T'Pol's Un-Vulcan Like Behavior

[Aikiweezie]

I have no problem with the stealing. Well in fiction anyway... I have a huge monumental problen with attacking an innocent people where there is an extreme risk of killing them just to get what you want. I have a problem that they took guns and were willing to kill innocent people. They might not have wanted too but they were willing too. If those people had been a threat, or tried to interfere in the mission, I'd say fine do what you need too. But they weren't. And honestly, with all the bad guys around there, they couldn't have waited a few more days to wait for someone who deserved it. The odds of more pirates finding 2 damaged ships near each other were really good. Sorry I think it's henious. And T'Pol should have been able to object and have it stand. Not wash out and retract her objections.

I wouldn't be cavalier about it, and don't think Archer was or would be later in life, but I still would have done what he did to save Earth and potentially the other planets we were aligned with. They couldn't have "waited around for some bad guy" to steal from. What if they never came? Eventually Enterprise would be destroyed and then Earth, and then..........

War, and this was war, makes good people do some not so nice things. I could go on and on about this - part of my training is to study battle strategies and tactics. I read and study a lot of history. If you want to win, worring about how those people are going to make it home really isn't your problem.

Who's to say that they didn't kep tabs on the ship they stole the warp core from and sent them aid after the spheres were destroyed? Yeah, that's it.............everybody lives happily ever after.

[WarpGirl]

I didn't say I don't understand why he did it. My objection is that the people on that ship weren't any less important than the people on Earth. And Archer was willing to kill them to further his objective. Was that objective important? YES! War is inherently immoral, because of the acts commited no matter what the reasons are. But that doesn't mean there shouldn't be consequences. As I have said before, Spock, Tuvok, Sarek, and others have repeatedly said that The needs of the many... does not justify any and all actions to uphold the principle. By having T'Pol's objection recanted it cheapens the high priority Vulcans put on life. Which at times comes before logic.

I understand why they put the moral conundrum in there, and honestly I don't mind it in there. I mind T'Pol's stance on the issue, just like I mind her acceptance of creating Sim, and her asking why the augment embryos weren't destroyed. Surak's teachings place a higher value on the sanctity of life than they do on logic. The whole reason Surak started his mission was to stop his people from slaughtering each other.

[Escriba]

With all due respect, I consider waiting for somebody that "deserves it" more immoral.

And "the needs of the many outweight the needs of the few" means exactly that. It's necessity. If you are protecting something bigger than what you harm, nobody can ask you any explanation.

And the reason why I sound harsh is because I'm using my "professional mode", not because I'm really trying to sound harsh

[WarpGirl]

Didn't think you sounded harsh. Anyway at least if you're hit first you're defnending yourself. Those poor people apologized for not being able to help.

[pdsldl]

I sorry but I'm never going to see your side on this. Life has no value to honor or sanctify if there is no life left. The needs of the many is talking is about balancing the options and and in this case the choice of do I risk killing a few people or risk the deaths of billions is no real choice for human or Vulcan.

And those poor people didn't even care if their own planet survived. Why didn't they ask more about what Archer was talking about. And if they understood what the consequences were then why didn't they offer to give it up. Do you think Archer a=or many of the crew on Enterprise would have objected to being left in the expanse with impulse engines and a chance to survive if giving up their warp core meant the mission could be completed?

[WarpGirl]

I don't ask you too. I just object to being willing to kill non-combatants, no matter what the circumstances. How does that distinguish Humans from the Xindi? They thought humanity was going to exterminate them.

[Silverbullet]

Archer had some humanity. He wanted to save the insectoids eggs.

I believe he mentioned something in that episode about keeping his humanity by saving the insectoids Eggs.

Admitedly, he was under the influence of the bug junk that hit him in the face.

T-Pol and crew mutinied because they were confinced that Saving Earth by completeing thier mission was more important than some insectoid eggs

BTW, does anyone wonder where T-Pol and Trip went when they left sickbay? Why did they leave? All t-Pol had to do was to give Trip a glance and he followed her out without question.

