The moral premise - Star Trek: Insurrection (1998) Discussion

[–] 17 years ago

[deleted]

[–] herd1-1 17 years ago

Tell me, can the British government extend that law to other countries? Hardly. They can't kick out the inhabitants of an independent country, no matter how small an island state it was, even if it held the Fountain of Youth. Doing so would be an act of war.

reply

[–] kyessabyron 16 years ago

I echo those sentiments exactly!! Movement of a soverign nation is against the way the world works and every country gets in trouble when they try it!

reply

[–] MuggySphere 11 years ago

Tell that to the British Empire in the old days that invaded countries like India and such and raped them of resources.....

reply

[–] skiop 17 years ago

I don't agree. There are only 600 people, but those who wanted eternal life (I can't imagine why anyone would want to prolong the misery called life) could live in the brier patch. No problem. The moral problem is that the Federation wanted to move the Baku (which could destroy them) and rape the planet of its metaphasic radiation. They wanted their cake and to eat it too.

I have no taste, but that just means there's less of a chance that I'll get eaten

reply

[–] trance750 16 years ago

Why is it OK for one people to kick another people off their land, just to hoard resources for themselves?

Was it OK for the United States to use the Army to forcibly removed peaceful Native Americans from their lands, just so they could pillage the resources?

------------------------------------
Is that me talking, or just the beer talking, thru me?

reply

[–] oystein_olsen35 17 years ago

I agree. I just saw the film for the first time and I hated it because of the reason you mention. How selfish do these people have to be to keep such a treasure to themselves and deny BILLIONS of people the opportunity for a better life.
It's sickening, I had no sympathy at all for them wanting to stay on that planet.

reply

[–] herd1-1 17 years ago

As Picard said, there was plenty of room on the planet for people to move in. Taking an independent world by force and destroying it is hardly ethical or moral behavior.

reply

[–] rebecca-150 17 years ago

Not to mention the fact that it would mean destroying a culture. This idea of colonialism in the western world that is considered acceptable these days having happened in the USA, Australia, New Zealand and various other nations to me is completely sickening...

I look at the people who live in the village in the film and think 'lucky them', it's their home, not mine. I'd have no intention of coming in their with several space ships, some weapons and tell them to get lost.

As Picard says "who the hell are we to determine the next course of evolution for these people?"

reply

[–] quarf53206 17 years ago

It was only 600 people who werent native to the planet

http://www.pbase.com/bkjansen220
http://www.flickr.com/photos/28877774@N/00

reply

[–] herd1-1 17 years ago

"Jean-Luc, we're only moving 600 people."
"How many people does it take, Admiral, before it becomes wrong? Hmm? A thousand, fifty thousand, a million? How many people does it take, Admiral?"

reply

[–] quarf53206 17 years ago

The needs of the many out weigh the needs of the few

http://www.pbase.com/bkjansen220
http://www.flickr.com/photos/28877774@N/00

reply

[–] herd1-1 17 years ago

Does that justify committing a blatant act of war against an independent nation? A small country has natural resource that we want, so it's our right to take it by force?

reply

[–] quarf53206 17 years ago

would you have a problem with shooting down all of the planes on 9-11 before they could reached their intended targets? How about invading Cuba during the Cuban missile crisis?

They already had such a long life. They were not indigenous to that planet.

Their attitude
WE WERE HERE FIRST SO FINDERS KEEPERS

http://www.pbase.com/bkjansen220
http://www.flickr.com/photos/28877774@N/00

reply

[–] herd1-1 17 years ago

> would you have a problem with shooting down all of the planes on 9-11 before they could reached their intended targets?

The Baku weren't sending airplanes to crash anywhere.

> How about invading Cuba during the Cuban missile crisis?

