Good and Logical Spock / Bad, Illogical Spock

[durangodawood]

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.

I though the issue was basically: can (or should) moral rules be bent to suit dire circumstances?

For me, the trans-species nature of the Star Trek milieu just totally confounds the question of what's a moral rule at all.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

I though the issue was basically: can (or should) moral rules be bent to suit dire circumstances?

For me, the trans-species nature of the Star Trek milieu just totally confounds the question of what's a moral rule at all.

Then never take a Films and Ethics class. You might not pass, bud!

 

[grasping the after wind]

Whats wrong with the stealing a loaf of bread question?

I think it is a much different situation. Stealing bread to feed one's family is not the same as what may well be considered a form of mind rape to get information that MIGHT avert a war. In the case of stealing bread both consequences are certain. Don't steal bread, family goes hungry: Do steal bread and they don't. Not that same surety of consequences in the Star Trek scenario nor the same level of harm done to the victim. Though the general principle may be similar, the details make for a much different calculation as to how immoral the act might be and how important the consequences might be.

 

[durangodawood]

I think it is a much different situation. Stealing bread to feed one's family is not the same as what may well be considered a form of mind rape to get information that MIGHT avert a war. In the case of stealing bread both consequences are certain. Don't steal bread, family goes hungry: Do steal bread and they don't. Not that same surety of consequences in the Star Trek scenario nor the same level of harm done to the victim. Though the general principle may be similar, the details make for a much different calculation as to how immoral the act might be and how important the consequences might be.

I could just hear Spock saying: "if we dont stop this meeting, the odds of a catastrophic war are 94.3876%" and everyone, including the audience, believing him.

The difference is not in the quality of the ends at stake. Stopping a high probability needless war and feeding your family are both "good" ends.

Also, from the scene I'm not getting that the forced mind meld really is remotely as traumatic as if say Kirk raped Uhuru in the sense that we humans define rape. So level of harm is something of an unknown too. Heck Kirk might have done just as bad with some of his non consensual kissing behavior....and for no apparent good goal.

 

[Clizby WampusCat]

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?

There is a difference in a problem that you can think about for awhile and one that you cannot. You may have different actions based on how much time you have to think about a moral situation. Generally I think a persons autonomy is something to be morally respected in most situations but some situations it may be moral to violate someone's personal autonomy. In the moment I probably would think it is OK with the fear of the war and a short time to think about it. However, if Spock does not do anything is he responsible for the ensuing war? I don't think so. He is not responsible for the situation as it is. Just like the trolley problem. I am not responsible for the trolley in motion or the people on the tracks. So I think Spock is acting immoral in this situation. With that said I am open to changing my mind based on what others say or thinking about it some more. It is an interesting post.

 

[grasping the after wind]

I could just see Spock saying: "if we dont stop this meeting, the odds of a catastrophic war are 94.3876%" and everyone, including the audience, believing him.

The difference is not in the quality of the ends at stake. Stopping a high probability needless war and feeding your family are both "good" ends.

Also, from the scene I'm not getting that the forced mind meld really is remotely as traumatic as if say Kirk raped Uhuru in the sense that we humans define rape. So level of harm is something of an unknown too. Heck Kirk might have done just as bad with some of his non consensual kissing behavior....and for no apparent good goal.

There are facts and there are beliefs. Believing something to be true and seeing that something is true are not equivalents. It is factually true that people that do not eat become hungry. It is not factually true but a prediction that a war will be averted if one gets the correct information. Even if the predictor and an audience believe it is 94.3876% likely that means it is at least and perhaps more than 5.6124% likely that it won't. The uncertainty of the consequences of the action make the question more intriguing than the bread question.

 

[durangodawood]

There are facts and there are beliefs. Believing something to be true and seeing that something is true are not equivalents. It is factually true that people that do not eat become hungry. It is not factually true but a prediction that a war will be averted if one gets the correct information. Even if the predictor and an audience believe it is 94.3876% likely that means it is at least and perhaps more than 5.6124% likely that it won't. The uncertainty of the consequences of the action make the question more intriguing than the bread question.

