Best and worst moral dilemmas in Star Trek

[sonak]

Star Trek: Insurrection was the worst of all because it seemed obvious that moving 1000 people off a planet to improve the lives of BILLIONS of people was the obvious right choice.

Except the whole it wasn't the federation's planet (making this out right conquest aka what Trek BADGUYS do) thing seeing as they were there before it existed and the whole kidnapping plan thing which is kind of illegal. Not to mention even in the real world government are allowed just to take where your living without giving you something unless you live in a totalitarian dictatorship that is.

Besides the whole the Ba'ku are selfish argument is horses@#T when you remeber the THEY WERE NEVER ASKED AT ALL. Youn can't call somebody selfish if your only negotiation tactic is shove them in the back of a ship and dump them somewhere else. Of course they would be annoyed by that only an idiot or a crook thinks thats okay to do to someone.

It was totally legal. Argue the ethics if you want, but the legal case is pretty straightforward.

The Baku were not a recognized power, they were a breakaway village that landed somewhere. The UFP was an established power with legal standing, and the Baku were in their territory. Eminent domain at its simplest. Its even simpler if you add that the Son'a legally probably have as much right to the planet, and they were cooperating with the UFP.

I keep reading on these boards how it's "theft" whenever this comes up. Is eminent domain not a commonly recognized concept?

The "Baku weren't asked" excuse is a fig leaf. They weren't asked because it was thought that it was a PD scenario, and it's pretty clear from the movie that if they had been asked, they'd have said no.

 

[Christopher]

The Baku were not a recognized power, they were a breakaway village that landed somewhere. The UFP was an established power with legal standing, and the Baku were in their territory. Eminent domain at its simplest.

Nonsense. Just because the planet happens to be within the volume of space claimed by the Federation, that doesn't mean the Federation "owns" it or has any legitimate claim there. Space doesn't work like that. It's simply too immense. Any civilization's territory is realistically just the specific star systems they occupy and the major travel routes between them; the notion that it encompasses an entire continuous volume of mostly empty space is a misleading simplification. There are plenty of planets technically within "Federation space" that are inhabited by beings independent from the Federation, such as the Orions, Capellans, and Sigma Draconians (to go by Star Trek Star Charts). Only conquerors and dictators would claim they owned someone else's planet just because they happened to surround it.

Your argument is as corrupt as that used by the early European settlers who had no problem driving Native Americans off their rightful, ancestral lands just because they didn't live in the same kind of sedentary nation-states that Europeans had -- because they weren't "recognized powers" in the ethnocentric way Europeans defined it. Hell, the whole point of the movie was to serve as an allegory for the atrocities that have happened in real history when less powerful populations have been forced from their homes, turned into refugees or put in concentration camps or slaughtered outright, because some more powerful state alleged that it had a superior right to the territory because it was bigger. You really, really need to brush up on your history, because if you knew what the hell you were talking about, you wouldn't so completely miss the point of the movie or so casually endorse the kind of mentality that led to the Trail of Tears and the Holocaust and countless other horrors inflicted on smaller, weaker populations throughout history.

The "Baku weren't asked" excuse is a fig leaf. They weren't asked because it was thought that it was a PD scenario, and it's pretty clear from the movie that if they had been asked, they'd have said no.

Now, that's a silly, self-contradictory argument. If the Prime Directive forbade asking them, then it absolutely forbade forcibly relocating them. So using the wrongness of asking them to justify the rightness of kidnapping them is incredibly disingenuous.

 

[stj]

The best fictional moral dilemmas are those that are relevant to real life. Being scientifically plausible is important in that regard. After Star Trek, the increasing contempt for rationality tended to render the supposed dilemmas so physically extravagant as to render the whole thing an exercise in sensationalism. Tuvix and Dear Doctor are prime offenders in that regard.

A narrow scientific plausibility is not required for relevance, though it helps. The supposed dilemma in In the Pale Moonlight relies on the belief that a government's decision to go to war actually depends on intelligence, whereas everyone who cares to know, knows that intelligence is faked to justify war. And as pointed out above, In the Pale Moonlight is also not really a dilemma because the choice is between Sisko's supposed personal moral purity the salvation of billions. Most of the supposed dilemmas in later Trek are the same kind of thing, rigged to justify the necessity for the good guys to do bad things while yet still being good guys. We know because they angst about it (although like Sisko they do in fact turn out to be quite able to live, and happily, with it.)

