Is genocide ever right or justifiable...?

hedrick

Senior Veteran
Supporter
Feb 8, 2009
20,250
10,565
New Jersey
✟1,147,348.00
Faith
Presbyterian
Marital Status
Single
True, but not applicable here. There were no civilian noncombatants among the Borg.
That would be part of the consideration, the number of civilians affected. It's actually hard to define a distinction for Borgs.
 
Upvote 0

Gregory Thompson

Change is inevitable, feel free to spare some.
Supporter
Dec 20, 2009
28,362
7,742
Canada
✟721,286.00
Country
Canada
Faith
Christian Seeker
Marital Status
Married
Is genocide ever right or justifiable...?

For most of us it unfathomable that genocide would ever be right or correct or the right thing to do, but is it ever...?

I'm a fan of Star Trek TNG, and in one of the episodes, and even in a perfect Star Trek world, or even as advanced as that society was or is, in one episode "I, Borg" they come up with a plan to genocide the Borg, but later decide not to do it, (or Picard doesn't go through with it, in the end)...

But in a later episode, when they (starfleet) are having some further problems later on with the Borg, Picard is pretty severely chastised by and admiral for his decision, and told Him he was not here to wrestle with his conscience, and if he has any further opportunities like this or the one he had in the future, that he was under orders to take full advantage of it, and even said to Picard, "Is that understood?"...

Then Picard talks with Riker about it, and talks about how he had the chance to rid the federation of a mortal threat, but he did not do it... Then Riker said he did the moral thing, and Picard says something very interesting, he says that "It may turn out that the moral thing to do, was not the right thing to do..."

So, is genocide ever justifiable...? And if so, when or under what conditions or circumstances or whatever is it so...?

Even in an advanced Star Trek world/reality, they ran into a circumstance or whatever, where it very well might have been very right, and fully justifiable (genocide of another people or race)...

Comments...?

God Bless!
The Borg are like the Undead, would that even be considered genocide? It's like killing off a virus that feeds off the population.
 
Upvote 0

hedrick

Senior Veteran
Supporter
Feb 8, 2009
20,250
10,565
New Jersey
✟1,147,348.00
Faith
Presbyterian
Marital Status
Single
The Borg are like the Undead, would that even be considered genocide? It's like killing off a virus that feeds off the population.
But they aren't undead. They are alive. They are in some sense victims, because they're forced into an overpowering hive mind. But at least two people escaped, Capt. Picard and Seven of Nine. Both became fine people.

The same may be true in more realistic scenarios. A nation or group can be evil, but once they are defeated, the individuals involved can understand that they were sucked up into an evil culture, and they can repent. There have been several examples. This includes members of the military, many of whom may not want to be there.

We may still have to defend ourselves against them, but just because a group seems to have no innocent members doesn't mean we can treat them as soulless.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Neogaia777
Upvote 0

Gregory Thompson

Change is inevitable, feel free to spare some.
Supporter
Dec 20, 2009
28,362
7,742
Canada
✟721,286.00
Country
Canada
Faith
Christian Seeker
Marital Status
Married
But they aren't undead. They are alive. They are in some sense victims, because they're forced into an overpowering hive mind. But at least two people escaped, Capt. Picard and Seven of Nine. Both became fine people.

The same may be true in more realistic scenarios. A nation or group can be evil, but once they are defeated, the individuals involved can understand that they were sucked up into an evil culture, and they can repent. There have been several examples. This includes members of the military, many of whom may not want to be there.

We may still have to defend ourselves against them, but just because a group seems to have no innocent members doesn't mean we can treat them as soulless.
That's a good point. I tend to find the balance by exploring the extremes.
 
Upvote 0

hedrick

Senior Veteran
Supporter
Feb 8, 2009
20,250
10,565
New Jersey
✟1,147,348.00
Faith
Presbyterian
Marital Status
Single
Desmond Tutu gave an interesting speech (which I'm too lazy to look up) talking about how you deal with the aftermath of a situation where most of the population turned murderous. The best example was Rwanda, but he also used South Africa. You can't put half the population in prison, but you also can't ignore the offenses.

