ProtoAvatar
Fleet Captain
Stop the Boralaan homeworld destruction.
If that was not possible, save as many boralaans as he could.
If that was not possible, save as many boralaans as he could.
Most morally questionable act by a protagonist?
- Thread starter someguy1231
- Start date
You're missing his point. The point is that Picard never even tried --and how many times have they tried in the face of hopeless odds? That the solution fell upon a non-crewmember. And if I recall correctly, they were able to pull off similar feats in less than 36 hours, too. Enterprise has a proven track record in saving planets in one form or another, so to pass up an opportunity like that without even at least weighing options is *really* inconsistent with what went on in the past (let's remember that Picard is probably one of the most analytical captains in all of Trek!). "A Matter of Time" is probably the most impressive example I can think of in which the Enterprise helped save a world even after disaster struck, but mostly the feat is impressive because of how expedient the crew were in dealing with the crisis. They didn't save everyone, but they saved a considerable population nonetheless.
I like ditl.org putting the crisis into quick perspective: The Prime Directive can't possibly protect anything worse than dying, can it?
On a side note, Anwar: I think you have to realize that simply criticizing an episode does not label one as a hater. There's such a thing as critical analysis. Even Gene Roddenberry didn't like *every* single bit of Star Trek that was released under his watch.
Last edited:
Yeah, and Europeans found the Southern aristocrats very genteel and proper in the Antebellum South. And of course they had no right to object to the holding of slaves by the peaceful aristos, who were pleasant and friendly as well. After all, the slaves were part of their peculiar culture.
Right is right, wrong is wrong.
Ah, but (for example) I find forced military conscription very, very wrong. I see it as slavery. Others don't see it that way. I can only say what I think is right and wrong- and I will say it loudly and strongly. But others might see it differently. If we can interfere with them, they can interfere with us. The Vissians are more advanced than Humans, technologically. What if they thought some of our cultural traditions were wrong? If wrong is wrong, would you support their invading Earth, say, to put a stop to what it was they saw as wrong?
Actually, no, they didn’t. The way the colonial powers of Europe treated the indigenous peoples of their colonies was similar to slavery in many ways. It would have been hypocritical to attempt to intervene in the Dixie institution of slavery without their own houses in order.
BTW, I think the discussion was about intervening, not objecting, right?
If I remember, yes. I had no objection to Archer pointing out his distaste with Vissian attitudes- indeed, I would fully support such an objection- but I personally had issues with interference, as sympathetic as the cogenitor's plight certainly is.
Oh I agree. I have a special place of disgust for bad TNG episode myself, I'm just sick of the same silly arguments over the Boraalans every single time there's a "Worst of Trek" thing without anyone considering the greater situation beyond saving the doomed planet.
Maybe it was an 80s thing but I always had an issue because Picard and co ALWAYS came off as morally and progressively better then the unevolved alien of the week.
Picard condensending speechs ' we where like you once, greedy , full of hate, quick to war etc BEFORE WE EVOLVED' did not help at all.
Try and save some if you cant save all.
I read somewhere that Picard followed the Prime directive so fevertly that he would organise a mission to retrive Federation Toilet Paper if it got left behind on a prewarp World.
I thought that was mean till Homeward.
We should not intervene with a Prewarp world because we might permamently and with lethel consequence influence their Society.
Yeah , that I get.
But belive it or not , hello we are aliens from another star with a big ass ship lets give you a few hours to soak that in but we gotta get you off world ASAP.
Impacts the Society a lot less lethally then say a big ass world ending explosion.
' Moment of Silence.'
I usually enjoyed Picard but at that moment I really really hated him. The worst part is Worf brother would proberly get time for breaking the Federation oh so holy Prime Directive.
Agreed, this was War.
The Romulans would have been taken out by the Dominion if the Federation fell anyway. They saw all Solids as a threat and I dont picture them allowing the Romulans time to plot and build.
Ha ha...no kidding.
