Would you have done what Archer did in Simplitude?

[Goose 0]

Stardate:213885.8

 

 

In Simplitude we saw Archer make the decision of killing Sim in order to save Trip.Would you have done the same in his situations.Before you decide lets assume that Sim is able to do everything Trip can with the same skill and ability.Also keep in mind he has the same memories as Trip.

 

I would of done the same just because IMO nothing can beat the original.

[Admiral Kirk 1]

That's a very hard question. Sim had Tripp's memories but the fact that Sim began his life on that ship and was raised by Phlox made him a slightly different person. Archer made a decison that so many CO's have had to make. Who lives and who dies. In my opinion Archer is the most hardened and when neccesary cold ST captians I have ever seen.

[SuraksSoul 0]

Click for Spoiler:

First off...even though he is "Trip", he is not...because Sim knows that he is a copy and that those memories never really happened to him. That could cause a breakdown in a stressful situation where Sim is needed to come through. Also...as someone else pointed out (I think it was Captain Bolivar) -- Sim may have been caught up in the moment when he admitted feelings for T'Pol....because he knew he wasn't going to live. The real Trip would not have done this -- because he was not under pressure to relase his emotions like Sim. (However, I think it is a really odd situation now...because will T'Pol tell Trip everything that Sim admitted to her?)In acordance...Archer was correct to force Sim into the operation, simply because Sim's strange experience of reality could have affected the crew in the wrong manner. Only the real Trip could be counted on 110%and Archer knew this.

[MoulinRouge 0]

I would have felt guilty as hell but yes I would have done the same thing. Sim was not Trip. My emotional reaction mirrored Archer's. Poor Sim caught a terrible break, but I was slightly resentful seeing him assume that he could take Trip's quarters as if Trip didn't exist anymore. I can't damn Archer for his emotional reaction to the situation even though it was ungodly harsh.

[Captain Jean-Luc Picard 1]

Aside from the fact that Sim being a clone of Trip, I saw no distinctive differences. For all intents and purposes, Sim was Trip. I didn't have a problem with Sim wanting to live nor sacrificing himself to save Trip as it was his choice. However, Phlox holding back the anti-rapid-aging cure and Archer threatening murder to save Trip? I found both of these actions to be disturbing. Phlox, I can understand, as he thought the risk of the stuff not working was greater than the nueral tissue transplant. However, Archer... after the way he threatened Sim... I'm not sure I like him any more.

 

Also, how come everyone justifies killing Sim to save Trip? Sim was a Human being ya know, with a chance for a full life. If Sim decided not to go through with the surgery, then I believe he should have had the right to live.

Edited November 20, 2003 by Captain Jean-Luc Picard

[MoulinRouge 0]

Sim was not Trip. I find it intensely disturbing that a valued friend could be easily replaced by a duplicate and soon be forgotten by friends and family. I'd have hated Archer for that. Hated him forever. I respect him for not valuing Trip's life so little that he'd accept a look alike. Are you implying that Sim and Trip shared a soul? They didn't.

 

The thought that my family or friends could accept a clone "as me" and be content makes me want to cry. I felt bad for Sim. I did, but the thought of him taking Trip's place and people acting as if they're the same person disturbs me more than Sim not being given an experimental drug that may well not have worked. Then you have no Sim, no Trip, no engineer. I'm not dissing you, Captain Jean-Luc Picard. I just find the idea of a loved one replaced creepy to the extreme. Archer wanted Trip...not a duplicate. He may have done wrong by Sim but I simply can't damn the man for it. Archer didn't know this enzyme option would appear out of the blue when he gave the original okay.

 

I saw differences. Connor created such nuances that I was never unaware that Sim was a different human being.

Edited November 20, 2003 by MoulinRouge

[Captain Jean-Luc Picard 1]

Sim was not Trip. I find it intensely disturbing that a valued friend could be easily replaced by a duplicate and soon be forgotten by friends and family.     I'd have hated Archer for that. Hated him forever. I respect him for not valuing Trip's life so little that he'd accept a look alike.  Are you implying that Sim and Trip shared a soul?  They didn't. 

