PDA

View Full Version : Moral Debate Solved



Brain_Child
October 20th, 2008, 01:58 AM
I'll solve the moral debates now with simple logic and reasoning.

The Facts:

Jervis had a goal, he wanted to save the villagers.
Jervis' wanted to do this by sacrificing a small group from within the community.
He wanted to do this along with a group of about 20 men.

Now Jervis got exactly, completely, utterly, precisely (etc.) what he wanted.

Jervis wanted to save the larger community of 700 by killing a few (about 30) from within that same community. Jervis preferred that the small group be the Balarans. Now it just happens that the few that were sacrificed happened to not be the Balarans but was instead Jervis and his cohort of underlings.

Jervis wanted to save the village and he did. Hooray for Jervis!!! He saved the town!!!

(we can also say that Darwin's theory of evolution is at play here but lets not get into that)

jenks
October 20th, 2008, 04:46 AM
...and thus Sheppard is a hypocrite.

Quadhelix
October 20th, 2008, 12:57 PM
...and thus Sheppard is a hypocrite.
That is sort of like saying that the allied soldiers in WW2 were hypocrites for killing Nazis. And yes, I know, Godwin's Law (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin%27s_Law), etc. The point is, none of Jarvis's men could be classified as innocent because they were all quite eager to hand the Balarans over to the Wraith. Jarvis and his group were at least guaranteed a quick death, the same of which cannot be said of the Balarans that Jarvis handed over to the Wraith.

dasNdanger
October 20th, 2008, 01:41 PM
There are other ways.

For instance, I have heard of people who were hunted in genocides, who decided to turn themselves over (willing self-sacrifice) to save others. Technically, since it was Balarans who were causing the problem, they should have been the ones to decide what happened to them, much like Ronon told the villagers to let Shep (et al) go at the beginning of Sateda.

The Balarans allowed the village to become divided over their presence, and they cowardly allowed everyone to make their decisions for them, with the exception of the one fella who ended up dead anyway. But he died, not out of self-sacrifice, but out of cowardice.

I would have had much more respect for the Balarans if they stood up for themselves, instead of cowering behind everyone else.

In the end, I couldn't respect even one human in this episode, they ended up - one and all - being backstabbers and cowards. Just very ugly.

das

jenks
October 20th, 2008, 03:16 PM
That is sort of like saying that the allied soldiers in WW2 were hypocrites for killing Nazis. And yes, I know, Godwin's Law (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin%27s_Law), etc. The point is, none of Jarvis's men could be classified as innocent because they were all quite eager to hand the Balarans over to the Wraith. Jarvis and his group were at least guaranteed a quick death, the same of which cannot be said of the Balarans that Jarvis handed over to the Wraith.

No it's not, how are those two scenarios even similar?

Quadhelix
October 20th, 2008, 03:53 PM
No it's not, how are those two scenarios even similar? For me, it lies mostly in Jarvis's attitude. He was eager to send the Balarans to their deaths. He did not look upon their extermination as an unfortunate necessity for the protection of the village, but rather took what seemed to be a level of sadistic glee in their coming extermination.

jenks
October 20th, 2008, 03:57 PM
I didn't see any of that, only concern for his own people.

Shpinxinator
October 20th, 2008, 04:05 PM
There are other ways.

For instance, I have heard of people who were hunted in genocides, who decided to turn themselves over (willing self-sacrifice) to save others. Technically, since it was Balarans who were causing the problem, they should have been the ones to decide what happened to them, much like Ronon told the villagers to let Shep (et al) go at the beginning of Sateda.

The Balarans allowed the village to become divided over their presence, and they cowardly allowed everyone to make their decisions for them, with the exception of the one fella who ended up dead anyway. But he died, not out of self-sacrifice, but out of cowardice.

I would have had much more respect for the Balarans if they stood up for themselves, instead of cowering behind everyone else.

In the end, I couldn't respect even one human in this episode, they ended up - one and all - being backstabbers and cowards. Just very ugly.

das



Thats kind of a harsh way of looking at things...these people had their planet wiped out by a plague and some how managed to survive...they were lost...scared and hopeless. Not only that they were the few who remained of their culture, they had every right to want to survive...as for not as you say...bravely standing up for the Wraith...these poor people had been through hell...they watch everyone around them die painful deaths and had to abandon their homes...they were broken.


And as for everyone being ugly and cowardly...what about Carson?

granted he knew he couldn't be fed upon but he said no to the Wraith and then risked his own life to delete the research hey had to prevent them from detecting the drug...no cowardice there


As for using Jarvis and his men as bait...

