Ethical Conundrums in Sci Fi

Cafe Society
41

I think I can come up with a few:

  • What counts as a “person”, and deserving of rights? An AI? A partially-uplifted animal? An alien?

A.I: 2001, Blade Runner, Bicentennial Man, Short Circuit, A.I.: Artificial Intelligence, iRobot, Her, Ex Machina, Chappie, Blade Runner 2049, Archive

Aliens: E.T., Starman, The Abyss, District 9, Avatar

  • Is it ethical to duplicate a person? Having done so, what is it acceptable to do with the duplicate?

Multiplicity, Moon, The Island, Never Let Me Go, Upload, Transcendence, Replicas

  • Is it acceptable to change the past? Is it acceptable to not change the past? Does the answer change if there’s reason to believe that you can’t succeed?

The Time Machine, The Butterfly Effect, About Time, Looper, Hot Tub Time Machine, Tenet

  • Is it acceptable to punish someone for something they haven’t done yet, but which you know they will? Does it depend on how you know-- Is it just through advanced psychology, or through actual precognizance, time travel, or the like?

Minority Report is the main one for precognition. Gattaca for genetic profiling.

  • Are alien cultures bound by human ethical standards? Should they be (if that’s even a different question)?

Frequently comes up in Star Trek and Doctor Who. Less common than the other themes as humans are not typically presented as being in a position to hold alien cultures to our standards.

An offshoot of that might be is it ok to commit genocide to ensure humanities survival (Ender’s Game, Star Trek)

42

Another Star Trek Moral Dilemma was Tuvix. A transporter accident merges two people into a third individual. Is it okay to kill that individual to get the original two people back?

43

Yes, but it’s a version where the one person has tied themselves to the tracks, entirely oblivious to how this affects the people on the other track, who had no part in choosing to be tied there. In such a case, I have little qualm about killing the idiot instead of everyone else.

44

“Think Like a Dinosaur” by James Patrick Kelly dealt with the ethical issue cause by transporter technology. The technology destroys the original as part of the process, creating a duplicate (in all ways) at the destination. Is that murder? It becomes even more important when there’s a glitch and the original is not destroyed because it’s thought the transport did not work. When it’s confirmed, what do you do with the original?

45

Rather than being a glitch, this is how things are deliberately done in the Saga of Cuckoo, to recruit people for work in other star systems. Saga of Cuckoo - Wikipedia

The books feature an interstellar teleporter that leaves the original being behind and sends only a duplicate. When a person is duplicated, the original can just pass out of the machine without a second thought.

The problem is, the person coming out the other end also thinks they’re just going to get up and go home, and are rather rudely confronted by the fact that they’re the duplicate, and they’ve now lost everything that was of value in their former lives.

46

That story is much discussed but really actually bad. First of all, if things are made that close, then every few voyages one who fail due to unforeseen circumstances. Next- just a sign? Come one, you would have a triple locked door with a guard. Finally, even pilot does a pre-flight check, whereupon he’d find the girl. So, it was a Campbell set up, but absolutely unrealistic.

Exactly.

Right.

Just the opposite happened. Campbell sent it back to make it a set up.

Right.

Star Trek: Insurrection - Wikipedia is an ethical conundrum, which, IMHO Picard was absolutely wrong

47

There’s a replay of this dilemma in the current season of The Flash, in the episode, “Hear No Evil”. Two characters, Caitlin and Frost merge (because one of them is trying to resurrect the other) and… The two of them merge into a third character, Khione. She’s willing to die in an attempt to bring them back, at first, but then changes her mind. While her friends were split on whether this should be attempted when she was willing, all but one of them (Frost’s boyfriend, Mark) refused to try it when she refused. He’s sort of half in love with Khione now.

48

Starman raises some interesting variations. In the movie an alien clones a body out of DNA to use as a local-environment meat suit, drama and romance ensue. But… did it know its host was dead? What about the impact on the spouse? Its rights in our world? Would any of these change if the host was still alive?

There’s K-PAX for another story involving alien possession of a body without consent.

49

Or: Those are the sorts of precautions that would have been put in place after the first time something went wrong—which was the time depicted in the story?

50

The idea that the company running these space flights might look at a spreadsheet, and decide that they make more money by not topping off the rocket fuel, than they’d lose if every 100th rocket doesn’t make it to its destination, sounds 100% believable to me. Real world companies have made exactly that same calculation, and decided it was better business sense to let some small percentage of their customers die from their product than issue a costly recall.

