The question to me isn’t whether Janeway murder Tuvix, but was the murder of Tuvix justifiable. In Star Trek 2 Spock famously states “the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few” in TNG Thine Own Self Troy learns that sometimes an officer must order a crew member into a situation where they know that person isn’t coming back.
Does the situation Voyager was in and the creation of Tuvix represent the same level of danger “to the many” that say an imminent warp core breach does?
I think the controversy of Janeway’s choice is largely due to the show’s failure to address the orchid of it all.
As I see it, Tuvix is not “Tuvok + Neelix,” but also isn’t “something new.” I maintain that Tuvix is primarily the orchid, which has subsumed the essence and personalities of two Voyager crew members and is asserting itself on board the ship.
All it would have taken is for Janeway to have maintained (or be convinced by another) that this was the case, and it would be the obvious choice to split them back up.
Of course that would negate the tension of the episode, but it could be left as “not everyone on board agrees that this is who/what Tuvix is, but Janeway believes it so that’s why her decision isn’t immoral.” We could have the same kinds of “was Janeway wrong?” debates, but some of the rough edges would be smoothed out, I think.
I don’t believe it’s ever referenced again and it doesn’t further any plot line that I know of at the top of my head… So really is just a filler episode.
I’m in camp Janeway did nothing wrong, but some things like the doctor in SNW keeping his daughter in the buffer raise questions about just exactly what is being stored and rematerialized. Maybe there was a way to use transporter magic to solve the trolley problem, but the needs of the many and two crew members were already MIA
It’s been shown multiple times before that there’s no technological reason you can’t put someone in the buffer and take two out. Thomas and William are proof of this.
The Voyager crew likely had access to the records of the Thomas case, having happened a decade earlier. Though I admit I don’t know if the information would have been classified or withheld for some reason.
Assuming they had the information, they could have likely attempted a duplication, and unmerge one of the two resulting Tuvix’s.
I found myself so pissed off this wasn’t even considered during the episode. It’s like they just forgot duplication was a possibility, even if it wasn’t a super sure fire solution.
That solution would require transporters to have a consistent set of abilities across series, when somehow the way they work changes even within the same series
Tuvix is literally just a Trolley Problem scenario with a fancy costume. No more, no less. And the whole point of the trolley problem is that there isn’t any single “correct” answer.
There is an out of control trolley. You can’t stop it. On the trolley’s current track, there are two people. If you do nothing, they will die when the trolley hits them. But you’re at a track switch, and can divert the trolley to an alternate track. On that second track, there is one person who will die if the trolley hits them. Do you pull the lever? If you pull the lever, are you murdering the one? If you don’t pull the lever, are you complicit in the deaths of the two?
In this case, the trolley is the transporter accident; Janeway has the ability to pull the lever and reverse the accident. If she chooses not to, she is essentially refusing to pull the lever, thereby condemning the two people on the first track to die. But if she reverses the accident, she is pulling the lever and killing the one.
Janeway decided the answer to “should you pull the lever” was “yes”. She pulled the lever, saved the two, and killed the one. Sure, you could argue that pulling the lever is murdering the one. But if you sit by and do nothing, aren’t you willfully (maybe even maliciously) negligent? After all, you have the opportunity to save the lives of two, while minimizing damage to only one person.
Philosophers will try to change the trolley problem to fit different scenarios. What if it’s a bunch of convicted felons on the first track, and an innocent child on the second track? What if it’s a bunch of your friends and family on the first track, and your worst enemy on the second? What if, what if, what if… But the base question is always the same; Do you choose to do nothing and let many die, or actively kill the one? What is the tipping point where your decision changes?
This is not a trolley problem in that there is sequence involved:
1: Tuvok and Neelix alive before transport
2: Tuvok and Neelix dead and a new rational being in their place. This being had a moral blank slate and are thus blameless for the circumstances of creation.