In those two cases they chose to use formal processes where most people would be forgiven if they took public responsibility for what they did. Nurenberg was an attempt at that, but had some defects.
 
Upvote 0

Gregory Thompson

Change is inevitable, feel free to spare some.
Supporter
Dec 20, 2009
28,362
7,742
Canada
✟721,286.00
Country
Canada
Faith
Christian Seeker
Marital Status
Married
Desmond Tutu gave an interesting speech (which I'm too lazy to look up) talking about how you deal with the aftermath of a situation where most of the population turned murderous. The best example was Rwanda, but he also used South Africa. You can't put half the population in prison, but you also can't ignore the offenses.

In those two cases they chose to use formal processes where most people would be forgiven if they took public responsibility for what they did. Nurenberg was an attempt at that, but had some defects.
In the case of "you can't arrest them all" them needing to live with what they've done will need to be prison enough.
 
Upvote 0

TheLostCoin

A Lonesome Coin
Supporter
Sep 29, 2016
1,507
822
Ohio
✟234,420.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Republican
It's an interesting theory, but I still think it makes God out to be the Great Utilitarian. He's optimizing human pleasure vs. human pain. And then the issues raised in my previous post still seem to apply.

Possibly, but not necessarily. Salvation and a means of Salvation are goods in of themselves, even if nobody chooses to be saved, even if they are able to, and nobody is saved.


Agree, God is good and just. And is it just to use people as means to an end? Is it just to sacrifice some people for the benefit of others?

If you consider the death of a rapist in my scenario a “sacrifice,” based on this logic, then yes, absolutely.
Because you are technically using the death of a rapist as a means to protect your wife.
 
Upvote 0

Neogaia777

Old Soul
Supporter
Oct 10, 2011
23,277
5,237
45
Oregon
✟952,487.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Celibate
Dr. Crusher, said about doing what they were going to do with the Borg and about sending Hugh (the Borg the captured back) Dr. Crusher said, "So, he (Hugh, the Borg) can participate in the destruction of his entire species!, and then she said, "I know, were at war."

But just because there were no individuals or whatever, does that mean they are not still and intelligent, or species of intelligent lifeform(s), and extincting that species or whatever, isn't that genocide...? If it's done on purpose or whatever...?

And don't we have to consider the implications or consequences of that also... The being or entity or species we are about to wipe out of existence forever from that point onward, does it or do they not have as much right to be here and still be here as we do...?

And the Borg could be brought back to being, and having, and as fully functioning individuals again, with their own independent minds again, or be saved also...

God Bless!
 
Upvote 0

Selene03

Active Member
Feb 9, 2019
342
119
61
Hagatna
✟15,025.00
Country
Guam
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Single
Politics
CA-Conservatives
Is genocide ever right or justifiable...?

For most of us it unfathomable that genocide would ever be right or correct or the right thing to do, but is it ever...?

I'm a fan of Star Trek TNG, and in one of the episodes, and even in a perfect Star Trek world, or even as advanced as that society was or is, in one episode "I, Borg" they come up with a plan to genocide the Borg, but later decide not to do it, (or Picard doesn't go through with it, in the end)...

But in a later episode, when they (starfleet) are having some further problems later on with the Borg, Picard is pretty severely chastised by and admiral for his decision, and told Him he was not here to wrestle with his conscience, and if he has any further opportunities like this or the one he had in the future, that he was under orders to take full advantage of it, and even said to Picard, "Is that understood?"...

Then Picard talks with Riker about it, and talks about how he had the chance to rid the federation of a mortal threat, but he did not do it... Then Riker said he did the moral thing, and Picard says something very interesting, he says that "It may turn out that the moral thing to do, was not the right thing to do..."

So, is genocide ever justifiable...? And if so, when or under what conditions or circumstances or whatever is it so...?

Even in an advanced Star Trek world/reality, they ran into a circumstance or whatever, where it very well might have been very right, and fully justifiable (genocide of another people or race)...

Comments...?

