NuTrek's Faulty Moral Compass

[Pauln6]

Every case is fact specific but if you follow your logic through to conclusion you get an unarmed black kid shot dead walking through a gated community.

If that unarmed black kid is positively identified as a time traveler who recently destroyed an entire planet with a weapon of mass destruction and has been VERY clear about his intention to do so again given half the chance, then your analogy makes sense.

To be less hyberbolic: if the unarmed black kid is someone known to have killed someone AT ALL and is very clear on his intention to do so again, then your analogy makes sense.

I think the kid was pretty much minding his own business and got a bit lippy when he was challenged.

The point is that positively identifying someone as a threat can often be subjective and proven wrong in the cold light of day. The default should not be bad people deserve death. We know very little about Nero's crew.

If you want to get more imaginative with the tech, then as soon as your enemies' shields are down, you beam across neutralising gas. Then you beam them off. If their shields are still up, they're still a threat. The problem with Treknology is that using it properly would suck the fun out of the fights so we have to pretend like it can't do it.

 

[Commishsleer]

My moral dilemmas in STID are:

1. Kirk punching out a prisoner

2. The proposal of killing Khan with 72 missiles


Yes Kirk punching out a prisoner was wrong but really who looked bad - just Kirk. Khan didn't care. Kirk was beneath his contempt. I suppose its meant to show us Kirk was pretty volatile, Khan was a superhuman and how Kirk felt about Pike's death.

I'm going to give you the condensed version of how stupid the 72-missile thing was on everyone's side. Marcus was stupid for putting 72 super-missiles in Kirk's control. And why would Kirk fire all 72 missiles anyway? And where was he going to aim them? And was he going to destroy a section of planet without checking if it was occupied (which it was)? Did Kirk think the Klingons were going to sit by while he stayed on the edge of the neutral zone and lobbed missiles at their planets?

I was thinking it was very wrong for Kirk to even entertain Marcus's proposal. But you know when you're in the military sometimes you have to follow orders from the upper echelons without question because TPTB might be in the know about something. It just happened that Marcus was corrupt. But if he wasn't then Kirk was duty bound to follow through as was his crew including Scott.
PrimeScott would have followed Kirk's order's no matter what unless he considered him insane (Turnabout Intruder). In Taste of Armageddon he was prepared to raze a planet on Kirk's orders. He trusted Kirk to make the right decisions when he was in his right mind.
I had thought that Prime Kirk would never obey a dodgy command order but I considered 'Enterprise Incident' where he and Spock stole the cloaking device from the Romulans. As far as we know this wasn't a desperate act to save the Federation from destruction but something thought of to keep the balance of power. I think in the 60s it was considered justifiable to commit espionage if you were on the side of 'good'. But know it seems to me that Kirk's actions in that episode were morally wrong. Perhaps as morally wrong as the potential deploying of deep range missiles into Klingon Sovereign Territory in STID.

Two things:

First, Kirk apparently came to most of the same conclusions you did, which is why he didn't fire the torpedoes and tried to arrest Khan anyway. Trying to punch him out would be a "nobody's looking, this one's for Pike" moment that backfired hilariously.

Secondly, you're assuming that Admiral Marcus was doing a patently immoral thing by trying to have Khan blown away with 72 torpedoes that (sadistic/ironically) also contained the corpses of his buddies. Have you entertained the possibility that Marcus was actually PLAYING Kirk and that those torpedoes never would have detonated at all, but instead would have simply soft-landed on Qo'nos and Khan and his people would have gone on to conquer Qo'nos and use it as a Section 31 proxy army?

To the second point, considering how little hesitation Marcus showed to destroy the Enterprise and its entire crew just to keep Khan from getting the upper hand, it's possible that Khan was still acting on Marcus' orders when he gunned down most of Starfleet's brass and that Kirk's flash of moral clarity (and Khan's decision to exploit that morality for a chance to conquer a less shitty world), in which case the "moral" of the story is "Never trust the military."

I agree with you that Kirk independently realised the 'immorality' of his actions in regards to the torpedoes and that Kirk was the one who looked stupid in the fight after Khan surrendered.

I still can see heaps of problems with your 72 torpedo solution but I can't think of anything better.

I really think it needed to be spelled out a bit more (for the fans at least).