3: Janeway decides that the speech she gave to the Vidiians was just hot air and that she will kill Tuvix to get the original two back. (Non lethal ways were explored, but quickly abandoned)
4: The blameless being makes an articulate case for their life, and even addresses the “needs of the many” argument by stating the truth: the other two are gone and the new being is there. (Raw, unalloyed utilitarianism is problematic at best, just ask the people of Omelas Majalis)
5: The doctor straight up says that the procedure is unethical and refuses to do it.
6: Janeway does it anyway.
Calling it a trolley problem is reductive and inaccurate.
The doctor has his ethical subroutines preventing him from doing harm.
That is fine in a doctor/patient relationship, but the captain has a captain/crew relationship, she would cause a lot of harm and loose two good crew members if she had let it be.
The two crew members that were lost at the same time Tuvix appeared? The dead (not alive) ones? And again, square this with the speech she gave the Vidiians.
If you’re going to refute, then address the whole thing.
I understand but disagree with that perspective. To me they were not alive at the time. However, you still haven’t accounted for the rest. Reconcile the Majalis problem and Janeway’s own speech to the Vidiians.
even addresses the “needs of the many” argument by stating the truth: the other two are gone and the new being is there.
articulate case for their life, and even addresses the “needs of the many” argument by stating the truth: the other two are gone and the new being is there
That only addresses the needs of Tuvok and Neelix. What about the rest of the crew whose chances of survival and reaching home are materially hindered by the effective loss of a crew member. Presumably Tuvix isn’t going to work 8 hours in the galley then straight away 8 hours on tactical. What if there’s an emergency that needs both skillets at the same time? What if Tuvix is killed in six months time on an away mission?
It’s true that Tuvok and Neelix were gone, but the option now existed to have them both back. So the fact that they were gone is reductive and inaccurate. Again ultimately Janeway has around 150 lives to think of, not just three.
The doctor straight up says that the procedure is unethical and refuses to do it.
Because he’s a doctor. I doubt he’d be able to order someone into a jefferies tube to fix an ODN conduit in an active warp plasma shaft. Yet that’s literally part of the bridge officers test. youtu.be/rC6rGoyEe2s?si=ho_FOBjSaUdTRurX
Janeway’s own log started that Tuvix was better than the sun of the parts; a better cook and tactical officer. The point of a team is that no one person is a point of failure. Factoring in a hypothetical future scenario is spurious.
An extrajudicial execution (to be charitable) for no crime is beyond most ethical frameworks.
And not one person has even tried to reconcile the speech to the Vidiians.
The point of a team is that no one person is a point of failure.
Exactly. Tuvix is a potential single point of failure. You’re doubling your risk. Eggs and baskets.
Factoring in a hypothetical future scenario is spurious.
Why? It goes hand in hand with your point about points of failure. It’s something that would have had to be considered. Voyager wasn’t snug and safe in the alpha quadrant where they could just go to a starbase and get more crew members if they lost any.
And not one person has even tried to reconcile the speech to the Vidiians.
It’s right there in the speech I will do whatever is necessary to protect my people
At the end of the day the murder of Tuvix pales into insignificance compared to her out and out genocide of the Borg. All to protect her people and get them home.
I don’t personally think the murder of Tuvix was justifiable, but it’s definitely not an open and shut case. Janeway had to consider 150 people and their chances of surviving and getting home in one piece she also had to consider Tuvok and Neelix.
Were we watching the same speech? The one where she condemns them, but states that she doesn’t have the freedom to kill someone that another might live (in this scenario, killing an alien for the sake of a crewman) and ultimately decides to turn them loose with a promise of reprisal if encountered again?
the whole point of the trolley problem is that there isn’t any single “correct” answer.
Yeah, this exactly. However, the nature of fandoms and especially online fan communities means that rather considering the question bilaterally, people will argue for decades and factions will form 🤷
Tuvix adds another element though. Tuvok and Neelix were already dead and Tuvix was alive. I think that makes this different from the standard trolley problem - still a hard choice but not the same.
IMO, once Neelix and Tuvok stop existing, they are dead. They have no consciousness, they aren’t around. They’re gone. They’re ex-people. They’re not sad about the situation, because they no longer exist. There’s no brain there to process any of this. Once you are dead, you don’t have a right to live, especially not if it means the death of another.