Is this a universal right? If Cuba had possessed the power and felt threatened by American missiles, would they have had the right to invade the US? Or to capture the natural resources, since apart from natives, most Americans aren't indigenous either.

reply

[–] CSAgal-1 17 years ago

I get so sick of hearing that we shouldn't care about the few, just the many. That's communism to take away something from someone just because it could be distributed to more people. If it's YOURS then YOU should be able to keep it.

reply

[–] gotham23 17 years ago

would you have a problem with shooting down all of the planes on 9-11 before they could reached their intended targets?

What the hell does defending yourself from an attack in progress have to do with invading a sovereign nation that poses no threat to you just because they have a natural resource that you REALLY want?

reply

[–] clarencedale 17 years ago

ummm,no, not really. Because the Ba'ku didn't actually know that the Son'a a)existed b) were in league with the Federation c) were planning on uprooting them, until the Enterprise found out. The Son'a and the Admiral didn't say 'excuse me would you mind moving off your planet because we think it could be beneficial for the greater good.' so the Ba'ku didn't actually have any attitude toward it at all. The Son'a and federation worked covertly and planned on basicly kidnapping 600 people and uprooting them without their knowledge, in the federations case it can be whittled down to greed - they could have just put a colony on the planet to investigate the possibilities and/or used it as a medical retreat as well. In the Son'a's case it was simply for revenge.
When the Enterprise found out, they took it upon themselves to protect the Ba'Ku, whilst Riker went for help. Again - the Ba'Ku didnt really have a say in that - at that point it was run or be killed. And the Admiral knew what he was doing was wrong, because he stood up to Ru'ath.
Sorry, that's just my tuppence take on it.

I find thy face apelike and thy form mishapen.

reply

[–] gotham23 17 years ago

The needs of the many out weigh the needs of the few

LOL are you suggesting that Spock would have approved? I think you know better than that.

reply

[–] GaMEChldREBORN 17 years ago

...or the needs of the one.

Still, it was indeed an attack on the principles of Starfleet. Maybe in the long run, that would have been far more damaging.

And to quote from Generations (just to chew on, it makes points for both cases):

Picard: What you're about to do, Soran, is no different from when the Borg destroyed your world. They killed millions too.

Dr. Soran: [smiles, sighs] Nice try. You know there was a time that I wouldn't hurt a fly. Then the Borg came and they showed me that if there is one constant in this universe, it's death. Afterwards, I began to realize that it didn't matter. We're all going to die sometime. It's only a question of how and when. You will too, Captain. Don't you feel time gaining on you?

Dr. Soran: It's like a predator; it's stalking you. Oh,you can try and outrun it with doctors, medicines, new technologies but in the end, time is going to hunt you down... and make the kill.

Picard: It's our mortality that defines us, Soran. It's the truth of our existence.

reply

[–] 17 years ago

[deleted]

[–] kstenbch 17 years ago

How many people in an insignificant? 600, 6,000, 600,000, six million. When does simple murder become Genocide. Genocide in any number is immoral. You guys are just counting bodies. The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few, eh? What if that one were you, or your mother, your daughter. What if that one was Jesus? Counting bodies is just a way of abrogating your responsibility to the situation. It is what the Nazis attempted when they killed six million Jews. The needs of the few or the one are just as important as the needs of the many. It is not incumbent upon any of us, and indeed would be arrogant of us in the extreme to decide or choose what is best for someone else, or to put our needs over the needs of others no matter what they do. I know this probably sounds like it comes from Spock and Star Trek the Original Series; however, it also comes from our Founding Fathers. People should know better, and we all should have learned by know. It is not technology or science that puts the world and humanity in peril; instead, it is people. For more read: The Ethics of Star Trek.

reply

[–] tchos 17 years ago

What if that one was Jesus?

Erm, bad example. I seem to recall the the whole point of those stories is that it was in fact a good thing to kill this one guy to save a lot of other people.

reply

[–] gevansmd 15 years ago

Plus those 600 would not have lost their immortality. If the process made it possible for billions to also benefit where only 600 had before, there is no reason the 600 would not have benefited under new arrangements, simply living elsewhere.

