"You Can't Ask Someone to Sacrifice Themselves"

[Pandora's_Box]

Or can you?

Is there ever a right occasion to do such a thing?

In SGU's pilot episode, the newly designated crew of the Destiny faced it's first of what are surely to be many more moral dilemmas. With the ship leaking precious air and the carbon dioxide scrubbers not working, the only way to grant the dozens of stranded people a few more precious hours of life was to seal off the room with the damaged hull....from the inside; a Deadman's Switch, if you will.

Dr. Nicholas Rush, ever the practical and logical voice, began the process of assessing each and every person's skills in order to determine who would be the one to pay that ultimate sacrifice much to the horror of every other person there.

Insanely logical or just plain insane?

Was this the best solution, the only solution, or should they have spent more time trying to devise another way to get the door shut and less time deciding on the show's first sacrificial lamb?

And was the execution of this plot element the best the writers could have done? With the dying Senator closing the doors himself unbenownst to everyone else, the decision was effectively taken out of any one character's hands and, I daresay, any of the writer's as well. Would it have been a bolder writing choice to not have a conveniently dying Senator?

[jelgate]

Their is a difference between someone voluenteering to sacrifice them self and person being forced to ask to sacrifice them self. And I have to agree with Chloe (its more then shallowness). You can't force a person to kill themselves to save others. It defies all ethics and borders on murder.

[Nemises]

He was going to die anyways...so he did the right thing by sacrificing himself in order to save others (though i think saving his daughter is what convinced him to do it.)

These sort of things are basically voluntary and is not generally forced upon someone.

[Pandora's_Box]

Their is a difference between someone voluenteering to sacrifice them self and person being forced to ask to sacrifice them self. And I have to agree with Chloe (its more then shallowness). You can't force a person to kill themselves to save others. It defies all ethics and borders on murder.

Okay, but to save dozens of other lives?

He was going to die anyways...so he did the right thing by sacrificing himself in order to save others (though i think saving his daughter is what convinced him to do it.)

So did the writers take the easy way out on this one? Did they evade the dilemma entirely by writing the dying Senator?

[jelgate]

What makes that person's life more important then the others. When did we assign a numerical value to whose life is more important then someone elses?

[PacoJr67]

this is a type of question that's used in many ethics classes, there's no real right way to answer it. It's not really a fair question either. As soon as you try to "decide" who needs to sacrifice their life you start judging others based on personal prejudice.

[Pandora's_Box]

What makes that person's life more important then the others. When did we assign a numerical value to whose life is more important then someone elses?

But it's not a matter of a single person's life being more important, it's about dozens of people vs. the life of one.

[garhkal]

Their is a difference between someone voluenteering to sacrifice them self and person being forced to ask to sacrifice them self. And I have to agree with Chloe (its more then shallowness). You can't force a person to kill themselves to save others. It defies all ethics and borders on murder.

Military do it all the time.

"We need someone to hold this point while the rest evac..." Usually the one staying back knows it is a suicide mission.

But it's not a matter of a single person's life being more important, it's about dozens of people vs. the life of one.

Yup. As spock said in Star Trek 2, the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few.

[jelgate]

But it's not a matter of a single person's life being more important, it's about dozens of people vs. the life of one.

And who gives Dr. Rush or someone else to say your life is important and this person isn't. Its sickening to me.

[SoulReaver]

Their is a difference between someone voluenteering to sacrifice them self and person being forced to ask to sacrifice them self

"forced to ask" ?

anyway there's also a difference between asking someone to sacrifice themselves and actually sacrificing them - the latter involves coercion, the former still allows for choice. in the former case the "force" is psychological at most and the person still retains full latitude when it comes to deciding their own fate

so basically what Chloe should have said was "You Can't Sacrifice Someone"

is it wrong to ask someone to do it ? dunno...nowhere near as wrong as sacrificing the person, for sure. it's "wrong" in the sense that it's presumptuous & disrespectful (any one of us asked to do such a thing would take umbrage, perhaps justly so) but it stops there

now tossing the person into that room would be plain wrong (murder) no matter how many lives are at stake. on the other hand if the person is a gonner anyway, their refusing to sacrifice themselves would also be wrong (selfishness) even though they have the right to refuse to do so
that's ~my take on things



now on the other hand maybe they could be a bit more subtle rather than ask the person directly

Rush > "one of us has to sacrifice themselves"

random guy > "who ?"