Tuvix, on the other hand, existed. He was conscious, self aware, intelligent, alive. He was dragged, crying, begging for his life, pleading for anybody to step in and stop him from being murdered. Then he was killed to bring two people back to life.
Now I know people will say “but 2 is more than 1, so it’s fine to kill him”, but that’s never sat right with me. What was that Picard speech about arithmetic not being a good reason for discarding the rights of sentient beings?
Tbh I’m astounded the Star Trek community is massively on the “murder of an innocent is ok if it saves more people and he’s a little ugly” side
Death is a moving line, even today. There’s a reason doctors don’t declare death until there’s no way to revive a patient. Using that same logic, if there’s a way to revive Neelix / Tuvox, are they dead? It’s going to come down to how you personally define death.
This is true but hard to argue within the universe as we just don’t have the info and there are in universe contradictions about transporters. Been a while since I saw the episode but for me - ‘nonexistentance’ is close enough to ‘dead’ that Tuvix should have been allowed to live.
I found it strange the claim started with the language “a Trolley Problem” and concluded with the language “the trolley problem”.
It seems one could make any choice into “a” trolley problem. But Tuvix problem is certainly not “the trolley problem”. This is about emergence of consciousness. In the trolley problem, the characters cease to exist. Neither choice here would end, say, Tuvok’s consciousness.
Neither choice here would end, say, Tuvok’s consciousness.
Arguable, since the result is neither Tuvok nor Neelix, but a new one based on those two. They’re not active, seperate consciousness stuffed into a Tuvixian body.
And unwinding Tuvix ends Tuvix’s consciousness. Neither Tuvok or Neelix keep Tuvix as part of themselves afterwards, he’d basically die if that was to happen.
Are you claiming it is in fact equivalent to the standard “trolley problem”? (I don’t think you are, but if you are, I’ll add)
If the point is even “arguable”, I claim that is enough to distinguish it from the trolley problem, because that argument doesn’t come up there.
That was my point. I agree that the consciousness that emerged is distinct from Tuvok (or of course Neelix, but I felt like an ass last time I used the “say Tuvok” construction).
Are you claiming it is in fact equivalent to the standard “trolley problem”? (I don’t think you are, but if you are, I’ll add)
Not exactly, was more thinking along the lines of both choices involving an end to the consciousness of one or the other. Either Tuvok and Neelix are held in limbo/non-existent from that point onwards, or Tuvix is unwound.
If the point is even “arguable”, I claim that is enough to distinguish it from the trolley problem, because that argument doesn’t come up there.
But I am curious, would it not? From my understanding, at the end of the shift, you’re still sacrificing one life to save two, or two to save one, which seems like it would harken back to the fundamentals of the issue. Assuming that no cloning or replicative shenanigans takes place, either Neelix/Tuvok are retained, or Tuvix is.
That said, there was some leeway in that Janeway had no urgent time-pressure to return them back to their bodies at the time, unlike with something like Transport-split Kirk. She mentions needing her crew back, but that could easily happen at some point in the future, and that might alter the variables of the problem, since part of the trolley problem is that there isn’t any time to take a third option, nor get help from other places.
Yeah, he was largely operating in safe space and still made some unethical decisions.
Janeway was willing to make the hard calls that would best serve her ship and it’s future, having your cook and your third in command get fused isn’t exactly going to result in a functioning chain of command.
Plus since the operation could be reversed, you could argue that Tuvok and Neelix aren’t actually dead, merely suspended animation like storing people in a transporter buffer. You’re still killing Tuvix, but sacrificing one to save two is “the needs of the many” in it’s most simplistic form even without the added weight of hundreds of lives depending on Tuvok’s leadership and tactical skills.
I never once considered Janeway to be out of line given her circumstances. The crew always comes first even at the cost of her own humanity and ethics. She’s a good captain, willing to make the call that ends lives and live with it so that others may not have to endure those decisions and consequences. She didn’t ask anyone else to do that for her.