This Star Trek movie as stupid as the "save the whales" movie.

reply

[–] Blackjack254 12 years ago

Dougherty was ordered by the federation to STUDY the briar patch. The Fed was looking for a PEACEFUL way to harness the metaphasic radiation that would not disrupt the planet in any way. Dougherty jumped the gun and acted against orders, and picard was trying to stop his illegal operation. note that he's all for the federation wanting to harness the radation.

How you can make the world a better place:
Don't shop at Wal-Mart.

reply

[–] cosmic_quest 17 years ago

All those arguing about the Baku's right to the planet would be quite right, ordinarily. However, this was not their home planet. They found it and settled there. It would be a different matter had they originated from this planet and it really was 'theirs'. But they didn't; they found it just as the Federation found it so the Federation and the Son'a have as much right to it as the Baku. So in this instant, I do think it's a case of billions over 600 selfish people who think their rights supersedes everyone else.

"I always pretend to root for Gryffindors but, secretly, I love my Slytherin boys."~ Karen, W&G

reply

[–] Javelenti 17 years ago

The question then becomes how far do we take what is termed "indigenous". If you draw the line at origin, then at what magnitude? Galaxy? Planet? Continent? Region? Sub-Region? If we use our planet as an example we can only delineate using the largest divisions available, continents. So does that mean that everyone has equal right on every continent outside of Africa, humanity's continent of origin? Obviously not. Do the Klingons have rights to every Federation colony outside of Earth? Well no. But what if one of the colonies could help save Trillions of Klingon lives? Would it be acceptable to forcibly take that colony from the Federation, without even the barest hint of negotiation? No. Settled areas are just as inviolate as areas of origin.
The next problem is what at the time qualifies as "great need" will eventually devolve into "kinda wanted". From there it spirals towards a government of tyranny unless halted by a popular or revolutionary shift.
Now if the Baku were a colony of the Federation they would have every right to move them if the Baku became intractable and wouldn't allow other colonists to settle the planet. But thats not the case.

reply

[–] cosmic_quest 17 years ago

They didn't seem to have been there that long as the way Anij spoke, she was part of the group to settle there. It would be a different matter if they had been there for centuries and had raised generations there.

However, even if we took your point, just as the Federation had no right to the planet then neither did they have the right to protect the Baku from the Son'a. It was a domestic problem and the Prime Directive should have been applied there too.

"I always pretend to root for Gryffindors but, secretly, I love my Slytherin boys."~ Karen, W&G

reply

[–] Javelenti 17 years ago

Time doesn't factor into the equation, sorry. Mostly because we once again run into the problem of magnitude. How long should they possess the planet before it is considered 'theirs'? Especially with different perceptions of time due to age or abilities?
And the Baku had been there for centuries. 300+ years I believe the movie stated. Using your logic the US, Australia and most South American countries have no right to the land they have settled, which is patently false.
In response to the domestic matter, I might agree with you if the Federation hadn't interfered in the first place. Since they had involved themselves in violation of the Prime Directive in support of the Son'a it was the duty of the Enterprise crew to inform the Federation council of the violation and attempt to reach a peaceful agreement.
And in case you're forgetting the Federation is supposed to be the good guys, which means that as a people of good conscience they couldn't sit idly by while a people were destroyed.

reply

[–] cosmic_quest 17 years ago

I suppose I'm just a more hard-hearted person! Although, for supposed good guys, the Federation left the Bajorans to decades of misery at the hands of the Cardassians. At least the Son'a were not only willing to relocate the Baku but they did have as much right to the planet as the Baku.

