Rok Logic!

[T'aral 0]

I hope people don't mind these threads; I like to see who else thinks about this stuff besides me.

 

So we have Rok, the tower-of-power android charged to 'protect'. To him, 'protect', means throwing the unprepared security guard off a precipice and into the bottomless chasm. How can this logically be? The guard didn't attack or otherwise provoke Rok - why did he have to die?

 

I propose this answer: Rok is a logical being. He has been charged to protect Dr. Corby and the ancient technology behind him. If a being is allowed to exist who could potentially cause harm, then Rok has only two options: risk that they be harmed before he can respond, or proactively neutralize the potential threat and thus fulfill his directive. Laid out on a logic table, the proper response becomes obvious - the only 100% sure mode of protection is proactive murder.

 

1) Do you agree that this is logical?

2) Is this an acceptable approach on ethical / moral grounds?

3) Discuss.

[Jorahl 0]

I've always been of the opinion that logic is more dangerous than emotion... counter to the way Vulcans see things. Logic easily says kill the masses to protect the select. There's a scifi show/movie out there which while a comedy has an interesting premise. Humans start exploring space and are too trusting and get taken advantage of. They hire an alien race to alter their DNA to remove emotions. Then they proceed to very logically dominate the entire galaxy.

 

So, unless there are rules set up that says do your job but don't cross this line or this line...then logic gives free reign for any solution which equals to success of the job. You could argue that logic would eventually calculate out that a more peaceful action will have the least percent chance of negative reactions. But, I still believe logic is more cruel and heartless in any number of situations.

 

An interesting alternate reality would be logical Vulcan without a peacafist mentality.

[Nitara 0]

1) It depends on the point of view of the person programming. "Protection" might be considered various different ways.

 

2)As far as morality goes, T'aral, logic has none.

 

3)Logic is mathematical equation.

 

What will protect? + What should be done? = Solution.

 

Rok would have needed to have an idea to what extent should he go before he fills his protective function. For example, should he not allow the intruder to even see the object? Or should the intruder simply not be allowed to destroy the object? I believe he had been previously told to kill in order to fill his function.

[T'aral 0]

Well, as I said - Rok's logic is easy to understand given a logic table:

 

Security poses a threat / Rok kills security: Base is protected.

Security does not pose a threat / Rok kills security: base is protected.

Security does not pose a threat / Rok does not kill security: base is protected.

Security poses a threat / Rok does not kill security: base is in peril.

 

Rok cannot control whether or not Security poses a threat. He only controls whether or not he kills Security. If he does not kill security, there is a 50% chance of the base being in peril. If he does kill security, there is a 0% chance of the base being in peril.

 

Therefore, Rok kills Security.

 

True: to kill was established long ago ( ... the old ones, the ones who made us ... ) as an acceptable course of action. It is merely a question of what offers 100% success. Logic does not seek to take 'acceptable chances'; logic wants 100% success.

 

An interesting alternate reality would be logical Vulcan without a peacafist mentality.

 

That would be Spock from "Mirror, Mirror":

 

"Terror must be maintained or the Empire falls."

 

A violence-driven Vulcan is quite logical: they simply operate from a different set of premises. Logic deals strictly with the validity of an argument, not whether the argument is 'right' or 'wrong'.

 

To join with the Empire is to profit. To not join with the Empire is to suffer. Profit is preferable to suffering, therefore it is logical to join with the Empire. Simple, straightforward, and logical.

 

... and yes, I'm thinking of submitting for a post on the Agincourt.