Spock Ethical Dilemmas

[BillJ]

Captain Tracy wrote:

---

Actually BILL, I was referring to the other quality the writers gave this character, and that is SULU's private passion is plants and flowers, being his hobby... butt I guess that offends you too,... again, send those complaints to J.D.F. Black, the episode writer,.......after all, what would the womanizing-macho Capt think about his ace weapons officers enjoying "panzies", in his off time,... THAT was unspoken eye-brow raising dialog I was referring to.

That was the outing I was talking about,.... where YOU are coming from,.. well, I have no idea,.. it's a place this man has not gone before.

How your personal sensitivities, projections, fears and guilt, lifestyle choices and why you decided to assign to my posts all this other talk, was wholly contained in all in your posts, not mine, and that is the only place such talk wormed its way into thread.

So please, re-read the posts of mine and you shall see I never mentioned such things of which YOU speak; I was talking about his botany hobby,.. YOU can make it about whatever YOU choose, butt please, do not involve me in your person business. This is a platform to discuss a TV show, not a place for you to push your personal agenda and lifestyle choice onto others.

This is non-sense. Sulu was a botanist in Where No Man... and others knew of his interest in botany from The Man Trap.

Nice job trying to back peddle from your statements...

[Captain Tracy]

To continue,...

Spock actually faces moral and ethical dilemmas all throughout the series,.. if you take his speeches which denote the Vulcan philosophies, beliefs, and attitudes toward nature and other sentient beings, and all manner of flora and fauna; and juxtapose those ideals against the vast majority of situations we find him in, decisions he must make. even the missions assigned to them by the UFP, you would find much like all the violations and infractions of the Prime Directive itself, Spock violates his spoken beliefs on an episode by episode - and even scene by scene basis.

Simple case in point:

We have all heard that tired old hat speech about how "the needs of many must out weigh the needs of the few",.. and although they played out the inner conflict through some of the best dialog of the series,.. in the final analysis, Spocks plea to Kirk is to Kill the Horta - the last of its kind, and mother to hundreds of thousands of offspring,... just to save his personal friend.

Of course Spock cannot live up to the beliefs and standards we are told he and his people hold dear,.. or Kirk would have been 'Fried Spaghetti' - with no further thought than any other computation of selfless logic.

Which of course you can't do, since it kills off the star, and thus ends the series.

So, Spock as written MUST go against much of what he espouses on a regular basis in order to tell an effective story,.. Just as Kirk MUST violate the PD time and again.

The Spock moral/ethic speeches are beautiful, but quite contrary to so many of the actions and decisions he takes.

If you were to make a real study of the violations, I am sure the list would easily quintuple that of the PD violations so often dragged out.

Listen to his speech to Dr. Sev & Adam,.. and then watch the Horta scene I cited,... "Non Sequitur", quoth Nomad.

[barnaclelapse]

Nerys Myk wrote:

---

Kidnapping a Starfleet officer, falsify orders and hijacking the Enterprise. (the Menagerie)

The weird personal memory I'll always have with that episode is ordering it from Columbia House, and waiting seven goddamn weeks for it to arrive.

I'm still frequently amazed by the concept of Amazon's next day shipping.

[T'Girl]

BillJ wrote:

---

Why would anyone in the 23rd century care if Sulu is gay?

Given all the Star Trek that we've seen, and there has never been a single openly gay Starfleet officer, it does sound like people in the 23rd century would care.

[Melakon]

Captain Tracy wrote:

---

. . .Spocks plea to Kirk is to Kill the Horta - the last of its kind, and mother to hundreds of thousands of offspring,... just to save his personal friend. [Emphasis added]

But none of this is known when Spock recommends that course of action. All they know is, it is a dangerous creature that has killed several people. The mind meld giving Spock knowledge of the creature's motives hasn't happened yet.

[Nerys Myk]

T'Girl wrote:

---

Given all the Star Trek that we've seen, and there has never been a single openly gay Starfleet officer, it does sound like people in the 23rd century would care.

Or its not a big deal and everyone except our regulars and guest-stars are gay.

