Good and Logical Spock / Bad, Illogical Spock

[2PhiloVoid]

Spoiler Alert: If you haven't seen the following movie and might like to, then please know that this little clip will 'spoil' it for you, and you may want to refrain from reading the rest of this post and watching the clip. Thanks!

In the following clip from the movie, Star Trek VI: The Undiscovered Country (1991), Spock literally takes moral matters into his own hands in order to (according to the context of the movie) 'defrock' Lt. Valeris [the female Vulcan] by FORCING a mind-meld (which for Vulcans can have a sexual nature) with her......................in order to extract information from her that will help Spock and friends avoid a catastrophic, intergalactic war.

Was he logical and morally right to do so? Why?

Is this act of Spock's justified by the various factors embedded in something like the Trolley Problem? Or, might we question Spock in this regard?

Here's an additional article to add to our overall considerations:

Does the Trolley Problem Have a Problem?

 

[Pavel Mosko]

I'm pretty sure people would go after Spock for sexual harassment if this was in the future. Grabbing that young Vulcan girl, and mind melding with her against her consent.


Ah the Trolley! That came up on an episode of The Good Place! (a video or two on You-tube that might violate the TOS).

 

[Bobber]

Ha. LOL I think if Spock were real he'd say, "Fascinating that you'd ask such a question about a fictional character." He might even question your logic for doing so. What's to be gained? Is there any useful purpose?

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Ha. LOL I think if Spock were real he'd say, "Fascinating that you'd ask such a question about a fictional character." He might even question your logic for doing so. What's to be gained? Is there any useful purpose?

I leave the essence of what can be gained with each individual 'reader' of the OP in this instance, bro!

 

[2PhiloVoid]

I'm pretty sure people would go after Spock for sexual harassment if this was in the future. Grabbing that young Vulcan girl, and mind melding with her against her consent.


Ah the Trolley! That came up on an episode of The Good Place! (a video or two on You-tube that might violate the TOS).

In this instance, I claim "fair-use" for educational purposes ...

 

[2PhiloVoid]

I'm pretty sure people would go after Spock for sexual harassment if this was in the future. Grabbing that young Vulcan girl, and mind melding with her against her consent.

That could be, Pavel. That could be.

 

[grasping the after wind]

In the following clip from the movie, Star Trek VI: The Undiscovered Country, Spock literally takes moral matters into his own hands in order to (according to the context of the movie) 'defrock' Lt. Valeris [the female Vulcan] and FORCES a mind-meld (which for Vulcans can have a sexual nature) with her......................in order to extract information from her that will help Spock and friends avoid a catastrophic, intergalactic war.

Was he logical and morally right to do so? Why?

Is this act of Spock justified by the considerations embedded in something like the Trolley Problem? Might we question Spock in this regard?

Here's an additional article to add to our overall considerations:

Does the Trolley Problem Have a Problem?

All of this depends upon agreement that forcing people to comply with ones demands is immoral Seems to be logical and morally reprehensible. The ends justifying the means does not make the means morally upright. If an action is morally wrong then it does not matter that the ends justify it, it remains morally wrong. So one is left with the decision to do something unquestionably morally reprehensible to potentially save many from harm or remain morally upright and potentially allow the harm to occur. A problem with this dilemma is that one action has absolute certain consequences i.e. moral reprehensibility while the other's consequences are not certain as they depend upon one's reading of a future situation not upon known facts. There is also bit of a false dichotomy being proposed by Spock to himself that makes it much easier to act immorally. No one knows for sure what the future brings and what would have happened had he done something other than he did. If intergalactic war occurs anyway he will propose to himself that he did what he could to avert it and feel righteous for trying. If it does not occur he will take the credit for it whether he actually deserves it or not because otherwise in either case he would be left with the question of whether he acted reprehensibly for no legitimate reason and either his reprehensible act was in vain or was not actually needed.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

All of this depends upon agreement that forcing people to comply with ones demands is immoral Seems to be logical and morally reprehensible. The ends justifying the means does not make the means morally upright. If an action is morally wrong then it does not matter that the ends justify it, it remains morally wrong. So one is left with the decision to do something unquestionably morally reprehensible to potentially save many from harm or remain morally upright and potentially allow the harm to occur. A problem with this dilemma is that one action has absolute certain consequences i.e. moral reprehensibility while the other's consequences are not certain as they depend upon one's reading of a future situation not upon known facts. There is also bit of a false dichotomy being proposed by Spock to himself that makes it much easier to act immorally. No one knows for sure what the future brings and what would have happened had he done something other than he did. If intergalactic war occurs anyway he will propose to himself that he did what he could to avert it and feel righteous for trying. If it does not occur he will take the credit for it whether he actually deserves it or not because otherwise in either case he would be left with the question of whether he acted reprehensibly for no legitimate reason and either his reprehensible act was in vain or was not actually needed.

I can't wait to see what the skeptics and atheists will say.

 

[durangodawood]

How "human" are Vulcans anyway?

What do we know of their morality and whats right and wrong in their world? For sure there must be some overlap of human/vulcan morality just for Spock to be an effective crew member. But does all of it intersect?

