• Flyberius [comrade/them]@hexbear.net
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    10
    arrow-down
    5
    ·
    edit-2
    10 months ago

    I am here to explain this once again. Neelix and Tuvok were dead. They died in a transporter accident. They died painlessly and unaware of their fate. Tuvix was not dead. Begged not to be killed. And was painfully aware of the fate they were forced to suffer.

    It does not matter if you have a magic wand that can magic two people back for the cost of one other, she chose to kill someone, who was begging to her face to be spared. It is as simple as that. What other innocent people would you choose to kill in order to bring back others you deem more valuable? The closest parallel I can think of in the real world would be if someone bundled you off the street and explained that they were going to remove your heart to give it to Joe Biden as you are the best blood and tissue match. You won’t survive this procedure but let’s be honest, Joe Biden is way more useful to the establishment than you, whoever you are.

    The episode is great and I would never ask for it to be changed, it added a lot of depth to Janeway as a character, but it was also straight up murder.

    • Corgana@startrek.website
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      10
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      10 months ago

      Exactly, the trolly problem describes a murder too. The question it presents “is murder ever justified” and it’s not meant to have a “correct” answer, it’s meant to study how people react to two seemingly equivalent scenarios.

      I think Voyager’s “is it ok to push the fat man if his death resurrects two previously dead people and also increases the chances of getting everyone home” twist on the scenario is really interesting and I love that it always without fail gets people debating.

    • Pup Biru
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      10 months ago

      and people whose heart stop… we revive them, and then they are not dead any more. if someone is able to be revived, it’s irrelevant what you called them before that point: their… let’s say potential state? is not dead

      • Lucien [hy/hym, comrade/them]@hexbear.net
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        10 months ago

        That’s not an equal comparison. If by dying a new person started walking around in your body, and then by the medics doing CPR that person was killed, causing you to come back, that would be an equal comparison.

        • Pup Biru
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          10 months ago

          i’m not comparing the whole thing; just breaking the problem down into parts… i’m asserting that your definition of “dead” is wrong. they are not permanently dead, because they can be revived

          we have 3 potential people. either you remain at the end with 1 person, or 2 people… the choice is between action (killing tuvix to save neelix and tuvok) or inaction (allowing tuvix to live, and accepting the death of neelix and tuvok)

          it’s perfectly valid to say that inaction is the ethical choice because you should never personally cause harm… but it’s also perfectly valid to say action (in this case, murder, as we see in the episode) is the ethical choice because it has the greatest good for the most people

          and in fact, the latter is repeated often in star trek: the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few

          and indeed, in this episode they further throw a spanner in the works: the many includes voyagers crew, and their chief security officer