Comment on Janeway’s “Tuvix” Decision Divides ‘Star Trek: Voyager’ Cast: “It Kind Of Hurt Her Character”
PM_Your_Nudes_Please@lemmy.world 9 months ago
Tuvix is literally just a Trolley Problem scenario with a fancy costume. No more, no less.
There is an out of control trolley. You can’t stop it. On the trolley’s current track, there are two people. If you do nothing, they will die when the trolley hits them. But you’re at a track switch, and can divert the trolley to an alternate track. On that second track, there is one person who will die if the trolley hits them. Do you pull the lever? If you pull the lever, are you murdering the one? If you don’t pull the lever, are you complicit in the deaths of the two?
In this case, the trolley is the transporter accident; Janeway has the ability to pull the lever and reverse the accident. If she chooses not to, she is essentially refusing to pull the lever, thereby condemning the two people on the first track to die. But if she reverses the accident, she is pulling the lever and killing the one.
Janeway decided the answer to “should you pull the lever” was “yes”. She pulled the lever, saved the two, and killed the one. Sure, you could argue that pulling the lever is murdering the one. But if you sit by and do nothing, aren’t you willfully (maybe even maliciously) negligent? After all, you have the opportunity to save the lives of two, while minimizing damage to only one person.
Philosophers will try to change the trolley problem to fit different scenarios. What if it’s a bunch of convicted felons on the first track, and an innocent child on the second track? What if it’s a bunch of your friends and family on the first track, and your worst enemy on the second? What if, what if, what if… But the base question is always the same; Do you choose to do nothing and let many die, or actively kill the one? What is the tipping point where your decision changes?
the whole point of the trolley problem is that there isn’t any single “correct” answer.
Yeah, this exactly. However, the nature of fandoms and especially online fan communities means that rather considering the question bilaterally, people will argue for decades and factions will form 🤷
This is not a trolley problem in that there is sequence involved:
1: Tuvok and Neelix alive before transport
2: Tuvok and Neelix dead and a new rational being in their place. This being had a moral blank slate and are thus blameless for the circumstances of creation.
3: Janeway decides that the speech she gave to the Vidiians was just hot air and that she will kill Tuvix to get the original two back. (Non lethal ways were explored, but quickly abandoned)
4: The blameless being makes an articulate case for their life, and even addresses the “needs of the many” argument by stating the truth: the other two are gone and the new being is there. (Raw, unalloyed utilitarianism is problematic at best, just ask the people of Omelas Majalis)
5: The doctor straight up says that the procedure is unethical and refuses to do it.
6: Janet does it anyway.
Calling it a trolley problem is reductive and inaccurate.
That is fine in a doctor/patient relationship, but the captain has a captain/crew relationship, she would cause a lot of harm and loose two good crew members if she had let it be.
The two crew members that were lost at the same time Tuvix appeared? The dead (not alive) ones? And again, square this with the speech she gave the Vidiians.
If you’re going to refute, then address the whole thing.
The way I see it, the crewmembers didn’t die, they merged, Tuvix is the result of a treatable condition.
joshthewaster@lemmy.world 9 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 9 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. 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. 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.
Tbh I’m astounded the Star Trek community is predominantly on the “murder of an innocent is ok if it saves more people” side
wahming@monyet.cc 9 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?
joshthewaster@lemmy.world 9 months ago
This is true but hard to argue within the universe as we just don’t have the info and there are in universe contradictions about transporters. Been a while since I saw the episode but for me - ‘nonexistentance’ is close enough to ‘dead’ that Tuvix should have been allowed to live.
ook_the_librarian@lemmy.world 9 months ago
I found it strange the claim started with the language “a Trolley Problem” and concluded with the language “the trolley problem”.
It seems one could make any choice into “a” trolley problem. But Tuvix problem is certainly not “the trolley problem”. This is about emergence of consciousness. In the trolley problem, the characters cease to exist. Neither choice here would end, say, Tuvok’s consciousness.