"You Can't Ask Someone to Sacrifice Themselves"

[Saquist]

Since they were still at FTL speed, how would they have done that? ALSO they did not know any gate addresses.

Where there is a gate and a ship...there is a data base.
No one memorizes the entire list of known worlds when they bring a gate on board, right?

Since it would take time to get someone in the SGC to retrieve a person who could help, that is more time the CO2 is building up and impacting everyone. NOT a viable option.

I don't know, maybe.
Doesn't mean you don't try.
Doesen't mean you don't find out first before sacrificing someone.
Sam was a gate call away.

[s09119]

Sam was a gate call away.

They don't have the power to do that, and besides, Sam wouldn't be able to gate onboard anyway.

[Blue Shadowdancer]

Sam was a gate call away.

Would you really have prefered that they called up Sam and she performed some wizardry to near-instantly shut the door and save them all?

You may, but personally if that had happened, I would probably have stopped watching. I'd rather see these people figure things out for themselves. Sure, in some peoples' opinions it may not have been the best solution, but it worked (well, except for the Senator, but you know what I mean). They're panicky. They're stressed. They're not always going to come up with the most elegant solutions in the nick of time. And I find this much more interesting to watch than the alternative of just falling back on the SG1 team to come and save the day.

[Cold Fuzz]

I don't think it's right for one person to sacrifice another person - an individual has to make the choice themself. If they have already sighed up for that, it's a different matter though. Or is it? Is there a distinction between ordering a soldier to a position where they might be killed in an engagement with the enemy, and ordering a solder to a position where they will die of asphyxiation for certain? I do think that it's the responsibility of the military to be protecting the civilians. Young as the ranking officer had the top responsibility and the authority to order any of his subordinates not to sacrifice themselves. I have no issue with Young choosing to sacrifice himself to save everyone else - that concept is quite familiar to me. But for him to order one of his subordinates to a certain death given no volunteers, no, I can't support that. It's his job to protect his people, and if he chose one to die like that, no one would respect his authority after that, I think. If on the other hand one of the soldiers had volunteered to do it the question is whether Young should let that person sacrifice themself. That's a tough question.

But lets take the military out of the equation, and just consider Rush deciding who's least necessary to the expedition. What would he do next? Tell the person, "Someone has to choose to die or we all die. You're the least useful so we'd all be better off if you were the one to do it." ? And what if the person says no? No, you really can't ask someone to sacrifice themselves. Chloe was right.
Suppose the senator had that if he was to die, it would be naturally, or if he'd died before he was able to complete his mission. Then it would have been Young's responsibility, and if he was medically incapable of doing the job, then it would have been left to Scott. It's tough being a leader but that's just how it is.

Then there's the decision Greer made, to allow the senator to sacrifice himself. I think that if someone is willing to sacrifice themself, to make something good come from their death, and to save everyone's life, they should be allowed. To rob someone of that chance and make their death meaningless is in fact a grievous insult. If someone died that I could live, it would be wrong for me to ignore that, and if it was my own actions against that person's instructions that put me in mortal danger in the first place, it would be horrible for me to continue acting in that way after they've died to save my life, and worse still if I did so while claiming that person doesn't exist. But I digress.
Yes, with no one burdened with the responsibility of keeping everyone safe - or no such person willing to do their duty - it would have to come to that. That announcement is exactly what I was thinking myself.
And after the announcement, if one person decides they are willing to die for all the others to live, they can do so. If no one does, then the lot of them die. It would be wrong of them to choose and force any person deemed less useful or selected by chance to die and save everyone else. While one does have to die to save everyone, that doesn't excuse murder, and an unwilling sacrifice is definitely murder.
Suppose that they only had to put someone into the room and that person would die and everyone would life, and one person was in a coma and unlikely to wake up. I couldn't accept that person being thrown into the room. I'd walk in myself before I let that happen.

What's interesting to me is that the person who is asking (perhaps even demanding) that someone on the ship sacrifice themselves is the same man who put all of them in the situation in the first place--Rush. If there is anyone who would be morally obligated to sacrifice themself for the rest of the group, it should be Rush himself. It was his questionable judgement that stranded them all out there on the Destiny. And now he's having someone else die for him? He's ridiculous.

How many times will Rush use the end justifies the means argument? How many times will he do that until he realizes that he's playing God when he has NO business to and that he's unknowingly (or knowingly) following a philosophy that's evil?

[akren]

I think the morale & ethical questions raised by this particular line/scenario are particularly interesting given the peril the crew find themselves in.

Do you sacrifice one person for the good of the many/whole?

Do you willingly sacrifice yourself for the sake of a loved one, you dying so that they may live (spoilers for Air, part 1)

Spoiler:

as in the case of Senator Armstrong did for his daughter Chole?

Can you force someone to sacrifice themselves in order to save your own hind/others & does it amount to manslaughter/murder/sacrifice?

How does one deal with these issues when your are millions of light-years from home in an impossible situation where survival is paramount & you may be forced to do things which would be considered illegal/immoral/unethical in order to simply go on living? Where do you draw the line? Do you give up some (or all) of your Humanity/ethics/morals/rights in order to go on living?

Where would YOU draw the line?

How do you deal with the consequences/fall out of your actions (including emotional fall out & ethics/sense of justice aboard a ship like the Destiny) & how does/will it effect those around you?

I think that these will be touched on in later episodes (spoilers for 'Justice' & future eps of SGU)

Spoiler:

- I know these have been confirmed ot be touched on in later episodes of SGU form J.M'.s blog.

I think the way both Rush & Greer dealt with these issues & other characters reactions to them were fascinating.

Greer seems to quite willing to do let others sacrifice themselves (the fact he sat there & watched Senator Armstrong die was harrowing to watch but not militaristic, as military personelle are probably used ot seeing death on the battlefield, so it fits with what I would imagine soliders would see on the battlefield).

