I don't know that one thing has to do with the other. Gul Dukat is one of the most entertaining characters in Star Trek to me, and yet in-universe he's a reprehensible, disgusting murderer. You can love a character that's a screw-up in-universe.
Spoilers Star Trek: Lower Decks 1x07 - "Much Ado About Boimler"
- Thread starter Commander Richard
- Start date
I said “more entertaining”, not most. I know you are trying to make people sound extreme but I’m not. I also find Quark one of the more entertaining characters in Trek, do you have an issue with that as well?
She acted incompetent, yes.
But the only thing that can remotely be said to have put lives or the mission in jeopardy was "forgetting" the tricorders. As we saw, the tricorders weren't actually needed. The problem was relatively easily diagnosed and fixed without one.
Honestly, I’m not sure how major a gaffe forgetting them was? Maybe a bit embarrassing, but it isn’t like they couldn’t have simply called the Cerritos in a normal situation to send them in a millisecond.
Plus, it is the first time I remember an Away Team not carrying them on each individual.
A true victory is to make your enemy realize see they were wrong to oppose you in the first place. To acknowledge your greatness.
Let's analyze Mariner's actions from an ethical point of view:
1) She did something which benefited only her while she was on a job? Yes.
2) The actions, which benefited her, distressed other people and/or made their lives or job more difficult? Yes.
3) Did she lie to other people who trusted her to benefit herself? Yes.
4) Did she repent or apologize for her actions? No.
I rest my case.
1) She did something which benefited only her while she was on a job? Yes.
2) The actions, which benefited her, distressed other people and/or made their lives or job more difficult? Yes.
3) Did she lie to other people who trusted her to benefit herself? Yes.
4) Did she repent or apologize for her actions? No.
I rest my case.
What case? That a TV character did what was required of it to get the plot from point A to B to C?
That she is a bad person
It's a deal!I have her as morally ambiguous, right now.
Just Trekker.
They beam over to the other ship knowing "something" is up since they go over in EVA suits, there's no response, and the ship's power is off. Yet when activating the gravity boots she pratfalls and acts incompetent. Going over there she should have been acting at 100% because obviously something was amiss.
But, no, she acts incompetent and continues to embarrass herself (which she doesn't care, fine) and her friend (which she should care, but doesn't.) Her behavior on the mission up until she decided to be serious put everyone at more risk than they would be if she were replaced with someone who gives a care about those around them.
But, hey, she kind of made you snicker so she's great and did nothing wrong!
Not really. She's someone who wants to stay permanently an Ensign and resists anything that will move her up. She's an underachiever and proud of it.
Though it's hard to tell if you really mean what you said or if it was just a sarcastic, over-the-top, off-the-cuff remark.
I think we have to take it as a premise of the episode that for whatever reason, part of Mariner's duties were to obtain tricorders for the team and bring them down with the team, even though we have literally never seen anyone distribute tricorders during the course of the mission in all of Trek.
It is AN ethical point of view, not the only point of view, best point of view or even necessarily a "correct" point of view. I could spend a fair bit of time to quibble with each of the points either as to whether that is a valid criterion,whether it actually applies to the situation, or whether other considerations should be factored in.
For instance, I don't think it's fair to say that her taking a dive only benefitted her. It at least arguably benefited (or was intended to) Ramsey by preventing her from being in a position to have to be rejected. It benefited Ramsey's regulars from having to deal with the notion that Ramsey would prefer Mariner to them.
Is lying, even to people who trust you, inherently unethical? A philosopher like Kant would say yes. Most people in the real world regularly lie or lie by omission numerous times to people who trust them.
Along similar lines, it is unclear that Mariner needs to "repent or apologize" for what she did, and to the extent that she might, it is clear at the end of the episode that Ramsey and she have reconciled over the issue. So it seems to me either a. Mariner did fully apologize off-screen b. What Mariner said constituted enough of an apology for Ramsey for them to move on c. Ramsey doesn't think that Mariner needs to apologize for what she did because Ramsey doesn't see it as a big deal.
But at the end of the day, I don't think for most things ethics can be reduced to a black/white, either/or situation or set of criteria.
Using these or similar criteria, most of the crew of the main characters aboard have acted unethically. The one exception might be T'Ana, who has not been shown to lie.
We've also never seen them beam down in bog waders, so maybe the two things are related.
Last edited:
Did her pratfall endanger the mission, or have any effect on it? No. Can you articulate any way in which her behavior on the Rubidoux actually introduced more risk?
As soon as things became serious, so did she.
The waders are because they are on a bog planet. I'm not clear on how the nature of it being a bog planet would mean that it makes sense for one person to be the point of contact for all tricorders. (Or for that matter, for it to have not been an issue before dealing with the purification machine that none of them had tricorders and none of them noticed until the pressure buildup with the thingie).
She introduced an unstable element to an already tricky situation, that creates more of a risk than there would have been without her.
It was a disabled ship from which there was no response, it was already serious! Hell, she's in Starfleet, EVERYTHING she does is serious!
Last edited:
Yep, people in an unknown situation had to pay attention to the actions of a buffoon. As far as they knew, the crew members were all dead, but Mariner thought it was the right time to do the "Oh look I don't know how to use these boots!" shtick.
Really?
The 30 seconds it took for Mariner to pretend she didn't know how to use the boots didn't change anything with the mission,any more than Ramsey's assigning someone to get a photo of her saving Captain Dayton's ass again did.
Everyone involved seemingly underestimated what was going on as a simple power failure with the need to "jump" the ship. Part of the blame should fall squarely on Dayton and her crew, since they did not broadcast anything about their situation either as it was happening or after.
Similar threads
- Poll
- Poll
- Poll
- Poll