 

[2PhiloVoid]

How "human" are Vulcans anyway?

Supposedly, Spock is half-Vulcan, half-human. So, what might that imply? At present, I don't know.

What do we know of their morality and whats right and wrong in their world? For sure there must be some overlap of human/vulcan morality just for Spock to be an effective crew member. But does all of it intersect?

But this is Spock. In the world of Star Trek, he's not "just another Vulcan." Some of the overlap might be implied in the context of the movie scene ... ? Maybe? What do you think?

 

[durangodawood]

Supposedly, Spock is half-Vulcan, half-human. So, what might that imply? At present, I don't know.

But this is Spock. In the world of Star Trek, he's not "just another Vulcan." Some of the overlap might be implied in the context of the movie scene ... ? Maybe? What do you think?

Yeah Spock is half human, but hes doing a Vulcan thing with a full Vulcan, presumably. This act is a Vulcan act in practice and meaning. I'm at a loss for how to overlay human morals onto a non-human culture.

I suppose we could change the thought experiment to presume human morality applies universally. That might bring other problems on board tho.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Yeah Spock is half human, but hes doing a Vulcan thing with a full Vulcan, presumably. This act is a Vulcan act in practice and meaning. I'm at a loss for how to overlay human morals onto a non-human culture.

So, was Captain Kirk at fault then for "prompting" Spock to take liberty in his having the means to obtain the needed information by force?

 

[durangodawood]

So, was Captain Kirk at fault then for "prompting" Spock to take liberty in his having the means to obtain the needed information by force?

Interesting. There may be some value in humans presuming our hard won wisdom applies universally to all intelligent life. OTOH that could be a disaster as it implies other life could just as well impose its morality on us.

 

[durangodawood]

So, was Captain Kirk at fault then for "prompting" Spock to take liberty in his having the means to obtain the needed information by force?

I can see that the "inter species" aspect of the Star Trek example is confounding the core issue you want to get at.

Could your inquiry be better served by just asking:
"Is it ok to steal a loaf of bread to feed your starving family?"
Or would that miss some crucial point?

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Interesting. There may be some value in humans presuming our hard won wisdom applies universally to all intelligent life. OTOH that could be a disaster as it implies other life could just as well impose its morality on us.

I'm not sure how the Star Trek scene in the OP implies this either way, really. BUT, if that's where your ideas are going to, then they are what they are.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

I can see that the "inter species" aspect of the Star Trek example is confounding the core issue you want to get at.

Could your inquiry be better served by just asking:
"Is it ok to steal a loaf of bread to feed your starving family?"
Or would that miss some crucial point?

Not really. If you're familiar with Star Trek, then you'll readily know that there is an overarching context above the one that you think "confounds" the issue.

It's called, "The Federation," which Spock is a part of and by which he operates and abides by alongside folks like Kirk ...

 

[durangodawood]

Not really. If you're familiar with Star Trek, then you'll readily know that there is an overarching context above the one that you think "confounds" the issue.

It's called, "The Federation," which Spock is a part of and by which he operates and abides by alongside folks like Kirk ...

Are you saying the Federation doesnt accommodate any interspecies moral differences? Or that the vulcans and humans dont even have any interspecies moral differences?

And whats wrong with the stealing a loaf of bread question?

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Are you saying the Federation doesnt accommodate any interspecies moral differences? Or that the vulcans and humans dont even have any interspecies moral differences?

Nope, I'm implying that the Federation, while allowing for some differences, still has an operative code that all have to abide by on a general scale and to which at least 'some' cultural diversities have to take a back seat.

In the scene under discussion, it appears that Spock is intuitively concurring with Kirk as to what the best or "necessary" plan of action is to be in regard to dealing with Lt. Valeris. Am I incorrect in this interpretation of the OP scene?

 

[durangodawood]

Nope, I'm implying that the Federation, while allowing for some differences, still has an operative code that all have to abide by on a general scale and to which at least 'some' cultural diversities have to take a back seat.

In the scene under discussion, it appears that Spock is intuitively concurring with Kirk as to what the best or "necessary" plan of action is to be in regard to dealing with Lt. Valeris. Am I incorrect in this interpretation of the OP scene?

Yes, I do think youre correct.

But until I know how the forced meld is dealt with in Vulcan morality, I cant judge. The Federation may well be permissive of certain interspecies moral differences. Among Vulcans they may let certain Vulcan morality prevail.

Whats wrong with the stealing a loaf of bread question? Doesnt that avoid all these problems?

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Yes, I do think youre correct.

But until I know how the forced meld is dealt with in Vulcan morality, I cant judge. The Federation may well be permissive of certain interspecies moral differences. Among Vulcans they may let certain Vulcan morality prevail.

Whats wrong with the stealing a loaf of bread question? Doesnt that avoid all these problems?

Not exactly. Then we'd have to question the extent to which the bread-maker has a right to own and receive just compensation for an entity that duly belongs to him (i.e his bread product). In the case of Lt. Valeris, it isn't so clear that she has a "right" to her "bread" (i.e. to her personal and concealed information). But that's another issue.