That would have been totally wrong for the story...Why do we let people suffer for our way of life, and why do so many of us try so hard to rationalize or not think about it?
The writer isn't having Alora ask Pike what his culture does so that Pike can assure the folks at home that, hey, we're better than that. That's a cheat. It's soporific for Pike to offer some defense or reassurance in this instance. It lets the viewer off the hook. The story isn't meant to let the viewer off the hook.
So like the story or don't, just stop insisting that it was right for Pike to offer some balm for our primitive consciences or reassure us that things are going to get a lot better, someday, if we just keep making progress. That some of us live as well as we do is both the consequence and cause of a tremendous amount of suffering - and we don't tolerate it because we need to live this way but because we like to live this way, just as was true of the Majalans. And the Federation is us. That's what the story was about.
So, I think it is wrong for Pike to offer no defense.
You think it wrong for Pike to offer a defense.
I think a defense is appropriate for two reasons:
1) I think that is accurate based on how the Federation is portrayed; the Federation does not simply accept suffering of individuals to advance society as a whole. And I agree that it is a good idea to connect this story point to an allegory of the US and/or the world in the current day. But I think that presenting it without any pushback implies that her charge is true and that Pike just accepts it. Having a little pushback from Pike, which would then be argued by Alora saying, "can you truly say no child suffers, that you never turn a blind eye for the good of the many?" would be more persuasive as a discussion rather than just a monolog by one person in the scene.
2) Presenting it as very black and white, as "the Federation is bad (i.e., the modern world is bad)" - without nuance - spurs a viewer (i.e., me) to react defensively. Instead of engaging with the question being posed, I am taken out of the moment and am thinking "but the Federation doesn't accept suffering...why doesn't Pike say anything?" Maybe a more cynical viewer, someone who is more pessimistic, or someone who thinks of the Federation as having more problems more like present day society than how I think about the Federation, would be more open to Alora's argument and immediately think "yeah, that is right. The Federation does sometimes accept or allow suffering of some so others may prosper." But that someone isn't me, and I would prefer a discussion that acknowledges both the successes and the failures. For example, a discussion that pointed out that the "good of the many outweighs the good of the few" as a Federation ideal is also one that implicitly allows for suffering, would be a good discussion.
...That was certainly how your comments came across...You responded to someone comparing the alien society in "Lift Us Up..." (in terms of deliberately harming some people in order to give wealth to others) to modern America (via the ways in which U.S. society inflicts homelessness on people) by saying, "many homeless people have other issues than just homelessness and often choose not to accept public services and instead panhandle."...
That may be how you interpreted what I said, but only because you conflated two ideas that I was not arguing.
I was only refuting the idea that the Federation doesn't care about its citizens' welfare beyond providing the basic necessities of life. Other posters have referenced Raffi as an example of such, and I argued that Raffi is not an example, because by all indications, her position in life (the trailer, etc.) is largely a result of her own choices and not an uncaring Federation. [Though I would agree, that the Starfleet brass in season 1 of Picard is uniquely vengeful and mean.] Connecting my mention of modern homelessness and other factors to the larger storyline of "Lift Us Up..." was never part of my argument, only yours.
When you respond to comparisons of the ways in which modern society (i.e., capitalism) inflicts violence upon some people in order to enrich others by talking about the individual problems of the victims of structural violence, this creates the impression that you are attempting to minimize the role of structural violence...
Again, you are assuming arguments that I was never making.
To address these other arguments: I will be the first to argue that the most important problems in society today are structural. Yes, the majority (or even vast majority?) of homelessness is caused by wealth inequalities, prejudices (whether about drugs, past criminal history, etc.) against people preventing them from getting or keeping jobs, etc. etc. The major barriers to advancing society right now are structural (racism built into legal and other structures, unconscious or overt bias built into decision-making, voting or ID laws that burden the poor or less privileged). Corporations, political parties, individual politicians putting their immediate benefits above those of the population at large. The list goes on.
However, none of that negates the fact that many people do have addictions or other issues that impede their ability to use what services are available. It also doesn't negate the story point that Raffi, wallowed in her own vices and self pity, is blaming others for the issues she could have been addressing herself. That also doesn't negate that the Brass in the Starfleet of Picard were, frankly, acting in a pretty non-Starfleet manner by kicking Raffi out once Picard resigned.
