www.ditl.org

Mikey wrote:...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.

That reminds me: Did they ever even ask the Baku if they'd kindly move so that billions of people could be healed, or live longer? The duck blind and cloaking suits make me think the answer is "no".

Captain Seafort wrote:Down to sarky partial quotations? I thought better of you.

I actually edited that specifically because I didn't mean that to read like it ended up. I myself only noticed what it sounded like after I submitted it. The new version is:

Mikey wrote: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.

It was just intended to signify that I agree that the debate here is about a fundamental difference in our view of ethics, not about some point of fact or evidence.

Captain Seafort wrote: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.

Indeed. It is not, however, anyone else's position in life to decide whether or not they have to undergo that admittedly not-so-difficult burden.

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

Simply put - because it's theirs to do with as they will.

Tsu - excellent point.

Mikey wrote:I actually edited that specifically because I didn't mean that to read like it ended up. I myself only noticed what it sounded like after I submitted it.

Fair enough.

Indeed. It is not, however, anyone else's position in life to decide whether or not they have to undergo that admittedly not-so-difficult burden.

I believe it is - it's the Federation's, because it's predominately Federation citizens who would benefit from the new medical science developed. A Compulsory Purchase Order, as I said earlier.

Simply put - because it's theirs to do with as they will.

And a person's house is theirs as well - that doesn't change the moral legitimacy of a CPO if the benefits sufficiently outweigh the costs. In this case they most certainly do.

Tsukiyumi wrote:That reminds me: Did they ever even ask the Baku if they'd kindly move so that billions of people could be healed, or live longer? The duck blind and cloaking suits make me think the answer is "no".

I doubt it - most of the Feds were under the impression that they were pre-warp rather than Luddites. Given that their attitude post-revelation was one of "mine, mine, mine" rather than one of digging their heels in simply because of the Federation's deceit, it seems that Dougherty made the right decision to go ahead with the covert removal.

While the Ba'ku certainly do have a right to their planet, would you not agree that allowing billions (at least) of sick or dying people to live outweighs the desires of 600 people? If you honestly think that inconviniencing 600 people to save billions, possibly trillions down the line, of people is wrong, then you've got one very weird sense of ethics.

Okay, so if after the reveal that they are not primitives, ("knowledge of positronic device" for example), and after they'd had the situation explained to them (they just have to move to another nice planet), they still refused to relocate (like others have pointed out, they could have also received treatments to improve their health), I'd class them as selfish assholes, and move them anyways.

They'd only been on the miracle planet for what, 300 years? Hardly a "cultural" stake.

Keep in mind, the Ba'ku did refuse to leave, as they told Picard. Granted, Dougherty didn't ask them, but the response would still likely have been "no".

Tsukiyumi wrote:Okay, so if after the reveal that they are not primitives, ("knowledge of positronic device" for example), and after they'd had the situation explained to them (they just have to move to another nice planet), they still refused to relocate (like others have pointed out, they could have also received treatments to improve their health), I'd class them as selfish assholes, and move them anyways.

I'm staggered by the attitudes being thrown around that basically sum up to "if I want it badly enough I have a right to it and anybody who is in my way it's just tough crap."

My family really wants your house, Tsukiyumi. There's more of us than there is of you, so stuff off out of it and hand it over. And if you don't, I'm going to kidnap you in your sleep and take it anyway and dump you in some other house. Don't like it? Too fucking bad mate, you have no rights here.

That's what you're suggesting, and anything else is just window dressing to make the aggressors feel better about their crime.

They'd only been on the miracle planet for what, 300 years? Hardly a "cultural" stake.

You think? How long does it take to have a cultural stake in the place you live? Because by your standards, most of the population of the US has no real stake in the place and it would be no big deal to kidnap them all and dump them in another country.

Captain Seafort wrote:I believe it is - it's the Federation's, because it's predominately Federation citizens who would benefit from the new medical science developed. A Compulsory Purchase Order, as I said earlier.

I don't know if you have a spouse or children, but for the sake of my example let's say you don't. There's four people in my family, and only one of you. My family would benefit from taking your house and property and selling it. Do I therefore have that moral right? CPO or eminent domain may or may not apply, as it's still contested whether or not the Ba'ku were Federation citizens a/o their planet was Federation territory. However, as I pointed out earlier, this is one of those bits that just comes down to fundamental personal belief - I see the legal rights inherent in eminent domain, but no moral rights at all.

Captain Seafort wrote:And a person's house is theirs as well - that doesn't change the moral legitimacy of a CPO if the benefits sufficiently outweigh the costs. In this case they most certainly do.

See above.

Rochey wrote:While the Ba'ku certainly do have a right to their planet, would you not agree that allowing billions (at least) of sick or dying people to live outweighs the desires of 600 people?

No, I wouldn't necessarily. Seafort used the argument that moving the Ba'ku and thusly taking from them the benefits of living on their miracle planet wouldn't really be taking anything from them, just returning them to the natural state of aging and death. How does that not apply to the (admittedly) greater number of people who would be serviced by the theft of the planet? Did the Ba'ku cause all the problems that might be mitigated by stealing the planet from them?

Tsukiyumi wrote:...I'd class them as selfish assholes, and move them anyways.

I'd classify them the same way. However, how many unjust wars (or "police actions") has our own country been involved in, and you or I decried, because we wanted something? If we decry those actions in RL, how is it OK in this fictional world?

GrahamKennedy wrote:I'm staggered by the attitudes being thrown around that basically sum up to "if I want it badly enough I have a right to it and anybody who is in my way it's just tough crap."

