Atoz 77
Vice Admiral
[M:0]
[ss:Insurrection]
Posts: 4,065
|
Post by Atoz 77 on Feb 8, 2010 8:58:59 GMT -6
A good outcome excuses any wrongs committed to attain it. For example, "The officer tricked her into admitting her guilt" the end sometimes justifies the means. This proverbial (and controversial) observation dates from ancient times, but in English it was first recorded only in 1583. Exactly what I said. The key word here is WRONGS. You know that what you're about to do is MORALLY WRONG, but you do it anyway because you believe the outcome is worth it. This is entirely different from chosing the lesser of two evils. In that case, the evil isn't something YOU are inflicting on others; it is inherent in the situation. And no, I'm not going to play your "what if" games until you demonstrate that you have some grasp of what you're talking about.
|
|
Atoz 77
Vice Admiral
[M:0]
[ss:Insurrection]
Posts: 4,065
|
Post by Atoz 77 on Feb 8, 2010 9:01:01 GMT -6
The government would believe it to be acceptable. Of course, it depends on the circumstances. If you have no way of saving the thousand without risking the million...? This is pretty much what Kodos the Executioner decided on Tarsus IV. A plague had struck the food supply. Rather than have 8,000 people die slowly of starvation, he executed half of them so that the other half would have a better chance to survive.
|
|
|
Post by stark on Feb 8, 2010 15:13:10 GMT -6
A good outcome excuses any wrongs committed to attain it. For example, "The officer tricked her into admitting her guilt" the end sometimes justifies the means. This proverbial (and controversial) observation dates from ancient times, but in English it was first recorded only in 1583. Exactly what I said. The key word here is WRONGS. You know that what you're about to do is MORALLY WRONG, but you do it anyway because you believe the outcome is worth it. This is entirely different from chosing the lesser of two evils. In that case, the evil isn't something YOU are inflicting on others; it is inherent in the situation. And no, I'm not going to play your "what if" games until you demonstrate that you have some grasp of what you're talking about. Is there any difference between "wrong" and "evil" we are talking about? I only say that if there is a choice only between lesser evil and a greater evil it is a good thing to choose/do a lesser evil. And anyone who blaming the one (who had this choice and chose/did the lesser evil) is a hypocrit. Kodos BTW also had this choice, he counted 4000 people dead and 4000 people having a chance for survival a lesser evil then 8000 slowly dying. I haven't seen this episode/movie so I am only knowing it from your words. But I am sure (according ST spirit) that there were more options, like some ship coming to the resque or something like that, so the chose Kodos had made was a wrong one. That is what I hate about Star Trek. Real life is never as generous of additional options as ST. And in real life you are often only limited by two options, both of which are bad. Common moral laws are simple when it comes to a single person. You do bad things to others for self benefit, evin for saving your life- you are a bad man. You are sacraficing yourselves for others- you are a hero. But stupidity of such a laws become clear if it switches from a single person to a public figure. Should noble knight-commander make a cowardly and unnoble attack on his enemies in the dark while they are asleep? Or should he sacrafice his men in frontal attack for the sake of his own nobility? Well, nowadays the humanity is much more moraly developed, and the commander who will successfully cut the throats of sleeping enemies will be honored. But in the times of knights the commander would dishonor himself with such a deed. BTW, you can see that the humanity is developing towords the pragmatism and simplifiyng the moral codes. And the humanity of the future will be like Vulcans of Romulans, and not at all like pitiful beings of ST who call themselves "humans"
|
|
Arkroyal
Lt. Commander
I'm a historian, not an engineer![ss:Federation]
Posts: 440
|
Post by Arkroyal on Feb 8, 2010 16:11:38 GMT -6
Should noble knight-commander make a cowardly and unnoble attack on his enemies in the dark while they are asleep? Or should he sacrafice his men in frontal attack for the sake of his own nobility? Ahem, look up the battle of Agincourt... Well, nowadays the humanity is much more moraly developed, and the commander who will successfully cut the throats of sleeping enemies will be honored. But in the times of knights the commander would dishonor himself with such a deed. BTW, you can see that the humanity is developing towords the pragmatism and simplifiyng the moral codes. And the humanity of the future will be like Vulcans of Romulans, and not at all like pitiful beings of ST who call themselves "humans" Pitiful? What don't you like about humans in ST? What is it you like about Vulcans and Romulans? Incidentally, humans are pragmatic in Star Trek - it simply means "thinking of or dealing with problems in a practical way, rather than by using theory or abstract principles".
|
|
|
Post by stark on Feb 9, 2010 15:21:40 GMT -6
Vulancs and Romulans are cold, clever, ironic, calculating divine beings compared to lowly humans acting out of emotions and not logically.