Rush > "good question, I dunno. by the way, who amongst us is gonna die anyway ?"

dying guy > "hey why you all looking at me ?"

Rush > "oh nothing..."

random guy > "so, who ?"

[Coronach]

Or can you?

Is there ever a right occasion to do such a thing?

While I know you didn't intend it to be this literal, I'd definitely say that it's always okay to ask. Essentially, you'd be asking them if they'd volunteer to sacrifice themselves.

To be honest, the context of the SGU scene in question would actually require a volunteer. There is no conceivable way to force someone to do it in such a situation, given that the console was so far away from the door.

Not really sure how it would have played out had they actually devised some sort of "list of possible sacrificees"...but I am completely lost on how the situation could have been dealt with other than a volunteer.

Dr. Nicholas Rush, ever the practical and logical voice, began the process of assessing each and every person's skills in order to determine who would be the one to pay that ultimate sacrifice much to the horror of every other person there.

Again I'd point out that I don't think there is a way (given their time constraints) that Dr. Rush could have forced anyone to do it.

Insanely logical or just plain insane?

Was this the best solution, the only solution, or should they have spent more time trying to devise another way to get the door shut and less time deciding on the show's first sacrificial lamb?

Given the limited time, I'd say they could have tried to devise another plan....but it may not have mattered. Obviously the alternative would have been the more morally correct choice, assuming said alternative exists. For example, I'd like to know if it would have been possible to close the door with the Kino as others have suggested.

And was the execution of this plot element the best the writers could have done? With the dying Senator closing the doors himself unbenownst to everyone else, the decision was effectively taken out of any one character's hands and, I daresay, any of the writer's as well. Would it have been a bolder writing choice to not have a conveniently dying Senator?

Had the senator not done it, then Col. Young would have (eventually) been carried down to the shuttle and he'd have done it himself. The way the writers set up the characters and situation, it was either to have the senator do it or have Young do it.

If neither had volunteered, then I am arguing they would have died as there is absolutely no way you can force someone to sit in a chair and push a button....unless I'm missing something.

I feel the writers utilized the only real option available, barring some crazy "cut someone's finger off and attach it to a kino" idea. These would require us to know more about how exactly this particular Ancient technology works.

Bear in mind, also, that the increased CO2 levels would have made people think less clearly, have massive headaches (as was evidenced), and start to feel dizzy and weary.

[Coronach]

so basically what Chloe should have said was "You Can't Sacrifice Someone

Wanted to say that this (if my previous post was unclear) is the point I was trying to get across. Chloe meant this, even though she said something different.

The question is not "Can you ask". When taken literally, it's always okay to ask, provided that person is allowed to answer yes or no.

The real question is "Can you force" or "Can you coerce"...or something to that effect.

[Jonzey]

I wouldn't have enjoyed the show as much if it had Rush going up to, say, a janitor or someone and saying ''we need you to go die for us''. When you think about it, the ones with less useful skills in their current situation would be the ones far less likely to be ok with it- i.e. soldiers might be ok with it, dicing with death is part of their job.

Also out of all the characters we know right now, Chloe would probably be the most likely to be asked. That would be hard to watch.

[Pandora's_Box]

And who gives Dr. Rush or someone else to say your life is important and this person isn't. Its sickening to me.

I'm not saying that someone makes the choice and then shoves some random poor schmoe out there to press a button and die.

But if there were no other alternative than someone dying and it came down to drawing straws or something, would that be right?

anyway there's also a difference between asking someone to sacrifice themselves and actually sacrificing them - the latter involves coercion, the former still allows for choice. in the former case the "force" is psychological at most and the person still retains full latitude when it comes to deciding their own fate

Wait....I seem to recall something...

Sheppard in "Miller's Crossing", anyone?

If neither had volunteered, then I am arguing they would have died as there is absolutely no way you can force someone to sit in a chair and push a button....unless I'm missing something.

I wonder if drawing straws or something related to chance would have been a viable option.

[jelgate]

I'm not saying that someone makes the choice and then shoves some random poor schmoe out there to press a button and die.

But if there were no other alternative than someone dying and it came down to drawing straws or something, would that be right?

Something so massive as a person's life needs to be up that person. If he/she is noble to make that sacrifice then I commend that person but trying to ask or make a person to sacrifice is another thing.

Wait....I seem to recall something...

Sheppard in "Miller's Crossing", anyone?

That was different. He voluenteered

I wonder if drawing straws or something related to chance would have been a viable option.

Anyone up for a game for Russian Rouletee?