That would make the captain who made that choice the highest of murderers - an individual who exterminated an entire race for the actions of a single component of it.
And? Sometimes you need to do bad things. A real hero would realize this and do what needed to be done regardless of what they maybe viewed as.
A 'real hero' would find an option which saved everyone. No one is perfect (including my character).
Sometimes you can't save everyone. But you can still do your best to save as many as possible. Still, if you've gotten yourself into the position where you have to choose between saving two entire sapient species, either the galaxy's in seriously deep sh*t or you and/or your organization haven't done your job properly.
Good example from another franchise: In the concluding episode of the Shadow War arc in Babylon 5, "Into the Fire", the Vorlons and Shadows are both throwing planet-killers around and killing billions. They're headed for both Coriana VI and Centauri Prime, and Captain Sheridan chooses to stage his big knock-down-drag-out confrontation with the precursor species at Coriana VI because it has a population of 6 billion whereas Centauri Prime only has 3 billion residents.
It's if you try to justify it afterward with "nature taking its course" or other such social Darwinist claptrap, instead of admitting that you just tried to pick the least bad of two or more sh*tty options, that you become the "highest of murderers". *glares daggers at Dr. Phlox*
*I'm aware of that. That's my point. The basic definition of a 'real hero' is a hero who never fails, who is perfect. That's impossible.
**Good example, although you'll recall Marcus effectively admitted that the choice wasn't 'heroic' - it was necessary. The needs of the many doesn't always equal the 'heroic' outcome. Of course, you can argue that no 'hero' thinks of themself as heroic.
***And in this case, my character doesn't know how many of each species are alive at one time. Nor does he know what combined potential either species has. He doesn't know which action will have the better (or lesser) impact on the universe. He doesn't know the lesser of two evils.
I won't even attempt to make the point of 'the lesser of two evils is still evil', because as Doctors 10 and 11 said to War in 'Day of the Doctor' with regards to The Moment "you were The Doctor more than any of us. You were The Doctor on the day it wasn't possible to get it right."
Well, you'll notice I haven't selected a poll response either. Without any actual context for the choice this poll is really just asking which Trek species people like the least. If there was a Borg option I admit I'd be all over that, though: exterminating them is kind of inherently the lesser of two evils.
Well, you'll notice I haven't selected a poll response either. Without any actual context for the choice this poll is really just asking which Trek species people like the least. If there was a Borg option I admit I'd be all over that, though: exterminating them is kind of inherently the lesser of two evils.
The lesser of two evils is still evil.
Perhaps, but there's still a difference between murder, and killing in genuine defense of oneself and/or others. That diplomacy demonstrably doesn't work on the Borg entity, and that its number of active combat personnel is equal to the population, is the Collective's problem, not mine.
And for the record, it's not an approach I would ever endorse or propose in real life: there's no such thing as a factually monolithic enemy in human society. Even for Star Trek the Borg are unique.
"Great War! / And I cannot take more! / Great tour! / I keep on marching on / I play the great score / There will be no encore / Great War! / The War to End All Wars"
— Sabaton, "Great War"
No, Joran, I have sufficient imagination to realize that it's not a binary choice. And if my captain can't save everyone, then by the Prophets he'll die trying!
i think the thread should be closed no one really wants to participate, nor do they have enough imagination to set the circumstances for themselves.
It's not a choice if you make up the setting first.
Its letting the participant set whatever circumstances they want to justify their reasoning for their choice, regardless ive gotten all i wanted to see from this project.
With most people on this forum and dare i say trek fans aka trekkies, if they are faced with a morel dilemna they would rather not choose quoting james kirk "I dont believe in a no win scenario" to justify not choosing.
In doing so they omit that they would rather pass the buck, or not choose if faced with a decision where there was no clear way to win where all parties dont walk away unscathed.
Think of all the things that has happened in your individual lives, think of all the decisions youve made whether for good or bad ,wrong or right and ask yourself if at anytime was there a point in your life where the decision you made had no clear outcome where no matter the choice someone was going to be hurt, now think about this thread and the morel dilemna youve chosen not to do, ask yourself if you were truely faced with a situation where no matter what you did someone would die but someone would live, could you make the decision who would live or who would die? or would you pass the buck so you can take the morel high ground.
This was a simple physchological test to see what the average person would do if faced with a morel dilemna where there was no perfect outcome , the results should be very unsettling since the vast majority would rather stand idle when faced with very difficult choices.
