Is morally acceptable to kill an infant Goa'uld?

[aretood2]

Well he would probably loose his job and be emo when he realized he offed his friend. But no in the vast cosmic sense of things... who cared? And other than her a) family b) friends and c) employers who would even really notice? And in a few generations no one will ever even remember she existed.

Regardless, the action took place. Morality deals with the individual, not the whole. It does not matter if the world forever remembers it. You don't do something moral because someone is watching, you do it because it is the right thing to do. Take Plato for example, He stated once that if a man found a ring that made him invisible he would do wrong even though he is a law abiding citizen. but since there is no one to watch him, he did wrong do to lack of fear of a law. The question is would a Just man to wrong with that very same ring?

So is it moral for Daniel to kill even if no one would be affected? Would it be wrong if he ran into a man who lived alone and no one knew and Daniel just killed that man? Morality has to be constant if it is to be called morality. If it is wrong to kill one person in cold blood, it is wrong to kill all people in cold blood no matter who will or will not miss them.

Same could, and I emphasis could, apply to killing these infant Goa'uld. Even if no one would suffer, is it moral to kill them in cold blood? Not to save lives but just to avenge Sha're.

[Jim of WVa]

In the season one SG1 episode Bloodlines Daniel and Sam come across an unguarded container filled with larval Goa'uld, they take one and as they are about to leave, Daniel considers killing the rest, Sam says if he did he would be no better then they are and they should just leave. Then Daniel turns around and shoots the container, killing all the Goa'uld.

The Goa'uld would have one day gone on to possess a host but in their larval stage they are helpless and technically have done nothing wrong.

Was he right to kill them?

I would argue that the real question is whether or not it would be morally acceptable to allow a non-Tokra Goa'uld, infant or not, to remain alive. I would argue that it would not be morally acceptable to allow any non-Tokra Goa'uld to live.

[Pharaoh Atem]

No if you wait until they are mature

maybe you but i would destroy them all.

[maylet]

maybe you but i would destroy them all.

And maybe you can destroy a new Tok'Ra queen, who would help you destroy those who you do have to kill

[Pharaoh Atem]

And maybe you can destroy a new Tok'Ra queen, who would help you destroy those who you do have to kill

and what stops the tok'ra from turning bad at some point ??

[lordofseas]

And maybe you can destroy a new Tok'Ra queen, who would help you destroy those who you do have to kill

How do you know the mind of a killer? How do you know what you, or I, will do? To err on the side of caution is not stupid. In war, you simply cannot take chances. You pause, you hesitate, you freeze, you die.

[maylet]

How do you know the mind of a killer? How do you know what you, or I, will do? To err on the side of caution is not stupid. In war, you simply cannot take chances. You pause, you hesitate, you freeze, you die.

When it comes to minds I see them from the psychological side, (I'm a psychology student) and if I knew for sure that all the baby Goa'uld are evil, if someobdy comes and says to me, they are all evil and there's not chance for a new Tok'Ra queen of getting born, then I will kill them all when they're little. But if I know there's a chance for 1 to be good, I will save that one.

[Sealurk]

When it comes to minds I see them from the psychological side, (I'm a psychology student) and if I knew for sure that all the baby Goa'uld are evil, if someobdy comes and says to me, they are all evil and there's not chance for a new Tok'Ra queen of getting born, then I will kill them all when they're little. But if I know there's a chance for 1 to be good, I will save that one.

Yes, but how do you actually tell? They would need to take a host first for you to be able to tell, surely, so does that mean you would condemn numerous innocents (hosts and victims alike) to endure life with a Goa'uld just to identify the one potential Tok'ra amongst them? Personally I would rate that as vastly more immoral than taking the life of one innocent Goa'uld.

Either you would need some means of testing for Egeria's DNA, or you would simply have to write off the one worthwhile symbiote as collateral damage to prevent the majority from doing what they do best. The Tok'ra rarely showed any compassion towards the Goa'uld, which I think speaks volumes about both the likelihood of finding a decent one and the sheer threat a Goa'uld symbiote poses. Best to kill them before an innocent person's life is destroyed and violated by a parasitic snake imprisoning them in their own body and forcing them to watch atrocities committed with their own hands and voice.

