Well if the only ‘human’ survivors are the Balcubines, i’d say that the odds of forgiveness are pretty good. So perhaps it depends on the extent to which Baltart’s cult influences the fleet. If he can convert the masses, they will be saved because of their ability to forgive and accept. In this scenario it remains to be seen if there are among the cylons enough who are willing to forgive and accept. D’Anna - definitely not - too suspicious - perhaps that is why she won’t last long in 4.5. Caprica 6? Yes, I think so. Those devious 8’s - hard to say. The Leoben’s? Yes - if god tells them to.
I wonder if the iroeny in this is have we already started to see collective foreggivess? Where does collective forgiveness start? If you ask me, I think it starts with individual forgiveness.
Now, collective hatred (is that a real term?) says “all cylons are evil”. The funny thing about absolutes is that you only need one ting, one person, one cylont o prove that incorrect (thats the reason why I feel Athina turning bad again would be a complete and total cop out)
So, if we arfe able to say that one cylon is good, we can just as esily say that even more of them have the potental, and ahve proen to be somewhat decent. I believe indivual forgiveness lends itself to collective foregiveness.
First of all, I’d like to say that I’m really enjoying reading everyone’s posts!
Here’s the next question (not that we can’t go back and extend the discussion of any previous questions – feel free!)
Is there any value to pain and suffering? If so, is there a limit to such value?
In ‘Escape Velocity,’ Caprica Six tells Tigh that she wants her pain so that she can learn from it – it helps give her clarity.
Both religious and secular arguments have been made concerning the spiritual or pragmatic value of pain and suffering. The issue becomes whether such value has a limit – a question faced in cases of chronically or terminally ill patients who contemplate euthanasia (I discuss this in my chapter of Bill Irwin’s book, ‘Metallica and Philosophy,’ based on the Metallica song “One”).
So, what value, if any, does pain and suffering have for the person who suffers? And, to give it a real-world kick, are measures such as euthanasia an appropriate response to intractable pain and suffering which appears to have lost all value?
No one’s responded the my previous question, but here’s another one to hopefully spark some discussion:
In ‘Sine qua non,’ Lee and Romo attempt to define the requisite and desired qualities of a new Colonial president. In these days leading up to Barack Obama’s inauguration, it’s only fitting to ask, What are the qualities that make an ideal democratic leader?
And, more specifically, can such a leader avoid the Catch-22 Romo identifies concerning the role ambition plays in this regard – namely, if one wants to be a leader, doesn’t that in some way spoil their ability to be a good one, who will put the needs of their constituents over their own wants and needs that led them to seek high public office (the battle, Romo says, between id and ego that ego rarely wins)?
Of course, we know from history that there have been such great leaders who have properly balanced personal ambition with altruistic public service, but then the question becomes what traits of moral character – ‘virtues’ to use an Aristotelian concept, or whatever concept one prefers – allowed them achieve this balance and not succumb to the lure of Machiavellianism that, as Jason Blahuta points out in his chapter of ‘Battlestar Galactica and Philosophy,’ even Roslin eventually takes cues from (e.g., fixed election, secret tribunals, etc.)?
To paraphrase Douglas Adams, anyone who wants to be president should automatically be excluded from the job.
Which I think is what Romo was getting at.
You’re correct about that being the point Romo is getting at, but it cannot honestly be said that the only good presidents the U.S. or any other democratic country has had are ones who didn’t want the job – for every democratically elected leader, at some level, wants the job or they wouldn’t have put themselves up for nomination and ran a campaign for election.
Unless the point is the extreme view that there can be no such thing as a good democratically elected president since they all want the job.
i wouldn’t even go anywhere defining pain and suffering and how it relates to stuff, religiously and secularly. 
there has to be a limit, but it cannot be applied generally. each individual, with his or her own life experiences and environment in his or her existence, has temporary limits or thresholds of pain.
also, a person’s limit has no assurance that it will stay that way for as long as he lives. factors that happen daily tend to change a person’s limit for pain. this would include happiness, contentment, strong moral values, principles, etc.
genetics could also be a reason - some people seem to take more crap than others, with no identifiable reason except for maybe genes.
it can also be that one can only truly acknowledge the lack of pain with the presence of pain. sort of like carrying a heavy bag all day… releasing it gives a certain feeling of relief and comfort.