Anyways as i said this thread has served its purpose and should be closed at the mods conveinience (bah my spelling).
again though... it's NOT a MORAL choice. Unless what you really wanted to see was the reasons people made up for their choice.
Its up to the individual to post their reasoning for their choices, what this was about was how many could make a very difficult decision where there is no clear outcome, not why it happened only who chooses i left a blank palette so the partcipants could ratonalise it however they wished.
Ultimately it is about numbers how many could make the decision, and those numbers are disturbing to many chose to do nothing regardless of circumstance.
In the end its a matter of could you make the decision or not, and the majority answer was a deafening no.
No, Joran, the majority answer was "that's a faulty question". You save everyone - or you bloody well try, at least. You don't write off an entire population - an entire species - just because you don't think they're as "worthy" (which is exactly the binary choice you provided in your poll options).
No, Joran, the majority answer was "that's a faulty question". You save everyone - or you bloody well try, at least. You don't write off an entire population - an entire species - just because you don't think they're as "worthy" (which is exactly the binary choice you provided in your poll options).
I think i shouldve set a circumstance as that has been the big boo hoo everyone has, i thought leaving a clean palette would make for an interesting polling, all it did was prove how limited people are in using simple imagination.
anyways it still showed more then anyone would be comfertable knowing , and thats fine im glad i could give everyone crystal tower a good healthy shake
No, Joran, the majority answer was "that's a faulty question". You save everyone - or you bloody well try, at least. You don't write off an entire population - an entire species - just because you don't think they're as "worthy" (which is exactly the binary choice you provided in your poll options).
I think i shouldve set a circumstance as that has been the big boo hoo everyone has, i thought leaving a clean palette would make for an interesting polling, all it did was prove how limited people are in using simple imagination.
anyways it still showed more then anyone would be comfertable knowing , and thats fine im glad i could give everyone crystal tower a good healthy shake
This. Goes to show who would actually pass the bridge officer's exam or not Trying to save everyone isn't always possible. So what if Kirk doesn't believe in no-win scenarios? Just because Plot allows him the arrogance that he will always prevail, that doesn't mean that there aren't situations where 'the least bad' decision not only has to be made, but the bridge officer exam makes very clear that Starfleet expects its commanding officers to have the fortitude to be able to make that call.
General Order 24 would not exist if it was never intended to be carried out... It would become the laughing stock of the galaxy, and known to be a weak captain's Big Bluff... Any Cardassian, or Klingon, or Romulan worth their salt, if facing a Starfleet captain threatening General Order 24 would just say "Go ahead, do it..." Because that's all that would be needed to break that captain's nerve
Marcus, General Order 24 isn't the same thing, and you know it. GO 24 has to do with a situation in which the crew of the ship is under active attack by a specific planet-wide group, and the senior staff has been taken hostage; the question here posits some external force that would somehow magically destroy every single member of an entire starfaring species.
For starters, were my captain to simply sit back and content himself with saving one side, what is is guarantee that the force would not then turn and wipe out, say, all the Andorians? Or Humans? (After all, one of the choices involved all Vulcans everywhere dying...) Taking the easy way means a future in which one's own people are still endangered. We all know Starfleet's answer to that - as embodied by both Commodore Decker and Capt. Kirk in "The Doomsday Machine". The sacrifice of the Constellation was regarded as a small price by both of them; Decker was more than willing to sacrifice himself in the bargain, while Kirk's rejection of the no-win scenario means he and his crew worked out a way to use the ship as a weapon without Kirk dying in the bargain (but Kirk was still willing to place himself in harm's way, if that method hadn't worked out).
For another, telling me, "You choose - one lives, one dies," will result in my choosing that I will do my damndest to take down the one forcing the choice on me, and if I die in the process, so long as the other two go free I can accept that. Similarly, my captain will bend Heaven, Earth, and Hell itself to save both of the species named, and if he dies, well, at least he tried.
Joran, in this case the "coward's choice" is to choose which of the others is "more deserving" of genocide. My choice is to refuse to choose, and to do everything I can to stop the choice from going forward. Life is not a Saw movie, and Jigsaw was insane in any event.
Marcus, General Order 24 isn't the same thing, and you know it. GO 24 has to do with a situation in which the crew of the ship is under active attack by a specific planet-wide group, and the senior staff has been taken hostage;
I know exactly what General Order 24 is... General Order 24: An order to destroy all life on an entire planet.