Most of the good moral dilemmas are in Star Trek, not so much City of the Edge of Forever, though. The intrinsic abusurdity of Joan Collins leading to Nazi victory tends to vitiate the claims. But something like Conscience of the King is much stronger.

 

[sonak]

The Baku were not a recognized power, they were a breakaway village that landed somewhere. The UFP was an established power with legal standing, and the Baku were in their territory. Eminent domain at its simplest.

Nonsense. Just because the planet happens to be within the volume of space claimed by the Federation, that doesn't mean the Federation "owns" it or has any legitimate claim there. Space doesn't work like that. It's simply too immense. Any civilization's territory is realistically just the specific star systems they occupy and the major travel routes between them; the notion that it encompasses an entire continuous volume of mostly empty space is a misleading simplification. There are plenty of planets technically within "Federation space" that are inhabited by beings independent from the Federation, such as the Orions, Capellans, and Sigma Draconians (to go by Star Trek Star Charts). Only conquerors and dictators would claim they owned someone else's planet just because they happened to surround it.

Your argument is as corrupt as that used by the early European settlers who had no problem driving Native Americans off their rightful, ancestral lands just because they didn't live in the same kind of sedentary nation-states that Europeans had -- because they weren't "recognized powers" in the ethnocentric way Europeans defined it. Hell, the whole point of the movie was to serve as an allegory for the atrocities that have happened in real history when less powerful populations have been forced from their homes, turned into refugees or put in concentration camps or slaughtered outright, because some more powerful state alleged that it had a superior right to the territory because it was bigger. You really, really need to brush up on your history, because if you knew what the hell you were talking about, you wouldn't so completely miss the point of the movie or so casually endorse the kind of mentality that led to the Trail of Tears and the Holocaust and countless other horrors inflicted on smaller, weaker populations throughout history.

The "Baku weren't asked" excuse is a fig leaf. They weren't asked because it was thought that it was a PD scenario, and it's pretty clear from the movie that if they had been asked, they'd have said no.

Now, that's a silly, self-contradictory argument. If the Prime Directive forbade asking them, then it absolutely forbade forcibly relocating them. So using the wrongness of asking them to justify the rightness of kidnapping them is incredibly disingenuous.

I need to brush up on my history because I don't buy into the failed allegory that the movie presents? Comparing the Holocaust, a systematic extermination of a people because of pseudo-scientific racism, to relocating a small village to gain a medical advance that would benefit billions? Maybe it's you who should brush up on history and get off your high horse.

As to my PD argument, it's not contradictory at all. The Baku were not asked because it was thought they were pre-warp technological primitives. However, in any case, they weren't naturally from that planet, so removing them isn't interfering with their "natural development."(whatever that means)

 

[sonak]

The best fictional moral dilemmas are those that are relevant to real life. Being scientifically plausible is important in that regard. After Star Trek, the increasing contempt for rationality tended to render the supposed dilemmas so physically extravagant as to render the whole thing an exercise in sensationalism. Tuvix and Dear Doctor are prime offenders in that regard.

A narrow scientific plausibility is not required for relevance, though it helps. The supposed dilemma in In the Pale Moonlight relies on the belief that a government's decision to go to war actually depends on intelligence, whereas everyone who cares to know, knows that intelligence is faked to justify war. And as pointed out above, In the Pale Moonlight is also not really a dilemma because the choice is between Sisko's supposed personal moral purity the salvation of billions. Most of the supposed dilemmas in later Trek are the same kind of thing, rigged to justify the necessity for the good guys to do bad things while yet still being good guys. We know because they angst about it (although like Sisko they do in fact turn out to be quite able to live, and happily, with it.)

Most of the good moral dilemmas are in Star Trek, not so much City of the Edge of Forever, though. The intrinsic abusurdity of Joan Collins leading to Nazi victory tends to vitiate the claims. But something like Conscience of the King is much stronger.

um, intelligence is always faked to justify war? I assume this is a reference to the Iraq war, but it's a rather silly generalization.

As to the absurdity of Edith Keeler having such an impact on history-why? Look at how history changes if Hitler dies in WWI or Churchill doesn't become PM. One person can have a huge impact.

 

[Christopher]

I need to brush up on my history because I don't buy into the failed allegory that the movie presents? Comparing the Holocaust, a systematic extermination of a people because of pseudo-scientific racism, to relocating a small village to gain a medical advance that would benefit billions? Maybe it's you who should brush up on history and get off your high horse.