 

The thought that my family or friends could accept a clone "as me" and be content makes me want to cry.  I felt bad for Sim.  I did, but the thought of him taking Trip's place and people acting as if they're the same person disturbs me more than Sim not being given an experimental drug that may well not have worked.  Then you have no Sim, no Trip, no engineer.  I'm not dissing you, Captain Jean-Luc Picard.  I just find the idea of a loved one replaced creepy to the extreme. Archer wanted Trip...not a duplicate.    He may have done wrong by Sim but I simply can't damn the man for it.    Archer didn't know this enzyme option would appear out of the blue when he gave the original okay.

 

I saw differences. Connor created such nuances that I was never unaware that Sim was a different human being.

Interresting post. Agreed, Sim is not Trip, but for all intents and purposes, there is no difference. Sim should not be accepted as Trip, but as Sim, a different individual. I wasn't trying to say that Sim could replace Trip, just that Sim has the same basic human rights that Trip has.

[Jack_Bauer 1]

I have to agree with what Archer did. I look at as: Sim could have been given a chance at living but at what cost? If the experiment to prolong his life fails he can no longer be a successful donor for Trip. Therefore Trip and Sim die. Doing the tranplant ensures that Trip will live if Sim dies. There was only one guarantee and that is doing the transplant. If Trip and Sim die, everyone on Enterprise dies and Earth is doomed to destruction. As sad as it is Sim must die for the greater good.

[Captain Jean-Luc Picard 1]

I have to agree with what Archer did. I look at as: Sim could have been given a chance at living but at what cost? If the experiment to prolong his life fails he can no longer be a successful donor for Trip. Therefore Trip and Sim die. Doing the tranplant ensures that Trip will live if Sim dies. There was only one guarantee and that is doing the transplant. If Trip and Sim die, everyone on Enterprise dies and Earth is doomed to destruction. As sad as it is Sim must die for the greater good.

I disagree. There is no justification for murder. However, in the end, I believe Sim made the smart move to sacrifice himself, but had he choosen to live, he would have had every right to do so.

[Jack_Bauer 1]

I'm not saying murder is okay. Unfortunately, its one or the other and if Sim decides to live he'll effectively murder Trip and if Trip lives he effectively murders Sim. Yet, if Sim chooses to live his life it will be short (that doesn't make it any less important) and he will rob Trip of a chance to live his much longer life. Its a very grey issue. However, Vulcan logic states: The needs of the many (Enterprise, Earth, Trip) out way the needs of the few or one (Sim).

[Captain Jean-Luc Picard 1]

I'm not saying murder is okay. Unfortunately, its one or the other and if Sim decides to live he'll effectively murder Trip and if Trip lives he effectively murders Sim. Yet, if Sim chooses to live his life it will be short (that doesn't make it any less important) and he will rob Trip of a chance to live his much longer life. Its a very grey issue. However, Vulcan logic states: The needs of the many (Enterprise, Earth, Trip) out way the needs of the few or one (Sim).

If Sim decides to live, he would not be murderring Trip. If Archer forces Sim into surgery, killing Sim to save Trip, that is murder. Refusing to donate one's nueral tissue, enough to kill a man, is not murder, but preservation of one's own life.

[Theunicornhunter 2]

ook at as.. have been given a chance at living but at what cost? If the experiment to prolong his life fails he can no longer be a successful donor for Trip. Therefore Trip and Sim die.

I think that is the important fact - You basically have two choices - forcing the operation to save Trip guarantees you'll have an engineer to help complete the mission. Letting Sim try the experiment runs a high risk of losing both and and a high probability having no engineer to complete the mission.

 

You have to wonder if Archer would really have forced it had Sim refused but I believe he would have and I believe it was for the good of the mission not to personally save a friend.

 

However, I see the real progress in cloning not with those who want to clone a new being but in being able to clone tissue and organs. A technique I hope would be perfected 150 years from now - rendering this discussion moot. Phlox would have been able to simply clone some neural tissue - although the story would not have been as compelling.