When Spock calculates a probability, we're led to believe that its not a just an intuition, but an accurate representation of likely outcomes.

Stopping a 95% likely bad thing is a "good" end. That much seems a no-brainer. Then we can talk about means.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

I could just hear Spock saying: "if we dont stop this meeting, the odds of a catastrophic war are 94.3876%" and everyone, including the audience, believing him.

The difference is not in the quality of the ends at stake. Stopping a high probability needless war and feeding your family are both "good" ends.

Also, from the scene I'm not getting that the forced mind meld really is remotely as traumatic as if say Kirk raped Uhuru in the sense that we humans define rape. So level of harm is something of an unknown too. Heck Kirk might have done just as bad with some of his non consensual kissing behavior....and for no apparent good goal.

Ok. I'll give you some credit that those are some interesting points for us to think about ...

... but would you say that Lt. Valeris was 'enjoying' the process? I wouldn't. In fact, I'd say it is portrayed as being torturous, however strangely and ethereally we might try to imagine what this fictional instance in the OP movie scene would entail if it were real.

So, what do you think Kant would say about it all?

 

[durangodawood]

Ok. I'll give you some credit that those are some interesting points think about ...

... but would you say that Lt. Valeris was 'enjoying' the process? I wouldn't. In fact, I'd say it is portrayed as being torturous, however strangely and ethereally we might try to imagine what this fictional instance in the OP movie scene would entail if it were real.

So, what do you think Kant would say about it all?

"Tortuous" is stretching it. Every on screen attempt at torture-realism that I've seen looks way worse that what Valeris appears to experience.

Perhaps this is another shortcoming of this particular example: we cant reliably relate to the violation she may be experiencing. Would violating her autonomy by detaining her for a few days be any worse? Its hard to tell from watching.

Sorry, I dont know my Kant.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

"Tortuous" is stretching it. Every on screen attempt at torture-realism that I've seen looks way worse that what Valeris appears to experience.

Ok. Let me ask it another way. Do you think the portrayal of the interaction between Spock and Lt. Valeris might register in the minds of some of us watching as something that qualifies as "pain"?

Perhaps this is another shortcoming of this particular example: we cant reliably relate to the violation she may be experiencing. Would violating her autonomy by detaining her for a few days be any worse? Its hard to tell from watching.

... Ok. Perhaps, but when I saw this movie in the theater nearly 30 years ago, in full stereo and large screen, this scene registered in my mind as a form of mental rape, however "Sci-fi" that it obviously is in it's narrative nature.

Sorry, I dont know my Kant.

Ok. Fair enough. I'll just say that Kant would have said that Utilitarianism is wrong and that basically no human being should be made a means to an end. That's not to say that I completely and utterly agree with him, but he wouldn't have thought this act of Spock's should be allowable within a moral conscience or an ethical system.

 

[durangodawood]

Ok. Let me ask it another way. Do you think the portrayal of the interaction between Spock and Lt. Valeris might register in the minds of some of us watching as something that qualifies as "pain"?

... Ok. Perhaps, but when I saw this movie in the theater nearly 30 years ago, in full stereo and large screen, this scene registered in my mind as a form of mental rape, however "Sci-fi" that it obviously is in it's narrative nature.

Ok. Fair enough. I'll just say that Kant would have said that Utilitarianism is wrong and that basically no human being should be made a means to an end. That's not to say that I completely and utterly agree with him, but he wouldn't have thought this act of Spock's should be allowable within a moral conscience or an ethical system.

It seems a small violation for stopping a likely galactic war.

Perhaps instead she could have been detained for verbal interrogation. But even detention is a serious violation of a person's autonomy.

 

[Chesterton]

FORCING

I don't know if it's right or wrong, but I wanted to point out that this what is state and federal prosecutors and government agencies do to people all the time, when they want to catch bigger fish.

 

[essentialsaltes]

Logic clearly dictates that the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few. Or the one.