Knowing the Wraith it was almost assured they would simply cull the remainder of the villagers after handing over the Balarans...the Wraith had no reason to keep their word and believing they would is at best ignorant and at worst criminally negligent so handing over the Balarans would have led to everyone's death...the only way to draw enough Wraith away would be to use some kind of beat and a fire fight would have just brought more Wraith so this really was the only way to save the most lives

Major_Griff
October 20th, 2008, 08:07 PM
I was upset with what Sheppard did. When he convinced Wallace to let Todd feed on him, I accepted that because that guy made the decision himself and deserved what he got for deliberately trying to kill Jeanie and kidnapping her and McKay. But this was different. These were people who admittedly had selfish motivations (not unlike Wallace) but were trying to save their world from annihilation. Tricking them to their death like that just for doing what they thought was right was seriously messed up. I hate to say this, but SG-1 would have never done that. If anyone can give me an example of Jack/Sam/Cam giving the order to kill twenty civilians in order to take out a couple of Goa'uld/Jaffa/Ori troops, then I'll admit I'm wrong and shut up, but I always liked that SG-1 and until now SGA took the highroad to accomplishing their goals. The only thing similar to this in SG-1 was Jack closing the Iris on the guy from DS9 in "The Otherside" but that wasn't any where near as despicable as this.

Brain_Child
October 21st, 2008, 02:01 AM
...and thus Sheppard is a hypocrite.

Nope, you didnt understand what I said.

Jervis made the decision to kill a small handfull of about 30 to save the rest of the village. Jervis didnt complete his mission. Now Sheppard simply helped Jervis along with his plan. It was Jervis who made the decision, Sheppard simply provided a method. All moral guilt falls on Jervis, Sheppard is clean.


In the end, I couldn't respect even one human in this episode, they ended up - one and all - being backstabbers and cowards. Just very ugly.

Sheppard is clean, so is the rest of the Atlanteans I believe (unless Im forgetting something) and most of the villagers. The only ones who are dirty are Jervis and his group of merry men. They wanted to kill 30 ro save 700. All Shepperd did was help Jervis carry out his plan. Do not mistake what Sheppard did as a seperate course of action. It is the same essential plan, originally designed by Jervis. Kill the few to save the rest.

Have I explained it better now? Does everyone understand?

Saying that anyone besides Jervis is evil are believing what they want to believe, ignoring key, and really, quite basic facts about the whole situation.

jenks
October 21st, 2008, 03:52 AM
Nope, you didnt understand what I said.

Jervis made the decision to kill a small handfull of about 30 to save the rest of the village. Jervis didnt complete his mission. Now Sheppard simply helped Jervis along with his plan. It was Jervis who made the decision, Sheppard simply provided a method. All moral guilt falls on Jervis, Sheppard is clean.

I understand exactly what you mean. My point is Sheppard disagreed with Jervis' plan to sacrifice a minority of humans for the sake of the majority, but then turned around and did exactly that, making him a hypocrite.

Shpinxinator
October 21st, 2008, 10:38 AM
I understand exactly what you mean. My point is Sheppard disagreed with Jervis' plan to sacrifice a minority of humans for the sake of the majority, but then turned around and did exactly that, making him a hypocrite.


hmmmm the plans of Sheppard and Jervis are similar but not e same...the main difference being Jervis was choosing the trust that the Wraith wouldn't go back on their word and kill everyone...which it is far more likely.

timewalker
October 21st, 2008, 07:46 PM
My take:

Sheppard is not morally culpable for Jarvis and his men. Yes, he tricked them. He tricked them into thinking that the Balarans were in the mine. It was then Jarvis' decision to lead the wraith into the mine so that they could be killed. When Jarvis was released, he could have made the decision not to sacrifice the Balarans, in which case he would not have been in the mine when it exploded (of course, then the plan wouldn't work but Jarvis acted true to form).

It is only because Jarvis was going into the mine to, in effect, execute the Balarans that he was in the mine in the first place. Sheppard did not force Jarvis and his men into the mine. They set a trap to kill those who came to kill the Balarans, be they wraith or human.

Treading very, very close to the moral line? Yes. Crossing it? Arguably not.

Shpinxinator
October 21st, 2008, 09:22 PM
My take:

Sheppard is not morally culpable for Jarvis and his men. Yes, he tricked them. He tricked them into thinking that the Balarans were in the mine. It was then Jarvis' decision to lead the wraith into the mine so that they could be killed. When Jarvis was released, he could have made the decision not to sacrifice the Balarans, in which case he would not have been in the mine when it exploded (of course, then the plan wouldn't work but Jarvis acted true to form).

It is only because Jarvis was going into the mine to, in effect, execute the Balarans that he was in the mine in the first place. Sheppard did not force Jarvis and his men into the mine. They set a trap to kill those who came to kill the Balarans, be they wraith or human.

Treading very, very close to the moral line? Yes. Crossing it? Arguably not.

Agreed

Col.Foley
October 21st, 2008, 09:25 PM
I do not think that Shep crossed a moral line. This is a man who always values the needs of the many, over the few. Now this is harsh, but sometimes neccessary to survive as a group, people, or civilization.

Jill_Ion
October 21st, 2008, 09:53 PM
There are other ways.

For instance, I have heard of people who were hunted in genocides, who decided to turn themselves over (willing self-sacrifice) to save others. Technically, since it was Balarans who were causing the problem, they should have been the ones to decide what happened to them, much like Ronon told the villagers to let Shep (et al) go at the beginning of Sateda.

