Go Back   Star Trek Online > Information and Discussion > Ten Forward
Login

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 41
06-11-2012, 12:06 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Reave View Post
Unfortunately, following this particular kind of logic in one direction, we open up the possibility of justifying the harvesting of stemcells from newly born, living babies, being effectively blank slates, to treat conditions afflicting their fully actualized parents.
But the stem cells themselves are not independent individuals being saved. The analogy does not fit.

Quote:
In the other direction lays the uncomfortable truth that we're all made up of the same basic building blocks, and the challenge of defining scientifically exactly what constitutes 'unique'. How different do identical twins have to be, physically and psychologically, to not count as the same person?
Because on some level they are not. Twins don't decide identically. Nor do they consist of two prior entities combined as the ultimate Siamese twin.

Quote:
I don't see how 'trapped' is a more apt description. Somehow, when I think of the concept of trapped, I think a consciousness is required. You are trapped when you wish to do a thing or leave a place, and can't. Unless both Neelix and Tuvok's minds were still present, in an intact, non-fused, non-distorted way, they did no longer exist. What you consider 'freeing' trapped individuals here, I consider recreating potential beings, at the cost of a third. In my opinion, just because all the bits and pieces are there, you do not yet have two persons.
If their minds were not present, how were their personalities and memories part of Tuvix? If consciousness is a requirement for being trapped, does that mean anyone in a coma is non-existant? And what about someone being mentally controlled? If their consciousness is suppressed by the control does that mean the entity controlling them legally becomes... them?

Quote:
First thing in Federation space would've been to haul in a Betazoid, to check if there aren't any ansilary consciousnesses present in Tuvix, just in case the doctor's scans simply aren't showing them. (Though we know they should.) In the Delta Quadrant... well... Suder can't read minds, Tuvok's gone, but we've still got Vorik, and there's got to be telepathic societies around somewhere. Who says Tuvok and Neelix need to be reconstituted right now? What's the urgency? Why can't we be thorough?
Again, if someone is in a coma, should they simply be tossed away for dead on the basis they have no consciousness? They knew they could separate Tuvix into the original component individuals, so they knew the individuals were in there in some manner.

Quote:
And whether a symptom of some kind of medical condition or not, Tuvix is sentien life. I don't much care for the disease analogy, as usually unsightly growths are inside or on the patient, not the other way around. It seems like a dehumanizing tactic, to make the preferred course of action more palettable...
Again, if there was an outside entity that took over control, if the new personality had nothing to do with either of the originals, would you feel the same?

Quote:
That is particularly doubtful. Law isn't that specific. We don't have a separate law for running twenty infants through a breadslicer cause no one's ever thought of it before. If anyone ever does, we'd just charge them with what this scenario has in common with other scenarios we'd find illegal, and that's the act of murder.
But this isn't 'running twenty infants through a breadslicer.' It isn't even running one infant through a bread slicer. Nor is it running pickled cabbage through someone's lungs. If it is not reversed, though, should Janeway and Star Fleet be charged with manslaughter for the deaths of Tuvok and Neelix?

Quote:
We have to sign consent forms to be an organ donor. Even if you're already dead, doctors are not allowed to remove organs from you to save another. Or two, or four, or ten others. How you could think it somehow becomes a different scenario if the doctor actively terminates the life of a healthy, involuntary donor, that might somehow not be deemed illegal, I don't get...
Again, not the same. What if the organs were taken from two healthy individuals and transplanted into a third individual but there was time and the necessary skill and facilities available to reverse the process? You are essentially saying organ harvesting from healthy individuals is just fine as long as it results in new life....

Quote:
Tuvix can't be blamed for what happened to Tuvok and Neelix. It was an accident. His right to live cannot be diminished by deeming him in any way culpable for the events that created him. I don't know what protocols there are for transporting stuff up (It seems all to often in Star Trek they use that transporter a bit too casually. If nothing else, being up supplies and people separately, would be a good rule to have.) but if any of those were violated in the process of this, it would've been done by Tuvok, Neelix and maybe whoever operated the transporter.
So as long as the organs were placed in a recipient who had no knowledge of or culpability in the harvesting, everything would be fine and they should live while two others die?

Quote:
I just can see no way to justify killing this one person, who had done literally nothing wrong, before or after the incident, and had proven himself not to be a burden to the crew, quite the contrary, in order to recover two others, who to the best of my knowledge were not in any way suffering as a consequence of this.
This was two people combine into one. What if it was ten? Or more? How many lives is one new life worth? If you argue that the two who gave their lives did not suffer in doing so, how is the fact that Tuvix wouldn't suffer during the reversal process not be relevant?

