www.ditl.org

Mikey wrote:However, your reasoning is flawed. The fact that an otherwise wrong action can be executed without casualties doesn't trun it right.

Quite right, albeit irrelevent. My point was that otherwise moral actions can become immoral if deaths result. In this case relocating the Ba'ku was moral, given the vast benefits that would result, whereas simply droping a photon torpedo on them would not have been.

Obviously not, since you've got it backwards.

Why? Why should the non-violent transfer of six hundred Luddite squatters from one planet to an identical one, a la Homeward be considered immoral when the operation would bring substantial health benefits to billions.

But we HAVE seen other examples of situation in which an eminent domain policy would come into play, and the UFP has never attempted to execute such a policy. In fact, they completely backed off from the situation (e.g., TNG: "Home Soil.")

What would the benefits of continuing to terraform the planet have been? Doubled lifespans (implied to be population-wide)? An entire new medical science? Quite apart from the fact that terraforming that world would have resulted in massive loss of life among the sapient native inhabitants, which would not have been the case with the Ba'ku.

Not so. The text reads more like he was trying to remind Dougherty of the distiction which I pointed out.

If it had been the other way round I'd have agreed with the point, however they were not and Picard, despite his opposition to Dougherty's operation, did not dispute his assertion that the planet was considered Federation property.

I'll have to give you that one. However, given the murkiness of Dougherty's legal sense, I don't necessarily take that as gospel. Further, your point about number of citizens of each faction in the system is a complete red herring. If I got the entire population of the great state of New Jersey to visit London, would you agree that London was then a possession of New Jersey? There would be more New jerseyans than English in London at that time, so by you're reasoning it would be absolutely warranted for us to claim sovereignty throughout the city limits.

Red herring yourself. If London was a sovereign entity, or if you used the example of shipping 60+ million US citizens over here then you'd have a point, and you'd almost certainly be able to consider this country the 51st state.

Captain Seafort wrote:Quite right, albeit irrelevent. My point was that otherwise moral actions can become immoral if deaths result. In this case relocating the Ba'ku was moral, given the vast benefits that would result, whereas simply droping a photon torpedo on them would not have been.

OK. I disagree, but at least I understand now that you didn't mean for that description of morality to be reciprocal.

Captain Seafort wrote:Why? Why should the non-violent transfer of six hundred Luddite squatters from one planet to an identical one, a la Homeward be considered immoral when the operation would bring substantial health benefits to billions.

#1 - it was said that harvesting the rings would allow for research that may have health benefits. The fact is that those benefits would perhaps apply to a few, like Geordi, if said research could duplicate the effects of the naturally-occurring rings; the widespread benefits would be those of convenience and the common desire for longer life. However, naturally-occurring death at the end of a full-term lifespan isn't a disease.

#2 - No matter who may have benefitted and how, that was the Ba'ku's planet. You may not liek them, you may think that they were being assholes, you may want them all to eat glass. None of that gives the UFP the moral authority to kidnap and/or relocate them. White men saw a lot of value in relocating the Cherokee and Seminole; does that make it right?

Captain Seafort wrote:What would the benefits of continuing to terraform the planet have been? Doubled lifespans (implied to be population-wide)? An entire new medical science? Quite apart from the fact that terraforming that world would have resulted in massive loss of life among the sapient native inhabitants, which would not have been the case with the Ba'ku.

I don't know what the benefits would have been; but obviously they were substantial enough to have begun the terraforming project in the first place. And again, I'm forced to remind you that the fact that you wouldn't incur casualties on your own side doesn't affect the morality of your actions.

Captain Seafort wrote:If it had been the other way round I'd have agreed with the point, however they were not and Picard, despite his opposition to Dougherty's operation, did not dispute his assertion that the planet was considered Federation property.

Again, I believe that Picard's choice of words was such a disputation; however, this can never be more than a point of interpretation, so I won't argue it.

Captain Seafort wrote:Red herring yourself. If London was a sovereign entity, or if you used the example of shipping 60+ million US citizens over here then you'd have a point, and you'd almost certainly be able to consider this country the 51st state.

Fair enough. I should have used all of the UK as an example - but in theat example, would you meekly accept that it was morally OK for us to do that? I don't believe that you would, yet you claimed it was OK for the Feds because they outnumbered the Ba'ku.