[Pharaoh Atem]

When it comes to minds I see them from the psychological side, (I'm a psychology student) and if I knew for sure that all the baby Goa'uld are evil, if someobdy comes and says to me, they are all evil and there's not chance for a new Tok'Ra queen of getting born, then I will kill them all when they're little. But if I know there's a chance for 1 to be good, I will save that one.

but when you get right down to it a tok'ra is still a Goa'uld but raised to be good. but do the tok'ra still have the genertic memory and the urge to rule the galaxy?? is that urge just repressed??

[DetriusXii]

Yes, but how do you actually tell? They would need to take a host first for you to be able to tell, surely, so does that mean you would condemn numerous innocents (hosts and victims alike) to endure life with a Goa'uld just to identify the one potential Tok'ra amongst them? Personally I would rate that as vastly more immoral than taking the life of one innocent Goa'uld.

Either you would need some means of testing for Egeria's DNA, or you would simply have to write off the one worthwhile symbiote as collateral damage to prevent the majority from doing what they do best. The Tok'ra rarely showed any compassion towards the Goa'uld, which I think speaks volumes about both the likelihood of finding a decent one and the sheer threat a Goa'uld symbiote poses. Best to kill them before an innocent person's life is destroyed and violated by a parasitic snake imprisoning them in their own body and forcing them to watch atrocities committed with their own hands and voice.

Yes. We even had an episode of this moral conflict. The Nox stated explicitly that life as a host is not a life. And it's not like the Go'uld don't have other options? They could have used animal hosts to interact with the their environment, but they chose not to. And considering that even the Tok'ra want to kill off their remaining species, I think it's fine for the Go'uld to be wiped out by symbiote poison. Their "right" to life always interferes every other person's right to life.

[maylet]

Yes, but how do you actually tell? They would need to take a host first for you to be able to tell, surely, so does that mean you would condemn numerous innocents (hosts and victims alike) to endure life with a Goa'uld just to identify the one potential Tok'ra amongst them? Personally I would rate that as vastly more immoral than taking the life of one innocent Goa'uld.

Either you would need some means of testing for Egeria's DNA, or you would simply have to write off the one worthwhile symbiote as collateral damage to prevent the majority from doing what they do best. The Tok'ra rarely showed any compassion towards the Goa'uld, which I think speaks volumes about both the likelihood of finding a decent one and the sheer threat a Goa'uld symbiote poses. Best to kill them before an innocent person's life is destroyed and violated by a parasitic snake imprisoning them in their own body and forcing them to watch atrocities committed with their own hands and voice.

Seeing from that point of view, yes you're right, and when I was saying of saving the Tok'Ra I was thinking of havig a some means to test for Egeria DNA. If I don't have that, well yes, kill them all when you still can

[Camello of Abydos]

I would say yes, considering their genetic memory. They would only know evil for their entire existence, they would have already learned all they have to learn through the genetic memory.

But, some people brought up the Tok'ra, who some how went against that. Depending on when the Tok'ra split from the rest, I would have a different answer. If it was a large split early on, early enough so that genetic memory couldn't be a factor, I would say yes. But if the Tok'ra separated later on, in midst of their reign, that would show that Goa'uld can go against their nature and I would say no.

The name Tok'ra (against Ra) seems to imply the latter.

[Metonic]

yes. the Goa'uld process genetic memory and will always be evil and try to regain their strangle hold on the galaxy.

Egieri was a gouald... and she changed that

but yeah I see no problem with that...

[maylet]

So if Egeria changed (she had the genetic memory of the Goa'uld) and she changed, that means that any Goa'uld could change.

[mirdin1992]

So if Egeria changed (she had the genetic memory of the Goa'uld) and she changed, that means that any Goa'uld could change.

but would you risk you life, the life of the host it might take and the lives that it may or may not kill on the chance it will turn into a non megalomaniac Goa'uld with at least a bit of concern for life other than its own.