"You Can't Ask Someone to Sacrifice Themselves"

[Pharaoh Atem]

And what if Rush's death quota> terminally ill

what do you mean ??

[jelgate]

what do you mean ??

Your saying we should kill the terminally ill to save the air supply. Which I can almost support but what if that is not enough?

[Pharaoh Atem]

Your saying we should kill the terminally ill to save the air supply. Which I can almost support but what if that is not enough?

my understanding is that once that door was closed the crew would have about a days worth of air. and in the actually ep

spoilers

Spoiler:

the crew was able to find a planet and can hopefully get supplies

\

so the senator guy's sacrifice did make a difference. if worse came to worse rush could make people stay behind on a planet in order to help the air supply

[Croatoan]

This situation was never going to produce a result where someone could be forced to sacrifice themselves for the others. It always had to be a voluntary act.

It is in no way unethical to be completely rational and logical and start grading individuals based on what they can contribute to the larger groups survival and leverage that to encourage an individual to make the ultimate sacrifice.

Like rush said, the fact remained if someone didn't do it, they were all dead.

If you really wanna talk about ethics and morality, which is more moral and ethical?

Commit suicide to save 49 people or 50 people commit suicide (the same thing they would be doing anyways) because none of them wanted to be the one to save the other 49.

I think it's selfish to not want to be the person who went in that chamber.

[Saquist]

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.

No, ma'am.

My opinion was that it was a crappy way to attempt to create tension in the story.

They had other options that could have closed the door.
Therefore the characters really weren't forced into this situation

Option 1: use the Key-no to close the door.
Option 2: gate off-ship to preserve the air supply
Option 3: Call the SGC for ideas on how to fix the door and then the air supply.

These are some of the smart suggestion that this forum has come up with and yet these so called "proffessionals" blank out even Rush on these very obvious options. So that's what is called a "contrived plot device". It makes the plot weak because the line of logic does not follow. That's a fact not an opinion.

What I did buy was that the senator made the sacrifice because of his daughter (even thoug I don't think he said it). But it's still weak because he just so happened to be a sacrifical lamb they needed, wounded and ready to go. I just may be picking on that point but it's still too convienent for reality.

[rlr149]

yes you can.

[Lahela]

Option 1: use the Key-no to close the door.
Option 2: gate off-ship to preserve the air supply
Option 3: Call the SGC for ideas on how to fix the door and then the air supply.

<snipped for length>

1. IMO, suggesting that the kino would have done the job makes no sense whatsoever. For starters, it's not a simple button but a horizontal touchscreen. Secondly, after having gone frame-by-frame through the two times we saw it being closed using the touchscreen, it looked very much to me as though several things on the screen had to be touched. How delicate do you imagine the kino remote controls are? I doubt they would have been a viable option. And for all we know, they are probably equipped with sensors so they keep a certain distance from other objects, or they'd bump into things/people.

2. Gate off-ship to where exactly? They were still in FTL...

3. Yes, the old fallback position... call on the SG1/SGA heroes to rescue the hapless crew of the new show.

[aretood2]

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.

Maybe this situation is only unfortunate because there is no right answer, only a wrong one.
You send some one to die=wrong
You let everyone die=wrong

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.

It is what they are trained to do. However this is not assured death.

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

Funny, that's what the Nazies said...
Who decides who the few are? and on what grounds? this is what they did.
The few were none white german minority on the count of being an inferior thus less deserving race.

In many ways sending in the janitor equates to this, he is the "Inferior" one who has nothing to add to the situation, other than possible immunity to a vicious virus that the crew would experience and die cause they don't have his anti bodies to fight it...

[Pandora's_Box]

Funny, that's what the Nazies said...
Who decides who the few are? and on what grounds? this is what they did.
The few were none white german minority on the count of being an inferior thus

And Godwin's Law is proved yet again...

[Khentkawes]

If you really wanna talk about ethics and morality, which is more moral and ethical?

Commit suicide to save 49 people or 50 people commit suicide (the same thing they would be doing anyways) because none of them wanted to be the one to save the other 49.

I think it's selfish to not want to be the person who went in that chamber.

I wondered about that as well.

TJ said that she didn't want anyone to sacrifice themselves for her, and she would rather that they all died trying to find another way. What if Col. Young had agreed with her? Then Young would have made a decision on behalf of all 80 or so people (sidenote: how many people are on the Destiny? I think I heard the number 80, but I'm not sure, so I just keep making up numbers ). Granted, he's in charge so it's his job to make the decisions. But what are the ethical implications if he makes a decision that condemns everyone else to death? Ethically speaking, does he really have the right to make that decision for everyone else?

Here's another thing to think about... out of the people who knew about the problem, two people volunteered to sacrifice themselves (Armstrong and Young). Would any of the others have volunteered? Possibly. So I don't think there would ever be a need to force someone (even if it was possible to force them). We already saw that there would be volunteers.

[Pandora's_Box]

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.

You bring up a good point. I don't know how I'd be reacting right now if the show had gone the darker route of actually having the crew make that decision, but I'm inclined to think it would have been an interesting avenue to explore.

I don't know...

Option 1: use the Key-no to close the door.
Option 2: gate off-ship to preserve the air supply
Option 3: Call the SGC for ideas on how to fix the door and then the air supply.

1: It wasn't a simple button to push and the Kino is spherical. How exactly was the kino supposed to close that door then?

2: Gate off ship to where exactly? They were in FTL on a ship they had no clue how to control. And then there's the problem of finding a planet suitable enough to sustain life for an indefinite amount of time. Not to mention the fact the ship jumps to a new point in space every several hours.

3: And thusly SGU would fall into the same traps as SG-1 and SGA. A show killed by it's lack of originality and ingenuity before it ever really got off the ground.

These are some of the smart suggestion that this forum has come up with and yet these so called "proffessionals" blank out even Rush on these very obvious options. So that's what is called a "contrived plot device". It makes the plot weak because the line of logic does not follow. That's a fact not an opinion.

In your opinion.

[Pandora's_Box]

Granted, he's in charge so it's his job to make the decisions. But what are the ethical implications if he makes a decision that condemns everyone else to death? Ethically speaking, does he really have the right to make that decision for everyone else?

Realistically (as realistic as SF gets anyway), I'd imagine that they'd have gathered everyone together and given them the lowdown on what was going on. At least I hope that's what they would have done.

This is kind of why I'm a little disappointed that TPTB didn't explore the darker aspects of this dilemma. If there hadn't been someone already dying, then the person making the sacrifice would have been someone who could have lived. I'm tempted to say that it would have meant more, but I realise that's unfair. A life given to save others is brave and noble regardless of whether one would have died anyways.

But it would have been an interesting avenue to explore, seeing who (if anyone) volunteers for that job. Exploring the different reactions of people to the news. Although...maybe that would have been too much for the pilot episode.

[aretood2]

And Godwin's Law is proved yet again...

fine, Lets compare to US in early 1900's. The good of the many (Whites) outweighed the good of the few (Blacks). Exploitation guarantied better living for the Whites, and since they are the majority they were morally correct in segregating society. So says Mr. Spock.

[SoulReaver]

eeey Patriot Act is also based on the *hypothetical* good of the many superseeding those of the few

heck Patriotism™ itself is as collectivist as it gets

[aretood2]

eeey Patriot Act is also based on the *hypothetical* good of the many superseeding those of the few

heck Patriotism(tm) itself is as collectivist as it gets

you can't tm a word!