Mikey wrote:#1 - it was said that harvesting the rings would allow for research that may have health benefits. The fact is that those benefits would perhaps apply to a few, like Geordi, if said research could duplicate the effects of the naturally-occurring rings; the widespread benefits would be those of convenience and the common desire for longer life.

Dougherty's statements said nothing about research, nothing about maybes or perhapses. The conclusion is that they'd already done so - they knew what they could achieve with the matter of the rings, and all they needed was sufficient material to set the process going.

#2 - No matter who may have benefitted and how, that was the Ba'ku's planet.

Debateable, given that they were immigrants themselves, as Dougherty pointed out.

You may not liek them, you may think that they were being assholes, you may want them all to eat glass. None of that gives the UFP the moral authority to kidnap and/or relocate them.

Correct. The fact that moving them and harvesting the rings would have brought health benefits to billions does give the Feds the moral right. The needs of the many outweight the needs of the few.

White men saw a lot of value in relocating the Cherokee and Seminole; does that make it right?

If the relocation had been carried out without loss of life or suffering, and had resulted in significantly improved quality of life to orders of magnitude more people than were moved, then it would have been.

I don't know what the benefits would have been; but obviously they were substantial enough to have begun the terraforming project in the first place. And again, I'm forced to remind you that the fact that you wouldn't incur casualties on your own side doesn't affect the morality of your actions.

I'm not just talking about casualties on the Fed side, I'm talking about casualties on either side.

Fair enough. I should have used all of the UK as an example - but in theat example, would you meekly accept that it was morally OK for us to do that? I don't believe that you would, yet you claimed it was OK for the Feds because they outnumbered the Ba'ku.

I claim its morally right because the scale benefits to billions outweigh the relocation of a few hundred. As to your example, if the majority of the population were US citizens then this would be a de facto US state anyway.

Captain Seafort wrote:Dougherty's statements said nothing about research, nothing about maybes or perhapses. The conclusion is that they'd already done so - they knew what they could achieve with the matter of the rings, and all they needed was sufficient material to set the process going.

You yourself had provided the quote of Dougherty's which referenced opening a new field of medical research.

Captain Seafort wrote:The needs of the many outweight the needs of the few.

That's pretty exposition from Spock, and little else save an all-too-common excuse or self-justification. The rights of the many do NOT outweigh the rights of the few.

Captain Seafort wrote:If the relocation had been carried out without loss of life or suffering, and had resulted in significantly improved quality of life to orders of magnitude more people than were moved, then it would have been.

Not nearly. It would have been useful, it would have been profitable, but no matter how safely conducted it never would have been right.

Captain Seafort wrote:I'm not just talking about casualties on the Fed side, I'm talking about casualties on either side.

Doesn't matter. No casualties simply means it would have been a safer immoral action - not that it would have turned an immoral action into a moral one.

Captain Seafort wrote:I claim its morally right because the scale benefits to billions outweigh the relocation of a few hundred. As to your example, if the majority of the population were US citizens then this would be a de facto US state anyway.

That scale of benefits means it would have been convenient or helpful to many people - but doesn't at all affect the immorality of kidnapping people and moving them against their will. As to my example, stop dodging - if enough Americna citizens visited the UK to outnumber the resident UK citizens, do you think it would be right to claim the UK as US territory? Not "would it be a de facto state," would it be morally correct in you ropinion? I still don't believe that you think it would be.

Mikey wrote:You yourself had provided the quote of Dougherty's which referenced opening a new field of medical research.

Not merely research - the exact statement was that "an entire new medical science will evolve", following on directly from an absolute statement that lifespans would be doubled. While the final results of that science were, obviously, unknown, Dougherty's statements show that the Feds had already done sufficient research to be able to put the results of the harvesting to immediate use.

That's pretty exposition from Spock, and little else save an all-too-common excuse or self-justification.

It's often used like that, true, usually without the qualifiers I'm attaching to it. When applied correctly, the principle of the greatest good for the greatest number is at the heart of all morality.

The rights of the many do NOT outweigh the rights of the few.

It depends on what sort of rights. If you're talking about the right to life, or against torture, or suffering, then I'd agree with you. The rights of a few hundred Luddite squatters to continue occupying a particular planet do not overide the rights of billions to a substantial improvement to medical services.

Not nearly. It would have been useful, it would have been profitable, but no matter how safely conducted it never would have been right.