51

They make it clear it has happened before.

52

Fat Farm - Wikipedia by Orson Scott Card does this even more brutally.

53

Even granting that connection, I don’t find that a particularly illuminating association (and, to be fair, maybe neither do you). Meaning is not transitive. Just because work A means X, and work B was based on or inspired by work A, does not mean that work B must necessarily also mean X. B can mean something else entirely, and in the case of the Omelas “story” (such as there is one) I think it must surely be the case that it does stand for something other that Christ’s supposed crucifixion to atone for human sin.

I agree that people may discuss it that way, but I think it is overly simplistic for them to do so as it misses what I see as the real conundrum (that is, I don’t see it as being about taking it for granted that the highly exploitative suffering of some might be necessary for the happiness of the many, and then deciding whether that is something one can live with, but rather it is about refusing to accept that state of affairs as if it were a given, perhaps even bordering on a natural law). One could, for example, be a utilitarian (as I am) and yet reject the hypothesis that the child’s suffering is necessary. Just because people sincerely believe and assert that the child must not only suffer, but suffering in such an exploitative and dehumanizing way, doesn’t mean that the child must actually suffer, either within that society, or (re: those who walk away) some alternative society. On the contrary, the situation is so patently absurd (as injustice, when explored, often is) that it seems it should be eminently feasible to re-order society in such a way as to have all of the good stuff, but one less bad thing (no child being made to suffer for it), if only we could overcome the societal inertia that maintains such a state of affairs.

54

Keep in mind that the story itself was written before anyone had left the Earth’s atmosphere. Space travel at all was considered dubious by the nature of the tyrannical Rocket Equation.

Putting anything into orbit was such a monumental task at the time the it would make sense to see everything as calculated down to the last meter per second of delta V. Sure, it’s penny pinching, but it’s a lot of pennies.

Such a story wouldn’t fly today, and only is tolerated due to its author and its history.

Today, such an ethical conundrum would come about due to an error or malfunction. Let’s say that she was a known passenger, going to visit her brother. She paid and got permission to be there ahead of time. Then something goes wrong, and the ship is either able to deliver her or the medicine, not both. Go a bit further that there isn’t a pilot, but a computer, so no way for him to sacrifice himself in her stead.

Then, let her make the decision.

55

Speaking of Star Trek there are a few episodes that revolve around Star Fleet’s “Prime Directive” order–the order not to interfere with other cultures particularly those less advanced than their own.

Invariably the cast will come across some civilization that is in crisis and they will debate whether or not they can interfere.

56

There’s also some problems with the author apparently forgetting his own premise, such as the pilot’s reaction after spacing the stowaway:

He shoved the red lever back to close the door on the empty air lock and turned away, to walk to the pilot’s chair with the slow steps of a man old and weary.

“Walk to the pilot’s chair”? Given the story premise, the ship ought to be like one astronaut’s description of a Mercury capsule: you don’t ride in it, you wear it.

57

And this was written years before anyone ever set foot in a Mercury capsule.

58

But usually happens in those episodes is the Captain (usually Kirk) decides the Prime Directive doesn’t apply and proceeds to solve the dilemma by blowing up a computer.

59

Omelas is really lousy as a metaphor for Christianity, because part of the point is that the suffering is ongoing. One of the Omelesians could, instead of just walking away, go down to that cellar and rescue the poor kid. No matter what any of us think of Christianity, though, we can’t rescue Jesus off of the Cross.

And it’s a flawed metaphor (though perhaps that’s the point) for modern society, partially supported by things like child labor, because part of the premise of Omelas is that the suffering child is essential, and that the utopia of Omelas cannot exist without them. Even if we perceive modern society as being pretty good, overall, and recognize that some of the things we consider good have roots in injustice, we can also recognize that society could be even better, without those injustices.

I think that the proper response to Omelas is to reject it. It simply isn’t true. If someone comes to you from some land and tells you that it’s idyllic, but only because of the suffering of one child, then the correct conclusion is that that person is either deluded or lying. A society like Omelas cannot exist, and if a society thinks they are like Omelas, they’re probably deluded in a lot of ways, and their society is probably actually quite bad in many ways.

60

Shades of the Gimli Glider.