BTW if there will be real space battles (if the humanity will survive till that) ONE plasma beam or something will destroy the targeted ship, no matter shields or no shileds.
And now try to calculate how much times the shields of the Defiant were hit. That is the quantity of times Sisko and co would be killed because of their stupid actions.
|
|
Atoz 77
Vice Admiral
[M:0]
[ss:Insurrection]
Posts: 4,065
|
Post by Atoz 77 on Feb 11, 2010 9:30:47 GMT -6
Is there any difference between "wrong" and "evil" we are talking about? I only say that if there is a choice only between lesser evil and a greater evil it is a good thing to choose/do a lesser evil. And anyone who blaming the one (who had this choice and chose/did the lesser evil) is a hypocrit. If I'm following your argument correctly, you think Star Trek is hypocritical because it refuses to admit that "the ends justify the means". If all you mean is that sometimes it's necessary to chose the lesser of two evils, I can think of a dozen episodes off the top of my head where characters did just that. Your argument collapses from its own absurdity.Well, if you hate Star Trek, we're not forcing you to watch it. Why don't you join a general science fiction forum somewhere, where you can complain about it all you like?
|
|
Arkroyal
Lt. Commander
I'm a historian, not an engineer![ss:Federation]
Posts: 440
|
Post by Arkroyal on Feb 11, 2010 13:11:17 GMT -6
Vulancs and Romulans are cold, clever, ironic, calculating divine beings compared to lowly humans acting out of emotions and not logically. Ah, you believe emotions are a weakness. I'm sorry, I have to disagree - when used right they are a strength.
|
|
|
Post by stark on Feb 20, 2010 8:54:20 GMT -6
If I'm following your argument correctly, you think Star Trek is hypocritical because it refuses to admit that "the ends justify the means". If all you mean is that sometimes it's necessary to chose the lesser of two evils, I can think of a dozen episodes off the top of my head where characters did just that. Your argument collapses from its own absurdity Well, claiming one thing and doing another is exactly what is called a hypocracy. Ah, you believe emotions are a weakness. I'm sorry, I have to disagree - when used right they are a strength. Yes, but only when aplied after making a logical desicion, and aplied to support the desicion and not to contradict it.
|
|
Arkroyal
Lt. Commander
I'm a historian, not an engineer![ss:Federation]
Posts: 440
|
Post by Arkroyal on Feb 20, 2010 12:02:11 GMT -6
Really, so you think we are incapable of making a logical decision? You think we are incapable of making a choice where logic supports our emotions instead of contradicting it? Fascinating.
Oh and last time I checked "logic" was not the opposite of "emotion".
|
|
|
Post by stark on Feb 22, 2010 3:44:39 GMT -6
Emotions are illogical. Any match between emotions and logic can be only coincidential. And I do not accuse any of you in being incapable of making logical decisions but I do doubt the ability of ST fans to follow logical choices when it contradicts to their emotions. I am basing it on a fact that ST characters (except for vulcans) are acting out of emotions and being liked by the the fans.
|
|
edify
Lt. Jr. Grade
Posts: 150
|
Post by edify on Feb 22, 2010 12:03:35 GMT -6
*Looks around* Hey, has anyone seen the topic?
|
|
PIKE
Cadet
One beep for YES[ss:Cloak]
Posts: 35
|
Post by PIKE on Feb 22, 2010 20:34:50 GMT -6
The topic went south.......
|
|
|
Post by devilsatdusk on Feb 23, 2010 11:22:50 GMT -6
I can't believe Janeway is being voted as the worst captain. (Is it because she is female?) I'll say that i voted for Sisko and Archer. I disliked DS9 and Enterprise, i thought they were a bit boring (there ya go, i said it)
I just don't think they had 'poke' as captains.
|
|
Dax123
Commander
[ss:NX-01]
Posts: 1,207
|
Post by Dax123 on Feb 23, 2010 16:01:26 GMT -6
I do not believe that Janeway was the worst captain. Infact Im not sure I can vote for any of them anymore. I liked them all and each made their own mistakes but everyone makes mistakes.
|
|
PIKE
Cadet
One beep for YES[ss:Cloak]
Posts: 35
|
Post by PIKE on Feb 24, 2010 20:15:53 GMT -6
Janeway No Way, Excuse the expression, but she had more BALLS that most of the Captains
|
|