Garth may have explained the spirit of the order when he suggested he gave the order because "I could say they were actively hostile towards the Federation."
The circumstances under which it may be carried out, are quite irrelevant to the capacity and legislation to do so, which Starfleet entrusts its commanding officers to exercise not only 'at their discretion' (or it wouldn't be a General Order) but appropriately (Which was not the case when Garth gave the order...) and to have the capacity to actually do so. Again, the bridge officer test: Without being able to give someone an order which could/will result in that officer's death, the other is not emotionally qualified to command.
Have you seen the latest Star Trek Continues episode, Embracing the Winds? In that, Commander Garrett was clearly not emotionally qualified to command, and simply used the formalities of disciplinary procedures to try and force Command to rule things in her favor...
For starters, were my captain to simply sit back and content himself with saving one side, what is is guarantee that the force would not then turn and wipe out, say, all the Andorians? Or Humans? (After all, one of the choices involved all Vulcans everywhere dying...) Taking the easy way means a future in which one's own people are still endangered. We all know Starfleet's answer to that - as embodied by both Commodore Decker and Capt. Kirk in "The Doomsday Machine". The sacrifice of the Constellation was regarded as a small price by both of them; Decker was more than willing to sacrifice himself in the bargain, while Kirk's rejection of the no-win scenario means he and his crew worked out a way to use the ship as a weapon without Kirk dying in the bargain (but Kirk was still willing to place himself in harm's way, if that method hadn't worked out).
What's the probability of that actually happening? It's not a question based on 'what ifs', but 'what is'[the situation being encountered at that moment]. And again, the no-win scenario argument fails, because eventually there will be a situation which one can't cheat one's way out of, but a choice is not just required, but mandated by the circumstances, and that, the dealing with inevitable fatality, was the point of the bridge officer's exam (and by extension, joran's conundrum)
The reaction I posted, is from Cara's trip to Drozana (and most every ground encounter she's found herself in (as far back as Academy Daze) Cara doesn't hide behind a phaser rifle. Oh she will use one if it's required by the situation, but if it's not, she is fist-fighting... Clawing, pistol-whipping (dual tetryon pistols) and spin-kicking the sh*t out of her opponents... I guess when one has the strength to slam a mid-sized Gorn back eight feet, one doesn't have to worry so much about using weapons as 'equalizers'...
For another, telling me, "You choose - one lives, one dies," will result in my choosing that I will do my damndest to take down the one forcing the choice on me, and if I die in the process, so long as the other two go free I can accept that. Similarly, my captain will bend Heaven, Earth, and Hell itself to save both of the species named, and if he dies, well, at least he tried.
And when that possibility does not exist, and you have to choose, you would have a problem...
Joran, in this case the "coward's choice" is to choose which of the others is "more deserving" of genocide. My choice is to refuse to choose, and to do everything I can to stop the choice from going forward. Life is not a Saw movie, and Jigsaw was insane in any event.
Well, morally speaking, you can certainly refuse to choose. One can't lose if one refuses to play, so to speak... But choosing to not do something is still doing something, and doing things have consequences. To keep this InVerse, your refusal to make that decision would keep you from passing the bridge officer's exam and keep you well away from the command chair, because you would have shown yourself incapable of making the tough choices. "Risk's part of the game -- if you want to sit in that chair..." - James T. Kirk
the question here posits some external force that would somehow magically destroy every single member of an entire starfaring species.
I believe, that joran left the actual situational circumstances blank, so it was down to each person to answer as they saw fit.
Except that, by allowing the person making the choice to create the situation, it nullifies the purpose of moral choices. Thus the situation is a strawman created to justify the end, and not a dilemma.
the question here posits some external force that would somehow magically destroy every single member of an entire starfaring species.
I believe, that joran left the actual situational circumstances blank, so it was down to each person to answer as they saw fit.
Except that, by allowing the person making the choice to create the situation, it nullifies the purpose of moral choices. Thus the situation is a strawman created to justify the end, and not a dilemma.
I can see what you mean, but isn't the point the fact that a choice still remains and has to be made between the options?
Risk is indeed part of the job. And I never said my captain would choose to do nothing - I said he'd choose to do his damndest to save everybody, and if he failed, he would go down fighting. (Which, by the way, is what I believe Starfleet was looking for in the Kobayashi Maru test. Will you just let the civilians die for violating the Zone? Or will you try to save them? And when it starts looking difficult, then impossible, will you just give up and go away? I doubt strongly that officers choosing the latter course will ever get to take the center seat...)