I'm not just talking about usefulness or profit, I'm talking about measurable improvements to the medical services available to vast numbers of people, for which a few hundred are simply moved from one large, fertile area to another. The native American relocations were morally wrong because of those killed in evicting them, those who died en route, the fact that the reservations they were moved into were smaller and less productive than their previous territories, and the fact that the benefits to the US were at best limited, among a host of other factors. Not because of the fact of the relocation.

Doesn't matter. No casualties simply means it would have been a safer immoral action - not that it would have turned an immoral action into a moral one.

We've already been over this ground before.

That scale of benefits means it would have been convenient or helpful to many people - but doesn't at all affect the immorality of kidnapping people and moving them against their will.

Why?

As to my example, stop dodging - if enough Americna citizens visited the UK to outnumber the resident UK citizens, do you think it would be right to claim the UK as US territory? Not "would it be a de facto state," would it be morally correct in you ropinion? I still don't believe that you think it would be.

Very well, if you want such an absolute statement then in such circumstances it would be moral.

Captain Seafort wrote:Not merely research - the exact statement was that "an entire new medical science will evolve", following on directly from an absolute statement that lifespans would be doubled. While the final results of that science were, obviously, unknown, Dougherty's statements show that the Feds had already done sufficient research to be able to put the results of the harvesting to immediate use.

And what other source of the same radiation were they using on which to base that foregoing reseatch? The events of INS made it seem pretty clear that the techno-babble-phasic radiation of the Ba'ku planet was unique.

Captain Seafort wrote:It's often used like that, true, usually without the qualifiers I'm attaching to it. When applied correctly, the principle of the greatest good for the greatest number is at the heart of all morality.

It's also the excuse used to justify the Trail of Tears, or the internment of nissei in the US during WWII, or the Crusades, or the Holocaust.

Captain Seafort wrote:It depends on what sort of rights. If you're talking about the right to life, or against torture, or suffering, then I'd agree with you. The rights of a few hundred Luddite squatters to continue occupying a particular planet do not overide the rights of billions to a substantial improvement to medical services.

Why not? You're not making a distinction between what's right for the Ba'ku to do, and what's right for the Feds to do to the Ba'ku. Easy example: my home is discovered to sit on top of a large deposit of quantum-ite, which can cure many diseases. The right thing for me to decide to do is allow my home to be destroyed and my family relocated in order to tap that deposit. No outside entity, however, has the moral right to force me to do so (although the BS poliocy of eminent domain means that the US guvmint has the legal right.)

Captain Seafort wrote:I'm not just talking about usefulness or profit, I'm talking about measurable improvements to the medical services available to vast numbers of people, for which a few hundred are simply moved from one large, fertile area to another. The native American relocations were morally wrong because of those killed in evicting them, those who died en route, the fact that the reservations they were moved into were smaller and less productive than their previous territories, and the fact that the benefits to the US were at best limited, among a host of other factors. Not because of the fact of the relocation.

I refuse to accept that. The horrific treatment of the Native Americans was certainly icing on the immorality cake, but the first immoral act in those sequences was the idea that it was thought to be OK to enact the relocation in the first place.

We've already been over this ground before.

And I'm not satisfied by the idea that lessening of possible casualties makes an immoral act less immoral.

Why?

Because it was the root intention - the kidnapping and forced relocation - which was immoral from the start. The methodology only added to it. Having a good reason for an immoral act doesn't turn that act into a moral one.

Very well, if you want such an absolute statement then in such circumstances it would be moral.

Very well, we'll be over to inspect the "United States East" around 4:00 pm next Wednesday. And we drink coffee, not tea.

That's a little joke there, but in the final analysis this is an issue of a basic viewpoint on morality. I can guarantee you that you won't convinve me, and I feel pretty safe in betting that I won't convince you. Don't mind talking about it, certainly, if you wish - but this could degenerate quickly.

Mikey wrote:I refuse to accept that. The horrific treatment of the Native Americans was certainly icing on the immorality cake, but the first immoral act in those sequences was the idea that it was thought to be OK to enact the relocation in the first place.