[Captain Jean-Luc Picard 1]

Does anyone care about Sim's rights and that Archer threatened to kill him? Personally, I'm on Sim's side in having the right to live.

[Theunicornhunter 2]

Does anyone care about Sim's rights and that Archer threatened to kill him?  Personally, I'm on Sim's side in having the right to live.

CJLP, I think you've missed the point entirely, everyone cared about Sim, Phlox cared, Archer cared....we all cared. That's what made this episode so compelling - Archer was in a lose, lose situation. But his decision was based on his responsibility to save humanity. Would you let the entire human race die in order to let someone live another week? Sim wasn't human..he was an alien lifeform that grew human dna. That means there was no predicting how long he would live or even how predictable his behavior was. But the fact that he was alien doesn't mean his life wasn't valuable.

 

Sim died a hero because it was his choice and Archer tried to get him to make that choice because Archer didn't want to have to make it. If it hadn't been for the mission Archer would not likely have okayed the experiment to begin with. And if there is any message to be learned it is that we should be very careful when we mess around with things like cloning because the consequences are probably going to be a lot more harsh than we imagined.

[mj 7]

Well, even though I am striving for that magic "500" posts, and promotion to "captain," this episode shows me that I just might not be captain material.

Click for Spoiler:

I do not know that I could have even made that first decision to clone Trip. I would be struggling with the knowledge of developing a sentient life solely for the purpose of saving someone else, but with no interest and no value placed on that life beyond how I planned to exploit it. The guarentee of the simbiot's brief life meant I would not even really have to face the fact that I used him for very long. This is a morally difficult issue for me. Also, I would be too mired in this issue to be able to see the big picture. I am talking about me...mjham...

 

Now looking at Archer, I believe he went through the same misgivings, but was not paralyzed into inaction by the enormity of the moral issue. He did what he had to do. At first it looked like Sim would have a normal 15 day life span...but then came the second jolt of the fact that Sim would have to die in order to harvest his tissue and save Trip. Archer made the decision that if he had to murder Sim to save Trip he would. I could not have made that decision either. I would have tried to convince Sim to make the sacrifice that he eventually chose to do, but I would have been stuck if Sim had not chosen to sacrifice himself.

 

 

I think Archer is clearly command material, and I am not!

 

I remember an episode of TNG where Troi was trying to gain command status, and she kept failing the simulation until she ordered Geordi (in the simulation) to make a repair that would save the ship, but cost Geordi his life. I think I might be able to handle making decisions that sacrificed my life or some of the crews' lives to save other lives. This is because everyone on that ship has chosen that life and those risks, and understands that they may be called upon to make those sacrifices.

 

But this situation is too hard for me.

[Theunicornhunter 2]

This was a difficult decision and I agree that perhaps there never would have been a Sim to begin with if not the the Xindi mission. But that raises another question. Is the chance for life - no matter how brief worth it or would Sim have been better off never having existed at all.

 

I think part of the difficulty is he had the memory of a human who had a longer lifespan.

 

Still - is ten days better than no days?

Edited November 23, 2003 by TheUnicornHunter

[A l t e r E g o 9]

Yes I would have done the same if I were Archer and faced those choices, it would have very weak of him to flip-flop on his decision. I think of Kirk and his loss of the Ent, he turned death into a fighting chace to live.

[ddillard 2]

Myself I would find it to be a very difficult choice to make. On one hand you have Trip who is necessary for the survival of the ship and thus the survival of Earth, and who is also a friend. On the other hand you have Sim who has become separate member of the crew with thoughts and feelings. But in the end I believe that I to would have chosen to sacrifice Sim to save Trip, because as was stated before "The needs of the many must outway the needs of the few or the one." This means that if Sim has to be sacrificed, either willingly or by force, to allow Trip to survive in order to give Enterprise and Earth a better chance at surviving than this is what must be done. It is not a decision that is ideal but it is what has to be to insure the survival of the human race.