Hmm…
I don’t see euthanasia as a question of pain and suffering losing all value. I see it as an issue of exerting control over one’s own destiny and reclaiming the core value of an individual’s life over the notion that people have NO control over their lives and that death is something we cannot ever have any control over. (Whether this is a valuable position to take or not I cannot say, however.)
These days I find it difficult to accept any value in pain and suffering. Where is the value of a toddler having to go through two years of chemotherapy? Where is the value in families falling apart because of a lack of work and crippling, overwhelming debt? Where is the value in our collective suffering as those in power ransack the treasury and leave us, the people, to pay the bill?
I think the best system is that detailed by the socialist peasants in Monty Python and the Holy Grail: everyone takes turn at being the leader for a week, but all of that leader’s decisions have to be ratified by a committee which meets every TWO weeks.
(Actually, sometimes that’s precisely what the Americay system feels like, isn’t it?)
Anyway: I don’t know what the ideal qualities in a desirable leader might be. To continue with our president elect’s example, Obama was a man whose bandwagon I jumped on pretty early. As he’s moved from campaign to transition and we’ve begun seeing gllimpses of what his first year in office might be like I have begun to doubt some of the things he would be capable of, even if the decisions that bring doubt to my mind are based on very logical pragmatism. Historically, to stay with this country, I don’t think we’ve ever had an ideal leader who has put his interests on hold for the good of the country. George Washington, for instance, greedily sought to expand his land holdings and wealth, even though he turned down the opportunity to be declared king. Abraham Lincoln, the paragon of ideal American leadership, waffled on many of the issues for which we honor him today, it seems. Yet these men ultimately acted in the best interest of their country, which, I suppose, is the point. But…I wonder how idealistic they would have been had the system of checks and balances we have had not been in place.
Anyway, that’s not much of an answer, is it?
Glad you jumped into the conversation, Armando. Things had gone quite for a couple of days – people watching BSG marathons, I guess, to get ready for tomorrow night.
You’re correct that the euthanasia issue is not only about the potential value, if any, of pain and suffering, but also concerns the exercise of autonomous control. Control could go either way, though – exerting control to end one’s life, or exerting control by facing the pain and not allowing it to be the victor (I know, that’s a bit dramatic, but so was Adama’s primeval scream when they took Tigh away to airlock him).
I was an early Obama fan, too, and still think he’ll be a great president, but we have yet to see, to answer Stephen Colbert, whether he’ll be the greatest president.
Well, yes, control is in the eye of the beholder. I think the tricky part with it, in the case of euthanasia, is when that control can be exerted by a third party and not the party doing the suffering. My thought was on the ancient Roman view of suicide, which was quite different than our own, post-Christian view. For the Romans, suicide was often a noble way out of an impossible situation and a way to take control of it. For Christians (and, before that, Jews, I suppose, although this seems questionable in light of Samson’s sacrifice in the book of Judges, for example), suicide was/is a mortal sin because only God has a right to terminate a life (yet capital punishment is not always forbidden by Christians…). To me, personally, suicide seems too easy a way, but I’ve never found myself in an impossible situation from which there is no escape.
I also want to be careful that we don’t equate the notion of suffering exactly with PHYSICAL pain. Not all suffering is physical and emotional/psychological pain is sometimes more unbearable than the physical variety.
Just sayin’.
Well and also in my understanding of suicide, one of the most important things about Christianity and being a Christian is hope (faith, hope, and love baby), and suicide would necessarily mean that one has given up hope.
SPOILER WARNING
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
This direction this thread has taken is even more relevant given Dee’s suicide in “Sometimes a Great Notion.” Referring to the last post, Was Dee wrong to give up hope of a better life despite the disappointment of Earth?
Not really needed after the episode first airs, but thanks.
This direction this thread has taken is even more relevant given Dee’s suicide in “Sometimes a Great Notion.” Referring to the last post, Was Dee wrong to give up hope of a better life despite the disappointment of Earth?
Counter-question: Does one really “give up” hope?
PhilosopherJedi, I was thinking the same thing!
I think one can despair, yes. Not to be annoying and cliche and all dictionary on everyone, but the OED says
despair, v.
- intr. To lose or give up hope; to be without hope.
- trans. To deprive of hope, cast into despair.