Yeah fuck Tuvix, and the Philosophy 101 bullshit. Two people were the victim of an orchid-related technology malfunction. Plus, I don’t hear people making the same argument about Jeff Goldblum in The Fly.
Exactly, had they not reversed the malfunction Janeway could be considered to have killed two of her crew. That somehow never gets brought up in the philosophy discussions surrounding the episode. Refusal to act when a solution exists makes her complicit in dual homicide.
Plus! After that one episode in TNG where they de-age replacement Crusher, we have no reason to believe transporters can’t solve literally all of these issues including death. For those not in the know, since the transporter has the last time someone energized stored in their memory banks it can simply reconstruct them as they were. A literal backup snapshot of the person.
Once that episode airs, all bets are completely off. I mean seriously, you could fix someone getting their head blown off by just transporting them but altering the image to correct for their last time leaving the ship. Death? Fixed. Wounds? Fixed. You can literally pull their backups and reconstruct at any time you want.
It’s foolish to think this is even a conundrum given that slip up, just duplicate and separate, keep all three. If transporters are really making matter out of energy it shouldn’t matter if there’s three people’s worth of matter, just use more energy.
Yeah it’s basically just a Trolley Problem scenario. Two people were laying on the trolley’s current track and would have been killed if she refused to pull the lever. She pulled the lever, diverted the trolley, and killed one person laying on the second track to save the two laying on the primary track.
Sure, the philosophy people could argue that she was murdering the one by acting. But if she has the opportunity to act and refuses to do so, many more would argue that she was complicit in murdering the two. She made a choice and knew she’d have to live with it.
Neither side is more “right” than the other. That’s kind of the whole point of the trolley problem.
I mean, DS9 was almost as much in the boonies as Voyager. Assistance was limited, and there were limitations on what he could do, as he was only running the station at the behest of the Bajoran government, not as a true representative of the Federation.
It also introduced facets of war, even before it became a full blown thing in the later seasons. He wasn't always on the side of the angels... because there are no angels in war. War only ever makes demons.
It doesn't excuse his actions, but it doesn't make them truly inexcusable either. They both operated in much more of a grey area than either of the two previous series.
Bajoran space was far away but not impossibly so from Federation resources, I’m not trying to say he’s a bad Captain, merely that the comparison to Janeway is a complete farce. If we are being fair they both fail to uphold the federation’s ideals.
If we are being reasonable, they both did what they had to do in order to save lives and get the job done.
My issue is the constant Trekky tendency to pretend Janeway is a shit bag and Sisko is somehow better, it’s just bias.
True. Then you are removed and replaced by someone who does what you won’t.
It’s tricky. I think its also important to weigh in that a lot of these captains and folks in executive position spent their entire working life to get to X position. It must be hard to walk away from a life goal, which I assume is what pushes them to, “do what needs to be done.” The lingering question remaining, “Did it really need to he done?”
There are a lot of instances where the Enterprise crew wanted to do the ethical thing, and Picard stops it or tries to. For example, when Dr. Crusher wanted to help when that planet population was addicted to drugs, and Picard wouldn’t let her do that or communicate anything to them.
Also, Data once found humans frozen in space, and when he helped them, Picard was annoyed; it wasn’t even a Prime Directive issue!
In fairness, Picard is extremely upfront and honest that he has broken the Prime Directive in situations where he’s felt it would be callous not to.
Separately, he also said that while rules are a good thing, rules cannot be universally absolute.
Another thing he’s said is that Starfleet doesn’t want officers that will blindly follow orders, but rather to think about them seriously and weigh them in their minds.
Janeway straight up said to another captain that she’s never broken the Prime Directive in her life, despite clearly doing it a bunch of times. She’s in denial.
That’s my only real issue with her is her comment to the Nova class captain about it.
However, I give her the benefit of the doubt here because she’s clearly trying to encourage him that they don’t need to abandon their morality. If she tells him that she’s done it half a dozen times or so then he might be more likely to assume that’s the standard.
Now we all know in hindsight that he’d already committed an atrocity and wanted assurance from Janeway that he wasn’t alone in his decisions to prioritize crew over other sapient beings, but she was simply seeing the younger version of herself in him and attempting to assure him that he doesn’t have to give up hope and sink to those depths.
