• joshthewaster@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    10 months ago

    Tuvix adds another element though. Tuvok and Neelix were already dead and Tuvix was alive. I think that makes this different from the standard trolley problem - still a hard choice but not the same.

    • TheGrandNagus@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      edit-2
      10 months ago

      Yup. This is my problem with it.

      IMO, once Neelix and Tuvok stop existing, they are dead. They have no consciousness, they aren’t around. They’re gone. They’re ex-people. They’re not sad about the situation, because they no longer exist. There’s no brain there to process any of this. Once you are dead, you don’t have a right to live, especially not if it means the death of another.

      Tuvix, on the other hand, existed. He was conscious, self aware, intelligent, alive. He was dragged, crying, begging for his life, pleading for anybody to step in and stop him from being murdered. Then he was killed to bring two people back to life.

      Now I know people will say “but 2 is more than 1, so it’s fine to kill him”, but that’s never sat right with me. What was that Picard speech about arithmetic not being a good reason for discarding the rights of sentient beings?

      Tbh I’m astounded the Star Trek community is massively on the “murder of an innocent is ok if it saves more people and he’s a little ugly” side

      • wahming@monyet.cc
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        10 months ago

        Death is a moving line, even today. There’s a reason doctors don’t declare death until there’s no way to revive a patient. Using that same logic, if there’s a way to revive Neelix / Tuvox, are they dead? It’s going to come down to how you personally define death.