"I always pretend to root for Gryffindors but, secretly, I love my Slytherin boys."~ Karen, W&G

reply

[–] 17 years ago

[deleted]

[–] gotham23 17 years ago

You couldn't have made a worse comparison. They could have had Palestine back over 40 years ago if they'd just agree to - y'know - stop trying to kill all the Zionists.

reply

[–] 17 years ago

[deleted]

[–] gotham23 17 years ago

Clearly that's what you prefer to believe.

reply

[–] 17 years ago

[deleted]

[–] gotham23 17 years ago

The facts don't support your position. They're plain enough that it's pointless to waste time arguing with you, especially here. I know what you're motivated by and it's certainly not a commitment to the truth. Good bye.

reply

[–] 17 years ago

[deleted]

[–] earthtrooper2001-1 17 years ago

# 1. The Enterprise and her crew are in the right, for those reasons stated above.

# 2. Spock used utilitarianism to justify something similar to what he would participate in at the end, lay on the grenade to keep his friends from dieing. A sacrifice he is willing to make. If there were diplomatic measures taken and the Baku were to agree to a deal which would allow their resources to be harvested and they die for the benefit of the Fed, then you would have a similar situation. However, this is not the case. It should be recalled that they were being removed without even their knowledge, much less their will.

# 3. Trying to come up with something comparable, here's one. If there is medical person nearby, then they can expand upon this. Medical ethics. You cannot knowingly cause harm to a patient unless it is in the process of healing said patient. Nazi doctors found a way to bypass these rules by experimenting on unwilling patients in their interment camps. A very controversial subject arises when speaking about using the notes from these experiments to develop new medicines (used often in debate classes and the such). If you see a gap in the analogy, please point it out.

# 4. Watch "Firefly" (or study the American Civil War if you have the time on your hands) to get an idea of what a big government can do in situations similar to this one. Even the Federation makes mistakes.

# 5. Read Joseph Conrad's "Heart of Darkness", which was an inspiration for the film. Now don't expect similar plot points and such, because they aren't there. Think of it as being told by one of the officers that is working on the planet before the Enterprise arrives. Both dehumanizing (well, debakunizing maybe) the natives and "raping" their land/resources. And if you get nothing else out of it you will read one of the greatest novellas of all time.

Will try to respond later,
Oley

"Half of writing history is hiding the truth."
Joss Whedon, Serenity

reply

[–] kyessabyron 16 years ago

um, they had been there for centuries... if you saw the movie they said they were there for over 300+ years... Anij, that woman, spoke of their first settling there becasue the country gives eternal life. Remember all the dictatorships that began as "we'll just take a little" and ended up in bloodbaths of taking everything!

reply

[–] indy_go_blue44 17 years ago

All those arguing about the Baku's right to the planet would be quite right, ordinarily. However, this was not their home planet. They found it and settled there. It would be a different matter had they originated from this planet and it really was 'theirs'. But they didn't; they found it just as the Federation found it so the Federation and the Son'a have as much right to it as the Baku. So in this instant, I do think it's a case of billions over 600 selfish people who think their rights supersedes everyone else.

I'm going to rephrase your statement:

All those arguing about the Europeans' right to North America would be quite right, ordinarily. However, this was not their home continent. They found it and settled there. It would be a different matter had they originated from this continent, and it really was 'theirs'. But they didn't; they found it just as the Indians found it so the United Nations and the Indians have as much right to it as the Europeans. So in this instant, I do think it's a case of billions over 500,000,000 selfish people who think their rights supersedes everyone else.

In perspective, it's kind of a weak argument.

**********
Is that a rumor or did you just make that up? -Mom

reply

[–] kyessabyron 16 years ago

The problem with your assessment is that you are determining that the people don't have the right to claim or reside there because they have only been there for 300+ years... how long do they need to be there for it to be their home?? For all of humanity's history people have been settling places, calling it home and claiming it as their own. If they have been there that long, it is their home! And again, if we start to say its only a few people so we can kill them you open the door to substitute any number of people's lives for someone else! How many (as Pickard said in the movie) is enough to make the killing wrong?? Even a few hundred is wrong. As Pickard said, people can move there if they want to live forever. The federation doesn't have a right to a planet already inhabited, just as now we respect the rights of countries that we were not around for the founding of. We call Australia a country and respect its right to exist and for people to live there even though they've "only" been there for a few hundred years. Think big Cosmic quest!!

reply

[–] gotham23 17 years ago

Look up "eminent domain" and try to tell me this isn't a valid example.