- trans. To cease to hope for, to be without hope of.
despair, n.
- a. The action or condition of despairing or losing hope; a state of mind in which there is entire want of hope; hopelessness.
- transf. That which causes despair, or about which there is no hope.
Yeah, but the OED isn’t exactly the DSRM.
That’s not our Earth.
I’ve been wondering if you’re not on to something there, Pike; but that’s a question for another thread.
This direction this thread has taken is even more relevant given Dee’s suicide in “Sometimes a Great Notion.” Referring to the last post, Was Dee wrong to give up hope of a better life despite the disappointment of Earth?
I don’t think it’s a question of right and wrong. I think it’s a question of stamina. Dee represents precisely the attitude of those who carry through, no matter what, but she reached her breaking point. "Her whole family, her whole world, everything had been shattered. After Billy died and after she splits with Lee, probably all Dualla has is [the goal of Earth]. The job doesn’t mean anything – what does the job mean at that point? There’s no career, it’s just getting through the next day. So what she had is to get to Earth. And she got to Earth and it turned out to be nothing. So it felt like, she’s done. It’s overwith. " (Maureen Ryan interview with Ron Moore, http://featuresblogs.chicagotribune.com/entertainment_tv/2009/01/final-fifth-cylon-ellen-tigh-battlestar-galactica-dualla-dee-.html accessed 1/17/09).
So Dee becomes not just a character or a plot device but a symbol for the entire fleet at that point. She is not, I’m sure, the only person committing suicide in the fleet (certainly Laura seems to be committing suicide, albeit more slowly, by refusing her treatments as is D’anna by choosing to stay behind on Earth). I don’t think, to go back to the main question, that is is an action that anyone can pass judgment on as right or wrong, but, rather, a question of complete and total despair, as Casilda points out. When one puts all one’s hopes and dreams on a single goal and those dreams fail to materialize, it is too easy to fall into despair and give up all hope for the future. When your situation involves going back to cramped quarters for who knows how long, with ships that have got to be experiencing some serious wear and tear, then I would imagine that things would look pretty hopeless for a lot of people in the fleet and it would take a lot of strength (interesting that, even in her deepest despair, Dee is still able to give hope to Lee) to keep going.
I’ll now start posting a “question of the week” inspired by each new episode. This week’s continues the theme of the last question, but with a refinement.
Was it rational for Dee to give up hope and commit suicide? Note that I’m not asking if it was “moral” for her to kill herself – even if one believes that suicide is immoral, it can often be mitigated by the desperate state of the person’s mind.
The question is whether, assuming a rational state of mind, Dee could have justifiably decided to kill herself? Or was she just a victim of a disturbed mental state?
Various philosophers, such as David Hume and Arthur Schopenhauer, have argued for a rational justification for suicide; others, such as Thomas Aquinas and Immanuel Kant, can find no rational or moral justification for killing oneself.
I can’t argue from Kant, Hume, Schopenhauer (“I didn’t know Schopenhauer was a philosopher.” “YES! He’s the one who begins with an ‘s’.” “Do all philosophers begin with an ‘s’?”), but can only offer my own view. I will do so by way of a proverb of my mother’s: “no hay mal que dure cien años.” “There is no ill that lasts 100 years.” Meaning that, no matter how hopeless a situation might seem, the law of averages suggests that, with perseverance, things will eventually improve.
Or, as the great philosopher Eric Idle put it: “when you’re chewing on life’s gristle, don’t frown, give a whistle.”
Okay, I’m being glib. To be honest, I think when a psyche gets to the point where it might consider ending it all because all options seem totally hopeless, reason has all but left the equation. Suicide seems to me to be a highly emotional, not very rational decision.
What do Hume and Schopenhauer have to say about it?
Next Question:
Adama tells Athena in ‘Precipice’ that he doesn’t know if he can trust her, but that’s what trust is. Gaeta has now lost his trust in Adama and Roslin even though there’s been no obvious, direct betrayal – only the perceived betrayal based on the discovery of Earth and the proposed alliance w/ the Cylons.
Looking at the situation from Gaeta’s perspective, has there been sufficient justification for him to lose trust in Adama/Roslin; or, should he and the other mutineers have maintained faith in their leaders even in the face of significant doubts?
More generally, what, if any, are the limits of trust?