The Ethics of Star Trek: Ethnic Cleansing

Whether the "wrong" the Borg have done against humanity justifies a wrong against them. It will be my argument that retaliation can only be justified (a) in response to an imminent danger and (b) when it is proportional to the danger posed. This two-fold standard is crucial for ensuring that the concept of "justified" retaliation is not abused. The first point, (a), is important because without it, fear alone becomes a justification for violence. Just because I am afraid of X, does not mean that X is about to harm me. Legally speaking, and using the idea of domestic violence as an example to illustrate a point, "[v]ictims sometimes suggest eliminating the reasonableness requirement altogether in favor of a purely subjective standard: if the victim felt in danger (even if there was no real danger), then she was justified in using force. It is even sometimes suggested that, to the battered person, 'the threat always feels imminent'--thus licensing violence at any time or place, if one accepts the subjective standard of imminence. But any such radical subjectivization of the law of self-defense. .. overlooks the problem of potential bias in one's perception of the need for the use of force against others. Indeed, it would legitimize those biases by accepting them as valid legal defenses. Such a position ignores the idea of responsibility to others, especially when it comes to the use of deadly force; merely feeling afraid of someone else does not entail the right to shoot him. .. Nor would civil society even be possible if each individual were granted a license to resort to vigilante violence any time he felt in danger. " [1]An imminent danger is one that is about to happen; it is immediate. [1] For instance, if I am swinging a punch at you, that poses an imminent danger. However, if I merely threaten you with violence--even if I have a prior history of violence--that is not imminent, because the violent act (1) isn't literally about to unfold, and (2) may never unfold. But, even if someone were to show that (a) was met, an act of retaliation still would not be justified if the second part of the standard, (b), was not met. Frankly, (b) is just as important as (a), insofar as as disproportionate response is not a justified one. Certainly, if I pinch you, and you overreact and blow my brains out with a semiautomatic rifle, you were not justified in your response. "This means, for example. .. that when physically attacked we can fight back to whatever extent is necessary to restrain and subdue our attacker. Once restrained or subdued, however, we can no longer commit acts of violence since in that case we cross the line from counter-coercion to initiation of new violence. This is why, for example, we may kill enemy combatants on a battlefield but not torture or otherwise inflict violence upon them once we have captured and imprisoned them. Once they are disarmed, we are not in a situation of justifiably counter violence but we are it perpetrators when we introduce it. " [2]This two-pronged standard thus sets up an clear, ethical, and measurable way with which this round can be evaluated. I will address my opponent's framework and its flaws in my next round. Now that I have established my framework for the round, I will show that Capt. Janeway's actions against the Borg Collective were in fact unethical and in violations of one or more provisions of my standard. ARGUMENTSPA. The Borg did Not Pose and Imminent Threat to Voyager and her CrewIn the episode in question, "Seven angrily demands to know what she wants. The [Borg] Queen informs her of her awareness of the future Janeway's arrival and asks Seven the reason for it. Seven responds that it is none of her business. The Queen smiles in response and mentally brings up an image of Voyager on her viewscreen. She tells Seven she knows where they are going, and 'suggests' they change course. Seven demands to know why. At this, the Queen comes up to her and caresses her face. She responds that she will assimilate Voyager and all aboard if they do not change course. .. 'If you try to enter my nebula again. .. I'll destroy you. ' Seven angrily insists that Voyager is no threat; 'We simply want to return to the Alpha Quadrant! ' The Queen responds that she has no problem with that. But make no mistake, she warns: 'If you try to enter my nebula again. .. I'll destroy you. '" [3]The point of this excerpt is to demonstrate that the crew of the Voyager, by insisting on breaching the nebula, provoked the Borg, not the other way around. The Borg posed no imminent threat to the vessel on its original course. Also, keep in mind that it was the crew of the Voyager who decided to aggress on the Borg's transport hub facility--they did not need to destroy it; yet they chose to do so anyway. [3]PB. Even if the Voyager Crew Responded to an Imminent Thread (something I've already shown to be false), their Response to the Threat was not ProportionalThe Voyager responded to danger to the lives of one ship by destroying an entire race, by committing ethnic cleansing. Consider, if nation X and nation Y are at odds, it would not be justified for nation X, in response to a mild border skirmish, to obliterate nation Y with nuclear weapons, wiping out their whole population. PC. The Borg and the FederationNow, the response to these arguments might be that the Voyager's crew were proportional in response to the imminent danger posed to the human race. But, it was never clear when (or if) the Borg planned on attacking humanity again. So, let me pose the following example: Russia and the U. S. have increasingly tense relations. Now, let's suppose that 1,000 years from now, Russia and the U. S. will go to war. The U. S. somehow learns about this future war early, and decides to initiate an unprovoked preemptive strike in the present against Russia, wiping it off the face of the Earth. That is essentially parallel to the relationship with the Borg. The Federation is aware the Borg may attack and that they pose some kind of existential threat, but they never know when the attack will come, or whether it will ever come. The problem with this mindset is that it justifies an infinite number of preemptive strikes--consider, any given nation may go to war with hundreds of other nations in its liftetime, but that doesn't mean it can launch preemptive strikes against them until those wars are imminent. Otherwise, I could randomly pick any country, and say, "well, I might have to fight them in the future, so it's better to wipe them out now. " This just perpetuates and rationalizes senseless violence. Moreover, it would entail killing innocent people who would have played no role in any future conflict. That is why we need to reject the idea that just because one believes someone else will strike, that does not justify striking them first. SOURCES1 - Whitley R. P. Kaufman, Philosophy Professor-University of Massachusetts, 2007, “Self Defense, Imminence, and the Battered Woman,” New Criminal Law Review, 10 New Crim. L. R. 342, p. 367-82 - . http://www.patheos.com...3 - . http://en.memory-alpha.org...