We all know that the Goa'uld set themselves up on Earth and many other planets as gods. And many other aliens have done this and interfered with other cultures. I just want to know what everyone else thinks about what the aliens have done to us. For good? And also just the Asgard and Goa'uld?
Other aliens and Earth
- Thread starter Shaun
- Start date
MythingLink
First Prime of ASciFi
- Joined
- Jul 21, 2000
- Messages
- 1,529
Well I'm an old, member of the Star Trek generation and do think that the Prime Directive that the show spouted was basically an honorable and ethical idea.
The Goa'uld didn't, as we all know, set themselves up as gods out of the goodness of their hearts. It was, and still is, a way for them to profit and for power. Unlike the culture in Spirits who masqueraded as Tonani's gods, or Thor who has patterned himself after 'Thor' <G>, who have done it to protect. I can understand the reasoning for doing this because they are dealing with a primitive culture who firmly believes that the gods are actively taking a part in their lives and it is really a very benign way of doing it. Whereas the Goa'uld use this same method but for their advantage.
So basically I think what the Goa'uld did was dispicable and don't have any qualms about fighting to keep them away from Earth and for the members of the SGC helping other worlds to pull away from this as well.
Cheers,
The Goa'uld didn't, as we all know, set themselves up as gods out of the goodness of their hearts. It was, and still is, a way for them to profit and for power. Unlike the culture in Spirits who masqueraded as Tonani's gods, or Thor who has patterned himself after 'Thor' <G>, who have done it to protect. I can understand the reasoning for doing this because they are dealing with a primitive culture who firmly believes that the gods are actively taking a part in their lives and it is really a very benign way of doing it. Whereas the Goa'uld use this same method but for their advantage.
So basically I think what the Goa'uld did was dispicable and don't have any qualms about fighting to keep them away from Earth and for the members of the SGC helping other worlds to pull away from this as well.
Cheers,
And we see what happens when people say they are gods in the first commandment. The guy took over the people and forced them to work to build him a temple. Maybe this was just from insanity or an underlying trait of humans to want power.I think the SGC should have a prime directive to do with the planets they go to that are fine otherwise.(How many places like that have Sg-1 found)
I agree about some sort of "charter" perhaps to act upon when we go to other worlds. For example in "show and tell" i think that was the episode (one with the sounds plants?) Hammond inititally suggested they could not spend any more resources on the planet and were going to leave.
Depsite this the SGC aim is to save earth from another goa'uld attaack that is sure to come from somewhere.
Depsite this the SGC aim is to save earth from another goa'uld attaack that is sure to come from somewhere.
goa'uld horus
New Member
- Joined
- Sep 14, 2000
- Messages
- 1
One thing here, despite any good intentions, the SGC are officially out to gain superior technology and weapons, does this make them any better than the goa'uld
Major Carter
Napoleonic Power Monger
- Joined
- Sep 1, 2000
- Messages
- 47
Guess it does when you look at it like this:
They do it to have something to defend earth from being taken over by the Goa'ulds, while the snakeheads are out there enslaving people.
That's a difference.
Besides, they are not only out there to collect superior technology and weapons, but also to explore and find allies against the Goa'ulds!!
They do it to have something to defend earth from being taken over by the Goa'ulds, while the snakeheads are out there enslaving people.
That's a difference.
Besides, they are not only out there to collect superior technology and weapons, but also to explore and find allies against the Goa'ulds!!
well no because:
1) We don't take people as slaves
2) We want technology for defense not offense (if we attack the goa'uld that is a defensive pre emptive strike)
of course some will want technology for bad reasons (profit?) but i think generally we are nicer than the goa'uld. Of course i think we could find some perfectly good examples of people who would fit a goa'uld lifestyle perfectly !
1) We don't take people as slaves
2) We want technology for defense not offense (if we attack the goa'uld that is a defensive pre emptive strike)
of course some will want technology for bad reasons (profit?) but i think generally we are nicer than the goa'uld. Of course i think we could find some perfectly good examples of people who would fit a goa'uld lifestyle perfectly !