The whole point is that if you start thinking it's okay to do it below a certain number of people, then that's the start of the slippery slope. The various Native American populations that got displaced or slaughtered in the name of European colonization were fairly small communities individually (at least once the smallpox brought over from Europe and spread through indigenous trade routes wiped out most of the continent's population), but the slaughter still added up to a horrible ongoing atrocity.

Assuming you can make others do what you want because they're smaller than you are is bullying. It's a "might makes right" mentality and it's anathema to the values that the Federation stands for.

As to my PD argument, it's not contradictory at all. The Baku were not asked because it was thought they were pre-warp technological primitives. However, in any case, they weren't naturally from that planet, so removing them isn't interfering with their "natural development."(whatever that means)

Well, hell, odds are that your ancestors came from someplace other than where you're living now. So tell me, if someone came along and forced you to leave your home just because you weren't originally from there, or because you were just one person, would you still think that was okay?

 

[sonak]

I need to brush up on my history because I don't buy into the failed allegory that the movie presents? Comparing the Holocaust, a systematic extermination of a people because of pseudo-scientific racism, to relocating a small village to gain a medical advance that would benefit billions? Maybe it's you who should brush up on history and get off your high horse.

The whole point is that if you start thinking it's okay to do it below a certain number of people, then that's the start of the slippery slope. The various Native American populations that got displaced or slaughtered in the name of European colonization were fairly small communities individually (at least once the smallpox brought over from Europe and spread through indigenous trade routes wiped out most of the continent's population), but the slaughter still added up to a horrible ongoing atrocity.

Assuming you can make others do what you want because they're smaller than you are is bullying. It's a "might makes right" mentality and it's anathema to the values that the Federation stands for.

As to my PD argument, it's not contradictory at all. The Baku were not asked because it was thought they were pre-warp technological primitives. However, in any case, they weren't naturally from that planet, so removing them isn't interfering with their "natural development."(whatever that means)

Well, hell, odds are that your ancestors came from someplace other than where you're living now. So tell me, if someone came along and forced you to leave your home just because you weren't originally from there, or because you were just one person, would you still think that was okay?

I'm not supporting Dougherty and the UFP because they're "more powerful," I'm supporting them because they were going to use the planet's resources to benefit billions, rather than to benefit a tiny village.

I was only using eminent domain as a legal argument, it's not the basis of the ethical one, which would still support Dougherty against the UFP.

You're argument is nothing more than an all or nothing one. "involuntary relocation must always be wrong, no matter the scenario," is no better than "killing is always wrong, therefore pacifism is always the correct path."

Ethics don't rely on rigid rules like that. If my moving from where I lived would mean folks could dig up the cure for cancer, then yes of course I'd move.

 

[Mr. Laser Beam]

^ There is no guarantee that the treatment which would have been derived from the planet's rings would have even worked at all. So even if the Ba'ku had been relocated, it might have all been for nothing.

 

[sonak]

^ There is no guarantee that the treatment which would have been derived from the planet's rings would have even worked at all. So even if the Ba'ku had been relocated, it might have all been for nothing.

I guess, but that's speculation not in the movie. The Son'a and UFP scientists seem pretty confident it'll work.

 

[DonIago]

^^Guessing you're one of the folks who also believes Tuvix shouldn't have been separated because that procedure might also have failed?

For the record, I don't support the separation of Tuvix.

 

[Sandoval]

For the record, I don't support the separation of Tuvix.

I do.

But the wrongness of removing the Baku is glaringly obvious to all but the most closed-minded.

 

[Christopher]

I don't think there was a "right" answer to the Tuvix question; that's what makes it such a wrenching episode. Either way, somebody dies. But I can understand why Janeway made the choice she made. She had to consider the morale of her entire crew. And once Tuvix refused to sacrifice himself for the good of their friends and crewmates Tuvok and Neelix, the crew turned against him emotionally. After that, they couldn't trust him to have their backs, and that could be dangerous for the stability of the crew, given that they were all stuck together in hostile space. So Janeway chose to restore Tuvok and Neelix because it was the option that better served the well-being of the crew and the good of the mission. It was the pragmatic choice to make, though there was no morally right decision in that situation.

 

[DonIago]

For the record, I don't support the separation of Tuvix.

I do.

But the wrongness of removing the Baku is glaringly obvious to all but the most closed-minded.

