For those of you who don't watch it, on last week's episode of ENTERPRISE, Archer was confronted with a terribly difficult decision. His ship was damaged, and warp drive was impossible without a new "warp coil" to replace theirs. Earth was in danger of being destroyed by the Xindi superweapon in a matter of weeks if he couldn't locate and destroy it. He wound up stealing a warp coil from another vessel when they refused to barter for it. Although he left food and other goods, he effectively turned a trip of a few weeks into one of three years for these people, all in the name of saving the human race. Ethically dubious at best, criminal piracy at worst. So what would an objectivist do in Archer's situation, and why? Would he continue to search for some other way, even if it increased the risk to his homeworld exponentially? Or would he sacrifice his personal ethics as Archer did?

Mr A would "hold the good as good and the evil as evil", and not compromise his principles even if it risked Earth's safety.

Been thinking about this ...

For all the people screaming in Trekland about the Xindi arc being "American Apologism" (regarding 9-11 and Iraq), I think what Archer did was really what an enlightened Vulcan would have done, yet T'Pol argued against. The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few. Would that not imply that Archer should consider 15 billion human lives (or however many people live on Earth in 2154, can't remember what they said) to have a greater need than the handful of aliens on that ship?

 ... Linda.

With all these questions, we need some Official Ditkoland WWOD? (What Would Objectivists Do?) keychains or bracelets.

I love the moral dilemma episodes of Star Trek, whatever series it might be.

The "needs of the..." thing was what I first thought of, and I was surprised T'Pol wasn't backing him up. Guess it made for better drama having the conflict. Archer made a hard choice, but I think it was the right one, just like when they had to blow up the outpost when they first snuck onto the Xindi homeworld (or whatever planet it was with the weapon-building facility). There are billions of lives for them to consider every time they make a decision that might affect the success of their mission.

These WWOD games are fun, but since we set them in fantastic -- not real -- circumstances, we're bound to run into funny twists of logic that do not occur under real circumstances.

Sure, an Objectivist feels responsible for himself, and feels no altruistic responsibility to help others.

On the other hand, might not an Objectivist feel vested in the survival of the human species? No human species means no competition. No competition means no economic system, no engine of profit, and greatly reduced means of doing or getting what you want... Also, if everyone dies, who ya gonna have sex with?

Mr.A might want the warp coil, but the other crew already owned it. Mr.A is free to use any legal means to take the coil -- to buy it or to barter for it, for example -- but if the Xindi don't care to make the exchange, sucks for Mr.A. May two Objectivists face off in an irreconcilable conflict? Of course. Let the best man win, and let the other learn from the experience and thereafter pursue his own interests in a more efficient way. That's the nature of competition.

In the end, Linda is right. Mr.A would seek an ethically pure way to solve the problem. He would not steal. Then he'd face the consequences. (Thereafter resorting to sex with an appropriately excellent, challenging Klingon or something.)

The 9-11/Iraq parallel doesn't hold any water with me. The Xindi are being manipulated by an outside force, and don't really know anything about humans. The various Muslim terrorist groups know exactly what America is all about, and they hate it and us. Nobody is going to be able to sit down with them and smooth things over. There are some being manipulated by these groups, but we can't take the time to reason with them when they have bombs strapped to their bodies.

Here I think I'm stirring the pot. Or maybe adding a parsnip.

We all know redcoats attacked in formation -- the infantry guys in front fully expecting to take a bullet (which was a death sentence then, before antibiotics). Happy to do it, for the King.

The "jap-a-nazi rats" were all kamakazis fully prepared to commit sepaku or hari kiri.

The commies found value only in the collective, and they discounted the worth of the individual -- so those guys don't care one bit if they die in battle! And each commie spy had a porcelain tooth full of arsenic, so if they got caught, they would bite down and...

The Cong and the South Americans are so poor they have nothing to lose, plus they're all stoned.

So now we got Muslims who think if they give their lives in battle they'll float around forever in heaven on a hash cloud and enjoy blowjobs from fourteen-year-old virgin princesses.

Right?

I'm not sure I buy it -- the idea that Americans are reasonable and self-interested (or perhaps cowards) while all our enemies are suicidal and incapable of speech.

We exaggerate the suicidal tendencies of our enemies -- out of our own hysterical frustration, and to excuse ourselves for bombings in lieu of successful negotiation. Yes, suicide bombers are real. But before we imagine them throughout the Islamic world, let's ask what advantage we give ourselves in our minds by over-estimating their frequency.

I mean, I got a dude on my streetcorner who paces up and down wearing one shoe, chain smoking, laughing and singing to pigeons. (Really. He's hilarious.) Could I convince him to strap a bomb to his head and walk into an elementary school? NO PROBLEM! But that hardly makes him representative of Spanish Americans -- or of chain smokers. In a war against Spanish chain smokers, we would gain nothing by basing our plans on that one nut in Sunset Park -- gain nothing but moral self-assurance.