I think we posted at the same time, basically same idea i think we have there.
but.. it also asks the age old ethics question (i am doing philosophy hehe) do the ends justify the means. I don't always think so, so we can not resort to acting like goa'uld because "if we don't we get kicked". there is a space between that.
but.. it also asks the age old ethics question (i am doing philosophy hehe) do the ends justify the means. I don't always think so, so we can not resort to acting like goa'uld because "if we don't we get kicked". there is a space between that.
MythingLink
First Prime of ASciFi
- Joined
- Jul 21, 2000
- Messages
- 1,529
As the others have said, the SGC is out there to find technology to help in the battle against the Goa'uld, and they don't take preferring to form alliances and be given the technology.
And no, I've never been a big proponent of 'the ends justify the means' either. It simply opens up a way for more powerful people to justify their actions whether good or bad.
Another old adage, 'those who forget the past are doomed to relive it' comes to mind. If we put aside everything that we've learned about humanity and human nature, we are no better than the Goa'uld in our relationships with the other worlds and their cultures out there.
Cheers,
And no, I've never been a big proponent of 'the ends justify the means' either. It simply opens up a way for more powerful people to justify their actions whether good or bad.
Another old adage, 'those who forget the past are doomed to relive it' comes to mind. If we put aside everything that we've learned about humanity and human nature, we are no better than the Goa'uld in our relationships with the other worlds and their cultures out there.
Cheers,
I think everyone accepts that the ends do justify the means at some point. Would you tell an axe wielding serial killed who had escaped from prision that your friend (who he wants to kill) is in your house or lie to him? Lieing is "wrong" (probably) but the ends justify the means.
How much is there that you would not do to say save the earth from being destroyed by a nuclear bomb. Par example, say a mad scientist had a new fussion device that he was going to use to destroy the whole of the earth but we didn't know where he was but we had found his 10 year old kid. Would you torture the kid to get him/her to tell you where his dad was (if he wouldn't say). However horrible (that is the idea of the example) i would think so.
SGPflughaupt
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Aug 11, 2000
- Messages
- 153
"Do the ends justify the means"
This is the question I hate most because in school it was always given as question to be answered "yes" or "no". That really pissed me off as I got older and learned that there is a lot of grey area there. Define "ends" and "means". You might ask if x plus y equal z. Sometimes yes and sometimes no. What the real questions is what ends and means are moral enough (now theres a can of worms) to justify each other.
As far as Stargate goes (to avoid a tangent) the SGC has appearently defined a set of means (trade,alliance,salvage,etc.) for their ends (defense against the Gou'ald threat). I would bet that if the Goa'uld (notice how I spell it diff everytime,I can never remember the correct spelling) threat became worse they might change their set of means (may relax their defintion of what is savagable to include items of living races that they might not miss or worse inact a Maybourne protocol - steal anything not nailed down using covert teams.<maybe the pentagon is already doing this ie as seen in previous episodes with the second gate at area 51>)
This is the question I hate most because in school it was always given as question to be answered "yes" or "no". That really pissed me off as I got older and learned that there is a lot of grey area there. Define "ends" and "means". You might ask if x plus y equal z. Sometimes yes and sometimes no. What the real questions is what ends and means are moral enough (now theres a can of worms) to justify each other.
As far as Stargate goes (to avoid a tangent) the SGC has appearently defined a set of means (trade,alliance,salvage,etc.) for their ends (defense against the Gou'ald threat). I would bet that if the Goa'uld (notice how I spell it diff everytime,I can never remember the correct spelling) threat became worse they might change their set of means (may relax their defintion of what is savagable to include items of living races that they might not miss or worse inact a Maybourne protocol - steal anything not nailed down using covert teams.<maybe the pentagon is already doing this ie as seen in previous episodes with the second gate at area 51>)
I love this whole ethics thing. I am doing it as one of my topics this term. It is great...