[WarpGirl]

Hey I thought he was nice about the babies, although he wouldn't have been if he wasn't under the influence. If I remember correctly T'Pol didn't object to taking REASONABLE measures to keep the babies alive. And she was correct when Archer was unreasonable. But that's kind of my point.

[pdsldl]

I don't ask you too. I just object to being willing to kill non-combatants, no matter what the circumstances. How does that distinguish Humans from the Xindi? They thought humanity was going to exterminate them.

Actually under the circumstances I understood the Xindi. Could they have tried to talk first, yes but they were being manipulated by beings that had them convinced they were telling the truth and that humans would not negotiate and just kill them.

There are no absolutes. And given the choice between involving non-combatants or killing the entire quadrant I'm sorry but they non-comms lose. If all precautions are taken to prevent harm to them and you have no clear cut sure option than I see it as justified.

Doing something to maintain life is fine but not at the cost of everything else as you know it. Spending a day or so restoring power etc.. to save the hatchlings was fine. Spending days, sending distress calls, or giving away the anti-matter was nuts. This was a way different circumstance then the warp core was.

These are arguments (the human and Vulcan moral issues) that we're never going to agree on so I'm not going to argue it anymore.

[Escriba]

The difference between Archer (or Enterprise crew) and the Xindi is the existence of a real state of necessity in the first case. The Xindi could allege self-defense if the dangerous situation were real and current, but it isn't. The Enterprise, on the other hand, needs the warp coil.

It's a little tricky, I know.

On the other hand, what they writers really wanted to do (as they say in the DVDs) was to create an analogy with episode 2 of season 3. So in fact, they didn't think Archer had a real justification.

[WarpGirl]

Facinating.

[Silverbullet]

Escriba, You lost me.

I will have to look up season three but wasn't the second Episode the Xindi.

How does that track with ARcher theft of the Warp coil other than to complete the
enterprise mission to find and destroy the Weapon and possibly defeat the Xindi.

A rather tall order by the way. Even if he destroys the new weapon the Xindi can build lots more or so he would believe.

Defeating the Xindi with just enterpirise alone even if it had SUPERARCHER on board would be impossible.

as far as Archer knew he had too find the weapon,the locatioon where it was being manfucatured and destroy that facility so more couldn't be made right away. Find and kill the makers of the weapon.

so yes he needed the Warp Coil and being given it or taking it was the same thing he and the Enterprise had to have that coil. also thank God he had Trip to dismantle the coil so it could be transporrted to the Enterprise and then installed into the Enterprise Warp Drive.

Warpgirl, when you and your planets very existence is at stake morality takes a back seat and shuts up.

[WarpGirl]

Warpgirl, when you and your planets very existence is at stake morality takes a back seat and shuts up.

That is a thought that frightens me more than my world dying.

[Silverbullet]

Warpgirl, why do you think that people fight invaders?

I would fight for my home, family, country to the death and fight as dirty as I could.

I am far from a saint and I don't understand how allowing morality priority over self preservation.

These are deepest instinct of mankind: Preservation of self and preservation of Species.
Even a Baby will fight feebly to perserve its life. it is instintive. So will a species band together to fight an invader even though they had been trying to kill one another the day before and will go back to to it after the invader has been defeated.

A good analogy of that are the Afghanstinis. They have vendetta, bloood fueds going back centuries and think nothing of banding together to fight off an invader. they have never been
successfuly invaded befcause of that.

There was some idiot Physchaitrist who tied to claim that G.I.s in WWII didn't aim at the enemy but over their heads because it was against their moral upbringing to kill.

It was proved that he was wrong. the g.I.s were trying to kill the enemy because the enemy was trying to kill them. Self preservation trumped morality.

[WarpGirl]

Yeah when someone it actively trying to kill you it's instinctive to fight. But those people weren't trying to kill anyone.