www.ditl.org

Mikey wrote:

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.

I suppose you could argue that "murder is murder", but when you have the example of someone shooting a serial killer vs shooting a girl scout, that argument sort of falls flat for me.

I thought we were discussing proactive actions, not punitive ones. A better example is the fact that it's no more moral for me to kill a guy who is an obnoxious loudmouth than it is for me to kill said girl scout.

Mikey wrote:I thought we were discussing proactive actions, not punitive ones. A better example is the fact that it's no more moral for me to kill a guy who is an obnoxious loudmouth than it is for me to kill said girl scout.

How obnoxious?

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

Lovely, congratulations to you. You also miss the entire point, which is that nobody involved gives a crap whether you would do it or not. YOU DON'T GET THE CHOICE. We don't ask you to move, we don't tell you why you get moved, we just sneak in one night and drag you out of bed in your sleep.

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.

What is exactly your standard? Exactly as long as the US has existed - what, 230 years? The Bak'u beat that one already.

How obnoxious?

Even Blackstar-level.

You know what? Lemme rethink that a minute...

In this case it's more a case of anticipating the Ba'ku's decision. If the Ba'ku had been asked instead, then you'd either be moving them with their permission and assistance if they decided to do so, or moving them without their consent if they decided to be selfish cnuts who deserve no better. While it would leave a bit of a bad taste in the mouth if they subsequently protested that they'd have agreed anyway, that's better than the considerable effort and risk of casualties (on both sides) that would have been involved if they'd decided they wanted to stay put.

Well, if you wanted to do the right thing that would read as "then you'd either be moving them with their permission and assistance if they decided to do so, or leaving them the f*** alone."

GrahamKennedy wrote:Lovely, congratulations to you. You also miss the entire point, which is that nobody involved gives a crap whether you would do it or not. YOU DON'T GET THE CHOICE. We don't ask you to move, we don't tell you why you get moved, we just sneak in one night and drag you out of bed in your sleep.

My point, that I'd made earlier, was that Dougherty's real immoral action was not asking them. If they'd been asked, they might have moved voluntarily. I guess I didn't make that point clear; sorry. Sneaking in, drugging them all and moving them without ever asking would be wrong, I agree. If they had everything explained to them, and they still chose to be selfish scumbags, my sympathy for them evaporates.

Mine too. But an immoral action is immoral, whether or not you have sympathy for the subjects of that action.

I'd say the welfare of billions would justify a mildly immoral action toward a few people.

And, I still maintain that they should have been asked.

Sorry, I'm just jumping in here, and I apologize if somebody mentioned this before, but wouldn't removing the Baku from that planet significantly reduce their extended lifespan?

Yep - they'd resume whatever their natural aging process is.

Thus would Starfleet be the instrument of their death as a species.

Genocide.......yummy.

Mark wrote:Thus would Starfleet be the insturment of their death as a species.

Depends - they're touch and go but they might have a sustainable population. In any event if they did die off it would no more be genocide than taking someone with no chance of recovery off life support is murder.

The only way that's analagous is if that life support machine had become an inherent part of that person's natural existence.