is not a word that many would be comfortable using in the context of Ethics, as the very word in itself suggests ethical relativism (indeed, "Pragmatic Ethics" is a type of relativistic ethic). To think in ethical questions "What is practical?" is to disregard "What is ideal?" and this turns Ethics as a standard on its head, for Ethics is concerned with the concept of "oughtness." Ethics asks "What ought to be?" and "What ought I to do?"
My point in all of this is simple: The act of using the weapon is in itself neither good nor bad; it only is. If we were to consider if a particular use of the weapon be good or bad, we would have to take into account factors beyond its mere use, factors including consequences, but not overly concerned with the act or even consequences, focusing instead on motivation(s) and context.
Someone in the course of this discussion (which has ranged through several distinct threads, so it may not have been in this thread) referred to Hiroshima and Nagasaki. I do not believe they drew any conclusions, but laid bare that there are at least two ways of viewing those events, leaving it for the reader to come to her/his own conclusion. What they did not include in the discussion was a dictum in American military ethics, which was formerly (and hopefully still is) taught in military academies, OTS, and ROTC programs: "A civilian target is an impermissible target." If this were to be asserted apart from context (and it should not be, for civilians can pose threats to troops, who should of course be allowed to defend themselves), it would automatically damn the person who made the decision (and those who were involved in the bombing for not having "intestinal fortitude" -- something else which was formerly taught, and hopefully still is taught, in the same venues, which is explained as "having the guts to disobey an unjust order"), because both targets were civilian population centers, and not military installations. My personal opinion on this particular question is that America violated her own military ethics in these two events, but I have heard many argue that the context justified the bombing. I will concede that there is no way it could have been an easy decision for President Truman to make, and had I been in his shoes, knowing all that he knew, I might have acted even more unwisely. The My Lai massacre, on the other hand, is not hazy and uncertain; it was morally reprehensible, and without justification (it may be possible to explain the event by reference to PTSD, but the explanation would not excuse, it would merely inform for purposes of sentencing); but thank all that is holy for personnel like WO1 Hugh Thompson, Jr, who were ethically praiseworthy in the event and did not abandon their principles.
When we turn to the use of the Krenim weapon in the Iconian War, a number of factors has to be considered before we could judge that such an event would be ethically praiseworthy or ethically contemptible. The target itself is such a factor (and one which is an unknown variable to us at this time), but there is no civilian target among the Iconians. Who does the deed is another factor; what is his/her motivation for doing it? And the context of the war itself cannot be ignored, nor the character of the enemy (megalomaniacal, capricious at best, responsible for the war in the first place, intent on exterminating other sentient beings or enslaving them and putting them into forced labor camps -- these are not by any means innocent civilians, and they do not deserve the same considerations as innocent civilians), and yes, the consequences.
I have seen a few in the course of this discussion (which, again, has ranged through several distinct threads) allude to consequences in their opposition to the use of the weapon, pointing to the fact that all which the Iconians ever did would also be erased from history, that history itself would be far different, that some species might not have evolved as they did, and others might have survived to evolve, that the political state of the galaxy could be vastly different. All of that is indeed worthy of consideration. But it is no more the only consideration than the "OMG, weapon of genocide is evil and any use of it for any reason in any context is wrong!" assertion of legalism which has been the dominant position in these threads. The picture is far, far more complex.
As far as we know, and this is what is shown in year of hell, there's no reason to think that a temporal focusing couldn't be developed allowing the alliance to wipe out the Iconians at a specific point in time, perhaps splitting our reality from theirs. Anything is possible in fiction, especially SciFi, I think it's a mistake to talk about something 'made up' as if it were real and had to follow real physical laws.
You know, we really don't know what all the capabilities this weapon has. We only see how Annorax used it: To eliminate things from the time stream to alter the present.
What if: they could use this weapon simply to send the Iconians back to an earlier time in their history when they weren't a threat to anyone?
Didn't Sela say that Iconians couldn't time travel, because it destroyed their minds? I think that's an Easter egg there.