Funny, I never thought of myself as being particularly closed-minded... I wonder how open-minded it is to brand people you've never met with a derogatory label...

 

[JiNX-01]

Damage: Archer steals a warp core, essentially stranding an alien crew years away from their homeworld. Archer gave them supplies and trellium to shield from the anomalies but pirates preyed on the weak in The Expanse, so even if they were to head home immediately, they were still at serious risk. I'm not saying Archer was wrong. "The needs of the many..."

So are you counting that as a "best," a "worst," or somewhere in between?

Hmmm.... The human race facing almost certain extinction vs. a small crew on a starship facing a long ride home...

I guess I'm saying Archer has nothing to apologize for...

 

[Sandoval]

Funny, I never thought of myself as being particularly closed-minded... I wonder how open-minded it is to brand people you've never met with a derogatory label...

Don't pout.

 

[TEACAKE'S PLEATHER DOME]

Tuvix always provokes strong feelings.. guess that makes it quite a good episode.

 

[Christopher]

So are you counting that as a "best," a "worst," or somewhere in between?

Hmmm.... The human race facing almost certain extinction vs. a small crew on a starship facing a long ride home...

I guess I'm saying Archer has nothing to apologize for...

Well, the question isn't whether the character did the right thing, but whether the dilemma itself was well-done or engaging or challenging. If the moral choice is easy or obvious, if the story doesn't make you think or leave you with questions about whether the right choice was made, then it's not a good dilemma story.

 

[You_Will_Fail]

The whole point is that if you start thinking it's okay to do it below a certain number of people, then that's the start of the slippery slope.

I was a (not very good) debater in university, and any time anyone used the term "slippery slope", they were marked down and there's a reason. Its illogical to just say "oh well if they're moving 1000 people now, they might move a million people later". It doesn't mean that, it really does mean that 1000 IS a small number of people.

They weren't going to kill the people, they were simply removing them from a planet which needed to be used to help billions of people. Watching our crew actually PREVENT a procedure that could help billions of people in order to ensure that 1000 people can remain immortal was absolutely absurd to me. Even from a storytelling perspective of people watching it, how could we even relate to the Ba'ku?

I do. It was the obvious right decision.

 

[BillJ]

The Baku were not a recognized power, they were a breakaway village that landed somewhere. The UFP was an established power with legal standing, and the Baku were in their territory. Eminent domain at its simplest.

Nonsense. Just because the planet happens to be within the volume of space claimed by the Federation, that doesn't mean the Federation "owns" it or has any legitimate claim there. Space doesn't work like that. It's simply too immense. Any civilization's territory is realistically just the specific star systems they occupy and the major travel routes between them; the notion that it encompasses an entire continuous volume of mostly empty space is a misleading simplification. There are plenty of planets technically within "Federation space" that are inhabited by beings independent from the Federation, such as the Orions, Capellans, and Sigma Draconians (to go by Star Trek Star Charts). Only conquerors and dictators would claim they owned someone else's planet just because they happened to surround it.

Your argument is as corrupt as that used by the early European settlers who had no problem driving Native Americans off their rightful, ancestral lands just because they didn't live in the same kind of sedentary nation-states that Europeans had -- because they weren't "recognized powers" in the ethnocentric way Europeans defined it. Hell, the whole point of the movie was to serve as an allegory for the atrocities that have happened in real history when less powerful populations have been forced from their homes, turned into refugees or put in concentration camps or slaughtered outright, because some more powerful state alleged that it had a superior right to the territory because it was bigger. You really, really need to brush up on your history, because if you knew what the hell you were talking about, you wouldn't so completely miss the point of the movie or so casually endorse the kind of mentality that led to the Trail of Tears and the Holocaust and countless other horrors inflicted on smaller, weaker populations throughout history.

The "Baku weren't asked" excuse is a fig leaf. They weren't asked because it was thought that it was a PD scenario, and it's pretty clear from the movie that if they had been asked, they'd have said no.

Now, that's a silly, self-contradictory argument. If the Prime Directive forbade asking them, then it absolutely forbade forcibly relocating them. So using the wrongness of asking them to justify the rightness of kidnapping them is incredibly disingenuous.

Since the planet doesn't belong to the Federation, you'd have no problem with the S'ona coming in and exterminating the Ba'ku and taking the particles?

 

[You_Will_Fail]

Exterminating the Ba'ku? Where on earth did you get the impression that I wouldn't oppose the Ba'ku being exterminated?