 

[durangodawood]

Logic clearly dictates that the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few. Or the one.

I named this "winner" not because I necessarily agree with Spock, but because this answers the OP perfectly.

Vulcan utilitarianism is alive and well within Federation service.

So regardless what we humans think about the proper basis for morality, the Federation clearly permits this moral philosophy as Spock has asserted it without objection.

 

[Strathos]

Well it's consistent with his 'the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the one' philosophy.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

I don't know if it's right or wrong, but I wanted to point out that this what is state and federal prosecutors and government agencies do to people all the time, when they want to catch bigger fish.

Well, I wasn't trying to specifically touch upon Guantanamo Bay "type" illustrations....................but since you bring it up, then... there is that angle too, I guess.

 

[grasping the after wind]

When Spock calculates a probability, we're led to believe that its not a just an intuition, but an accurate representation of likely outcomes.

Stopping a 95% likely bad thing is a "good" end. That much seems a no-brainer. Then we can talk about means.

There is a wide chasm between mere intuition and and accurate representation of likely outcomes. I put Spock's calculations somewhere nearer the latter than the former but odds are tricky things and Vulcans, Humans and half-Human Vulcans are not omniscient. One variable not accounted for can mess up the whole thing and when it comes to intergalactic war the variables are legion. However, even if we are to say the odds Sock gives are an accurate representation then the more than 5% chance that there will be a good end without the bad means still remains.

 

[grasping the after wind]

Logic clearly dictates that the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few. Or the one.

Logic doesn't dictate anything. Logic gives one a conclusion based upon whatever assumptions one decides are self evident. The idea that the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few is most often an assumption and not normally something people need to have proven to them using logic. . I am sure there is a way to arrive at that idea using logic but most people just start there rather than starting elsewhere and arriving there based upon other basic assumptions.

 

[durangodawood]

There is a wide chasm between mere intuition and and accurate representation of likely outcomes. I put Spock's calculations somewhere nearer the latter than the former but odds are tricky things and Vulcans, Humans and half-Human Vulcans are not omniscient. One variable not accounted for can mess up the whole thing and when it comes to intergalactic war the variables are legion. However, even if we are to say the odds Sock gives are an accurate representation then the more than 5% chance that there will be a good end without the bad means still remains.

Yeah but leaving aside the means for a second, say you saw a kid running into a school with semi auto pistols in each hand and an AR on his back..... you dont know that he's going to shoot the place up. Its just a judgement on your part that he might. But I think we'd all say stopping him is a good thing. Thats a "good" end.

Does this judgement of probability justify your decision to tackle him from behind, a severe violation of his autonomy? Does it justify his arrest and detention, a lesser but still real violation of his autonomy?

Basically I'm rejecting this idea that un-certainty renders action morally indefensible.

 

[grasping the after wind]

Yeah but leaving aside the means for a second, say you saw a kid running into a school with semi auto pistols in each hand and an AR on his back..... you dont know that he's going to shoot the place up. Its just a judgement on your part that he might. But I think we'd all say stopping him is a good thing. Thats a "good" end.

Does this judgement of probability justify your decision to tackle him from behind, a severe violation of his autonomy? Does it justify his arrest and detention, a lesser but still real violation of his autonomy?

Basically I'm rejecting this idea that un-certainty renders action morally indefensible.

Good, because accepting that idea would be silly IMO.

Your scenario is much less fraught with uncertainty than Spock's predication of war without his personal intervention. You see with your own eyes what looks very much like a problem. Spock is basing his prediction upon something he is not actually witnessing. I am not advocating that if one is not 100% certain one must not act. I am saying that if a thing is immoral it remains immoral no matter what the end may be. The end does not actually justify the means. It allows one to decide that using the immoral means is worth it, it does not make the immoral become moral it merely gives one motivation to step over the moral line. The biggest problem with simply accepting the idea that the ends justifies the means is that people tend to find a way to rationalize using immoral actions to achieve whatever ends they desire . Deciding what ends are good based upon their desire to achieve them rather than a logical analysis of the situation.