My family really wants your house, Tsukiyumi. There's more of us than there is of you, so stuff off out of it and hand it over. And if you don't, I'm going to kidnap you in your sleep and take it anyway and dump you in some other house. Don't like it? Too f***ing bad mate, you have no rights here.

That's what you're suggesting, and anything else is just window dressing to make the aggressors feel better about their crime.

Exactly, GK. I used the example with Seafort of having enough Americans vaca in the UK to outnumber the citizens of the UK; would we then have the right to annex the UK? Unfortunately, by his logic he was forced to say "yes." I can't abide that decision.

Mikey wrote:There's four people in my family, and only one of you. My family would benefit from taking your house and property and selling it. Do I therefore have that moral right?

No. If you gave me a new house, completely free of charge, and used the money obtained from the sale of the original to end world poverty then you'd have a point. That's the scale we're talking about.

No, I wouldn't necessarily. Seafort used the argument that moving the Ba'ku and thusly taking from them the benefits of living on their miracle planet wouldn't really be taking anything from them, just returning them to the natural state of aging and death. How does that not apply to the (admittedly) greater number of people who would be serviced by the theft of the planet? Did the Ba'ku cause all the problems that might be mitigated by stealing the planet from them?

I used that to demonstrate that the harm done to the Ba'ku was not even close to comparable to that done by the forced relocations you used as examples. If you assume that the loss of immortality for one Ba'ku morally overrides the improved health of a million Fed citizens, then the relocation would still be morally justified.

Captain Seafort wrote:No. If you gave me a new house, completely free of charge, and used the money obtained from the sale of the original to end world poverty then you'd have a point. That's the scale we're talking about.

I already said I'd dump you in some other house. As for what I do with your house, it's not your concern; I don't care if YOU think I'm justified, I think I am and only my opinion counts. You have no rights here, you are moving because I say so and that's all the justification I need. Hell, I'm doing more than Dougherty did even by telling you about this. By rights what I should do is just sneak into your bedroom when you're asleep, drug you and your wife and kids and just go dump you in some other house.

Captain Seafort wrote:No. If you gave me a new house, completely free of charge, and used the money obtained from the sale of the original to end world poverty then you'd have a point. That's the scale we're talking about.

No, the Ba'ku weren't given any say about the ends of the Federation's actions - to be analogous, in your example your wishes have no bearing on what I'd do with your house. And you would get a new house - it would just be inferior to the one I took from you.

Captain Seafort wrote:If you assume that the loss of immortality for one Ba'ku morally overrides the improved health of a million Fed citizens, then the relocation would still be morally justified.

You're basing morality on the outcome - I'm talking about the action itself. I judge the relocation to be immoral based on the fact of what it is, not what can come from it.

GrahamKennedy wrote:I'm staggered by the attitudes being thrown around that basically sum up to "if I want it badly enough I have a right to it and anybody who is in my way it's just tough crap."

My family really wants your house, Tsukiyumi. There's more of us than there is of you, so stuff off out of it and hand it over. And if you don't, I'm going to kidnap you in your sleep and take it anyway and dump you in some other house. Don't like it? Too f***ing bad mate, you have no rights here.

That's what you're suggesting, and anything else is just window dressing to make the aggressors feel better about their crime.

If my leaving my house and moving to a virtually identical one would benefit millions of people, I'd gladly move.

GrahamKennedy wrote:

They'd only been on the miracle planet for what, 300 years? Hardly a "cultural" stake.

You think? How long does it take to have a cultural stake in the place you live? Because by your standards, most of the population of the US has no real stake in the place and it would be no big deal to kidnap them all and dump them in another country.

Ironically, that is exactly my standard. Like when Tholian_Avenger started going on about how his family had lived here for six whole generations, therefore had a stake in this country. My family has been here for about 4,000 generations; I'd say my claim is considerably more valid.

Tsukiyumi wrote:If my leaving my house and moving to a virtually identical one would benefit millions of people, I'd gladly move.

Good. But I don't have the right to make you move by force or subterfuge.

Tsukiyumi wrote:Ironically, that is exactly my standard. Like when Tholian_Avenger started going on about how his family had lived here for six whole generations, therefore had a stake in this country. My family has been here for about 4,000 generations; I'd say my claim is considerably more valid.

I've only lived in my town for 10 years. But if nobody were here before me, my claim would be more valid than any other group's, no matter how many people were in that group.

Mikey wrote:

Tsukiyumi wrote:If my leaving my house and moving to a virtually identical one would benefit millions of people, I'd gladly move.

Good. But I don't have the right to make you move by force or subterfuge.

What sort of people wouldn't agree to move in such a situation? Scumbags. I don't care much for selfish scumbags.

Mikey wrote:

Tsukiyumi wrote:Ironically, that is exactly my standard. Like when Tholian_Avenger started going on about how his family had lived here for six whole generations, therefore had a stake in this country. My family has been here for about 4,000 generations; I'd say my claim is considerably more valid.

I've only lived in my town for 10 years. But if nobody were here before me, my claim would be more valid than any other group's, no matter how many people were in that group.

Sorry, I really was referring to GK's analogy of moving the majority of Americans somewhere else; I wasn't really using that statement to comment on the Baku.

Tsukiyumi wrote:What sort of people wouldn't agree to move in such a situation? Scumbags. I don't care much for selfish scumbags.

Agreed all around. But the morality of what I do to someone isn't dependent on what sort of person they are.