It could be that you don't have to eliminate them, simply move them in time? MAYBE, all they have to do is take the Iconians out of phase with our timeline, (like the way the Krenim have been hiding).
Just speculating out loud. -
Now how would Sela fit in to all of this I wonder.....hmmmmm
I do not disagree that wiping out an entire species is ALWAYS entirely off the table.
However I disagree that using the weapon at all is ever a small enough risk to warrant it being something which can actually keep us ALIVE. Therefore said weapon is merely another threat.
"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."
I do not disagree that wiping out an entire species is ALWAYS entirely off the table.
This is the only part I have to disagree with, normally I'd agree fully 100%, but the fact that there are only 12 of them, each probably capable of the act we saw the first one do (vaporize multiple klingons at once) and all 12 are enemy combatants with zero civilians forces the option onto the table.
I'd kill them, but try to figure out how to clone them afterwards so that the species isn't extinct.
Let the Kobali figure out what to do.
'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.'
I'd kill them, but try to figure out how to clone them afterwards so that the species isn't extinct.
If there's one thing Star Trek has taught us, is that clones, duplicates, holographic avatars, or aliens disguising themselves as someone else are completely benign and results in nothing but positive consequences.
I'd kill them, but try to figure out how to clone them afterwards so that the species isn't extinct.
If there's one thing Star Trek has taught us, is that clones, duplicates, holographic avatars, or aliens disguising themselves as someone else are completely benign and results in nothing but positive consequences.
"Captain, we just encountered a mass of sarcasm so volatile it took out our sarcasm detectors."
I'd kill them, but try to figure out how to clone them afterwards so that the species isn't extinct.
If there's one thing Star Trek has taught us, is that clones, duplicates, holographic avatars, or aliens disguising themselves as someone else are completely benign and results in nothing but positive consequences.
"Captain, we just encountered a mass of sarcasm so volatile it took out our sarcasm detectors."
Is this the part where I threaten to start a kick start to get the extra alien customization so I can stop looking like an overly tall romulan?
But yea I agree that clones seem like nothing but trouble in Trek.
Need to pay the Kobali to figure out how to turn dead Humans/Andorians/Klingons/Iconians, into live Humans/Andorians/Klingons/Iconians, rather than Kobali.
I do not disagree that wiping out an entire species is ALWAYS entirely off the table.
This is the only part I have to disagree with, normally I'd agree fully 100%, but the fact that there are only 12 of them, each probably capable of the act we saw the first one do (vaporize multiple klingons at once) and all 12 are enemy combatants with zero civilians forces the option onto the table.
I was actually trying to say I do not disagree it's NOT ALWAYS entirely off the table, but was very tired at the time and still am now. Pardon my insomnia problems lol.
In an extreme circumstance especially since the iconians don't have civilians (at least that we've seen) wiping them out would have to be an option.
The weapon ship however is THE Crappiest option ever.
"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."
I do not disagree that wiping out an entire species is ALWAYS entirely off the table.
However I disagree that using the weapon at all is ever a small enough risk to warrant it being something which can actually keep us ALIVE. Therefore said weapon is merely another threat.
I'd kill them, but try to figure out how to clone them afterwards so that the species isn't extinct.
If there's one thing Star Trek has taught us, is that clones, duplicates, holographic avatars, or aliens disguising themselves as someone else are completely benign and results in nothing but positive consequences.
"Captain, we just encountered a mass of sarcasm so volatile it took out our sarcasm detectors."
So is that what happened at Priority One?
Star Trek Online Advancement: You start with lowbie gear, you end with Lobi gear.
@Protogoth: I read all of your explanations, and I am grateful you take the time to be as thorough as you are, but I still cannot help but to consider it "pragmatic". Since I lack the in-depth understanding of terminology I can only resort to much simpler terms but the way I see it you never condemn any act unworthy of considering as long as it serves the superordinate goal which is, in my basic understanding, the definition of "pragmatic".