It's really not terribly dissimilar from the situations presented in the Masterverse stories - for instance, the Moabite fleet could have chosen to simply let the Masters win at Goralis, conserving their strength to fight on less doomed worlds (and, incidentally, continuing to hide their enlistment of underage personnel), but they chose to fight, and damn the cost. And when they had to choose between trying to save Goralis, or just nuking it from orbit (planetary destruction is easy, it's saving worlds that's hard), they landed troops - even though they knew, after New Saigon, how slim their chances were. They could have lost the entire war in that one battle, but by all the gods in Southern California, they were going to try.
Risk is indeed part of the job. And I never said my captain would choose to do nothing - I said he'd choose to do his damndest to save everybody, and if he failed, he would go down fighting.
I understand that. But that, was not an option, so the question is not what would your captain do if given that option... It's like answering the question 'Do you want a Ferrari or a Lamborghini?' with 'I want a Ducatti...'
(Which, by the way, is what I believe Starfleet was looking for in the Kobayashi Maru test. Will you just let the civilians die for violating the Zone? Or will you try to save them? And when it starts looking difficult, then impossible, will you just give up and go away? I doubt strongly that officers choosing the latter course will ever get to take the center seat...)
I'm sure I've read somewhere that Sulu's answer to the Kobyashi Maru was to not enter the Neutral Zone... (But I appreciate that's not a hard canon fact )
The Kobyashi Maru isn't the bridge officer's exam though... One is part of the standard officer's curriculum, the other, only applies to officers who actually want to be able to command. I'd consider the Kobyashi Maru more a form of stress training (because I doubt cadets are just thrown into the simulator and made to take the test, but I would guess they 'cover a course' on it first, before then taking the end test.
It's really not terribly dissimilar from the situations presented in the Masterverse stories - for instance, the Moabite fleet could have chosen to simply let the Masters win at Goralis, conserving their strength to fight on less doomed worlds (and, incidentally, continuing to hide their enlistment of underage personnel), but they chose to fight, and damn the cost. And when they had to choose between trying to save Goralis, or just nuking it from orbit (planetary destruction is easy, it's saving worlds that's hard), they landed troops - even though they knew, after New Saigon, how slim their chances were. They could have lost the entire war in that one battle, but by all the gods in Southern California, they were going to try.
the question here posits some external force that would somehow magically destroy every single member of an entire starfaring species.
I believe, that joran left the actual situational circumstances blank, so it was down to each person to answer as they saw fit.
Except that, by allowing the person making the choice to create the situation, it nullifies the purpose of moral choices. Thus the situation is a strawman created to justify the end, and not a dilemma.
I can see what you mean, but isn't the point the fact that a choice still remains and has to be made between the options?
Except it becomes an arbitrary choice subject to the whims of the person deciding which was the right answer. Why? well the person is free to, and probably will, decide which is the right answer before they finish creating the scenario.
the question here posits some external force that would somehow magically destroy every single member of an entire starfaring species.
I believe, that joran left the actual situational circumstances blank, so it was down to each person to answer as they saw fit.
Except that, by allowing the person making the choice to create the situation, it nullifies the purpose of moral choices. Thus the situation is a strawman created to justify the end, and not a dilemma.
I can see what you mean, but isn't the point the fact that a choice still remains and has to be made between the options?
Except it becomes an arbitrary choice subject to the whims of the person deciding which was the right answer. Why? well the person is free to, and probably will, decide which is the right answer before they finish creating the scenario.
You're missing the point of the test... The test is to see who could/would make a decision either way, not what option they chose... It's not a case of 'choosing the right answer', but in making the decision, and having the capacity to make the choice...
the question here posits some external force that would somehow magically destroy every single member of an entire starfaring species.
I believe, that joran left the actual situational circumstances blank, so it was down to each person to answer as they saw fit.
Except that, by allowing the person making the choice to create the situation, it nullifies the purpose of moral choices. Thus the situation is a strawman created to justify the end, and not a dilemma.
I can see what you mean, but isn't the point the fact that a choice still remains and has to be made between the options?
Except it becomes an arbitrary choice subject to the whims of the person deciding which was the right answer. Why? well the person is free to, and probably will, decide which is the right answer before they finish creating the scenario.
