Originally posted by Fesarius
I agree that the operation wasn't certain to work.
This is Phlox' professional judgement, which Archer has to trust -- Phlox is a trained physician. I think you need to keep the relative probabilities in mind.
Probabilities which Phlox stated wrong before. Its not that he was slightly wrong, but he was dead wrong. Out of sure living became sure dying. That is a difference, which would have made me think. Additionally as the Captain needs to do the decision he has to retrieve all information on that matter and its not on Phlox to decide what that information might be. I simply found it illogical that he suddenly had that enzyme available - that storyarc seemed to be too constructed for me. It could have been dramatic enough without making Phlox and Archer look that bad. And as I pointed out, Archer took far greater risks in the past.
Yes, that's right. As said before, the value of human life is invaluable, thus one human being has the same worth as all others ( even if summed up ). Although I might add, I think that part of that worth should be the willingness to sacrifice yourself should the need arise. Which would be regarding Kant, the morally correct decision.So, it is your opinion that taking a single life is wrong, even if the other choice is the destruction of all human life? ...
I understand your concern with the slippery slope, and how immoral acts (but please see below) can destroy what you're fighting to save, sometimes before you even realize it.
And I believe that a society which throws away its ethical rules, just to be save and sound has lost its worth. Because at the moment when they could have shown how true they are to these rules, they failed and therefore the rules become superfluous.
Although I agree in that case its somewhat extreme, because only because Archer decided to murder Sim, that does not mean all of humanity would have agreed to do so.
Additonally the difficulty is the following. Who decides who may live to save the species and who has to die? NAZI-Germany made all the genocide to save the "German race". It was exactly that argumentation which made the KZs possible. The German people had to be protected from the jewish and communist conspiracy in the mind of Hitler and his staff, and thus it was acceptable to kill all these millions of persons. The fact that they were regarded as inferior was augmenting that argumentation.
The question is, to quote Cpt. Picard: "When does it become injustice?" When it is right to kill an innocent person? Is it ok to kill one, to kill 10, to kill 100000?
Therefore I think Archer comes terribly close to a point where he looses objectiveness for what he is actually fighting for and by Kant's definition immorale.
There are three quotes from signatures here at the boards which perfectly summarize my point. One is I believe of Abe Lincoln. Something like: "Those who give up freedom to gain security will loose both." the other one is "I'd rather die standing than living on my knees." ( the content is the same even if its not the exact words ). The third one is in my own signature: "...the first freedom denied, changes us all irreverently. The first time any man’s freedom is trodden on, we are all damaged". The point is that the Xindi already won when Archer would have killed Sim by force. That would have destroyed all the efforts of the Vulcans, that would have destroyed all the principles human society is built upon, the very basic human rights. Therefore human society would have lost its value and humans would have reduced themselves to animals.
Wrong IMHO. He has human DNA and is sentinet, which is enough to describe him as man. Even if he is not human, he is a sentinent being. If human rights do not apply to other sentinent beings than it would be no crime to kill a Vulcan, or a Denobulan at all, it would be the same as making a scratch on a car or something. However the human rights were derived from the fact that humans are sentinent. Therefore one should assume that they count for all sentinent beings, especially if they have human DNA.Are you, perhaps, sidestepping the fact that Sim isn't really a man? He's a highly specialized animal that looks and acts like a man. That doesn't mean he is a man..
Like in Voyager, where Harry is replaced by a Harry of an alternate timeline and the original one is killed. The funny thing was that the topic even came up in other episodes. That Harry was actually not the real Harry.It might have been an interesting story if the enzyme treatment had worked, and they'd decided to replace Trip with Sim -- but I don't think it was the story they wanted to tell.
After all its Earth only Warp 5 ship, on a sensitive mission. One should assume there is at least one engineer onboard who has the qualification to replace Trip. After all I actually had the impression that Trip became Archers Engineer because of their friendship. And Trip would have been the first dead on Enterprise. not one single crewmember died in the previous episodes. Additionally Trip knew what he was up to and especially a Captain should be used to the fact that people, especially on such a dangerous mission may die. I do not think that this is enough a reason to actually throw all reason overboard.It's reasonable to assume that there are other talented engineers, but it's also reasonable for Archer to assume that his crew is indispensible. It's also reasonable to assume Trip got the top spot because he's the most knowledgeable. He can't get reinforced from Earth. So each death matters more .
I at least would have wished it would have been more convincing, that Sim actually decided to save Trip and by that maybe even mankind.The ending was a bit hurried. I was left with the impression that he'd decided to sacrifice himself, but youi could be right..
Actually he did, figurely. I think its in ST 3, maybe even at end of ST 2. Kirk says that this logical conclusion is nonsense and untrue. He actually points out that the needs of one are equal to the needs of the many.Originally posted by Sea Tyger
First, Vulcan idiotism? I certainly never heard Kirk call Spock an idiot; in fact, Kirk admitted he couldn't argue with his friend's wisdom...
And why are you debating the mathematics of an axiom that has nothing to do with mathematics??? It's a statement about the willingness to sacrifice your needs for the needs of the greater good, which is part of the core of Gene's vision
And I do not get your point in the second part. So I may not use logic to counter a logical statement of a Vulcan? I do not get that. I simply pointed out where the mistake of that logic is. It is actually self-contradicting. After all even Spock said that logic is the beginning of wisdom not the end of it. And remember that Vulcans regard life so high that they do not even eat meat.
And the major difference is that Spock did so by his own choice, while Archer planned to actually murder Sim, who was even civilian and thus never swore to protect Earth, assuming that such an Oath is part of being a Starfleet Officer.
And its certainly not part iof Gene's vision that difference species' life have different values. And additionally Kirk would have found another option, as he does not believe in "No-Win scenarios", which this certainly was.
There is an illness, I think its a genetic defect, which lets children age very fast. msot die within their first few years, already aged like they were ninety ( of course they are still children, but their skin, bones, organs, e.g. are "damaged" as if they were of old age ). So it is a similiar situation to Sim. Do you really think its would be ok, or only less cruel to kill such a person than any other?
Concluding I think its simply to different point of views again. Its Practicalism and Idealism. It may be practical to save Trip and kill Sim but its immorale. And I think Star Trek is about idealism. Its about peace, its about having a black woman on your bridge, in a time, when segregation was still present. Its about having a russian officer on your bridge while the Cold War was still running. Its not about murdering peolple and then putting the blame on that very people.
I simply did not like the outcome of the episode. Nobody critisized Archer for his threat against Sim. No comments by "Dr. Ethics" Phlox and none by "Superior ideology" T'Pol. The least they could have done would have been a critical comment by Trip at the end.
At the end of the episode you are left with the impression that it is ok to murder people if you need something from them. That is not Star Trek for me.
Reply With Quote
At least for me finite doesn't mean tangible. How else could you explain that some people give or risk their life for others. If the value of each human life was infinite as you said then there would be no justification for these actions, besides one based on evolutionary genetics. I belive that this assupmtion is also in conflict with Kant's golden rules. 
. The only problem I see there, is that it is on the verge of becoming a political debate (for the sake of curiosity, just have a look at the protagonists of the debate ... rings a bell? 
I'm not a Vulcan integrist, but how logical can it be to kiss and obviously allow oneself to have feelings for someone who is going to die a mere 6 days from now? Unless you have urgent needs for sex or romance, I mean.
