I’d like to reiterate and expand upon the post I mentioned in the forum this week to define the nature of a human. (Written by shipperx and quoted from here.)

I think it may be in what meaning one assigns to the term “moral compass”. Insofar as to vampires know right from wrong, I agree that they do know. On an intellectual level, they know. So if using “moral compass” in the since of delineating direction, I can see that point. On the other hand while having an intellectual construct of right and wrong, on a visceral, instinctual level they don’t ‘feel’ something is ‘right.’ That gut-level empathy is missing. So inasmuch as one ascribes a ‘compass’ to mean a integral property of a compass to point towards magnetic North (or in the case of a ‘moral compass’ an inherent bent towards visceral/gut level feel for morality or difference in moral direction ) then I do think that “moral compass” entails a sense of right and wrong that is different from an intellectual understanding of right and wrong that vampires possess by right of simply having a brain.

I propose that humanity is defined by the moral compass. So long as we have that gut feeling of right and wrong, that need to do what’s right regardless of what we feel that “right” is- after all, less than a century ago, many Eskimos resorted to female infanticide because in order to keep the rest of the family alive. Morally, that was right for them, so their innate need to do the right thing, and therefore their humanity, is still intact. Rationalization, too, is a major human trait, as the need to justify actions as “right;” as is guilt, which is a result of not doing something “right.” Animals, as far as we know, do what they do instinctively, unrestrained by right and wrong, and even what we might construe as shame is simply behavioral conditioning at work.

And what about aliens? Machines? Robots? Would aliens feel pain? Can robots be programmed to feel? Star Trek, significantly, addresses these issues time and again with their diverse group of aliens and artificial life forms, and though these can’t actually predict anything, science fiction presents us with sometimes plausible images of the future.

Data is an android from Star Trek: The Next Generation created to simulate (though never quite imitate) humanity, who spent many years striving to understand and emulate people. However, I don’t believe that he’s human, regardless of the many episodes spent attempting to prove his humanity and rights. He can’t use contractions because he’s been programmed not to (There are some exceptions to this, but I’d attribute them to writer and actor error). He can only feel emotions when he gets an emotion chip installed. His feelings and desires are all artificial, and because of that, his moral code is, as well. He has no gut feelings pulling him toward what he perceives as right; in fact, in the series he’s been manipulated by his fellow android Lore and his ethical program deactivated. Data is therefore not a person.

Interestingly, The Doctor from Star Trek: Voyager is merely a hologram, but is probably closer to human than Data. Modeled with a similar personality to his creator and similar ethical programs as Data, the Doctor has instead foregone his programming on various occasions to ally himself with other holograms, to fight for what he believes in at the cost of violating his first order of “do no harm,” and has striven to change his very nature (to the point of fighting for a position in command instead of medical) in a further attempt to do what he feels is right. Is he a person? It’s still debatable, of course, but he possesses more humanity than Data.

Next come the Vorta and Jem’Hadar, Star Trek: Deep Space Nine’s cloned minions of an advanced race. The Vorta have been created to serve as manipulators and diplomats; the Jem’Hadar as soldiers who blindly follow orders. To some degree, they lack humanity despite their status as thinking, breathing individuals capable of intelligent thought. They’ve been programmed to act as they do, and rarely vary from their programmed behavior. However, on various occasions these aliens, too, have proven that they’re beholden to what is right in their eyes; one Jem’Hadar sends his troops into a death trap because his Vorta supervisor orders it, and another does the same and then turns and kills the Vorta for doubting his loyalty. The variation in reactions to similar situations implies that the Jem’Hadar are capable of deducing what the right thing is, regardless of its programming, and selecting whichever action feels more correct to him. The Vorta, meanwhile, seem to be far more self-serving than the Jem’Hadar- in one episode, one Vorta is willing to lie to its creators to the point of killing one of them rather than to allow him to get in the way of the conflict at hand. Another one, labeled “defective,” chooses to defect to the enemy, believing that they are the right side in the war. Though I don’t believe that all Vorta and Jem’Hadar use their moral compasses, I think that they possess the ability to do so as a race, and therefore qualify as people.

I may have gone a bit off-topic here. 😀 In short, the most essential quality, the one that is the root of the nature of humanity, is the moral compass. It leads to rationalization (this is what’s right) and guilt (I didn’t do what’s right), to philosophy (what is right?) and originality (I will do what I feel is right, regardless of what those around me might believe).

What can school do? A school that encourages people to think, instead of just obey, can nourish and develop that sense of what’s right. A child might think that “right” is “what I want,” and it takes years before a higher morality emerges- mostly as a natural progression from interaction, but also from being taught by family and mentors to put others before himself, and what’s right above it all. The instinct to do right does emerge no matter what, but it can be suppressed, to some degree, in a restrictive educational setting. Remember the Hitler Youth? They were taught a different doctrine of right and wrong, to the point that most believed it whole-heartedly. It’s easy for a school to dictate right and wrong, and for people to act based on that. But do they lose part of what makes them a person then, by blocking out their personal, inner moral compass? Arguably so. Sending a Jem’Hadar to a school where it learns to play nice and obey teachers instead of its creators might destroy what it is, by forcing it to accept someone else’s “right” instead of its own. Conversely, a school where it learns to express itself and is accepted as is, without someone else’s values, would allow it to flourish.

And sure, that means that the Jem’Hadar will grow up believing that killing others because its creators have told it to is the right thing, but that’s not our decision. Introducing different ideas for it to contemplate is all right. But brainwashing them into it can strip away its humanity.