You're missing the point of the test... The test is to see who could/would make a decision either way, not what option they chose... It's not a case of 'choosing the right answer', but in making the decision, and having the capacity to make the choice...
^^^^ said more eloquently then i , this was the whole point of the excercise (excuse my bad grammer).
Well, as Schrodi said "We're Starfleet. We save everyone-or die trying."
Exactly. You Romulans might make cold-blooded calculations as to which populations "deserve" to live or die, but we're going to do our very best to ensure that choice is unnecessary. The trope is Take a Third Option.
Well, as Schrodi said "We're Starfleet. We save everyone-or die trying."
Exactly. You Romulans might make cold-blooded calculations as to which populations "deserve" to live or die, but we're going to do our very best to ensure that choice is unnecessary. The trope is Take a Third Option.
Trope: Hipster term for 'repeatedly abused plot-device/stereotype'
[Edit to add] You don't seem to get that there is not always a third option... You don't seem to get that sometimes, you can only choose from the two options provided...
Back to my car example, and how it applies to joran's moral conundrum (which you failed)
Guy stands you in front of two sports cars and has two sets of keys in his hand. He says that you can choose one of the cars. You can choose the Lamborghini, or you can choose the Ferrari.
You, applying Third Option 'logic', say, "I want a Ducatti..."
Guy shrugs and drives away with both cars*. You're left in the parking lot wondering what just happened and why you don't have a ride home...
No, the question asked here is, "Will you destroy the Lamborghini, or the Ferrari?" (The question asked here isn't which of two races you'd rather belong to, but rather which you'd rather see go extinct.) To which I answer, "Neither. Instead, while you're waiting for me to answer, I'll disable the device you're using to destroy the one I don't choose, then I'll drive off in my Tesla Roadster. Where'd I get a Roadster? Same place you got your Lambo and Ferrari."
If you click on the link, you'll see the trope (at TVTropes.com) to which I refer. (Heck, there's even Trek listed, under both Live-Action Movies and Live-Action TV.)
No, the question asked here is, "Will you destroy the Lamborghini, or the Ferrari?" (The question asked here isn't which of two races you'd rather belong to, but rather which you'd rather see go extinct.) To which I answer, "Neither. Instead, while you're waiting for me to answer, I'll disable the device you're using to destroy the one I don't choose, then I'll drive off in my Tesla Roadster. Where'd I get a Roadster? Same place you got your Lambo and Ferrari."
If you click on the link, you'll see the trope (at TVTropes.com) to which I refer. (Heck, there's even Trek listed, under both Live-Action Movies and Live-Action TV.)
As I pointed out above, and joran confirmed it doesn't matter what choice is being offered, or how it is being phrased or presented...
Let me break it down even more, to the most fundamental: One is being told to choose between Option A, or Option B. It doesn't matter which one chooses... One is not being tested by one's chosen option... One is being tested on ones ability to make an unpleasant decision... By refusing to choose A or B, one fails the test. It doesn't matter if choosing Option C is displaying compassion/humanity/morals/whatever (I agree, it does) because that is not the purpose of the test, or what the test is trying to ascertain...
Being able to think of a third alternative is not the point of the test... You still fail to understand that... :-\
As I said above, it is only Plot which allows Kirk to take that no-win option, and still succeed for doing so. It doesn't actually always work that way...
To get speculative, why do you think that Troi's bridge officer exam featured a holo-Geordi? I'd wager that it is to create a psychological and empathic tension within the test: That she had to be able to send someone she knew and loved as a friend, to their unquestionable death. Without the ability to make that decision, someone is not, for lack of a better word, 'ruthless' enough to be an effective commander. I would suspect that someone taking the test on a different ship, the program would create holo-versions of that crew instead...
Except there is no test. Merely an arbitrary choice followed by a justification made up after the choice was already made. Therefore there is no moral component to test. Unless you mean testing the person's ability to make up a scenario that matches whatever choice they made. But then you decided you didn't like the scenario Jon made up.
Comments
The lesser of two evils is still evil.
Perhaps, but there's still a difference between murder, and killing in genuine defense of oneself and/or others. That diplomacy demonstrably doesn't work on the Borg entity, and that its number of active combat personnel is equal to the population, is the Collective's problem, not mine.
And for the record, it's not an approach I would ever endorse or propose in real life: there's no such thing as a factually monolithic enemy in human society. Even for Star Trek the Borg are unique.
