Good and Logical Spock / Bad, Illogical Spock

[durangodawood]

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.

So is tackling someone from behind and taking them to the ground always immoral or always moral?

My take is that immoral actions are ones you should not do. But tackling the likely shooter is an action that you should do. And tackling some random harmless looking person is something you should not do. The difference between the two is the ends. In the case of the shooter the ends appear to justify these means.

 

[Sketcher]

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?

Spoiler

Logical? Yes. Otherwise, the war would kill millions, and he and the Enterprise senior staff would likely be imprisoned or executed for rescuing Kirk and McCoy, who had been handed over to the Klingons and imprisoned after a legally valid trial, in Klingon space. There wasn't enough time for other methods that had not yet been tried (she had been simply questioned before Kirk ordered the mind meld by Spock).

Moral? Well, I find it hard to morally justify it or condemn it. It's an effective way to get information, and there were other times the mind meld was used in Star Trek where it was impossible to get informed consent first. And while invasive to the mind, it doesn't harm the body. Besides, she was caught as an assassin.

 

[Tom 1]

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?

He's uncovering her as a spy? If that's the case I suppose it's a little different to the trolley set up, as in that scenario the people on the tracks aren't attempting to derail the trolley. Or is it something else - is she just an innocent in this scene?

 

[grasping the after wind]

So is tackling someone from behind and taking them to the ground always immoral or always moral?

My take is that immoral actions are ones you should not do. But tackling the likely shooter is an action that you should do. And tackling some random harmless looking person is something you should not do. The difference between the two is the ends. In the case of the shooter the ends appear to justify these means.

Tackling someone is amoral. It is done in U S football and Rugby all the time with no especially important end in mind.

 

[durangodawood]

Tackling someone is amoral. It is done in U S football and Rugby all the time with no especially important end in mind.

What about without consent?

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Spoiler

Logical? Yes. Otherwise, the war would kill millions, and he and the Enterprise senior staff would likely be imprisoned or executed for rescuing Kirk and McCoy, who had been handed over to the Klingons and imprisoned after a legally valid trial, in Klingon space. There wasn't enough time for other methods that had not yet been tried (she had been simply questioned before Kirk ordered the mind meld by Spock).

Moral? Well, I find it hard to morally justify it or condemn it. It's an effective way to get information, and there were other times the mind meld was used in Star Trek where it was impossible to get informed consent first. And while invasive to the mind, it doesn't harm the body. Besides, she was caught as an assassin.

Isn't the mind a part of the body though?

 

[2PhiloVoid]

He's uncovering her as a spy? If that's the case I suppose it's a little different to the trolley set up, as in that scenario the people on the tracks aren't attempting to derail the trolley. Or is it something else - is she just an innocent in this scene?

All excellent questions, Tom! It sounds like you're hitting on the fact that there are larger contexts to explore in relation to understanding and evaluating this scene from Star Trek VI.

 

[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.

Not exactly. I mean, they don't mentally rape people, do they? I mean, a "question" or "series of questions" isn't exactly the same as a psychic drill to the mind. Right?

 

[2PhiloVoid]

What about without consent?

What about it?

 

[durangodawood]

What about it?

Is tackling someone from behind without their consent morally wrong?

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Is tackling someone from behind without their consent morally wrong?

Maybe. Maybe not.

 

[durangodawood]

Maybe. Maybe not.

Thats my take too.

If you injure or kill someone for legit self defense reasons, you havent "done a wrong thing for the sake of a greater right thing". You just did the right thing.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Thats my take too.

If you injure or kill someone for legit self defense reasons, you havent "done a wrong thing for the sake of a greater right thing". You just did the right thing.

That could very well be. I think I might even agree with this, depending on the specifics of the ethical and social contexts involved in the incident and as they pertain to the term "legit."

 

[Chesterton]

Not exactly. I mean, they don't mentally rape people, do they? I mean, a "question" or "series of questions" isn't exactly the same as a psychic drill to the mind. Right?

Never been a Star Wars Trek fan. I know you mentioned it "can have a sexual nature", but I didn't know a mind meld was necessarily rape. In principle though, it's the same when the government brings charges against certain people. But did Spock actually force her? She didn't run. Maybe if she had, Spock would have beat her, or shot her with one of those space guns? I don't know, don't know him that well. But it looked fairly consensual to me. Of course time will tell. Maybe 20 years from now if she can get a spot on Oprah she'll claim it was rape.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Never been a Star Wars Trek fan. I know you mentioned it "can have a sexual nature", but I didn't know a mind meld was necessarily rape. In principle though, it's the same when the government brings charges against certain people. But did Spock actually force her? She didn't run. Maybe if she had, Spock would have beat her, or shot her with one of those space guns? I don't know, don't know him that well. But it looked fairly consensual to me. Of course time will tell. Maybe 20 years from now if she can get a spot on Oprah she'll claim it was rape.

Maybe I should have started the OP with a dissertation about the Vulcan social phenomenon known as "Pon farr"...... nah!

Pon farr - Wikipedia

And no, in the case of this scene in Star Trek VI, is wasn't mutual or consenting between the characters of Spock and Lt. Valeris.

 

[Chesterton]

Maybe I should have started the OP with a dissertation about the Vulcan social phenomenon known as "Pon farr"...... nah!

Pon farr - Wikipedia

Please, this is a family website.

 

[Chesterton]

And no, in the case of this scene in Star Trek VI, is wasn't mutual or consenting between the characters of Spock and Lt. Valeris.

Dude, I know that "no means no" but she doesn't so much as utter the word "no". Looks more like how the James Bond women used to react.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Dude, I know that "no means no" but she doesn't so much as utter the word "no". Looks more like how the James Bond women used to react.

I'll just assume you haven't seen the movie then. Because for me to assume otherwise would put your present evaluation into an unfavorable light, and I know that you wouldn't want to be thought of in that way ...

No, this isn't a James Bond style scene of 'romance.' Lt. Valeris definitely did NOT want Spock to do what he did. Again, there's that Star Trek Vulcan 'pon farr' thing in the context ...

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Dude, I know that "no means no" but she doesn't so much as utter the word "no". Looks more like how the James Bond women used to react.

Y'know what's interesting, though? There's not very many secular, skeptical types who are Star Trek fans showing up to put any kibosh on Spock's behavior .................................. and I kind of wonder why.

Edit: There was Clizby Wampuscat above. But that's only one.

 

[durangodawood]

Y'know what's interesting, though? There's not very many secular, skeptical types who are Star Trek fans showing up to put any kibosh on Spock's behavior .................................. and I kind of wonder why.

Edit: There was Clizby Wampuscat above. But that's only one.

Have any Christian types rejected Spock behavior here?