Some people do think there is a clear x or y answer. One would just be to say, well do the thing that maximises pleasure so the ends will always justify the means so long the ends create more pleasure than pain that is created through the means. Yes this is a little scary as it allows us to murder 50 people to save 51 (perhaps). But if you say no that is wrong then would you murder 1 person to save 100, no? then 1 person to save a million? no, then 1 to save the rest of the human race. probably. So where does it end/start. It scares most people including me (well not now explain in a sec) that it is a slippery slope like this. Some people would say .. i will never murder.. i will never xyz. This is a nice thing to say and if they do stick to it well ok but i think it is the easy way out. Being a pacifist i think is escapism from making harsh decisions.
Is there really an answer? I don't think so. I think all our ethics and morals are just a construct from are civilisation produced through evolution. It is evolutionary advantageous for members of a species not to kill each other as that species will work better together. Once evolutionary issues become less important we move to civilisation and self-protection. So perhaps ethics is all subjective, but perhaps not!
Some people do think there is a clear x or y answer. One would just be to say, well do the thing that maximises pleasure so the ends will always justify the means so long the ends create more pleasure than pain that is created through the means. Yes this is a little scary as it allows us to murder 50 people to save 51 (perhaps). But if you say no that is wrong then would you murder 1 person to save 100, no? then 1 person to save a million? no, then 1 to save the rest of the human race. probably. So where does it end/start. It scares most people including me (well not now explain in a sec) that it is a slippery slope like this. Some people would say .. i will never murder.. i will never xyz. This is a nice thing to say and if they do stick to it well ok but i think it is the easy way out. Being a pacifist i think is escapism from making harsh decisions.
Is there really an answer? I don't think so. I think all our ethics and morals are just a construct from are civilisation produced through evolution. It is evolutionary advantageous for members of a species not to kill each other as that species will work better together. Once evolutionary issues become less important we move to civilisation and self-protection. So perhaps ethics is all subjective, but perhaps not!
Well this is my view of life in general. It's a quote from Star trek 2:
"The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few. Or the one."
This should apply to nearly every situation including Earths position with the Goa'uld. Of course some things are still just wrong, like using people as slaves.
"The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few. Or the one."
This should apply to nearly every situation including Earths position with the Goa'uld. Of course some things are still just wrong, like using people as slaves.
nice but you contradict yourself
Your elements of your agrument are:1) Consequentalist. Meaning that if the consequences are good then it is ok to do the action. You are saying this because by doing lots of good (for the many) it is ok to do something bad to the individual. This is how most people think most of the time.
but then...
2) Deontological Thought: Something is wrong just because it is wrong in itself. Whatever benefit having a slave would do cannot be justified by the consequences.
Some people try and merge the two together into some mixture of the two, i have yet so see anything that i think makes any real headway into doing this. In the end i think most of us go with 1) but for some things say slaves we require a huge amount of postivie benefit to outweigh the negative, probably a lot more than we should. why? because we are so appaled by things such as slavery. and that is where common morality and "rule morality" come in but that is a whole other thing.
Fun really this ethics stuff... 2 weeks before i start on it again
Thor_of_Othalla
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Sep 22, 2000
- Messages
- 54
The ethical stuff
As far as I`m concerned it`s kill or be killed. If they kill a hundred Goa`uld to save one person, that`s fine. The Goa`uld are their enemies and you do generally kill your enemies.
But what about this hypothetical situation:
The Goa`uld invade Earth, SG-1 are contacted through the Gate and they are on a planet that has technology that can repel the Goa`uld attack. Only problem is the owners won`t give it to them.
Do they go home in a huff? Or do they do whatever it takes to acquire that technology?
We are of course assuming that there is no other way to repel the invasion. Their allies can`t help, none of the tech they have can help.
What would you do?
Personally I`d kick the crap out of as many of those people as I had to to get the only technology that could save my planet. I might have a tad of an ethical crisis afterwards but i`d quickly realise I didn`t have a choice and I`d know that I did the right thing.