The Balarans allowed the village to become divided over their presence, and they cowardly allowed everyone to make their decisions for them, with the exception of the one fella who ended up dead anyway. But he died, not out of self-sacrifice, but out of cowardice.

I would have had much more respect for the Balarans if they stood up for themselves, instead of cowering behind everyone else.

In the end, I couldn't respect even one human in this episode, they ended up - one and all - being backstabbers and cowards. Just very ugly.

das

You blame and don't respect the Belarans? The people who lost almost everyone from their homeworld, had to leave said homeworld and find a new home amongst strangers, survived a devastating illness and numerous subsequent infections, and were callously turned over to an enemy bent on killing and possibly experimenting on them? Really? Honestly?

:confused: :confused: :confused:

jenks
October 22nd, 2008, 05:41 AM
hmmmm the plans of Sheppard and Jervis are similar but not e same...the main difference being Jervis was choosing the trust that the Wraith wouldn't go back on their word and kill everyone...which it is far more likely.

Maybe, but my take on it was that Shep initially objected to the plan on moral grounds rather than tactical ones.

aboleyn24
October 22nd, 2008, 08:43 AM
There are other ways.

For instance, I have heard of people who were hunted in genocides, who decided to turn themselves over (willing self-sacrifice) to save others. Technically, since it was Balarans who were causing the problem, they should have been the ones to decide what happened to them, much like Ronon told the villagers to let Shep (et al) go at the beginning of Sateda.

The Balarans allowed the village to become divided over their presence, and they cowardly allowed everyone to make their decisions for them, with the exception of the one fella who ended up dead anyway. But he died, not out of self-sacrifice, but out of cowardice.

I would have had much more respect for the Balarans if they stood up for themselves, instead of cowering behind everyone else.

In the end, I couldn't respect even one human in this episode, they ended up - one and all - being backstabbers and cowards. Just very ugly.

das

Wraith want to survive so they eat humans.

Hoffans want to survive so they create drug.

Atlantis expedition want to survive so they experiment on Michael.

Michael wants to survive so he experiments on humans with the Hoffan virus.

Wraith want to survive so they want to kill all of Michael's victims.

Balarans survivors of Hoffan drug want to continue surviving so they don't willingly turn themselves over to the Wraith to be killed for being helpless victims.

Jervis and his men want to survive (and the village) so they want to turn over innocent victims to be killed.

It looks like everyone has the same basic goal. I don't think a bunch of sick people were cowardly. I get what you are saying and to turn yourself over for a death you did nothing to deserve is indeed a noble act, I believe worthy of being called a martyr. But it seems a bit harsh to call them cowardly for not doing that. Very few people are that brave especially when feeling sick and helpless. Couldn't you say it was cowardly to not stand up for those weaker than yourself?

Laura Dove
October 22nd, 2008, 08:55 AM
I do not think that Shep crossed a moral line. This is a man who always values the needs of the many, over the few.

Except when the few are his friends. Example: As soon as Teyla had to take a personal risk in "The Queen", he wanted to give up the plan of convincing Todd's alliance to use Keller's retrovirus.

prion
October 22nd, 2008, 09:09 AM
...and thus Sheppard is a hypocrite.

In what respect? He did what a soldier would do; make a difficult decision that did sacrifice innocent lives. You *can't* have a war without killing innocent people, because war (and yes, the humans are at war with the Wraith) is not neat and tidy and black & white. There was that good original Trek episode where the people had reduced war down to a neat little lottery in which if your number came up, you were painlessly distintegrated. It was awful, really, and Kirk then kickstarted a nasty bloody *real* war (which of course goes against the Prime Directive), but the point is, war is hell, people die.

Decisions like this are made all the time in war, any war. They're not nice, they're awful, but people are human and flawed and make them.

jenks
October 22nd, 2008, 09:35 AM
In what respect? He did what a soldier would do; make a difficult decision that did sacrifice innocent lives. You *can't* have a war without killing innocent people, because war (and yes, the humans are at war with the Wraith) is not neat and tidy and black & white. There was that good original Trek episode where the people had reduced war down to a neat little lottery in which if your number came up, you were painlessly distintegrated. It was awful, really, and Kirk then kickstarted a nasty bloody *real* war (which of course goes against the Prime Directive), but the point is, war is hell, people die.

Decisions like this are made all the time in war, any war. They're not nice, they're awful, but people are human and flawed and make them.

Read the thread.

Jill_Ion
October 22nd, 2008, 01:00 PM
Except when the few are his friends. Example: As soon as Teyla had to take a personal risk in "The Queen", he wanted to give up the plan of convincing Todd's alliance to use Keller's retrovirus.

OK, so he isn't perfect (despite my many, many feelings to the contrary ;) ). We value that and those we love. I don't know anyone who would not go further for someone they know and love rather than a stranger. So, IMHO, Shep in The Queen and Outsiders was in character.