There was one that hasn't been mentioned yet...not a Prime Directive issue, but a case where I think if I'd been the alien in question, I'd have been sore tempted to wipe the deck with him. That little "you have much to learn about loyalty" speech he gave to Gul Macet...what NERVE!
Completely laying aside the fact that Central Command was indeed rearming, since we cannot know if Macet even agreed with that decision...
...and the relaunch novels say that he did not...
...the attitude Picard displayed through that episode was really repugnant. WTF is up with going WARP FOUR when you promised to help the Cardassian save lives from your people's vengeance-driven starship captain? (And yes, it WAS vengeance like Macet said, acting as the primary motivator...this protecting-the-Federation stuff came a distant second and to him was really just the justification for the revenge. Picard was in denial.) If he'd punched it, who knows...he could've gotten there before those ships got blown up! Why the hell was he lolligagging?
(I know this isn't up there with the Boraalan stuff. But it still makes me mad that he let all those Cardassians die. Even if there was some kind of restriction on the Enterprise's movements in Cardassian space, he had Macet and his ships right there. All he had to do was ask permission and from what I saw of Macet, the guy would've granted it in a heartbeat if it meant saving his comrades.)
And then to have the NERVE to lob that insult in Macet's direction that basically, because he's Cardassian he cannot understand loyalty? Sorry...Macet understood better than anybody else there. You can be loyal to an idea of a person, but when the person shifts from that idea in an intolerable manner, you've got to cut them loose, however difficult it may be. That doesn't make you disloyal to the goodness they once had...but you cannot let that hold you back from doing the right thing.
That's an interesting example. You've argued that morality is culturally based, so I can only assume you would include forced conscription, as justified by those who perpetrate it, is something derived from their culture, correct? From their traditions and beliefs?
I ask this because I'm trying to understand how you separate the beliefs of a given culture from the actions of a government. Or do you see no separation at all? Do you believe it is possible that some governments take actions not based on culture or tradition, but only on a ruthless application of logic (For example, "we need more numbers to repel the invaders, therefore everyone fights" - a proposition familiar to anyone who has studied the Battle of Stalingrad.) And let me be clear so there is no confusion, this is not a defense of forced conscription in any way shape or form, I'm simply trying to understand why you believe this argument qualifies as an example of moral relativism.
I can only say what I think is right and wrong- and I will say it loudly and strongly. But others might see it differently. If we can interfere with them, they can interfere with us. The Vissians are more advanced than Humans, technologically. What if they thought some of our cultural traditions were wrong? If wrong is wrong, would you support their invading Earth, say, to put a stop to what it was they saw as wrong?
As much as I think the term is overused, you're setting up something of a straw man here. You continue to say, "what if they disagreed with our culture and invaded us?" But none of the characters in Cogenitor - and nobody in this thread - suggested the invasion of Vissia by Earth, or an attack against their ship, or the forced liberation at gunpoint of Charles.
The cogenitor requested asylum, and she was refused. So, I have to ask another question: do you believe that granting an individual asylum from an oppresive government is morally equivalent to invading a country and forcing them to change their culture, or proselytizing using missionaries? Is all "interfereance" the same? If not, where do you draw the line?
MeanJoePhaser
Admiral
Phlox's "ethics" in "Dear Doctor", let these people die so that the planet's other sentient race, which would've been wiped out on most worlds, can grow or whatever.
In light of the feuding multiple Xindi races destroying their homeworld, the Valakians seem like saints.
And Riker and Picard's actions in UP THE LONG LADDER. Murder and thuggery...are we sure that wasn't a mirror universe episode? Riker murdered how many people during TNG's run? I think he did kill that scientist in "A Matter of Perspective".
In light of the feuding multiple Xindi races destroying their homeworld, the Valakians seem like saints.
And Riker and Picard's actions in UP THE LONG LADDER. Murder and thuggery...are we sure that wasn't a mirror universe episode? Riker murdered how many people during TNG's run? I think he did kill that scientist in "A Matter of Perspective".
I don't see ENT:Cogenitor as being morally questionable at all, mainly for three reasons.