 

[MakeshiftPython]

A simple solution would have been to just beam up Nero and his crew and put them in the brig so they can be put to trial for their crimes. That's never even brought up, and I would have settled for even a "our transporters can't lock onto them" just to make it clear. Then you get to the point where they offer Nero assistance, he turns them down. Kirk knows the situation from the on is futile, and orders the Narada's destruction not just because it's what a Hollywood summer tentpole is expected to do with the hero slaying the villain, but that it's because Kirk feels it's the right thing to do to put them out of their misery. "I can't help them, but I can't leave them here suffering like this."

But, as it is, Kirk and Spock come off like punks shooting down a defenseless enemy. Apologists can make whatever excuses they like, whether it's "but Nero turned them down", or "they were gonna destroy more planets in the next dimension", "he's a genocidal maniac, give him the chair!", when it comes down to it, I want Kirk and especially Spock to be better than how they're portrayed in that scene and at least show that they tried. Spock disagreeing with Kirk's act of compassion is fucking bullshit. Kirk's unhesitating "you've got it" doesn't mesh with his offering assistence, unless he was just messing with Nero the whole time and had no intention of helping out.

In the end, if it had to end with Kirk shooting up the defensless Narada, I would have put more thought to it than these hack writers. I would have shown that it made Kirk a little upset that he couldn't capture Nero to put him on trial.

 

[Locutus of Bored]

Apologists can make whatever excuses they like, whether it's "but Nero turned them down", or "they were gonna destroy more planets in the next dimension", "he's a genocidal maniac, give him the chair!", when it comes down to it, I want Kirk and especially Spock to be better than how they're portrayed in that scene and at least show that they tried.

Somehow, I will have to try and find the inner strength to survive the knowledge that I am an apologist for not letting genocidal psychopaths potentially be free to roam the stars in their gigantic black pineapple of death. I'll just have to drink away my sorrows and overcome, one day at a time.

 

[MakeshiftPython]

If the film did a better job of addressing that "Captain, we can't risk the possibility of letting him enter another alternate universe", sure. As it is, he's dead in the water by that point and has no means to harm anyone.

 

[BillJ]

If the film did a better job of addressing that "Captain, we can't risk the possibility of letting him enter another alternate universe", sure. As it is, he's dead in the water by that point and has no means to harm anyone.

Why does the film need to spell out what my six-year old was able to piece together?

 

[MakeshiftPython]

To make it clear that Kirk considered all options and only shot them down as a LAST RESORT. It's never treated that way, and I dislike how flippant they come off shooting them down. It would have gone a long way just to show that Kirk wanted to make it a priority of saving them, and the way they go about it isn't enough.

 

[BillJ]

To make it clear that Kirk considered all options and only shot them down as a LAST RESORT. It's never treated that way, and I dislike how flippant they come off shooting them down. It would have gone a long way just to show that Kirk wanted to make it a priority of saving them, and the way they go about it isn't enough.

It wasn't enough for you. For me, I didn't need a long painful debate nor did I need Kirk to be angsty over sending Nero on to the whatever lays beyond death. The guy was a genocidal madman who killed more than six billions beings including children.

Kirk went further than I would have, I think he went further than most rational beings would have. Honestly, I agreed with Spock. Put the mad dog down.

 

[Commishsleer]

If the film did a better job of addressing that "Captain, we can't risk the possibility of letting him enter another alternate universe", sure. As it is, he's dead in the water by that point and has no means to harm anyone.

Are you 100% certain that it was made clear in the movie that Nero had no means to harm anyone anymore. Because I never saw that.
Its like a policeman letting a serial killer escape whose seriously wounded because he wouldn't surrender (except many times worse). Of course the killer may never kill again but are you going to take that risk?

 

[Set Harth]

Why does the film need to spell out what my six-year old was able to piece together?

For God's sake man, there are three-year-olds to consider!!!

 

[shapeshifter]

Cowboy Diplomacy!

It's been stated many times already, the Narada was being pulled into the singularity. Nobody witnessing the event could guarantee what they were seeing did not amount to a possible 'escape' by the Narada to heaven knows where/when.

Could anyone calling for Kirk's head on a platter for his lack of mercy in his place live with themselves if it became known after the fact that the Narada may have survived its plunge to wreak havoc on some other time and place?

 

[MakeshiftPython]

If the film did a better job of addressing that "Captain, we can't risk the possibility of letting him enter another alternate universe", sure. As it is, he's dead in the water by that point and has no means to harm anyone.