Voyager has more of a problem with character writing consistency than it does an issue with Janeway specifically, IMO.
In fairness, Picard is extremely upfront and honest that he has broken the Prime Directive in situations where he’s felt it would be callous not to.
And he’s generally careful about trying to make sure that there is justification for breaking the Prime Directive before doing so.
He was particularly put out about being involved in Klingon political successsion because it would be a violation of the Prime Directive, and he’d be wading into Klingon business, with no justification for his being so, other than that he was appointed.
I believe the only reason nothing happened to him was because of Bajor, with him being seen as an Emissary to the Bajoran people, punishing Sisko would Punishing the Prophets chosen one, they wanted Bajor in the federation no matter what, that was the end goal, so leaving Sisko essentially unpunished was right for the greater goal of bringing in Bajor.
I mean, that logic was only ever applied by the Vulcans as a personal choice/sacrifice, not something to be enforced by the barrel of a… er… phaser.
Spock sacrificed himself, it wasn’t done forcibly against his will. Kirk didn’t order the execution of one man so that others could live.
I don’t think we should take a slogan as an absolute moral lesson, you can justify all kinds of evil with it.
E.g. your organs could save dozens of lives. Would it be right to pin you down, kill you, and remove them, so that others can live? Surely one life lost is a worthy price to pay? The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few, after all.
Ethics are a lot more complex than a catchy slogan.
Yeah but it wasn’t a random uninvolved person, it was essentially an industrial accident that needed unwinding and it just so happened the involved people were trapped in the gears of the machine. Somebody was getting smushed
I am here to explain this once again. Neelix and Tuvok were dead. They died in a transporter accident. They died painlessly and unaware of their fate. Tuvix was not dead. Begged not to be killed. And was painfully aware of the fate they were forced to suffer.
It does not matter if you have a magic wand that can magic two people back for the cost of one other, she chose to kill someone, who was begging to her face to be spared. It is as simple as that. What other innocent people would you choose to kill in order to bring back others you deem more valuable? The closest parallel I can think of in the real world would be if someone bundled you off the street and explained that they were going to remove your heart to give it to Joe Biden as you are the best blood and tissue match, and because he is more important than you. You won’t survive this procedure but let’s be honest, Joe Biden is way more useful to the establishment than you, whoever you are.
The episode is great and I would never ask for it to be changed, it added a lot of depth to Janeway as a character, but it was also straight up murder.
Exactly, the trolly problem describes a murder too. The question it presents “is murder ever justified” and it’s not meant to have a “correct” answer, it’s meant to study how people react to two seemingly equivalent scenarios.
I think Voyager’s “is it ok to push the fat man if his death resurrects two previously dead people and also increases the chances of getting everyone home” twist on the scenario is really interesting and I love that it always without fail gets people debating.
and people whose heart stop… we revive them, and then they are not dead any more. if someone is able to be revived, it’s irrelevant what you called them before that point: their… let’s say potential state? is not dead
That’s not an equal comparison. If by dying a new person started walking around in your body, and then by the medics doing CPR that person was killed, causing you to come back, that would be an equal comparison.
i’m not comparing the whole thing; just breaking the problem down into parts… i’m asserting that your definition of “dead” is wrong. they are not permanently dead, because they can be revived
we have 3 potential people. either you remain at the end with 1 person, or 2 people… the choice is between action (killing tuvix to save neelix and tuvok) or inaction (allowing tuvix to live, and accepting the death of neelix and tuvok)
it’s perfectly valid to say that inaction is the ethical choice because you should never personally cause harm… but it’s also perfectly valid to say action (in this case, murder, as we see in the episode) is the ethical choice because it has the greatest good for the most people
and in fact, the latter is repeated often in star trek: the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few
and indeed, in this episode they further throw a spanner in the works: the many includes voyagers crew, and their chief security officer
Transporters just kill everyone all the time anyways. The original Tuvok and Neelix were already long dead. What happens to their Nth copy hardly matters.