So if the reason for not using the weapon (as always, the whole discussion contains so many unknown variables and the only way it was shown to work was a WMD that was always accompanied by ironic twists) is because such weapons and particularly in this case the implied extermination of a race is what sets us apart from an enemy that would go this way, the consideration of using it in that way would not set "us" apart from said enemy we don't fall short on demonizing the entire time.
And that doesn't sit well with me because I dont know wether or not we still all talk about just a video game and/or make postings from a certain in-character POV but I see numerous people propagating the usage of WMD and in case of the Kreenim weapon one that was shown on screen to not only remove the target but the target's entire history which basically could mean exterminating every Iconian ever existed, de facto a "back in time WMD", because we are made believe that everything is so super desperate that we basically have to become monsters in order to survive but there is nothing that reinforces those claims. And this doesn't feel good, honestly, because it does show how little integrity "we" as a society semingly put in those values as long as some form of authority tells us that everything is super gritty desperate.
^ 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
My character Tsin'xing
Personally, I feel like describing its effects as genocide is somehow an understatement, that the effects of the Weapon is actually worse than what the Iconians are planning to do. The part I had the hardest time accepting about "Year of Hell" was not the weird time travel business, but that Chakotay could even tolerate the thought of using it.
That I can agree with, assuming you can use it in a way that does not remove the species and it's roots you target but could, for example, just remove a structure, although the Voyager episode established that it is a WMD. It might be even more stupid to use this weapon in that case as opposed to any regular weapon, mind you as the temporal shenanigans will definitely have an ironic effect causing more harm than good, but in that case it wouldn't really be any more ammoral than to use regular weaponry.
I agree with what you said and this part in this case being discussed in particular, as the temporal spiel includes not only the destruction of the 12 Iconians but of every Iconian ever existed, so you basically kill people of the past with it (if you use it in the way as outlined in the episode).
Get the Forums Enhancement Extension!
There's a saying that you can kill a person, but you can't kill an idea. This is a weapon that can kill ideas.
Ethics is the science of conduct; it is a branch of Philosophy, the Queen and Mother of the Sciences. Many ways exist of conceiving of the study of Ethics. Generally, types of ethical systems are divided into four:
1. Legalism: affirms that acts in themselves are good or bad.
2. Consequentialism: affirms that acts are not good or bad in themselves, but rather, that consequences of acts are good or bad. A well-known type of Consequentialism is Utilitarianism, which affirms that "the greatest good for the greatest number" is the aim of an ethically praiseworthy person.
3. Intentionalism: affirms that acts are not good or bad in themselves, and that consequences ignore motivations and so cannot be relied upon to determine good or bad, but that the intentions or motivations in which an act is done, or the attitudes behind the acts, are good or bad.
4. Situationism: affirms that context must be taken into account when judging good or bad.
Legalism insists on Laws as the standard of conduct. Consequentialism, Intentionalism, and Situationism advocate Principles, rather than Laws, as the standard of conduct.
All of these have flaws. Legalism is famous in the flaw of the Catch-22 situation, where one is in a situation in which no matter what choice he/she makes, she/he violates the ethical laws by which he/she seeks to live. Consequentialism is famous in the flaw of expressing the notion that "the end justifies the means" (and Utilitarianism would rationalize harm to a minority based on its aim being fulfilled for the majority). Intentionalism is flawed in that one may have entirely heroic motivations and still fail to accomplish good. Situationism's flaw is that it tends to intense relativism, with extremely vague principles which fail to provide sufficient guidance for conduct.
I propose a fifth division, which should probably be called something like "Holistic Ethics," which would not completely disregard the act itself, but which would subordinate the act to the consequences, and which would in turn subordinate the consequences to the motivation/intention/attitude and the context taken together, and which would advocate Principles as the standard of conduct.
Possible Spoilers: When Chakotay wants to eliminate a comet that detoured Voyager through Kenim space, why not just smash the comet at that time period rather than eliminating it's existence entirely?
That way you only need to deal with future events rather than millions of years in the past.
Wouldn't that just be something akin to a pragmatic form of intentionalism, then?