Quote:
Don't get me wrong, I like Tuvok and I wouldn't root for the show to lose him, or replace him with this new character, but the fact remains that to me what was done seems wrong.
It is meant to be a tough, thought provoking dilemma. It is interested that in the case of the two Rikers, they both were allowed to survive. Post 911 I wonder how they would have handled it.... there are a lot more concerns with identity and citizenship now than there were then. They could have done an entire second show trying to sort out how to get their system to accept someone who was literally just born yesterday.. as an adult, not to mention as a ranked Star Fleet officer with no independant testing or training....
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 42
06-11-2012, 02:05 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Skinner376
But Sim did natuarly, he was only created to save a life, he lived and then he died. Like Kes, her people only live 9 years..suppose to anyway...should we stop them from having babies if they have such a short life span.?

But i agree with ya about the clones, kinda like the movie The Island.

As for which one to split, it'd be the one that was the Orignal imo.
But why would the original Tuvix have to die, to bring back the two officers, and the second one get to continue living his life? If you did make a clone, yes, in principle, a Tuvix would keep living, but the original Tuvix, the one that came out of the transporter, would be dead. He would not get to live. By making a second one, you are only creating more issues, rather than finding a solution. I agree, of the two, it would have to be the original that got split, as doing it to the clone may not work.


Ok, if it wouldn't be the clone you seperated, the Sim comparison wouldn't apply. But no, we shouldn't stop the Ocompa from having kids, even if they are only 9 years life span. That is their natural life span.
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 43
06-11-2012, 04:08 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sivar View Post
While I don't think that Janeway deserved to be an Admiral over people like Picard, I certainly don't think that you can hold that incident against her.

Yes it was not a moral thing to end one life, but it would be less moral to deny the existence of the two separate individuals that did not agree to have their existence combined to create said person.

In the end, while difficult, it was the correct choice ethically as Tuvix was not only an accident, but his existence denied the existences of the two people who created them.

Two people were gone, replaced by one accident who had their memories or a melding of their personalities, but he was not them and to allow his continued existence would have been akin to killing the two it took to create him.
I can't accept that, I'm sorry. Once the accident had occurred, Tuvok and Neelix were dead, for all intents and purposes; their consciousnesses no longer existed, their individual physical forms were no more. In their place was a new, distinct, unique, and sentient individual with its own personality.

I can't grasp how someone can think it is more moral to commit murder than it is to accept a sequence of events which has already occurred.

The process by which Tuvix came to exist is not relevant, he did exist, whether his existence was accidental or deliberate. Indeed, had his creation been a deliberate act by a third party, Janeway might have been MORE justified in what she had done, not less, as she would have been reversing an immoral action taken by another person, rather than simply committing murder out of selfish sentiment.

EDIT: To kimmera - in your scenario, yes, the third individual should be permitted to live on with the organs, assuming of course that we're making the analogy as close as possible and the two original donors are "dead but could be resuscitated" as opposed to still alive and demanding their ******n kidneys back, and assuming that the organs in question are vital for life and thus removing them would instantly kill the third person, because the third person is not culpable for the circumstances, and thus punishing HIM for those circumstances isn't even slightly ethical. If the two unwilling donors can only be revived by a fourth individual actively choosing to end the life of a recipient when said recipient is entirely innocent of wrongdoing, when what you are proposing is that you murder the innocent recipient in order to correct the immoral act of whichever individual conducted the original organ theft. The only ethical course of action in such an unlikely set of circumstances would be to ask that the recipient willingly consent to giving up the organs and, if they refuse, to accept the circumstances as they exist and exact punishment against the organ thief, who is the only person actually culpable.

Now, your other points; you say the fact that the memories of both Tuvok and Neelix existed in Tuvix means they still existed, but that doesn't hold up. Personality is a function of neurology and experience, the fact that Tuvix had a unique neurology and the memories of BOTH prior individuals means that his consciousness was distinct from theirs, as evidenced by his behaviour relative to the two original beings.

Comatose patients do not lack consciousness, for a start. Many people who recover from comas report being aware of external stimuli to some degree, or of having dreams. They are more akin to a living individual who is asleep, and that does not apply here, because while a sleeping person is temporarily unconscious, their underlying neurology still exists, and they still have continual neural activity. Tuvok and Neelix's underlying neurology ceased to exist as a result of the transporter accident, which by definition means they could no longer have any neural activity, and thus cannot be equated with individuals who are asleep or comatose.

Your "outside entity" analogy also doesn't hold up, because it would require active intent on Tuvix's behalf to subvert the consciousnesses of Tuvok and Neelix, and evidently that requirement is not met by the scenario in question, as his creation was entirely accidental.