In this specific case I agree with the general principle, because the benefits accrued did not come close to balancing out shifting such a population, although I disagree with the assertion that the genocidal nature of the relocations was just "the icing on the cake" - that was a significant proportion of the reason why those movements were abhorrenyt. The point I am trying (and apparently failing) to get across is that relocating a population is not inherently immoral - there is no conceptual difference between the Ba'ku relocation and a compulsory purchase order for a new hospital. In both cases the incovenience to the party being moved (which is all it is, given that in the latter case the house is bought, in the former case an entire new planet would be provided) is far outweighed by the benefit to a larger population. Indeed, the Ba'ku relocation is actually more justifiable than a CPO, given that a CPO is usually below the market price of a property, and the benefits of metaphasics would have been felt by about seven orders of magnitude more people than were being moved - the equivalent of a single person being forced to move house, in return for a measurably improved standard of living for the entire population of the UK.

Very well, we'll be over to inspect the "United States East" around 4:00 pm next Wednesday.

Good luck with that. It took the best part of two years to get even a few million across the Atlantic during the war. How do you expect to ship over 60 million across in a week?

And we drink coffee, not tea.

You're welcome to the stuff.

I can guarantee you that you won't convinve me, and I feel pretty safe in betting that I won't convince you. Don't mind talking about it, certainly, if you wish - but this could degenerate quickly.

We can but try, and I think we're both grown up enough and intelligent enough to debate the issue sensibly, given that this isn't a debate of scientific precision.

I'm not sure the issue of the relocation of the Native Americans can really be compared to the relocation of the Ba'ku.

For one, the UFP is actualy concerned about the wellfare of the Ba'ku, and tried to move them with as little hassle to them as possible.
The UFP also has the tech to allow such a transition to go smoothly, resulting in little trouble for the Ba'ku.
The UFP was also willing to locate a planet that was pretty similar to Ba'ku.
They were capable of moving or re-building the village in an almost identical fashion, and looking after the Ba'ku until that was done.
They were able to supply them with any food and medicine they needed until they adjusted to the new environment.

The UFP was more than capable of moving the Ba'ku without causing any serious problems for them. That's not so for the American settlers who decided to round up and expell the natives from the land they wanted.
In addition, moving the Ba'ku could save billions of lives. I think the inconvinience of 600 people is outweighed by the lives of billions.

Captain Seafort wrote:In this specific case I agree with the general principle, because the benefits accrued did not come close to balancing out shifting such a population, although I disagree with the assertion that the genocidal nature of the relocations was just "the icing on the cake" - that was a significant proportion of the reason why those movements were abhorrenyt. The point I am trying (and apparently failing) to get across is that relocating a population is not inherently immoral - there is no conceptual difference between the Ba'ku relocation and a compulsory purchase order for a new hospital. In both cases the incovenience to the party being moved (which is all it is, given that in the latter case the house is bought, in the former case an entire new planet would be provided) is far outweighed by the benefit to a larger population. Indeed, the Ba'ku relocation is actually more justifiable than a CPO, given that a CPO is usually below the market price of a property, and the benefits of metaphasics would have been felt by about seven orders of magnitude more people than were being moved - the equivalent of a single person being forced to move house, in return for a measurably improved standard of living for the entire population of the UK.

I assume from the context that your "CPO" is the same as what we refer to as eminent domain. If you're using that to argue with me, it's a moot point, because I consider eminent domain to be a legal right, not a moral one. If you want to convince me that the UFP has the legal right to move the Ba'ku, all you need to provide is firmer evidence than Picard's debateable choice of words that the Ba'ku planet was definitely UFP property. However, that's not the same as convincing me of it's moral rectitude.

Captain Seafort wrote:Good luck with that. It took the best part of two years to get even a few million across the Atlantic during the war. How do you expect to ship over 60 million across in a week?

Well, part of that was the interminable debate over when exactly to start. And now, apparently, we have people willing to swim.

Captain Seafort wrote:You're welcome to the stuff.

Honestly, I drink both. But coffee is insidious - I spend more on my Gevalia subscription now than I ever did on weed when I had a habit.

Captain Seafort wrote:We can but try, and I think we're both grown up enough and intelligent enough to debate the issue sensibly, given that this isn't a debate of scientific precision.

I know you are, but what am I? Oh, wait... OK.

Rochey wrote:For one, the UFP is actualy concerned about the wellfare of the Ba'ku, and tried to move them with as little hassle to them as possible.
The UFP also has the tech to allow such a transition to go smoothly, resulting in little trouble for the Ba'ku.
The UFP was also willing to locate a planet that was pretty similar to Ba'ku.
They were capable of moving or re-building the village in an almost identical fashion, and looking after the Ba'ku until that was done.
They were able to supply them with any food and medicine they needed until they adjusted to the new environment.