Get the Forums Enhancement Extension!
It may be the weapon can't do that.
The weapon cannot do that. It doesn't time travel, it just eliminates anything it hits from existence, past, present and future. In case of the comet, eliminating it after it detoured Voyager would change the course of time so it never detoured Voyager because it didn't exist. It also, however, didn't exist millions of years before and nothing it caused would have happened - maybe at one point it caused a intelligent species to develop a culture or it created some form of life, it would have never been created which may or may not mean the astronomical body it derived from would never have been created, removing entire star systems - nothing like that would happen, changing basically everything in the process.
Get the Forums Enhancement Extension!
But it makes sense to use the rules the source material established when discussing these things. Because otherwise they could just stop basing this game on it and just go with whatever. Year of hell used total removal (of species) in order to portray the weapon as a WMD. This is what it does. If you now just out of the blue change how it works to make your story work you could have made an antirely different story altogether.
(This is, btw, I think STOs current approach of "recognition no matter what"-inclusion of every little TRIBBLE left in canon in STO as problematic.)
Get the Forums Enhancement Extension!
My character Tsin'xing
Yeah, but it's still wiping out a city, so it is a WMD rather than a sniper rifle or anything and should be handled like a WMD. Wether or not you can just, as I said, remove a structure or anything without hundreds of people in it it would be just a very dangerous tool (because if the structure didn't exist resources and labor wouldn't have been moved etc. etc.). and last but not least, the epsidoe suggested that every action will have an ironic twist to it.
Get the Forums Enhancement Extension!
You know, we really don't know what all the capabilities this weapon has. We only see how Annorax used it: To eliminate things from the time stream to alter the present.
What if: they could use this weapon simply to send the Iconians back to an earlier time in their history when they weren't a threat to anyone?
Didn't Sela say that Iconians couldn't time travel, because it destroyed their minds? I think that's an Easter egg there.
It could be that you don't have to eliminate them, simply move them in time? MAYBE, all they have to do is take the Iconians out of phase with our timeline, (like the way the Krenim have been hiding).
Just speculating out loud. -
Now how would Sela fit in to all of this I wonder.....hmmmmm
My character Tsin'xing
Not entirely, no. It's certainly strongly intentionalist, but by taking context as equal with motivation, it becomes something more.
And "pragmatic" is not a word that many would be comfortable using in the context of Ethics, as the very word in itself suggests ethical relativism (indeed, "Pragmatic Ethics" is a type of relativistic ethic). To think in ethical questions "What is practical?" is to disregard "What is ideal?" and this turns Ethics as a standard on its head, for Ethics is concerned with the concept of "oughtness." Ethics asks "What ought to be?" and "What ought I to do?"
My point in all of this is simple: The act of using the weapon is in itself neither good nor bad; it only is. If we were to consider if a particular use of the weapon be good or bad, we would have to take into account factors beyond its mere use, factors including consequences, but not overly concerned with the act or even consequences, focusing instead on motivation(s) and context.
Someone in the course of this discussion (which has ranged through several distinct threads, so it may not have been in this thread) referred to Hiroshima and Nagasaki. I do not believe they drew any conclusions, but laid bare that there are at least two ways of viewing those events, leaving it for the reader to come to her/his own conclusion. What they did not include in the discussion was a dictum in American military ethics, which was formerly (and hopefully still is) taught in military academies, OTS, and ROTC programs: "A civilian target is an impermissible target." If this were to be asserted apart from context (and it should not be, for civilians can pose threats to troops, who should of course be allowed to defend themselves), it would automatically damn the person who made the decision (and those who were involved in the bombing for not having "intestinal fortitude" -- something else which was formerly taught, and hopefully still is taught, in the same venues, which is explained as "having the guts to disobey an unjust order"), because both targets were civilian population centers, and not military installations. My personal opinion on this particular question is that America violated her own military ethics in these two events, but I have heard many argue that the context justified the bombing. I will concede that there is no way it could have been an easy decision for President Truman to make, and had I been in his shoes, knowing all that he knew, I might have acted even more unwisely. The My Lai massacre, on the other hand, is not hazy and uncertain; it was morally reprehensible, and without justification (it may be possible to explain the event by reference to PTSD, but the explanation would not excuse, it would merely inform for purposes of sentencing); but thank all that is holy for personnel like WO1 Hugh Thompson, Jr, who were ethically praiseworthy in the event and did not abandon their principles.