It's TOTALLY INVALID.

Dude, they're not Federation citizens. They're a sovereign people. It's one thing when you get to elect your government, and then that government uses the mandate you've given them to do what's best for the entire society, even if that means taking your home without your consent and forcing you to accept compensation. THAT's eminent domain.

But when you do it to a people that AREN'T part of your state and aren't represented by the government, that's called an INVASION. What if the Cardassians came along and decided they needed it more than the Federation? Would it be just as valid for them to take it and demand that the Federation "GET THE HELL OUT" of there?

reply

[–] earthtrooper2001-1 17 years ago

So, for those of you who are not aware, this is a somewhat veiled allegory for the political climate that led to the American Civil War. Thank you for clearing up the eminent domain thing gotham, I forgot to champion that issue before.

Oley

"Half of writing history is hiding the truth."
Joss Whedon, Serenity

reply

[–] gotham23 17 years ago

So, for those of you who are not aware, this is a somewhat veiled allegory for the political climate that led to the American Civil War

Well I can't honestly say I agree with that at all.

reply

[–] lydocaine 17 years ago

I think people are making a mountain out a mole hill here.

Yes, i agree that IF the radiation COULD maybe be harnessed

than it would be "the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few"

BUT there is a whole other "moral" thing to consider here.

What if the Sona 's "collector" did not work and the planet's
natural radiation was destroyed or rendered unusable ? With so much
potential benefit THAT risk seems to me to be a good "moral reason"
NOT to launch the injector.

simple solution: let the sick come to the planet.m

Kind of like a "Journey to Lourdes" thing

reply

[–] Humphrey_Fish 13 years ago

Bingo. Logically looked at, it's incredible that they don't realize the likelyhood that they'll kill the golden goose with that collector. Establishing colonies would be the best method.

To me, this makes the Son'a "the few". They want to risk destroying what BILLIONS could use by visiting, to possibly save their tiny group of "survivors" who don't have any time left.

reply

[–] floyd-ag 17 years ago

I am sickened by the weak-will, mamby-pamby, wooley thinkers on this subject. If you want something, you take it. If is good for you, then it is good for everyone else. And if they speak against you, you cut them down like so many sheaves of wheat.

Would the Klingons quibble and tribble over the right thing to do? Would they hide behind some ill concieved plot to "snake" what they wanted out from under a bunch of planet-hugging hippies? NO! They would go "Holy Blood Wine, that is so awesome! Think of how many fights I could get in if I were a thousand. I'm getting me some of that planet!" And then there would be 600 less hippies to worry about.

Take a lesson: Get what you want or sign up for a volunteer butt whuppin', followed by your rump on a dinner plate (maybe mine). Eat or be eaten. Pax Romana and all that what, what, Cheerio. May the sun never set on the British Empire. Peace through superior firepower. Only when all of mine enemy is dead, will there be peace. And who wants peace anyway?

reply

[–] 17 years ago

[deleted]

[–] 17 years ago

[deleted]

[–] 17 years ago

[deleted]

[–] blah020122 17 years ago

Yeah, what's supposed to be the moral message of this movie? "Finders Keepers"? The Ba'ku were not even native to the planet. We put the desires of those 600 over the needs of hundreds of billions because the 600 found it first?

What's even worse than the moral position is the tactics used to advance it. I mean, using women and children as human shields? Is that something that the "good guys" are supposed to do?

How about the idea that Picard and company can win the day by exposing the "nefarious" harvesting plan so that public pressure would stop it? Like the hundreds of billions of people of the Federation are going to say, "Gee, we could all have perfect health and eternal youth with the resources of that planet, but that tiny little band found it first, so let's let them keep it all for themselves"?

reply