That's an interesting example. You've argued that morality is culturally based, so I can only assume you would include forced conscription, as justified by those who perpetrate it, is something derived from their culture, correct? From their traditions and beliefs?
I ask this because I'm trying to understand how you separate the beliefs of a given culture from the actions of a government. Or do you see no separation at all? Do you believe it is possible that some governments take actions not based on culture or tradition, but only on a ruthless application of logic (For example, "we need more numbers to repel the invaders, therefore everyone fights" - a proposition familiar to anyone who has studied the Battle of Stalingrad.) And let me be clear so there is no confusion, this is not a defense of forced conscription in any way shape or form, I'm simply trying to understand why you believe this argument qualifies as an example of moral relativism.
I can only say what I think is right and wrong- and I will say it loudly and strongly. But others might see it differently. If we can interfere with them, they can interfere with us. The Vissians are more advanced than Humans, technologically. What if they thought some of our cultural traditions were wrong? If wrong is wrong, would you support their invading Earth, say, to put a stop to what it was they saw as wrong?
As much as I think the term is overused, you're setting up something of a straw man here. You continue to say, "what if they disagreed with our culture and invaded us?" But none of the characters in Cogenitor - and nobody in this thread - suggested the invasion of Vissia by Earth, or an attack against their ship, or the forced liberation at gunpoint of Charles.
The cogenitor requested asylum, and she was refused. So, I have to ask another question: do you believe that granting an individual asylum from an oppresive government is morally equivalent to invading a country and forcing them to change their culture, or proselytizing using missionaries? Is all "interfereance" the same? If not, where do you draw the line?
(1) Governments make asylum decisions all the time, and, while sad, Charles' predicament did not really rise to the level of requiring asylum. It was not tortured, abused, or treated badly. It was well cared for; however, its keepers did not recognize it as being sentient on their level. It's interesting that people jump to the conclusion that the cogenitor's contribution to reproduction had to be on the order of being a sex slave, like something out of A Handmaid's Tale, but there's nothing in the episode to support this. In fact, Phlox says its contribution could be some sort of enzyme. Or maybe there's an egg retrieval, like we do with IVF, which is so not a big deal at all.
(2) With no evidence that the cogenitors are abused, there's no basis for granting asylum. (I'm applying US law and practice here, just so you know. I've written and opposed asylum petitions at various points, and have argued the law on both sides. I've also read hundreds of asylum cases under US law. That's the lens through which I watched the episode from the first time on.) Just about every petition has some sort of tragic, heartrending, sad aspect to it. But granting asylum isn't just saying, oh you poor thing, come here, let us give you hugs and chocolate. It's saying, Look, Sovereign Country, we have been convinced that you are committing offenses against your citizen or permitting those offenses to be committed under color of government, and so we are stepping in to protect your citizen from you.
That is a very big deal, and it's not undertaken lightly, for obvious reasons. Asylum is usually granted to protect life, generally granted to protect liberty, and almost never granted to protect the pursuit of happiness. It's tantamount to somebody taking your children into protective custody based on your alleged behaviour.
I've seen scores of petitions denied because, in the end, the person was seeking a better life (economics, the right to vote, the right to practice a religion), but couldn't show that their country was violating his or her human rights.
All to say, (IMO) Archer didn't have a basis for granting asylum (if we applied the equivalent of US law), and he'd lost the moral high ground to convince them of his point of view because Trip had disobeyed orders.
(3) I see Archer slammed all the time for putting his human values first, and not listening to his Vulcan First Officer's wise counsel. Yet in this episode, he takes her advice lock, stock, and barrel -- and then gets slammed for not being human enough. She tells him straight out, You made the right decision. And how are we to know what kind of conversation he did or didn't have with Charles?
I think the decision in this episode was objectively right and completely tragic. I'm just finishing up rewatching Season 2, and I skipped Cogenitor -- not because it's a bad episode, but because it's so good. I wanted to be entertained this time around, and the ep makes me feel unsettled and sad. They got it right.