God Bless!
I can understand why Picard took that stand. He was a victim of the Borg; therefore, he felt that the total eradication of the enemy is the right answer. He was responding from experience while Riker responded from his moral conscience. My people were also once victims of genocide, and those who experienced the horrors of the Japanese occupation would most likely responded in the same way as Picard did. However, I have never experienced genocide. My response would be the same as Riker’s response. Every race has a right to live. And just because their government leader gave the order to commit genocide on another group of people doesn’t mean that every single Japanese was in agreement with their imperialistic government leader at that time. In this sense, Riker did the right thing because they were innocent victims who were assimilated into the Borg as Picard was, but were unable to fight the assimilation as Picard had done.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Neogaia777
Upvote 0

Neogaia777

Old Soul
Supporter
Oct 10, 2011
23,277
5,237
45
Oregon
✟952,487.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Celibate
I can understand why Picard took that stand. He was a victim of the Borg; therefore, he felt that the total eradication of the enemy is the right answer. He was responding from experience while Riker responded from his moral conscience. My people were also once victims of genocide, and those who experienced the horrors of the Japanese occupation would most likely responded in the same way as Picard did. However, I have never experienced genocide. My response would be the same as Riker’s response. Every race has a right to live. And just because their government leader gave the order to commit genocide on another group of people doesn’t mean that every single Japanese was in agreement with their imperialistic government leader at that time. In this sense, Riker did the right thing because they were innocent victims who were assimilated into the Borg as Picard was, but were unable to fight the assimilation as Picard had done.
Do you believe the Borg, as an entity itself, has just as much right to be here, or be alive, or exist (here) or "whatever", as we do, or have, or are...?

God Bless!
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Selene03

Active Member
Feb 9, 2019
342
119
61
Hagatna
✟15,025.00
Country
Guam
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Single
Politics
CA-Conservatives
Do you believe the Borg, as an entity itself, has just as much right to be here, or be alive, or exist (here) or "whatever", as we do, or have, or are...?

God Bless!
The Borg is probably an entity different from its unwilling victims. What assimilates them is the Borg itself. Once they are assimilated, they do whatever the Borg commands them, and they become a single unit. It has a right to live because it is a life....an intelligent life, despite that it doesn’t believe in individual freedom. With that said, because of its criminal behavior of preying on unwilling victims, it’s action should be restricted.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Neogaia777
Upvote 0

Neogaia777

Old Soul
Supporter
Oct 10, 2011
23,277
5,237
45
Oregon
✟952,487.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Celibate
The Borg is probably an entity different from its unwilling victims. What assimilates them is the Borg itself. Once they are assimilated, they do whatever the Borg commands them, and they become a single unit. It has a right to live because it is a life....an intelligent life, despite that it doesn’t believe in individual freedom. With that said, because of its criminal behavior of preying on unwilling victims, it’s action should be restricted.
Have you heard of the Crystaline Entity...? Anyway, it's and entity that just does what it does by nature kind of, but, unfortunately it happens to feed off of devouring and scavenging and stripping entire worlds of all life, leaving the planet dead entirely...

But, do, or are, or would, or could the same argument ever be made about the Borg maybe...? Like a whale that devours cuttlefish, as Picard put it with the Crystaline Entity anyway...

And have you seen the second Star Trek TNG movie with the Borg queen...? "We seek to raise quality of life for all species..." "The biological and the synthetic"...

Some of the Borgs arguments are pretty difficult to deny, if you can see it through, or if you are looking at them through a completely objective lens maybe...?

God Bless!
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Selene03

Active Member
Feb 9, 2019
342
119
61
Hagatna
✟15,025.00
Country
Guam
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Single
Politics
CA-Conservatives
Have you heard of the Crystaline Entity...? Anyway, it's and entity that just does what it does by nature kind of, but, unfortunately it happens to feed off of devouring and scavenging and stripping entire worlds of all life, leaving the planet dead entirely...

But, do, or are, or would, or could the same argument ever be made about the Borg maybe...? Like a whale that devours cuttlefish, as Picard put it with the Crystaline Entity anyway...