Rush, by comparison, was just plain creepy. He had absolutely no problem drawing up a list of crew members whom were their wounded (& thus might not survive) or not deemed as being 'useful' to the survival of the group. It was cold, calculating, methodical & logical & done instantly; without hestiation or thought for others. His obsession with the Destiny, the 9th Chevron & the desire to exploring the Destiny & unknown reaches of the galaxy obvious seems to override everything else (including his sense of morals/ethics) & he seems willing to do whatever it takes to survive, thrive & keep on doing what he wants. Alotgether a fascinating character I am very much looking forward to seeing develop in future; even if I am fascinated & loathed by what he represents @ times.

In terms of taking the 'easy way out' & the 'softerer option' for the viewer, I do think it was done quite well & highlights the characters need for survival & the dire situation they are in without making it too harsh on the viewers whom may be 'put off' by someone being forced to sacrifice themselves for the 'greater good'/survival of the rest of the crew.

[aretood2]

I'm not saying that someone shouldn't volunteer, but that you can't force someone to kill themselves. Obviously there were two who didn't waste time and volunteered, unfortunately for Chloe, the senator beat Young to it.

[Eternal Density]

Would you volunteer?

Say you had a family back home- a wife and two little kids. Would you be able to step up and do it, just because your skills are deemed the least useful?

I hope I could.

[aretood2]

I hope I could.

I think we all hope that we have that kind off strength.

[garhkal]

I don't think it's right for one person to sacrifice another person - an individual has to make the choice themself. If they have already sighed up for that, it's a different matter though. Or is it? Is there a distinction between ordering a soldier to a position where they might be killed in an engagement with the enemy, and ordering a solder to a position where they will die of asphyxiation for certain? I do think that it's the responsibility of the military to be protecting the civilians. Young as the ranking officer had the top responsibility and the authority to order any of his subordinates not to sacrifice themselves. I have no issue with Young choosing to sacrifice himself to save everyone else - that concept is quite familiar to me. But for him to order one of his subordinates to a certain death given no volunteers, no, I can't support that. It's his job to protect his people, and if he chose one to die like that, no one would respect his authority after that, I think. If on the other hand one of the soldiers had volunteered to do it the question is whether Young should let that person sacrifice themself. That's a tough question.

Leaders in the military are called upon all the time to decide who to send to XYZ. How is that any different from telling someone "go in there and shut the door to save all the rest of us.

I think that if someone is willing to sacrifice themself, to make something good come from their death, and to save everyone's life, they should be allowed. To rob someone of that chance and make their death meaningless is in fact a grievous insult.

Now that i agree with.

[quote]Say you had a family back home- a wife and two little kids. Would you be able to step up and do it, just because your skills are deemed the least useful?/quote]

Are you saying a single person or one without kids would automatically make me 'less valuable' than a married one (or one with kids)>??>

[Aurora24]

There's two perspectives to look at this from, the first being from someone's on the crew who is considered to "valuable" to be sacrificed. My own opinion is that I would feel uncomfortable with the idea of someone sacrificing themselves for me, and I don't think I could stand by while some "less valuable" injured person was forced to. I don't think most of the rest of the crew felt comfortable with that idea either.

Next try to imagine yourself as some man or woman from the Icarus base, for example one of the men/women working in the mess hall. They might not have skills that would make "valuable" to the rest of the group for long term surivival. Looking at that from my perspective as one of them. I'd like to think I'd have it in me to sacrifice myself to save the crew, but I don't think anyone has the right to force someone to sacrifice themselves. And no one, no matter who they are or how gravelly injured they are is going to want to hear that they're being asked to sacrifice themselves because they are "expendable"

[Eternal Density]

Leaders in the military are called upon all the time to decide who to send to XYZ. How is that any different from telling someone "go in there and shut the door to save all the rest of us.

I'm not sure whether it is, but sending someone to what you and they know is an absolutely certain death that requires that person to push the button that will kill them doesn't feel the same as sending someone into a situation that if they are skilled/lucky they might survive. But even though it 'feels' different I think it does come down to the same thing in the end: a military person who has already agreed to give their life for their people.

Say you had a family back home- a wife and two little kids. Would you be able to step up and do it, just because your skills are deemed the least useful?

Are you saying a single person or one without kids would automatically make me 'less valuable' than a married one (or one with kids)>??>

I think the person who wrote that meant that it would be harder for a person with familial connections to agree to sacrifice themself than one without, not that such connections affect the value of a person.

[s09119]

What's interesting to me is that the person who is asking (perhaps even demanding) that someone on the ship sacrifice themselves is the same man who put all of them in the situation in the first place--Rush. If there is anyone who would be morally obligated to sacrifice themself for the rest of the group, it should be Rush himself. It was his questionable judgement that stranded them all out there on the Destiny. And now he's having someone else die for him? He's ridiculous.

How many times will Rush use the end justifies the means argument? How many times will he do that until he realizes that he's playing God when he has NO business to and that he's unknowingly (or knowingly) following a philosophy that's evil?

Rush is the one person they can't kill; he's the only one with the know-how to possibly get them home.

[Cold Fuzz]

Rush is the one person they can't kill; he's the only one with the know-how to possibly get them home.

True. It's unfortunately inconvenient for everyone else on the Destiny that the one person who got them stranded way out beyond the known universe is the one person who's considered indispensable.

[Denny Crane]

If all life is of equal value, then two lives are of worth more than just one. You would easily kill one person to save billions, after that point its just a matter of how low can you go.

<Snipped for OT >

[Eternal Density]

Rush is the one person they can't kill; he's the only one with the know-how to possibly get them home.

Indeed, he has a 'get out of airlock free' card. For now.