Are you 100% certain that it was made clear in the movie that Nero had no means to harm anyone anymore. Because I never saw that.
Its like a policeman letting a serial killer escape whose seriously wounded because he wouldn't surrender (except many times worse). Of course the killer may never kill again but are you going to take that risk?

You're reading it wrong. When I said he had no means to harm anyone, I'm saying that he has no means to harm the Enterprise. At that very moment, he was no longer a threat. To take your police man analogy further, no, I do not want Kirk to let Nero escape, I want him to capture Nero. They have transporters to beam him up and put him in the brig, why not use them? It's never brought up for consideration.

But as I said earlier, I'm not against the idea of Kirk shooting up the Narada and killing Nero, I'm just against the way it was executed (pardon the pun). I would have preferred it if Kirk went with that order treated as a last resort, that for a moment he gives it some thought and realizes that it's the only sensible option because they can't transport him and he wants to give Nero a quick death instead of enduring a slow one from the singularity (which had crippled his ship beyond repair, given that it's all happening from WITHIN the ship).

To the real point, I want Kirk to be thoughtful about his decisions, not act so flippantly "you've got it!" just to get the audience all pumped up over the hero killing the villain, "YEAH GET HIM, BOOM BOOM BLOW HIM UP!!!".

 

[Dale Sams]

If the film did a better job of addressing that "Captain, we can't risk the possibility of letting him enter another alternate universe", sure. As it is, he's dead in the water by that point and has no means to harm anyone.

Are you 100% certain that it was made clear in the movie that Nero had no means to harm anyone anymore. Because I never saw that.
Its like a policeman letting a serial killer escape whose seriously wounded because he wouldn't surrender (except many times worse). Of course the killer may never kill again but are you going to take that risk?

To the real point, I want Kirk to be thoughtful about his decisions, not act so flippantly "you've got it!" just to get the audience all pumped up over the hero killing the villain, "YEAH GET HIM, BOOM BOOM BLOW HIM UP!!!".

Agreed. That was really one of my pet peeves. That and in ST:ID, Uhura saying "Go get him!"

Dumb flippant action writing.

I'm not slamming the two movies by the way.

 

[M'Sharak]

Apologists can make whatever excuses they like...

While it may fall short of being an outright flame, the word "apologists"—when used in the context of talking about Trek—always seems to read as if it's intended as a putdown. At the very least, it has the effect of making one sound as if one might be taking Star Trek and Gene Roddenberry's Vision™ a little too seriously. Please consider before choosing to use that word in this forum again, won't you?

Thanks.

 

[MakeshiftPython]

I got carried away, because a lot of times it seems folks will defend anything in these films or at least give it a pass because they think the film is fun and shouldn't be criticized, an overreaction to the flamers who always bash whatever happens in these films no matter what. At least, that's what it seems to me. If "apologists" comes off as a putdown for some folks, I suppose "Abramsverse enthusiasts" will suffice.

 

[YARN]

Does nuTrek really have a moral compass?

I mean it expresses tribal morality (looking after your own peeps - the virtue of bros looking out for their bros), it gestures at the importance of teamwork and following rules (even though Kirk is rewarded for breaking the rules too, and his rule-breaking often turns out to be "correct"), and there is lip-service paid to the prime directive, but this Trek isn't really preoccupied with morality as of yet.

Maybe the next film will present a moral dilemma, but so far it has been the good guys working to stop crazy revenge-driven bad guys.

At any rate, I don't see "bad morality" as a reason to object to the last two films, as they weren't really moral exercises.

 

[Brutal Strudel]

And that is the one departure from TOS--conceived of and its best when it told complex morality plays that didn't treat killing lightly--that is truly galling.

 

[Set Harth]

but this Trek isn't really preoccupied with morality as of yet.

And that is the one departure from TOS--conceived of and its best when it told complex morality plays that didn't treat killing lightly--that is truly galling.

You missed the part where Spock judged Kirk's orders to be immoral and Kirk later defied them?

 

[YARN]

but this Trek isn't really preoccupied with morality as of yet.

And that is the one departure from TOS--conceived of and its best when it told complex morality plays that didn't treat killing lightly--that is truly galling.

You missed the part where Spock judged Kirk's orders to be immoral and Kirk later defied them?

Huh, the part where Kirk defied his own orders?

 

[Set Harth]

His orders meaning orders given to him.