Orville: New Horizons (Spoilers)

[Umbran]

Does it matter what the Kaylons think....or anyone thinks....if your all dead?

When your life is threatened because they think you are vicious, abusive, and do not deserve to live...

And there's a big difference between "all the kids" and "a small group of kids vs the billions of people on a world"

That is the calculus of "the ends justify the means". If you want to argue that Machiavelli got it right, you are basically making the Kaylon's argument for them.

 

[Arilyn]

And it's "Star Trek." In these kinds of stories doing the right thing and sticking to your principles is important. Dolly summed it up really well.

 

[Ryujin]

And it's "Star Trek." In these kinds of stories doing the right thing and sticking to your principles is important. Dolly summed it up really well.

And I love that they not only came back around to Dolly, after the introduction to the group, but also brought her in to take part in the show.

 

[Stalker0]

That is the calculus of "the ends justify the means". If you want to argue that Machiavelli got it right, you are basically making the Kaylon's argument for them.

More like, "The needs of many must outweigh the needs of the few, or the one"..... aka that thing the beloved Star Trek character Spock loves to say

 

[Ryujin]

More like, "The needs of many must outweigh the needs of the few, or the one"..... aka that thing the beloved Star Trek character Spock loves to say

... which was ultimately flipped to, "The needs of the one outweigh the needs of the many."

 

[Zardnaar]

Episode was idealistic irl we compromise all the time.

Don't look to hard at where your dinosaur juice, clothing and iPhones come from or how your Tesla is produced.

Realpolitik 101.

I suspect Moclus is gonna get wiped out or at least devastated.

Kaylon very much in back ground for most of this season. I guess they'll get wheeled out for the final episode or two.

 

[Stalker0]

... which was ultimately flipped to, "The needs of the one outweigh the needs of the many."

which is great until the planet where that "the one" resides gets annihilated. So....did you really serve the needs of that one?


I do think we are going too far in this tangent. At the end of the day while the show is "idealized" by making the moral choice we want the world to believe in, rather than the choice that is probably the "correct" choice.... I mean that is a part of what makes fantasy fantasy. We WANT things to be different, where you can make the moral choice and it be the correct one. The reason this got brought up is I appreciated Orville at least presenting this choice in a difficult light, its not a slam dunk "clearly we should do X". They have brought up both sides enough that I can actually feel the weight of the choice.

Same with Havena, her choice was a really difficult one.

I do critique Gordon's outburst because again I just felt it unnecessary, the show had already sold me....both sides were presented, the choice was already shown to be quite hard....aka I got it! Gordon's outburst just felt like pandering to the audience, ok audience we REALLY need you to get that this bad, so we will just spoonfeed that down your throat juuuuust in case you didn't get it the several other times we have brought this up. Again just felt completely unnecessary. But ultimately its a nitpick, it certainly didn't ruin the episode for me.

 

[Ryujin]

which is great until the planet where that "the one" resides gets annihilated. So....did you really serve the needs of that one?


I do think we are going too far in this tangent. At the end of the day while the show is "idealized" by making the moral choice we want the world to believe in, rather than the choice that is probably the "correct" choice.... I mean that is a part of what makes fantasy fantasy. We WANT things to be different, where you can make the moral choice and it be the correct one. The reason this got brought up is I appreciated Orville at least presenting this choice in a difficult light, its not a slam dunk "clearly we should do X". They have brought up both sides enough that I can actually feel the weight of the choice.

Same with Havena, her choice was a really difficult one.

I do critique Gordon's outburst because again I just felt it unnecessary, the show had already sold me....both sides were presented, the choice was already shown to be quite hard....aka I got it! Gordon's outburst just felt like pandering to the audience, ok audience we REALLY need you to get that this bad, so we will just spoonfeed that down your throat juuuuust in case you didn't get it the several other times we have brought this up. Again just felt completely unnecessary. But ultimately its a nitpick, it certainly didn't ruin the episode for me.

Yes, it's idealized. That's the point of a Star Trek like show. So why complain when it is what is baked into the DNA?

Funny thing is that many would seem to need the explicit "that's bad" statement

 

[Umbran]

More like, "The needs of many must outweigh the needs of the few, or the one"..... aka that thing the beloved Star Trek character Spock loves to say

They aren't really principles if you toss them aside when they aren't convenient.

 

[Stalker0]

They aren't really principles if you toss them aside when they aren't convenient.

Again this where I think the scale of the consequences is not being considered, because we simply aren't used to it.

We normally debate morality and principal and weigh them against much smaller consequences, loss of property or privilege. And in some cases the loss of a single life, or the life of a specific group.

But when you are talking the annihilation of your world, perhaps your entire species (hell in the Orville's case the annihilation of hundreds of worlds and species)..... "isn't convenient" doesn't even scratch the surface, and its disingenuous to think that the standard of a principal has to hold out against any and all possible consequences to be considered a principal.

If I might use a scientific approach for a moment. In my engineering training, we were taught that superheated Steam is water that is heated above the boiling point, often many hundreds of degrees hotter. And for all common cases of engineering, this definition is perfectly useful and correct, with common properties exhibited across many hundreds of degrees of temperature. However, when dealing with temperatures approaching that of a star for example, well now you are entering entirely new phases of matter (plasma being the most common). The definition and properties of superheated steam really does not hold anymore, its a brand new ballgame.


The point being that the case of "utter annihilation" is a consequence so far above the standard that it requires a whole new approach and consideration. A principal that stands up against all lesser consequences is one thing, but then to state it must stand up against this ultimate consequence to be valid.... that to me is no longer morality but insanity.