Finally, changing the equation to have a larger number of individuals die in the initial accident does absolutely nothing to change the reality. It wouldn't matter if an entire planet's worth of people died, in an accident, and as a result a single new unique individual came into being; those people died, it would be an event that had occurred in the past, the new individual, entirely innocent of any wrongdoing, would be alive at the time, in the present. Taking his life to restore the lives of individuals who were already dead, whether two or two billion, is still taking an innocent life, it is still murder. Now, under a mindlessly utilitarian school of thought, such an action is ethically justifiable, because killing one to save a larger number is considered a "greater good" sort of situation, but the Federation does not operate according to mindless utilitarianism, they value life, liberty, and individual self-determination above all else, and are willing to give up their lives to preserve those principles.

Allowing Tuvix, a unique sentient being who wished to continue living to live, at the cost of the potential restorations of Tuvok and Neelix, is entirely consistent with Federation morality; it respects the fact that he is a sentient living being, it respects his right to choose, and it respects the fact that -as Janeway herself states in this very episode- Tuvok and Neelix would gladly give up their own lives to save an innocent.

Murdering Tuvix in order to restore Tuvok and Neelix -beings who in this scenario are dead, gone, no longer in existence- to life, is in no way congruent with Federation ethics. It requires the destruction of a sentient individual against their will, and it assumes that Tuvok and Neelix would consent to someone being murdered on their behalves.
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 44
06-11-2012, 04:17 PM
Isn't it difficult to consider something dead when the process can be reversed, in essence isn't allowing Tuvix to live killing Tuvok and Neelix?

Kill one accident, or kill two people?
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 45
06-11-2012, 04:24 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by sosolidshoe View Post
I can't accept that, I'm sorry. Once the accident had occurred, Tuvok and Neelix were dead, for all intents and purposes; their consciousnesses no longer existed, their individual physical forms were no more. In their place was a new, distinct, unique, and sentient individual with its own personality.

I can't grasp how someone can think it is more moral to commit murder than it is to accept a sequence of events which has already occurred.

The process by which Tuvix came to exist is not relevant, he did exist, whether his existence was accidental or deliberate. Indeed, had his creation been a deliberate act by a third party, Janeway might have been MORE justified in what she had done, not less, as she would have been reversing an immoral action taken by another person, rather than simply committing murder out of selfish sentiment.
That is a convenient definition of dead. They were separable so it is hard to argue they were truly dead.

Again, if organs are harvested from several people to save one, and the several could be saved by reversing the process but would be dead otherwise, would you argue the organs should stay in the recipient?
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 46
06-11-2012, 04:24 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by nrobbiec
Isn't it difficult to consider something dead when the process can be reversed, in essence isn't allowing Tuvix to live killing Tuvok and Neelix?

Kill one accident, or kill two people?

The problem is, Tuvok and neelix had already been 'killed'. Is someone's right to live based purely on the circumstances of their birth? Or if by 'killing' themselves, 2 can basically come back from the dead?


What if someone got accidentally pregnant, and gave birth to their child. Would anyone have the right to kill that child, after it has been born, and knows of it's existence, simply because it's mother getting knocked up was an accident?

I'm not talking about abortions, that's an entirely different thing. I'm talking after the child is born.
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 47
06-11-2012, 04:39 PM
But you're not saving anyone by killing the child...that's really the point. If it was save both parents by killing the child, yes kill the child. Or harvest its stem cells or put it to some other good use or whatever.
It's the simple choice of kill one or kill two. Friends and family get their respective loved ones back and Tuvix lives on in their memories bla bla bla.
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 48
06-11-2012, 04:43 PM
Obviously barring extreme circumstances like if the parents are both rapists and murderers but not necessarily in that order then they don't deserve to live.
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 49
06-11-2012, 04:48 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by kimmera
That is a convenient definition of dead. They were separable so it is hard to argue they were truly dead.

Again, if organs are harvested from several people to save one, and the several could be saved by reversing the process but would be dead otherwise, would you argue the organs should stay in the recipient?
I edited my post above, I hadn't noticed you post when I originally responded.
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 50
06-11-2012, 05:23 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by sosolidshoe View Post
EDIT: To kimmera - in your scenario, yes, the third individual should be permitted to live on with the organs, assuming of course that we're making the analogy as close as possible and the two original donors are "dead but could be resuscitated" as opposed to still alive and demanding their ******n kidneys back, and assuming that the organs in question are vital for life and thus removing them would instantly kill the third person, because the third person is not culpable for the circumstances, and thus punishing HIM for those circumstances isn't even slightly ethical. If the two unwilling donors can only be revived by a fourth individual actively choosing to end the life of a recipient when said recipient is entirely innocent of wrongdoing, when what you are proposing is that you murder the innocent recipient in order to correct the immoral act of whichever individual conducted the original organ theft. The only ethical course of action in such an unlikely set of circumstances would be to ask that the recipient willingly consent to giving up the organs and, if they refuse, to accept the circumstances as they exist and exact punishment against the organ thief, who is the only person actually culpable.
But the third party wouldn't be alive at all if not for the organ theft. What you are saying is that organ theft should be a valid way to save a third party.