And have you seen the second Star Trek TNG movie with the Borg queen...? "We seek to raise quality of life for all species..." "The biological and the synthetic"...

Some of the Borgs arguments are pretty difficult to deny, if you can see it through, or if you are looking at them through a completely objective lens maybe...?

God Bless!
I haven’t seen the second Star Trek with the Borg Queen. But from what I gathered, the Borg feels that assimilating everyone into one where everyone acts and thinks as one is not raising the quality of life. It strips everyone of their uniqueness, character, individuality and distinction as an individual. They all turned into Borg and forced to follow whatever is commanded of them by the Borg. Their freedom to choose is taken away as they force their quality of life on everyone.

The true quality of life can be found in the Holy Trinity.....three Persons in one God. All three are one, but all three are also distinct from each other as Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. And all three operate on the principle of Love. In other words, the Son does the will of the Father out of love. God also advocates a better life, but it’s given to those who want it rather than forced upon on everyone. Christ prayed that we be one with Him just as He is one with the Father. The choice is ours to make...to follow Him or not.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Neogaia777
Upvote 0

Yekcidmij

Presbyterian, Polymath
Feb 18, 2002
10,445
1,448
East Coast
✟230,239.00
Country
United States
Faith
Presbyterian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
Possibly, but not necessarily. Salvation and a means of Salvation are goods in of themselves, even if nobody chooses to be saved, even if they are able to, and nobody is saved.[

But I think in this scenario that salvation is the ends and some people, namely the Canaanites, are sacrificed so that other people can achieve these ends. In this case, yes, salvation is a good in and of itself, as it's the end goal, but the humans aren't.

If you consider the death of a rapist in my scenario a “sacrifice,” based on this logic, then yes, absolutely.
Because you are technically using the death of a rapist as a means to protect your wife.

I would think that it's in fact the rapist who would be treating my wife as a means to an end and thus violating my wife's intrinsic value. I would only be preventing him from using my wife as a means to his ends. Every individual has intrinsic value in-and-of themselves and everyone's lives are not just means to an end, but also ends themselves. So, I would simply be protecting my wife's intrinsic value, and respecting her moral value as a means and ends to herself, against someone violating those principles.
 
Upvote 0

TheLostCoin

A Lonesome Coin
Supporter
Sep 29, 2016
1,507
822
Ohio
✟234,420.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Republican
But I think in this scenario that salvation is the ends and some people, namely the Canaanites, are sacrificed so that other people can achieve these ends. In this case, yes, salvation is a good in and of itself, as it's the end goal, but the humans aren't.
But if those people weren’t “sacrificed,” then the Israelites would not survive and salvation, as something more important than the death of the body, would be lost.

Another thing too - it seems there is a conflation between eternal death and physical death, and it’s a fact that you don’t know the state of each Canaanite post Resurrection.

I would think that it's in fact the rapist who would be treating my wife as a means to an end and thus violating my wife's intrinsic value. I would only be preventing him from using my wife as a means to his ends. Every individual has intrinsic value in-and-of themselves and everyone's lives are not just means to an end, but also ends themselves. So, I would simply be protecting my wife's intrinsic value, and respecting her moral value as a means and ends to herself, against someone violating those principles.

But doesn’t the rapist still have intrinsic value? You are ultimately using his death as a means to protect somebody else’s intrinsic value.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Yekcidmij

Presbyterian, Polymath
Feb 18, 2002
10,445
1,448
East Coast
✟230,239.00
Country
United States
Faith
Presbyterian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
But if those people weren’t “sacrificed,” then the Israelites would not survive and salvation, as something more important than the death of the body, would be lost.

Another thing too - it seems there is a conflation between eternal death and physical death, and it’s a fact that you don’t know the state of each Canaanite post Resurrection.

Well, if we're to point out where each other are engaging in speculation, I would point out that through this entire discussion you've assumed the necessity of God's choosing Israel as well as the methods of land conquest, etc... How is it you know that this was the only possible method available to God?