Sorry to be so longwinded. So what episode do I find morally objectionable? Dear Doctor. I don't understand why they couldn't have given the Valakians the cure and let the chips fall where they may. Phlox was wrong on this one, and there was no objective reason here why Archer should not have stuck to his (human) guns and coughed up the cure. Withhold warp technology? Absolutely. Withhold a cure? Can't justify that one.
Thanks for your interest! I do indeed believe my example is cultural in basis, but is built upon attitudes present in all cultures, a natural outgrowth of the human psyche, I assume. Yes, it comes from their traditions and beliefs- beliefs relating to how young adult males and adolescent boys are viewed, related to and raised. We can choose to overcome these views and beliefs, change and evolve- as I have-, so despite their near-universal status I assume they must be cultural in basis now, not hard-wired.
Yes, government can indeed be separated from culture- everyone is capable of thinking in terms not dictated by cultural background but by, as you say, logic. However, as we all know, appreciation of logic is often clouded by one's own individual perceptions, including often a cultural bias. We can't neatly divide our minds into categories. The use of young women in that battle (but volunteers, if I recall correctly) shows that logic had to some degree won out against culture. The male-only conscription that was the norm during the conflict is based on culture. I apologise if my answer is unclear or makes little sense- I'm quite tired at present!
Well, to be fair (I rewatched that episode a couple of days ago), Picard didn't actually say "You have a lot to learn about loyalty", which would have really been incredibly rude and offensive... He said "You have a lot to learn about humans" and that the kind of loyalty O'Brien felt for Maxwell is something that has been earned in a difficult way, it is not something that comes easily and naturally to humans... i.e. Maxwell earned O'Brien's loyalty through his previous deeds.
So what you're saying is that Sisko tricked them into joining the war against the dominion for their own good?
Should this not be their choice and their choice alone? Is it not wholly immoral to trick another nation into joining your war for your own ends (in this case, to bolster Federation/Klingon defenses)?
Phlox and Archer refusing to help the Valakians, no question. Especially because the episode presented it as the right thing to do. Yes, let's allow millions of people to die because it might benefit (according to whose standards?) some people who might be born millennia from now. Jesus Christ, Phlox was presented as quite likeable and the actor did a good job, but this is not the way to sell us on a character. And Archer's change from disagreeing with Phlox to agreeing with him made him look like he'd been brainwashed, especially with all that stuff about some "directive" that might be created in the future. I guess Archer must have lied to the Valakians in the end, because there's no other explanation for how they got off the planet alive.
I just read the script again--and while that helps a bit, I still find what Picard said condescending, and I still think there is the implicit slur, that because Macet is Cardassian, his ability to understand loyalty is less than a human's.
But to me, it's compounded by the fact that Macet offered the correct analysis just about every single time, and Picard was way off base. Sorry, but you CAN'T stay loyal to someone who does something like Maxwell did. You have to be able to cut them loose to face the consequences without hesitation and without holding back--even if you do still treasure the memories of what once was.
This is how I have Macet respond, in thought, in a story I'm writing (The Thirteenth Order)...
I do comprehend loyalty, Macet reflected. The difference is that I understand how to separate loyalty to a person from loyalty to the idea of what he once was, and I know when it is time to sever ties of pity when that which once was is lost. Anything else is mere fanaticism.
I really have to read your Thirteenth Order story. I myself have always wondered how Macet would have reacted to Picard's comment. I thought it was an implicit slur, too. Not that I have too much of a problem with it- it's nice and realistic to see Picard isn't some sort of perfect being, and has his prejudices like anyone else- but I wondered how Macet took it. I also wonder if, if it wasn't the first appearance of Cardassians, there might have been further exploration of it. Aliens-of-the-week tended to be there to be lectured to in early TNG, much as I love the series. Perhaps, given how complex and developed Cardassians would later become, we are more inclined to take exception to having them used as simple devices to reflect and promote humanity. We prefer a more two-way form of illumination. Next time I'm here, I think I'll read your story (as you know, I loved the other one). Is Macet a central character?
Similar threads
