5 ms·

I grew up watching Star Trek: TNG and that episode is something to remember indeed. It makes a strong rational and moral case against torture. While modern Amer

by copx 13y ago

I grew up watching Star Trek: TNG and that episode is something to remember indeed. It makes a strong rational and moral case against torture. While modern American TV shows do indeed do the opposite. I think I know the reason for this. Gene Roddenberry was a WW2 veteran i.e. the Geneva Conventions had a personal relevance to him. In the wars of the past you had to assume that many of your own guys would be captured by the enemy.. and that you might end up being one of them. In that scenario a strong international condemnation of torture suddenly looks way more appealing. In contrast, America's modern "wars" (I do not think these one-sided affairs deserve that name) do not lead to a noticeable number of American POWs. And you no longer have to worry about being drafted yourself either. I think the foundation of the acceptance of torture in contemporary America is the firm conviction of the supporters that they will never be at the receiving end. This type of thinking is unfortunately widespread among humans everywhere. It is never moral and often unwise to support a system you would not support if you did not have a favorable position within it.

w_t_payne 13y ago
Do unto others... How quickly morality fades ....
morganherlocker 13y ago
> It is never moral and often unwise to support a system you would not support if you did not have a favorable position within it. Is this an intentional reference to John Rawls' concept of the 'veil of ignorance' laid out in Theory of Justice? If not, you would definitely enjoy the ideas in the book. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Veil_of_ignorance http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Veil_of_ignorance
- npsimons 13y ago
  Exactly what I was reminded of; Rawl's theory of justice, paraphrased: the only just system/rules are ones you wouldn't have a problem being on either side of.
- snogglethorpe 13y ago
  Isn't it just Kant's "categorical imperative"...? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Categorical_imperative http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Categorical_imperative
  - derleth 13y ago
    The categorical imperative is strictly weaker: It's possible to use the veil of ignorance to argue against positions nobody is insisting must be made universal. For example, "In this house, you always clean up": The categorical imperative only works to argue against this if you try to find a way to apply it to every household; the veil of ignorance works simply by forcing the members of the household to be ignorant about who 'you' refers to.
rayiner 13y ago
Your explanation is probably part of it, but there's are lots of social factors in play. Gene Roddenberry was a member of the greatest generation. It was in a lot of ways a much more idealistic time in American culture than today. One of the empirically observable facts is that faith in public institutions is a lot lower today than it was back then. I think this phenomenon cuts in the opposite direction compared to what a lot of people on HN would suppose. When people have less faith in the system, they have less faith that the system will protect them, and are more willing to embrace characters that will act outside the system to get the job done. Hence the popularity of the Jack Bauer character: the guy who ignores taboos against torture or procedural limitations like warrants in order to get the job done and save the day. That's starkly different to the world conceived of in Star Trek. Star Trek is a world where government (the Federation) is morally virtuous, and institutional rules like the "Prime Directive" are to be followed rather than broken.
- humanrebar 13y ago
  > One of the empirically observable facts is that faith in public institutions is a lot lower today than it was back then. I wonder if Gene Roddenberry would have had different opinions of public institutions if he grew up after the collapse of the USSR.
  - eli_gottlieb 13y ago
    Actually, those of us born around the time the USSR collapsed are more in favor of public institutions: we've seen what happens in their absence.
    - mattlutze 13y ago
      Is this your personal ethos being projected across our entire generation, or are you referring to research that shows, when compared against public opinion of similarly aged people over the last many generations, we favor public institutions?
      - 13y ago
LekkoscPiwa 13y ago
I believe that the George Bush Senior was the one who said that him, Gorbachev, Thatcher, Kohl, etc. represent the last generation that remembered the horrors of WW2 and that's why there have been peace. All the politicians after them just didn't experience terrors of war, they all think it is like comics book… hence there will be more wars in the future.
salient 13y ago
> In contrast, America's modern "wars" (I do not think these one-sided affairs deserve that name) That's a great point. America doesn't do wars anymore. They do conquests. And the American public at large seems perfectly fine with it (or they wouldn't allow it).
- rayiner 13y ago
  What the U.S. does is to use military force to preserve the international status quo. E.g. if we go into an oil rich state like Iraq, we don't just take the oil, we just ensure that it continues to be sold in the market as usual. This isn't "war" but it's not "conquest" either.
  - code_duck 13y ago
    The thing is that the status quo is in the favor of the US, and they ensured that the oil continued to be sold to the US.
    - rayiner 13y ago
      Sure, the status quo is in favor of the U.S., and we ensured that oil continued to be sold to the U.S., but it's also in favor of France and Germany and the U.K. and Australia, etc, and we ensured that oil continued to be sold to those countries too. It doesn't really make sense to call that "conquest."
      - code_duck 13y ago
        Sounds like conquest by NATO vs solely the United States.
      - PavlovsCat 13y ago
        Since when does conquest have to benefit just one party to be called conquest? If Russia and China split the US amongst themselves, would you call it conquest?
dkuntz2 13y ago
Small note, but Roddenberry was dead before The Chain of Command went into preproduction. I'm also not sure that was an episode he would have let through considering he was against the militarization of Star Trek.
memracom 13y ago
And the use of torture in America's modern wars has led to a great amount of lost goodwill in the world, not to mention the military failures on the ground.