The UFP was more than capable of moving the Ba'ku without causing any serious problems for them. That's not so for the American settlers who decided to round up and expell the natives from the land they wanted.

All of this begs the question: Why, then, was the relocation planned to be done covertly and without permission of the subjects? And as to the many times I've heard "without harm to the Ba'ku" - what about the extraordinary shortening of their lifespans and susceptibility to disease and defect that taking them away from the babble-phasic radiation would incur?

Rochey wrote:In addition, moving the Ba'ku could save billions of lives. I think the inconvinience of 600 people is outweighed by the lives of billions.

There is a chance that that's true, and a chance it isn't. The closest thing we have to hard evidence is that it could greatly improve the quality of life for a few, and somewhat improve the quality of life for many.

All of this begs the question: Why, then, was the relocation planned to be done covertly and without permission of the subjects

Because the Ba'ku were unwilling to relocate.
And, presumably, to minimise the amount of cultural contamination that a group of spaceships landing on your planet and asking you to move would have (of course, waking up and finding that the landscape has changed would be a bit of a shock, too ).

And as to the many times I've heard "without harm to the Ba'ku" - what about the extraordinary shortening of their lifespans and susceptibility to disease and defect that taking them away from the babble-phasic radiation would incur?

The UFP has to have some way of distributing the miracle-particle throughout their territory. Therefore, they could just send some to the Ba'ku. THere's only 600 of them there, so it's not going to be a major problem.

Rochey wrote:Because the Ba'ku were unwilling to relocate.

And therefore, shouldn't be relocated.

Rochey wrote:And, presumably, to minimise the amount of cultural contamination that a group of spaceships landing on your planet and asking you to move would have (of course, waking up and finding that the landscape has changed would be a bit of a shock, too ).

The surest way of minimizing contamination would be to leave the fuckers alone.

Rochey wrote:The UFP has to have some way of distributing the miracle-particle throughout their territory. Therefore, they could just send some to the Ba'ku. THere's only 600 of them there, so it's not going to be a major problem.

Nobody really knows if it would or not. Certainly, simple use of the radiation was said to not be the same as the sort of environmental exposure which occurred on the planet.

Mikey wrote:And therefore, shouldn't be relocated.

This is the crux of the whole problem. We don't think that the desire of a few hundred selfish Luddite squatters to occupy a particular planet should be considered more important than the benefits that metaphasics would bring to billions of people. We are not talking about exterminating them, we are not talking about dumping them on an inhospitable ball of rock, we are not talking about forcing them to undertake an arduous migration. We are talking about picking them up while they're all asleep, transporting them in an exact replica of their village, and then depositing them on a suitable replacement planet (presumably where conditions are as close as can be found to their original settlement). Yes, they'll resume aging, and die - so what? It's natural - the Gift of Man.

Captain Seafort wrote:We don't think...

And I do think that their right to occupy their own planet trumps the Feds' position of "Yeah, but we really want it." You're right about this being the crux of the matter.

So what? Pithy phrases from Tolkien hardly apply. Why is Dougherty, or the Son'a, or the UFP council, or anyone at all, fit to deliver that "gift" to anyone? The fact remains that it is the Ba'ku's planet, and theirs to do with as they will. One would hope that they would accede to the Fed's plan, given the possible benefit to billions; but I don't believe that they should be forced to.

Mikey wrote:

Captain Seafort wrote:We don't think

And I do. You're right about this being the crux of the matter.

Down to sarky partial quotations? I thought better of you.

So what? Pithy phrases from Tolkien hardly apply. Why is Dougherty, or the Son'a, or the UFP council, or anyone at all, fit to deliver that "gift" to anyone?

Nobody's delivering the gift - I'm simply pointing out that the supposed horrible fate of no longer being immortal is hardly on a par (or even close to being so) with the examples of forced relocations you were giving earlier. It's the equivalent of bankers on hundreds of thousands (or millions) a year being deprived their multi-million pound/dollar bonuses - a massive loss, but nowhere near unbearable, or unfair.

The fact remains that it is the Ba'ku's planet, and theirs to do with as they will. One would hope that they would accede to the Fed's plan, given the possible benefit to billions; but I don't believe that they should be forced to.

Why not? Why should that bunch of selfish fuckers' desire to stay put outweigh the benefits of moving them?