— Sabaton, "Great War"
Check out https://unitedfederationofpla.net/s/
My character Tsin'xing
Its letting the participant set whatever circumstances they want to justify their reasoning for their choice, regardless ive gotten all i wanted to see from this project.
With most people on this forum and dare i say trek fans aka trekkies, if they are faced with a morel dilemna they would rather not choose quoting james kirk "I dont believe in a no win scenario" to justify not choosing.
In doing so they omit that they would rather pass the buck, or not choose if faced with a decision where there was no clear way to win where all parties dont walk away unscathed.
Think of all the things that has happened in your individual lives, think of all the decisions youve made whether for good or bad ,wrong or right and ask yourself if at anytime was there a point in your life where the decision you made had no clear outcome where no matter the choice someone was going to be hurt, now think about this thread and the morel dilemna youve chosen not to do, ask yourself if you were truely faced with a situation where no matter what you did someone would die but someone would live, could you make the decision who would live or who would die? or would you pass the buck so you can take the morel high ground.
This was a simple physchological test to see what the average person would do if faced with a morel dilemna where there was no perfect outcome , the results should be very unsettling since the vast majority would rather stand idle when faced with very difficult choices.
Anyways as i said this thread has served its purpose and should be closed at the mods conveinience (bah my spelling).
My character Tsin'xing
Its up to the individual to post their reasoning for their choices, what this was about was how many could make a very difficult decision where there is no clear outcome, not why it happened only who chooses i left a blank palette so the partcipants could ratonalise it however they wished.
Ultimately it is about numbers how many could make the decision, and those numbers are disturbing to many chose to do nothing regardless of circumstance.
In the end its a matter of could you make the decision or not, and the majority answer was a deafening no.
I think i shouldve set a circumstance as that has been the big boo hoo everyone has, i thought leaving a clean palette would make for an interesting polling, all it did was prove how limited people are in using simple imagination.
anyways it still showed more then anyone would be comfertable knowing , and thats fine im glad i could give everyone crystal tower a good healthy shake
Bad poster.
This. Goes to show who would actually pass the bridge officer's exam or not
General Order 24 would not exist if it was never intended to be carried out... It would become the laughing stock of the galaxy, and known to be a weak captain's Big Bluff... Any Cardassian, or Klingon, or Romulan worth their salt, if facing a Starfleet captain threatening General Order 24 would just say "Go ahead, do it..." Because that's all that would be needed to break that captain's nerve
For starters, were my captain to simply sit back and content himself with saving one side, what is is guarantee that the force would not then turn and wipe out, say, all the Andorians? Or Humans? (After all, one of the choices involved all Vulcans everywhere dying...) Taking the easy way means a future in which one's own people are still endangered. We all know Starfleet's answer to that - as embodied by both Commodore Decker and Capt. Kirk in "The Doomsday Machine". The sacrifice of the Constellation was regarded as a small price by both of them; Decker was more than willing to sacrifice himself in the bargain, while Kirk's rejection of the no-win scenario means he and his crew worked out a way to use the ship as a weapon without Kirk dying in the bargain (but Kirk was still willing to place himself in harm's way, if that method hadn't worked out).
For another, telling me, "You choose - one lives, one dies," will result in my choosing that I will do my damndest to take down the one forcing the choice on me, and if I die in the process, so long as the other two go free I can accept that. Similarly, my captain will bend Heaven, Earth, and Hell itself to save both of the species named, and if he dies, well, at least he tried.
Joran, in this case the "coward's choice" is to choose which of the others is "more deserving" of genocide. My choice is to refuse to choose, and to do everything I can to stop the choice from going forward. Life is not a Saw movie, and Jigsaw was insane in any event.
The circumstances under which it may be carried out, are quite irrelevant to the capacity and legislation to do so, which Starfleet entrusts its commanding officers to exercise not only 'at their discretion' (or it wouldn't be a General Order) but appropriately (Which was not the case when Garth gave the order...) and to have the capacity to actually do so. Again, the bridge officer test: Without being able to give someone an order which could/will result in that officer's death, the other is not emotionally qualified to command.
Have you seen the latest Star Trek Continues episode, Embracing the Winds? In that, Commander Garrett was clearly not emotionally qualified to command, and simply used the formalities of disciplinary procedures to try and force Command to rule things in her favor...
