Did Captain Janeway do the morally right or morally wrong thing refusing to let Seven of Nine return to The Collective?

  • hendrik@palaver.p3x.de
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    11
    ·
    edit-2
    3 months ago

    There are conditions like being certifiable insane. That certainly applies if someones brain isn’t working alright or got messed with. And makes it morally right to make decisions on their behalf. At least decisions in their interest. Because they themselves are unable to act in their own interest.

    • data1701d (He/Him)@startrek.website
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      edit-2
      3 months ago

      I think this answer is mostly right in the case of Seven and VOY.

      However, on a more general societal note, this can be problematic, as two people may have different definitions of insane (for instance, challenging certain societal beliefs that aren’t necessarily actually related to sanity may falsely be construed as insanity), and as a result, a rational person is stripped of their agency. I think several conditions need to be established for what defines someone as insane. I think if at least one of these is true, it can be called insanity:

      • An inclination for self-harm
      • An inclination to harm others
      • hendrik@palaver.p3x.de
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        edit-2
        3 months ago

        Sure. You need to be qualified to do that. A doctor can do that for the short term. And then a judge and a court has to make such decisions. I think in the real world they’re the only ones allowed to do that, to adults at least. And it involves lots of paperwork, hearing experts and so on. But also in real life, captains get some extra rights and duties, if they’re far out there, on their own. They can definitely lock up unruly people or make difficult decisions that need to be made on the spot. For everyone else, not so much. However, I think there are some exceptions. I’m not a native english speaker so I don’t know the exact legal term… But next to self-defense, there are other laws concerning emergencies, justifiable emergency, necessity as justification, good samaritan law…? I don’t know how we call that. But I’m pretty sure I could stop someone harming themselves, against their will. In dire circumstances. It wouldn’t be fun though, and the last resort to avert serious damage. It’s certainly problematic. And I think it has to meet objective standards. It can’t be construed, or it won’t apply. It’s complicated. And on the other side we also have failure to provide assistance where I live, which I’m not sure if it’s a law in the States.