"You Can't Ask Someone to Sacrifice Themselves"

[Pandora's_Box]

That was different. He voluenteered

Because Sheppard used psychological blackmail.

[Colonel Sharp]

I do not think there is a direct answer to this question, rather, the answer lies within the years-old debate between the rights of the individual and the good of the collective.

Is there a situation in which killing someone for the betterment of society is acceptable? The answer to this comes in personal ethical beliefs.

(Maybe that was a cop-out of answering, but, just as religion, this issue can be viewed in many different ways, all of which have good arguments.)

[jelgate]

Because Sheppard used psychological blackmail.

That is kind of subjective to the viewer's perspective

[jelgate]

I do not think there is a direct answer to this question, rather, the answer lies within the years-old debate between the rights of the individual and the good of the collective.

Is there a situation in which killing someone for the betterment of society is acceptable? The answer to this comes in personal ethical beliefs.

(Maybe that was a cop-out of answering, but, just as religion, this issue can be viewed in many different ways, all of which have warranted arguments.)

I love that answer because it is so true. It is probably one of the oldest ethcial debates out their which is why this thread will never end. Their isn't a right or wrong answer.

[Giantevilhead]

Rush was wrong even if you ignore morality. They're going into a completely new environment where they don't know what skills and capabilities are necessary to their survival.

It's like the gene for sickle cell anemia, only one in 5,000 Americans have it but one in three of the indigenous inhabitants of Sub-Saharan Africa have it because carrying a single sickle cell gene protects against malaria, which is a much bigger problem there.

Someone who may be "less useful" on earth could prove to be extremely important in this brand new environment.

[SoulReaver]

Anyone up for a game for Russian Rouletee?

not recommended in this scenario since the "loser" would've had trouble pushing a button :/

[Lahela]

Drawing straws or some other form of lottery would have been a very bad way to choose - as Rush (correctly, IMO) pointed out, there are people there with skills vital to the continuing survival of the group, and there are people here who are not (Wray, Chloe, Senator Armstrong and virtually all the non-specialist military personnel being the first to spring to mind). What if Rush or Eli had drawn the short straw? Or someone with the skills to repair life support? Or the expert in Ancient power generators?

Obviously, under the circumstances a sacrifice had to be made. These are the sorts of things that actually happen in these dire situations. The optimal outcome is that someone realises they are of little value to the survival of the group and decides for themselves to make that sacrifice (as in this case). If nobody does that, then when it comes down to it those choices still need to be made, logically and dispassionately.

[Khentkawes]

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

Honestly, and I know this sounds weird, but I think they did take the easy way out, yet I'm also glad that they did. This way, the issue was raised (and both debated and addressed) but I don't feel completely repulsed by the characters' actions. Maybe that's just a nice way of saying that I don't want my sci-fi to actually go quite that dark.

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 Rush did acknowledge that all human lives have value. He admitted it. So it's not like he doesn't have a conscience. At least, presuming you take Rush's words at face value (which, in this particular case, I do). It's a matter of knowing that all lives are equally valuable because everyone has a right to live, yet still having to make a seemingly impossible decision. The circumstances mean that it's impossible for everyone to live. Either one person dies or everyone dies.

I'm not saying it's not horrible, because it is. Either decision you make is horrible. But I did find myself sympathizing with Rush's motives at that moment. Someone has to be logical and make the tough decisions. And when Rush pointed out that politicians ask people to sacrifice themselves all the time... well, suddenly the argument became much less black and white for me.

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

Sheppard in "Miller's Crossing", anyone?

That was different. He voluenteered

Now I'm going to sound like a hypocrite, but.. I'm more okay with Rush's comments than with Sheppard's actions.

Although, my feelings have less to do with the actual moral issues and more to do with the way those issues were presented in the respective episodes. In Miller's Crossing, no one seemed to care that they were sacrificing one person. To me, it was presented as if it was somehow okay to ask (or coerce) this guy into sacrificing himself because he had done bad stuff. So apparently his life was less valuable because he had more mistakes to atone for. I certainly didn't see any indications that Sheppard felt any remorse about the issue.

The two episodes make an interesting comparison, but in the end, the difference for me is how the moral dilemma was handled. In Miller's Crossing, there wasn't nearly as much discussion, not nearly as much sense of remorse. Which is better for shock value, but not for making me respect the characters. In SGU, I find the necessary sacrifice more palatable because at least the characters discussed the moral implications, showed that they were aware of them, showed remorse, and seemed to recognize what a morally impossible decision it was.

So was Rush more right than Sheppard? No, not really. But as a piece of TV writing, the way SGU handled the issue was far more acceptable to me. And more interesting. SGU made me seriously think about the issue. SGA just made me feel disgusted.

The other difference is that in SGU they were dealing with the survival of more than one person. It's not a straight swap of Person #1 is sacrificed to save Person #2. Personally, it would matter to me if my death saved one person or if it saved 50.

The optimal outcome is that someone realises they are of little value to the survival of the group and decides for themselves to make that sacrifice (as in this case). If nobody does that, then when it comes down to it those choices still need to be made, logically and dispassionately.

As several people have already mentioned, there's really no way to "force" someone to close the door and sacrifice themselves. So essentially, someone would have to volunteer (or be coerced/guilted/manipulated into agreeing). I would guess that if they actually asked the entire crew (which, as far as I can tell, they didn't) they would get a few volunteers. Then they would still be forced to choose between them, in which case it would go back to the same old debate of "who is the most valuable." So I agree, that at some point, the decision has to be made as logically as possible. Which is still not to say that it's morally right. Just that it would be necessary.

[Saquist]

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?

Logic gives way to human will.
The act had to be complicit. No matter who they chose, that person didn't have to press that switch.

I was a poor choice of drama. It was a weak plot device since there were other options made weaker by the presence of a willing sacrifical lamb.

[Lahela]

Logic gives way to human will.
The act had to be complicit. No matter who they chose, that person didn't have to press that switch.

I was a poor choice of drama. It was a weak plot device since there were other options made weaker by the presence of a willing sacrifical lamb.

In your opinion.

Personally, I found it refreshing that Stargate would address an issue like this and not have it magically solved by a flash of inspiration and scientific brilliance. It makes it all the more realistic. In my opinion.

[Pharaoh Atem]

take the most injured person and who won't survive and dump them in the airlock. at least you can say you were able to save 80+ people

[jelgate]

take the most injured person and who won't survive and dump them in the airlock. at least you can say you were able to save 80+ people

Euthaization?

[PacoJr67]

take the most injured person and who won't survive and dump them in the airlock. at least you can say you were able to save 80+ people

the decision to sacrifice a person should be made by that person, no other.

In the military leaders are charged to not ask those under their command to do anything that they would not be willing to do themselves. So, Young was doing the right thing.

[Pharaoh Atem]

Euthaization?

in a way i guess. if i was dying or proabaly not going to make it i would have put myself in that airlock and gave the crew a chance to live.

[jelgate]

in a way i guess. if i was dying or proabaly not going to make it i would have put myself in that airlock and gave the crew a chance to live.

And what if Rush's death quota> terminally ill