The moral and ethical question of Tuvix

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

Ok, I am showing my geekdom here.

There is an episode of StarTrek Voyager where the Tuvok and
Nelix are on a planet collecting plant specimens.

They are beamed back to the ship when there is a malfunction of the transporter.

There ends up being only one person who materializes on the transporter pad. It is a full combination of the two individuals into a new individual who ends up calling himself Tuvix. This individual has all the memories of the two others but is a distinct individual being.

Later they figure out what happened to cause this and how to fix it but…

The individual Tuvix does not wish for his life to end in order to restore the life of the other two.

What do you think? I will share my reflection later.

 

[wjp984]

I think this is why, should this technology ever be developed, it is immoral.

 

[wjp984]

In answer to your question however, we all live with the consequences of our immoral actions and it would be inappropiate to do another immoral action in the interest of solving something that previously was immoral. For example, two people have premarital sex, an immoral act, and it results in an unplanned pregnancy. The easy solution would be to have an abortion but this is not only immoral but an atrocity taking the life of another. Likewise, the two having themselves beamed up potentially committed an immoral act since this kind of technology potentially kills you and then brings you back to life or recreates you. What happens to the soul and all that is a completely different debate. However, now due to the immoral act a new individual was created that has his own right to life. It would therefore be even more immoral to kill this new individual in the interest of fixing a previous immoral problem and even more so because the new individual does not want to be killed. The moral thing would be to live up to their actions, face the consequences and allow the new individual to live, who in my opinion, would have a completely different soul. In conclusion, I would never use this kind of technology if it ever were to exist for this very reason. How am I supposed to know that my soul is also going to be the same in the recreation of myself. I certainly woud not take that chance.

 

[Contarini]

In answer to your question however, we all live with the consequences of our immoral actions and it would be inappropiate to do another immoral action in the interest of solving something that previously was immoral. For example, two people have premarital sex, an immoral act, and it results in an unplanned pregnancy. The easy solution would be to have an abortion but this is not only immoral but an atrocity taking the life of another. Likewise, the two having themselves beamed up potentially committed an immoral act since this kind of technology potentially kills you and then brings you back to life or recreates you. What happens to the soul and all that is a completely different debate. However, now due to the immoral act a new individual was created that has his own right to life. It would therefore be even more immoral to kill this new individual in the interest of fixing a previous immoral problem and even more so because the new individual does not want to be killed. The moral thing would be to live up to their actions, face the consequences and allow the new individual to live, who in my opinion, would have a completely different soul. In conclusion, I would never use this kind of technology if it ever were to exist for this very reason. How am I supposed to know that my soul is also going to be the same in the recreation of myself. I certainly would not take that chance.

Well, since they don’t deliberately create a new being, I’m not sure transporter technology is immoral on that score. They don’t know that this is even possible until it happens.

I suppose you could argue that transporter technology is contrary to the dignity of the human person as a psychosomatic unity, and that (in the Star Trek universe) the possibility of this accident merely demonstrates this to be the case. I don’t think I would buy that argument, but I’d like to see it fleshed out.

Definitely the “killing” of Tuvix at the end is immoral. I (perhaps oversensitively) saw this as a reference to abortion the first time I saw it (though if it is then it’s one that works for the prolife position in certain ways, since it shows Tuvix pleading for his life and shows the Doctor refusing to perform the separation procedure). I find the episode so painful that I had no interest in watching it when it was rebroadcast yesterday. It’s definitely one of the more arresting episodes of *Voyager, *though.

Edwin

 

[Hastrman]

I think this is why, should this technology ever be developed, it is immoral.

Yeah, 'cept it can’t, 'cause it violates the Heisenberg uncertainty principle among other things (conservation of momentum…)

Ditto, Tuvix (stupid name) violates all kinds of philosophical and physical laws, not least of which is “two pieces of matter cannot occupy the same space at the same time”. Even Jean-Claude van Damme knows that! (Timecop) And then there’s mass, and then there’s the fact that souls don’t have parts so can’t be combined.

Leaving its ridiculousness to one side, since Tuvix isn’t actually a person, but a combination of two persons, its separate identity is an illusion. Magenta dots over yellow dots look like red dots, but they aren’t. Likewise, Tuvix is actually a chimera of Tuvok and Neelix.