Quote:
Now, your other points; you say the fact that the memories of both Tuvok and Neelix existed in Tuvix means they still existed, but that doesn't hold up. Personality is a function of neurology and experience, the fact that Tuvix had a unique neurology and the memories of BOTH prior individuals means that his consciousness was distinct from theirs, as evidenced by his behaviour relative to the two original beings.
So if someone takes a blow to the head, the should legally become a different person and any damage should not be repaired? It should be treated as if they are a completely new person? That the combined personality was different doesn't change the fact the original components were still present. The same personality combination could be effected by mind meld without loss of either individual.

Quote:
Comatose patients do not lack consciousness, for a start. Many people who recover from comas report being aware of external stimuli to some degree, or of having dreams. They are more akin to a living individual who is asleep, and that does not apply here, because while a sleeping person is temporarily unconscious, their underlying neurology still exists, and they still have continual neural activity. Tuvok and Neelix's underlying neurology ceased to exist as a result of the transporter accident, which by definition means they could no longer have any neural activity, and thus cannot be equated with individuals who are asleep or comatose.
So... comatose patients are not unconscious? You are making up new definitions of consciousness now. Autonomous responses are by definition not conscious ones. One thing we don't have is an after report. We don't know if the two separated individuals retained memory of the joining. Since they remembered everything (from both lives) up to the joining, it is plausible to conclude they remembered everything during too.

Quote:
Your "outside entity" analogy also doesn't hold up, because it would require active intent on Tuvix's behalf to subvert the consciousnesses of Tuvok and Neelix, and evidently that requirement is not met by the scenario in question, as his creation was entirely accidental.
Why is intent relevant? Even if Tuvix deliberately had invoked the combination somehow (which would have been impossible of course in that Tuvix did not exist as a combination prior), how would he not have still been an independant new life form by your arguments? In such case Tuvix might have been guilty of murder, but since the penalty for murder is imprisonment rather than death, it wouldn't change your conclusions.

Quote:
Finally, changing the equation to have a larger number of individuals die in the initial accident does absolutely nothing to change the reality. It wouldn't matter if an entire planet's worth of people died, in an accident, and as a result a single new unique individual came into being; those people died, it would be an event that had occurred in the past, the new individual, entirely innocent of any wrongdoing, would be alive at the time, in the present. Taking his life to restore the lives of individuals who were already dead, whether two or two billion, is still taking an innocent life, it is still murder. Now, under a mindlessly utilitarian school of thought, such an action is ethically justifiable, because killing one to save a larger number is considered a "greater good" sort of situation, but the Federation does not operate according to mindless utilitarianism, they value life, liberty, and individual self-determination above all else, and are willing to give up their lives to preserve those principles.
So the lives of the many really do mean nothing compared to the existence of the one, even if the one was a direct result of the losses of the many.... ? Should the two Kirks have been required to die rather than surrender their new individuality? The aggressive one certainly didn't want to recombine as I recall....

Quote:
Allowing Tuvix, a unique sentient being who wished to continue living to live, at the cost of the potential restorations of Tuvok and Neelix, is entirely consistent with Federation morality; it respects the fact that he is a sentient living being, it respects his right to choose, and it respects the fact that -as Janeway herself states in this very episode- Tuvok and Neelix would gladly give up their own lives to save an innocent.
But neither Tuvok nor Neelix had a say in their fate. How would they have chosen? And why doesn't that matter to you, given that they were separable?

Quote:
Murdering Tuvix in order to restore Tuvok and Neelix -beings who in this scenario are dead, gone, no longer in existence- to life, is in no way congruent with Federation ethics. It requires the destruction of a sentient individual against their will, and it assumes that Tuvok and Neelix would consent to someone being murdered on their behalves.
You are creating a circular argument by using the term murder to argue that it would be murder. You also are defining Tuvok and Neelix as dead, which is likewise convenient to your argument. The component parts are still there after the fact and if need be, could be once again recombined, this time with the consent of the two individuals. Separation allows for consultation without needing to be irreversible. Since they didn't recombine (either by transporter operation or mind meld), it is reasonable to assume they preferred independence.
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 09:23 AM.