I hope you didn't misread me, Mike. I was referring to "Muslim terrorists groups", not Muslims in general. And I know all Americans aren't rational and self-interested either. In fact, some of my domestic partner's (she will soon be my government-approved mate), family's religious fanaticism reminds me of the people we're fighting.

Chaz

Yeah, you're right, you did specify terrorists. I was stirring the pot a little. It's one of those days. I meant no personal disrespect.

Still, I will re-assert that the suicide bombers are not the people in charge; the guy who agrees to wear the bomb in NEVER one of the guys in charge; "the guy who wears the bomb" is much more likely some loser or pigeon-whisperer or nut.

(I've heard speculation that my homosexual brethern in Islam are likely candidates to wear bombs, as a nice way to save their otherwise wayward souls.)

(Me personally, I could withstand about fifteen minutes on a hash cloud receiving blowjobs from teenage virgin prom queens. I advise gullible Moslem homosexuals to think twice and plan for the more extreme long term.)

I didn't take it personally, Mike. Just thought I'd tip the top back and forth while you stirred, as you like to do. (And I'm not complaining; it's fun.)

I definitely agree that the bomb-wearing type of person is not in charge. IF they had the guts to do it, wouldn't they have already blown themselves up at the first opportunity?* My brother, who is in the Army, tells me that in tactical situations the lowest-ranking guy is sent out first. So strategically speaking, it's probably better to strap the bombs on the less capable guys, as well as easier to convince them to do it.

Like any religion, or fanatic branch of it, there are only going to be a small percentage of people who really take it seriously, who really believe all of it.

*Which is one of the reasons I was so happy with the manner of Saddam's capture. Here's a guy who's asking his soldiers to die for him, to take enemies with them when they get captured. So what does he do when he himself is captured? Cower timidly and accept medical treatment and food from the infidels.

Chaz wrote: "Like any religion, or fanatic branch of it, there are only going to be a small percentage of people who really take it seriously, who really believe all of it."
_________________________________

There's no argument here, just a quibble.

I think there may well be lots of important terrorists who are earnest in their religious beliefs -- completely earnest -- but who prefer to pursue heaven by some other route than strapping a bomb to their bellies and blowing themselves up.

I'm almost completely ignorant about Islam and the Koran -- but surely nowhere does it say suicide bombing is the ONLY way to get to heaven. That may be the express train; still, I'm sure there are plenty of devout people who feel more comfortable taking a local

I have to suspect the dudes wearing the bombs believe all other routes to heaven, for whatever reason, are closed to them.

I gotta admit, if I really thought there were virgin prom queens waiting for me on the other side, I'm not sure how much more time I'd spend living in a war-torn region in poverty.

It's fair to speculate, I suppose.

I'd love to find some profiles on the individual suicide bombers. How many were cleric preachers? How many were teenagers who recently broke up with a girlfriend, or failed out of school? How many were pigeon-whispers? How many were political science professors?

Has any seen any such profiles?

I'm thinking this took place in Israel and involved a Palestinian bomber, and I could be wrong, but I remember reading about one kid they found who was 14 or so. He turned himself in, in tears, and told the authorities he hadn't wanted to die. They were able to disarm him safely, although I don't know what happened to him before or after that.

Was he forced into his situation? Did he volunteer and then change his mind when showtime came? I'm sure some of both happens.

Personally, I don't think the 70 virgins thing is all that enticing. I'd imagine that after about 6 or 7 I'd want a woman with some experience.

I've recently heard that supposedly the few female Palestenian suicide bombers were actually woman who had been accused of adultery. So they were given a choice: Either get stoned to death & die in shame, or blow yourself up & die a "martyr."

Is it any wonder why I quit being a Muslim 2 years ago?

But back to the oringinal question: I don't watch ENTERPRISE on a consistant basis. Actually, the last one I watched was the one where the ship was overtaken by that religious cult that had suicide bombers. But from the premise given in the opening post, I would think that Objectivism would support Archer's actions. The needs of the many do indeed outwiegh the needs of the few. That's the rational idea. In fact, I'd imagine that the one thing Objectivism would not support was Archer's decision to leave the aliens enough food & supplies to survive for the extra 3 years they were now forced to spend in space.

By refusing to even consider bartering for their doohickey, despite knowing it would mean the destruction of an entire world, you could argue that the crew of that ship was being evil. So wouldn't Mr. A just leave them to their own fate? Of course, LB says Mr. A would never bend his principles & steal in the first place, which I can sort of see, but under the circumstances I can't imagine letting the entire human race die just because you think that stealing is wrong.

Then again, I guess that's the point of having principles. You stick by them, regardless of the circumstances, but still...

Anyway, I'm just saying that, if I were Archer I would've done the exact same thing he did (including leaving food), but only if I was ABSOLUTELY SURE that there was NO other way for me to save Earth.