[Captain Tracy]

Melakon wrote:

---

But none of this is known when Spock recommends that course of action. All they know is, it is a dangerous creature that has killed several people. The mind meld giving Spock knowledge of the creature's motives hasn't happened yet.

Too true,.. however, we have all heard the "all life is sacred" speeches prior to this episode; and Spock's descsion and actions were in just as much violation to his rhetoric in past episodes as in this episode,.. the 'Horta' is just the most overt I could think of off the top of me head,

Also, Spock does not adopt this philosophy only for the Horta, and only suddenly after the Mind-Meld,.. it is long established and re-inforced through the series run in defining his characters belief and value system,.. the facts concerning the Horta race mortality only serves to increase the drama of the conflict,.. it does not suddenly define Spock's intrinsic long-held standards, which are (supposedly) applied to all things great and small.

[Melakon]

Spock believes that Kirk is about to be killed. Kirk is the one who decides to wait until it attacks. What we really have is the repeated example of how Spock and McCoy offer advice, but Kirk makes the decisions.

[Captain Tracy]

Melakon wrote:

---

Spock believes that Kirk is about to be killed. Kirk is the one who decides to wait until it attacks. What we really have is the repeated example of how Spock and McCoy offer advice, but Kirk makes the decisions.

Again, very true,.. Spock represents the Logical, McCoy the Emotional, and Kirk the enacting body and final arbitrator of his internal conflicts which are personified externally by the Spock and McCoy characters in conflict.

However, in the Horta case,.. as it relates to Spock violating his Ethical Standards,... Spock cries out for Kirk to 'KILL IT', which as I stated before, violates the whole individual sacrifice for the good of the many, all life scared, Reason over Force, all those moral/ethical themes STAR TREK put forth, but then let have it with full phasers - when it got in the way of FEDERATION BUSINESS, or the STARS BEING HEROES.

[Dale Sams]

Melakon wrote:

---

I think we all have some fun at Sulu's expense after George's public coming-out, but there's no evidence that I'm aware of that Sulu's gay. Except for oiling himself up and barechestedly chasing crewmen while waving his sword.

Regarding Spock and ethics, I felt that his mind-touch with a grieving Kirk at the end of 'Requiem for Methuselah' was questionable. Spock did not ask permission to initiate this contact, which is highly unusual for him with people he knows.

Space hippy girl: "C'mon man, I feel you. I know what you want!"

Sulu: (slightly amused) "How do you know what I want?"

[Captain Tracy]

Melakon wrote:

---

All they know is, it is a dangerous creature that has killed several people. The mind meld giving Spock knowledge of the creature's motives hasn't happened yet.

Okay, great comment, this is essentially the major flaw with the entire format of the show, as it relates to ethics/morals/and the PD, et al.

Look at what you wrote: "All they know is, it is a dangerous creature",..

and therein lies the rub, as the UFP, KIRK and Company tell us they are explorers, extending the hand of friendship in seeking out new LIFE ( not destroying that which they are threatened by, or do no comprehend), new CIVIL,... you now the speech,.. the point is KIRK and CREW, and the UFP are not in a moral position to judge anything or anyone,..

and that means they cannot MORALLY take ANY action against anything which would have any negative impact on its natural existence or evolution,.. regardless if the "Fangy Beasty" is about to eat your Geologist or not.

And that would make for a pretty depressing show,.. "Men into Space, served as a hot lunch";... this week, so-and-so gets eaten by a whatchamacallit,..

THE UFP and its forces are the INVADERS anywhere they go outside of the realm of the UFP,.. and are in no moral position to judge the slave/gangster/nazi/roman/greek/depression/computer-driven planet as "bad", nor take any action against anything they find 'wanting" or life-threatening to them,.. if they themselves are the invading outsiders,.. AND truly subscribe to all the high-minded ideals contained in their speeches about freedoms, rights, and IDIC, and so forth.

If they did, they couldn't go anywhere without an invitation, and certainly couldn't kill anything,.

