• Pup Biru@aussie.zone
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    5
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    6 months ago

    and people whose heart stop… we revive them, and then they are not dead any more. if someone is able to be revived, it’s irrelevant what you called them before that point: their… let’s say potential state? is not dead

    • Lucien [hy/hym, comrade/them]@hexbear.net
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      6 months ago

      That’s not an equal comparison. If by dying a new person started walking around in your body, and then by the medics doing CPR that person was killed, causing you to come back, that would be an equal comparison.

      • Pup Biru@aussie.zone
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        6 months ago

        i’m not comparing the whole thing; just breaking the problem down into parts… i’m asserting that your definition of “dead” is wrong. they are not permanently dead, because they can be revived

        we have 3 potential people. either you remain at the end with 1 person, or 2 people… the choice is between action (killing tuvix to save neelix and tuvok) or inaction (allowing tuvix to live, and accepting the death of neelix and tuvok)

        it’s perfectly valid to say that inaction is the ethical choice because you should never personally cause harm… but it’s also perfectly valid to say action (in this case, murder, as we see in the episode) is the ethical choice because it has the greatest good for the most people

        and in fact, the latter is repeated often in star trek: the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few

        and indeed, in this episode they further throw a spanner in the works: the many includes voyagers crew, and their chief security officer