When we turn to the use of the Krenim weapon in the Iconian War, a number of factors has to be considered before we could judge that such an event would be ethically praiseworthy or ethically contemptible. The target itself is such a factor (and one which is an unknown variable to us at this time), but there is no civilian target among the Iconians. Who does the deed is another factor; what is his/her motivation for doing it? And the context of the war itself cannot be ignored, nor the character of the enemy (megalomaniacal, capricious at best, responsible for the war in the first place, intent on exterminating other sentient beings or enslaving them and putting them into forced labor camps -- these are not by any means innocent civilians, and they do not deserve the same considerations as innocent civilians), and yes, the consequences.
I have seen a few in the course of this discussion (which, again, has ranged through several distinct threads) allude to consequences in their opposition to the use of the weapon, pointing to the fact that all which the Iconians ever did would also be erased from history, that history itself would be far different, that some species might not have evolved as they did, and others might have survived to evolve, that the political state of the galaxy could be vastly different. All of that is indeed worthy of consideration. But it is no more the only consideration than the "OMG, weapon of genocide is evil and any use of it for any reason in any context is wrong!" assertion of legalism which has been the dominant position in these threads. The picture is far, far more complex.
SELA MUST DIE!!!!!!!!!
However I disagree that using the weapon at all is ever a small enough risk to warrant it being something which can actually keep us ALIVE. Therefore said weapon is merely another threat.
"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 is the only part I have to disagree with, normally I'd agree fully 100%, but the fact that there are only 12 of them, each probably capable of the act we saw the first one do (vaporize multiple klingons at once) and all 12 are enemy combatants with zero civilians forces the option onto the table.
My character Tsin'xing
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.'
If there's one thing Star Trek has taught us, is that clones, duplicates, holographic avatars, or aliens disguising themselves as someone else are completely benign and results in nothing but positive consequences.
"Captain, we just encountered a mass of sarcasm so volatile it took out our sarcasm detectors."
But yea I agree that clones seem like nothing but trouble in Trek.
Need to pay the Kobali to figure out how to turn dead Humans/Andorians/Klingons/Iconians, into live Humans/Andorians/Klingons/Iconians, rather than Kobali.
I was actually trying to say I do not disagree it's NOT ALWAYS entirely off the table, but was very tired at the time and still am now. Pardon my insomnia problems lol.
In an extreme circumstance especially since the iconians don't have civilians (at least that we've seen) wiping them out would have to be an option.
The weapon ship however is THE Crappiest option ever.
"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."
Alternatively:
Or:
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.
So is that what happened at Priority One?
So if the reason for not using the weapon (as always, the whole discussion contains so many unknown variables and the only way it was shown to work was a WMD that was always accompanied by ironic twists) is because such weapons and particularly in this case the implied extermination of a race is what sets us apart from an enemy that would go this way, the consideration of using it in that way would not set "us" apart from said enemy we don't fall short on demonizing the entire time.
And that doesn't sit well with me because I dont know wether or not we still all talk about just a video game and/or make postings from a certain in-character POV but I see numerous people propagating the usage of WMD and in case of the Kreenim weapon one that was shown on screen to not only remove the target but the target's entire history which basically could mean exterminating every Iconian ever existed, de facto a "back in time WMD", because we are made believe that everything is so super desperate that we basically have to become monsters in order to survive but there is nothing that reinforces those claims. And this doesn't feel good, honestly, because it does show how little integrity "we" as a society semingly put in those values as long as some form of authority tells us that everything is super gritty desperate.
Get the Forums Enhancement Extension!