'Voyager' actors Ethan Phillips, Tim Russ, Garrett Wang, Robert Duncan McNeill, guest star Tom Wright, and writer Lisa Klink talked "Tuvix" at Trek Talks 3.
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?
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. 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.
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 🤷
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 OmelasMajalis)
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. https://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?
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?
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.
Yup. This is my problem with it.
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. 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.
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 🤷
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
OmelasMajalis)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.
(Edited for typo.)
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.
The way I see it, the crewmembers didn’t die, they merged, Tuvix is the result of a treatable condition.
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.
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.
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. https://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.
Exactly. Tuvix is a potential single point of failure. You’re doubling your risk. Eggs and baskets.
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.
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?