,.... or as they did so often,.. disrupt the entire culture of a planet, and replace it with one more suitable to the UFP ideal and agenda,... (We can help you build schools, feed 100 where you could only feed 1, bring you teachers),... ah, indoctrination and absorption offered as "AID"

Basically it is all about PERSPECTIVES,.. Planet of the Apes handled the dilemma of cultural perspectives beautifully,... to Taylor, the Apes had taken over his world and replaced it with their simian culture,.. BUT to the Apes, "The Humans are an Infection!",.. perfect.

Since, the Enterprise's mission is to seek out (invade) areas of space not already part of the UFP corporate portfolio,.. they, regardless of the rhetoric,.. are nothing more than Imperial, Expansionist, Capitalists,... just like the good ol' USA.

and regardless of the beautiful moral/ethic/ and aesthetic values espoused in a characters' speech,.. in the end,.. if it interrupts FED BUSINESS,... WHAMM-OH!!!,.. unless the Organians or Metrons appear to nullify their aggressions while "Boldly going where no HUN has gone before".

So in point-of-fact, if SPOCK really subscribed to all that "respect all life and the rights of everything, free to be you and me speech",.. he would have resigned his post the moment KIRK gave the order to drive the Enterprise around the Fly-paper colored-cube in space.

Actually if you really compare what SPOCK is supposed to believe in, and what the UFP actually does (not what they SAY they stand for), SPOCK would not even have anything to do with the UFP,.. which really is just the I.S.S. Enterprise, with better manners, and a better line of B.S.

So the whole show is one big moral/ethical contradiction, depending on your perspective, and it is worse for SPOCK, more than anyone,.. yet,.. there he is!

Frankly, while I obviously love the show, when it comes to the conflict of what the UFP SAYS it stands for ethically & morally, and what it UFP DOES in fact and deed,.. I second the Organians utter disdain for the Earthemen.

If your going to be a space-pirate, be an HONEST ONE, don't just wear the boots!

[A beaker full of death]

I think a lot of the examples cited here are instances of Spock breaking regulations, which is not at all the same thing as acting unethically (except, importantly, to the extent they violate his oath as a Starfleet officer).
The instance that comes immediately to mind is The Enterprise Incident (where he totally seduces the Romulan commander Kirk-style).

[Captain Tracy]

A beaker full of death wrote:

---

I think a lot of the examples cited here are instances of Spock breaking regulations, which is not at all the same thing as acting unethically (except, importantly, to the extent they violate his oath as a Starfleet officer).
The instance that comes immediately to mind is The Enterprise Incident (where he totally seduces the Romulan commander Kirk-style).

Correct, and that scene is also a prime example of gross mischaracterizations which occurred that hurt the integrity of the original character conceptions, broke the established willing-suspension-of-disbelief, and the hurt show itself in the long run.

[JimZipCode]

BillJ wrote:

---

I'd add in The Doomsday Machine. Without medical tests Spock really had no legal right to relieve Decker.

That's not really a situation of an ethical dilemma for Spock, because Kirk resolved the situation for him. Spock had no legal right to relieve Decker, and he DIDN'T relieve Decker, until Kirk manufactured a quasi-legal imperative for him. When Kirk ordered Spock to relieve Decker, it took Spock off the hook. Kirk assumed the responsibility. You could call that an ethical dilemma for Kirk, but not for Spock. (Of course Kirk didn't perceive it as a dilemma at all; it was instantly clear to him what the right course of action was.)

Spock's ethical dilemma was earlier, as he tried to stay within the letter of regulations while keeping Decker from getting the ship destroyed. Spock handles that with integrity; but it's Kirk who grasps the nettle.

Kirk's order to Spock is a genius moment of writing, I think. It crystallizes a key difference between Kirk and Spock: why Kirk is in command, and Spock is the best first officer in the fleet. Kirk assesses the situation correctly, and fabricates a non-existent prerogative to issue an order so Spock can do what needs to be done.

[JimZipCode]

Captain Tracy wrote:

---

Correct, and that scene is also a prime example of gross mischaracterizations which occurred that hurt the integrity of the original character conceptions, broke the established willing-suspension-of-disbelief, and the hurt show itself in the long run.

Well, the show did not have a much longer run after that, so it's hard to see how that act hurt the show. More broadly, I don't see anything in Enterprise Incident that hurt the integrity of the Spock character. What are you referring to?