As for the threat of retaliation, that`s a bit of a circular argument. If you stole the device it is very possible that the owners would attack you and would most likely be more powerful. But if you didn`t the human race would be either extinct or slaves and there`d be no one for the aliens to retaliate against.
It`s a case of giving the human race a chance by defeating the Goa`uld even if it means we`re killed off by another race. Atleast that way you have a chance of survival.
Now I`m not a great expert on ethics as I`ve noticed that I don`t seem to have any. The only thing that`s stopped me from going on a wild killing spree is fear of jail.
To be perfectly honest, if you do something and get caught (we`re entering a whole new ball park here) you don`t regret the action (well I don`t anyway) you just regret getting caught.
As far as I`m concerned it`s kill or be killed. If they kill a hundred Goa`uld to save one person, that`s fine. The Goa`uld are their enemies and you do generally kill your enemies.
But what about this hypothetical situation:
The Goa`uld invade Earth, SG-1 are contacted through the Gate and they are on a planet that has technology that can repel the Goa`uld attack. Only problem is the owners won`t give it to them.
Do they go home in a huff? Or do they do whatever it takes to acquire that technology?
We are of course assuming that there is no other way to repel the invasion. Their allies can`t help, none of the tech they have can help.
What would you do?
Personally I`d kick the crap out of as many of those people as I had to to get the only technology that could save my planet. I might have a tad of an ethical crisis afterwards but i`d quickly realise I didn`t have a choice and I`d know that I did the right thing.
As for the threat of retaliation, that`s a bit of a circular argument. If you stole the device it is very possible that the owners would attack you and would most likely be more powerful. But if you didn`t the human race would be either extinct or slaves and there`d be no one for the aliens to retaliate against.
It`s a case of giving the human race a chance by defeating the Goa`uld even if it means we`re killed off by another race. Atleast that way you have a chance of survival.
Now I`m not a great expert on ethics as I`ve noticed that I don`t seem to have any. The only thing that`s stopped me from going on a wild killing spree is fear of jail.
To be perfectly honest, if you do something and get caught (we`re entering a whole new ball park here) you don`t regret the action (well I don`t anyway) you just regret getting caught.
Re: The ethical stuff
I agree. If at war that is fine I guess. Of course killing civilians, bombing hospitals etc is perhaps another questions
Yes I guess I agree although everything would have to be done to gain co-operation. You can make this harder by adding in that the weapon you need to save earth is something that protects this civlisation (something like Thor's Hammer but with planet wide power), if you take it you open up this planet for invasion by the Goa'uld.
Of course, regreting/apologising etc is also about taking resonsibility for an action. The whole question of punishment and its ability to deter is interesting. In fact, most countries if they believe their justice system is to be used for deterrent have it all set up wrong. The highest penalty goes for murder. However it is known that people who commit murder are not deterred by the punishment be it life imprisonment or even capital punishment (you barbaric americans ) but something like embellment or robbery where punishment levels do affect motivation are kept low.
Solution, make robbert/embezllment etc a capital crime and that will reduce it a lot.
I agree. If at war that is fine I guess. Of course killing civilians, bombing hospitals etc is perhaps another questions
Yes I guess I agree although everything would have to be done to gain co-operation. You can make this harder by adding in that the weapon you need to save earth is something that protects this civlisation (something like Thor's Hammer but with planet wide power), if you take it you open up this planet for invasion by the Goa'uld.
Of course, regreting/apologising etc is also about taking resonsibility for an action. The whole question of punishment and its ability to deter is interesting. In fact, most countries if they believe their justice system is to be used for deterrent have it all set up wrong. The highest penalty goes for murder. However it is known that people who commit murder are not deterred by the punishment be it life imprisonment or even capital punishment (you barbaric americans
) but something like embellment or robbery where punishment levels do affect motivation are kept low.Solution, make robbert/embezllment etc a capital crime and that will reduce it a lot.
Similar threads
-
Scientists identify 29 planets where aliens could observe Earth
- Started by mosaix
- Replies: 6
-
-
-