I believe, that joran left the actual situational circumstances blank, so it was down to each person to answer as they saw fit.
What's the probability of that actually happening? It's not a question based on 'what ifs', but 'what is'[the situation being encountered at that moment]. And again, the no-win scenario argument fails, because eventually there will be a situation which one can't cheat one's way out of, but a choice is not just required, but mandated by the circumstances, and that, the dealing with inevitable fatality, was the point of the bridge officer's exam (and by extension, joran's conundrum)
The reaction I posted, is from Cara's trip to Drozana (and most every ground encounter she's found herself in (as far back as Academy Daze) Cara doesn't hide behind a phaser rifle. Oh she will use one if it's required by the situation, but if it's not, she is fist-fighting... Clawing, pistol-whipping (dual tetryon pistols) and spin-kicking the sh*t out of her opponents... I guess when one has the strength to slam a mid-sized Gorn back eight feet, one doesn't have to worry so much about using weapons as 'equalizers'...
And when that possibility does not exist, and you have to choose, you would have a problem...
Well, morally speaking, you can certainly refuse to choose. One can't lose if one refuses to play, so to speak... But choosing to not do something is still doing something, and doing things have consequences. To keep this InVerse, your refusal to make that decision would keep you from passing the bridge officer's exam and keep you well away from the command chair, because you would have shown yourself incapable of making the tough choices. "Risk's part of the game -- if you want to sit in that chair..." - James T. Kirk
My character Tsin'xing
It's really not terribly dissimilar from the situations presented in the Masterverse stories - for instance, the Moabite fleet could have chosen to simply let the Masters win at Goralis, conserving their strength to fight on less doomed worlds (and, incidentally, continuing to hide their enlistment of underage personnel), but they chose to fight, and damn the cost. And when they had to choose between trying to save Goralis, or just nuking it from orbit (planetary destruction is easy, it's saving worlds that's hard), they landed troops - even though they knew, after New Saigon, how slim their chances were. They could have lost the entire war in that one battle, but by all the gods in Southern California, they were going to try.
I'm sure I've read somewhere that Sulu's answer to the Kobyashi Maru was to not enter the Neutral Zone...
The Kobyashi Maru isn't the bridge officer's exam though... One is part of the standard officer's curriculum, the other, only applies to officers who actually want to be able to command. I'd consider the Kobyashi Maru more a form of stress training (because I doubt cadets are just thrown into the simulator and made to take the test, but I would guess they 'cover a course' on it first, before then taking the end test.
That's Moabites for you...
My character Tsin'xing
My character Tsin'xing
"he's as dangerous as a ferret with a chainsaw."
[Edit to add] You don't seem to get that there is not always a third option... You don't seem to get that sometimes, you can only choose from the two options provided...
Back to my car example, and how it applies to joran's moral conundrum (which you failed)
Guy stands you in front of two sports cars and has two sets of keys in his hand. He says that you can choose one of the cars. You can choose the Lamborghini, or you can choose the Ferrari.
You, applying Third Option 'logic', say, "I want a Ducatti..."
Guy shrugs and drives away with both cars*. You're left in the parking lot wondering what just happened and why you don't have a ride home...
*Guy's friend is with him to drive the other car
If you click on the link, you'll see the trope (at TVTropes.com) to which I refer. (Heck, there's even Trek listed, under both Live-Action Movies and Live-Action TV.)
Let me break it down even more, to the most fundamental: One is being told to choose between Option A, or Option B. It doesn't matter which one chooses... One is not being tested by one's chosen option... One is being tested on ones ability to make an unpleasant decision... By refusing to choose A or B, one fails the test. It doesn't matter if choosing Option C is displaying compassion/humanity/morals/whatever (I agree, it does) because that is not the purpose of the test, or what the test is trying to ascertain...
Being able to think of a third alternative is not the point of the test... You still fail to understand that... :-\
As I said above, it is only Plot which allows Kirk to take that no-win option, and still succeed for doing so. It doesn't actually always work that way...
To get speculative, why do you think that Troi's bridge officer exam featured a holo-Geordi? I'd wager that it is to create a psychological and empathic tension within the test: That she had to be able to send someone she knew and loved as a friend, to their unquestionable death. Without the ability to make that decision, someone is not, for lack of a better word, 'ruthless' enough to be an effective commander. I would suspect that someone taking the test on a different ship, the program would create holo-versions of that crew instead...
My character Tsin'xing