JR, I respect the fact you are puzzling about the RIGHT COURSE OF ACTION for Archer, but you aren't really addressing what an [i]Objectivist[/i] would do.

[b]Objectivism does not agree that the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few.[/b] Just the opposite, in fact! Objectivism posits that the individual is responsible for himself, and that it is unethical for him to pursue the needs of the many. Yep, period. I know that's a braintwister at first. And the individual is responsible for his own ethical actions.

Would an Objectivist find it ethical to steal in order to save his own life? We could discuss that.

But an Objectivist surely cannot commit a crime in order to save another person's life.

You may suggest Mr.A commits assault and murder against violent badguys in order to defend innocent people. But notice that Mr.A never initiates violent action. The badguy initiates the violence. Thereafter, Mr.A is ethically free to use violence to stop violence, and ethically free to let a criminal be consumed by his own folly.

It is ethical -- in Ditkovian Objectivism -- for a hero to defend an innocent person from crime and violence. But the Objectivist hero is never free to compromise ethical law, not even when the stakes are very high.

Faced with an irresolvable dilemma, I can only imagine an Objectivist Archer would fight to solve the problem as if the dilemma were NOT in fact irresolvable.

"Ditkovian?" Wasn't that a character in The Matrix Revolutions?

You're right, Mike. Rereading my last post does reveal a misunderstanding of Objectivism. I haven't been here awhile so I was just trying to catch up on the threads I've missed, & I've sort of been out of the Objectivist loop, you could say. The general theme of the opening scenario is interesting to debate from an ethical standpoint, regarding what's the right thing to do. I happen to believe that stealing is wrong, but under certain circumstances I can understand why someone would do that.

But from a purely OBJECTIVIST standpoint it's a totally different question. It's been my understanding that Objectivism promotes rational thinking over emotional thinking. That's why I said that the credo "the needs of the many outwiegh the needs of the few" would fit here. But I guess it wouldn't, exactly.

It could be said that the crew of the ship that he stole the warp coil from were the ones being the true Objectivists. They refused to give up their warp coil because it would inconvience them, despite the fact that it would condemn another species to death. They were looking out for themselves first, which I guess is the Objectivist way of thinking, right?

So the question is, what would Archer do if he were an OBjectivist?

Mike: "Faced with an irresolvable dilemma, I can only imagine an Objectivist Archer would fight to solve the problem as if the dilemma were NOT in fact irresolvable."

But it IS irresolvable, that's the point. He could pretend there's some other way all he wants, but if there really is NO OTHER WAY, what is he supposed to do? Just let the entire human race be destroyed because he doesn't want to compromise his principles? THAT is not rational to me. And as you pointed out earlier, saving the human race could be seen as a selfish act which Objectivism would support. ("Who ya gonna have sex with?" Bwa-ha-ha!)

I guess this just exemplifies why, despit my admiration for many of the principles of Objectivism, I could never be a true Objectivist. The fact is I just don't see everything in black and white terms, although I sometimes wish I did, it seems like it would be much simpler. I can usually- see the other side to any argument, the "grey areas" if you will.

LB (over in the Galactus thread): "Objectivism frays at the edges when faced with supernormal situations ~ all philosophies do."

That is a VERY good point. There are many situations we could come up with where an Objectivist maight be tempted to bend his principles, but none of them would ever really involve the fate of the ENTIRE HUMAN RACE, as it does in the Star Trek example, so it really is pointless to debate in the end.

But it is kind of fun to try, isn't it?

Keep in mind that Archer was not acting as an individual. He stressed several times, when explaining to the crew what they were going to do and debating it with Trip, that THE MISSION was the priority, not his own feelings or those of the rest of the crew.

Chaz, good point.

Soldiers commit themselves to a mission.

So do cops and firemen.

So do Catholic priests.

Those people commit themselves to a mission that demands they sacrifice their own interests in pursuit of some less selfish goal.

Can a true Objectivist make such a commitment? Or must a true Objectivist refuse such an office?

When you are in the military (or any situation where you must follow orders), you're carrying out somebody else's will instead of your own.

To a certain extent, I think an Objectivist has a responsibility to do what he's told whether he agrees or not. Whatever you're doing, you're being paid for it, and you agreed to follow your employer's orders in exchange for money. In a free market, you are free to quit the job.

What about the military, though? You can't just up and leave. Where is the line drawn when you receive orders that you can't ethically justify? Or can you just assume somebody else will do it if you refuse?

Most military organizations (whether they follow them or not) have "ethical boundaries". There are plenty of standards that allow individuals to not drop below a certain level of humanity and decency. If those are in place when you agree to fulfill your role as a soldier, and you can live with what might be required of you AS a soldier, then you should fulfill your commitment to that cause.
IF those standards change, or you are illegally asked to do something you should not have to do, then your morality requires that you stand up and not only not perform that function but attempt to prevent that action from occurring.


DADDIO