No, I don't know the state of the Canaanites post-resurrection. All I have available is what I [think I] know about justice in the current world. And I can't say that it's obviously just to treat the Canaanites as a means to an end. I don't know that it's just for the Canaanites to be a sacrifice for my salvation, much less a necessary sacrifice.

For these reasons, and the ones I posted initially, I can't say that I would buy the idea that the Canaanite deaths were necessary in order to bring about Jesus and secure salvation. God may have different reasons, but this doesn't seem to be one of them.

But doesn’t the rapist still have intrinsic value? You are ultimately using his death as a means to protect somebody else’s intrinsic value.

I think the rapist is under the same moral obligations as everyone else. We could sum up some of these moral obligations by the Golden Rule, what Nassim Taleb has labeled the "Silver Rule" and what I will label the Bronze Rule (but is shamelessly copied from Kant's categorical imperative):

1) Do to others what you want them to do to you.
2) Don't do to others what you don't want them to do to you.
3) Act only according to that maxim whereby you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law.

I put all three of these because I think they all basically say the same thing. The reason these are moral obligations is because each person is an end to themselves. I think being an end to themselves entails certain rights. For the purposes of this discussion the right of self-ownership would be one of these.

Taking out the rapist isn't treating him as a means to an end. It's treating your wife as an end to herself who has a right to her own life and recognizes that those rights are violated. Doing nothing would treat your wife as a means to the end of the rapist - you would essentially be agreeing with the reasoning of the rapist. The rapist is violating his moral obligations and has forfeited certain rights because by abandoning his moral obligations he has violated, or intends to violate, the rights of another.
 
Upvote 0

thecolorsblend

If God is your Father, who is your Mother?
Supporter
Jul 1, 2013
9,199
8,425
Gotham City, New Jersey
✟308,231.00
Country
United States
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Is genocide ever right or justifiable...?

For most of us it unfathomable that genocide would ever be right or correct or the right thing to do, but is it ever...?

I'm a fan of Star Trek TNG, and in one of the episodes, and even in a perfect Star Trek world, or even as advanced as that society was or is, in one episode "I, Borg" they come up with a plan to genocide the Borg, but later decide not to do it, (or Picard doesn't go through with it, in the end)...

But in a later episode, when they (starfleet) are having some further problems later on with the Borg, Picard is pretty severely chastised by and admiral for his decision, and told Him he was not here to wrestle with his conscience, and if he has any further opportunities like this or the one he had in the future, that he was under orders to take full advantage of it, and even said to Picard, "Is that understood?"...

Then Picard talks with Riker about it, and talks about how he had the chance to rid the federation of a mortal threat, but he did not do it... Then Riker said he did the moral thing, and Picard says something very interesting, he says that "It may turn out that the moral thing to do, was not the right thing to do..."

So, is genocide ever justifiable...? And if so, when or under what conditions or circumstances or whatever is it so...?

Even in an advanced Star Trek world/reality, they ran into a circumstance or whatever, where it very well might have been very right, and fully justifiable (genocide of another people or race)...

Comments...?

God Bless!
The Borg represented a special case in that their collective consciousness allowed all Borg to be equally dangerous. The way they're presented in TNG and First Contact, genocide may very well have been the only way to protect the quadrant from them. Their catchphrase is "Resistance is futile". And they go to great lengths to show how futile resistance actually is. So based on those things, it would seem morally justified to wipe them all out.

But then Voyager shows that the Borg are not implacable. Janeway concluded a de facto, unofficial peace treaty with them in exchange for offering her assistance with an even more dangerous foe who had been attacking the Borg. There's no reason to think the Borg ever would've violated the peace treaty. But if they were to violate it at some time in the future then defensive measures could be taken or perhaps new peace terms negotiated.

So with that Voyager stuff in mind, no. I don't think wiping out even the Borg could be morally justifiable.

But as a general statement, it's kind of ludicrous to think there could never be circumstances were genocide is the only way to defend oneself. It's not impossible. Circumstances could arise where there's no alternative. It's a highly improbable set of circumstances, perhaps. But such circumstances could theoretically exist.
 
Upvote 0