by copx 13y ago

w_t_payne 13y ago

Do unto others... How quickly morality fades ....

morganherlocker 13y ago

> It is never moral and often unwise to support a system you would not support if you did not have a favorable position within it. Is this an intentional reference to John Rawls' concept of the 'veil of ignorance' laid out in Theory of Justice? If not, you would definitely enjoy the ideas in the book. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Veil_of_ignorance http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Veil_of_ignorance

npsimons 13y ago
Exactly what I was reminded of; Rawl's theory of justice, paraphrased: the only just system/rules are ones you wouldn't have a problem being on either side of.
snogglethorpe 13y ago
Isn't it just Kant's "categorical imperative"...? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Categorical_imperative http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Categorical_imperative
- derleth 13y ago
  The categorical imperative is strictly weaker: It's possible to use the veil of ignorance to argue against positions nobody is insisting must be made universal. For example, "In this house, you always clean up": The categorical imperative only works to argue against this if you try to find a way to apply it to every household; the veil of ignorance works simply by forcing the members of the household to be ignorant about who 'you' refers to.

rayiner 13y ago

Your explanation is probably part of it, but there's are lots of social factors in play. Gene Roddenberry was a member of the greatest generation. It was in a lot of ways a much more idealistic time in American culture than today. One of the empirically observable facts is that faith in public institutions is a lot lower today than it was back then. I think this phenomenon cuts in the opposite direction compared to what a lot of people on HN would suppose. When people have less faith in the system, they have less faith that the system will protect them, and are more willing to embrace characters that will act outside the system to get the job done. Hence the popularity of the Jack Bauer character: the guy who ignores taboos against torture or procedural limitations like warrants in order to get the job done and save the day. That's starkly different to the world conceived of in Star Trek. Star Trek is a world where government (the Federation) is morally virtuous, and institutional rules like the "Prime Directive" are to be followed rather than broken.

humanrebar 13y ago
> One of the empirically observable facts is that faith in public institutions is a lot lower today than it was back then. I wonder if Gene Roddenberry would have had different opinions of public institutions if he grew up after the collapse of the USSR.
- eli_gottlieb 13y ago
  Actually, those of us born around the time the USSR collapsed are more in favor of public institutions: we've seen what happens in their absence.
  - mattlutze 13y ago
    Is this your personal ethos being projected across our entire generation, or are you referring to research that shows, when compared against public opinion of similarly aged people over the last many generations, we favor public institutions?
    - 13y ago

LekkoscPiwa 13y ago

I believe that the George Bush Senior was the one who said that him, Gorbachev, Thatcher, Kohl, etc. represent the last generation that remembered the horrors of WW2 and that's why there have been peace. All the politicians after them just didn't experience terrors of war, they all think it is like comics book… hence there will be more wars in the future.

salient 13y ago

> In contrast, America's modern "wars" (I do not think these one-sided affairs deserve that name) That's a great point. America doesn't do wars anymore. They do conquests. And the American public at large seems perfectly fine with it (or they wouldn't allow it).

rayiner 13y ago
What the U.S. does is to use military force to preserve the international status quo. E.g. if we go into an oil rich state like Iraq, we don't just take the oil, we just ensure that it continues to be sold in the market as usual. This isn't "war" but it's not "conquest" either.
- code_duck 13y ago
  The thing is that the status quo is in the favor of the US, and they ensured that the oil continued to be sold to the US.
  - rayiner 13y ago
    Sure, the status quo is in favor of the U.S., and we ensured that oil continued to be sold to the U.S., but it's also in favor of France and Germany and the U.K. and Australia, etc, and we ensured that oil continued to be sold to those countries too. It doesn't really make sense to call that "conquest."
    - code_duck 13y ago
      Sounds like conquest by NATO vs solely the United States.
    - PavlovsCat 13y ago
      Since when does conquest have to benefit just one party to be called conquest? If Russia and China split the US amongst themselves, would you call it conquest?

dkuntz2 13y ago

Small note, but Roddenberry was dead before The Chain of Command went into preproduction. I'm also not sure that was an episode he would have let through considering he was against the militarization of Star Trek.

memracom 13y ago

And the use of torture in America's modern wars has led to a great amount of lost goodwill in the world, not to mention the military failures on the ground.