Spoilers Captain Archer's Response in Cogenitor

I am often perplexed at Captain Archer's response near the end of the episode, when it is revealed that the cogenitor took her life. Moments prior, when deliberating her request for asylum, he seemed to be thoughtful and careful in understanding the complexities of the situation. But upon her suicide he completely alienates Trip, and goes as far as to blame him for her death.

I understand it is meant to be a complex, moral conundrum - but I cannot for the life of me understand how it is Trip's fault. The cogenitor spent her entire life being controlled, limited by her peers. Trip showed her just what she is capable of, and helped to actually start living. When Captain Archer denies her asylum, he is essentially sentencing her to a life of servitude.

Based on that, I genuinely feel it is Captain Archer's fault that the cogenitor took her life – not Trip's. I also acknowledge this is an extremely complex idea, and that I may be missing some aspects of morality here. But every time I watch that episode I am flabbergasted by the captain's response.

 

Archer killed an entire sentient species on a philosophical whim without any instructions from his superiors. He wasn't going to bat an eye on one asylum seeker.

 

This is true lol. From a writing stand point, Archer is meant to be flawed. He has the early signs of the star fleet we know and love, but just falls short. Specifically with the cogenitor, perhaps the point was that he hasn't yet learned to blur the lines between diplomacy and morality.

 

I like the show a lot, esp seasons 3 and 4, but Archer is the worst captain, by far. He got his job at least in part from nepotism. He had all the diplomacy of mallet. His treatment of T'Pol early on was horrible. He can't be claimed for his attrition rate, seeing that it was the first warp 5 ship, and the Xindi campaign was nearly suicidal, but you can't overlook it either.

 

The whole Cogenitor episode is not... one of Archer’s finest moments. (And I say that as someone who likes Archer.)

 

Actually, it WAS Trip's fault.
He directly MEDDLED into the internal affairs of another species (a much more advanced, albeit peaceful one), even though he knew going out into space he might encounter alien beings who do NOT share humanity's point of view... and it resulted in a death of the Cogenitor (via suicide).
His actions led to its/her death.

Was it Trip's right to interfere? Nope. He went to see the Cogenitor in secret and taught it/her to read and write.
Other NX-01 crewmembers had the sense not to poke too deep into the cultural norms of other species (and Trip was already told its not something for him to worry about)... but Trip just couldn't resist himself.

He acted irresponsibly, and I think Archer may have been correct in not granting her the asylum.
Granting her the asylum could have created a massive problem with diplomatic relations (which I'm sorry DO take precedence in First Contact scenarios), and a potential tactical conflict (which quite frankly, the NX-01 wouldn't be able to survive).

 

The moment Trip started acting covertly he crossed the line, really.

What if the Vissians had been more hot-headed and declared war against Earth because of their interference in the Vissians' internal affairs?

 

I whole heartedly disagree here. From your argument, the individual’s needs and concerns are set aside for the betterment of a greater agenda.

Trip was wrong to interfere, but it’s also true that Archer was wrong for sentencing to Cogenitor to a life of servitude.

There are many instances where first contact results in harsh decisions in order to protect the interests of a person. In this case, the Cogenitor decided that she wished to be an individual and not a servant. Why does Archer have the authority to deny her that?

In regards to trip’s actions, it would have meant nothing if the Cogenitor herself did not have a desire to be free. She should have been granted asylum and Trip reprimanded.

An analogy for the situation is finding someone who had been kept locked in doors their whole life. The family who kept them locked does not wish for them to be outside for whatever reason. But someone shows them the outdoors, then another individual decides that they should, in fact, be locked away their whole life. Just because they did not know what they were missing prior does not mean their rights as an individual do not matter. Being outside changed their life and that should be respected.

So I stand by that Archer caused the Cogenitor’s death

 

"An analogy for the situation is finding someone who had been kept locked in doors their whole life. The family who kept them locked does not wish for them to be outside for whatever reason. But someone shows them the outdoors, then another individual decides that they should, in fact, be locked away their whole life. Just because they did not know what they were missing prior does not mean their rights as an individual do not matter. Being outside changed their life and that should be respected."

Your analogy is overly-simplistic.

In most societies, locking someone away is illegal...
However, the US, at least, typically doesn't go around telling other countries how their citizens should be treated beyond paying lip service to it. Also, when the US goes for more active, often the result is that things get worse rather than better.
Also, the Vissians made a point of the fact that Cogenitors compose only 3% of their society, so I can see how granting a single one asylum could have serious repercussions to their civilization.
Trip is, in fact, the one directly responsible for the Cogenitor's death, because if he hadn't disrespected their civilization because it didn't meet his personal standards than they would still be alive. Archer was the one with the unenviable task of trying to repair the problems Trip created despite his personal feelings on the matter.
As I said above, we don't know how the Vissians might have reacted if Archer had granted the Cogenitor asylum, but it likely would have set a dangerous precedent and reputation for humans not only thinking they knew better than other civilizations but being willing to meddle in their affairs.

How would you feel if you were a Vissian hoping to have offspring and you were suddenly looking at your only means for doing so being taken away from you by a civilization you didn't even know existed a week earlier?

 

None of that changes the idea that it was the Cogenitor herself that decided she wanted to live a different life. Placing the importance of a collective above an individual is a borg mentality and I do not agree with it.

There were only selfish benefits to her servitude. Offsprings could still be had without the need for slavery.

The fact is the Cogenitor would be alive if Archer had not sentenced her to servitude, something he has no authority to do.

 

The Cogenitor never would have wanted to live a different life, and would still be alive, if Trip hadn't taken it upon himself to right great wrongs.

As captain of a starship, and based on existing Trek precedent, Archer had every right to grant or deny asylum requests. It's obvious that he feels remorse about his decision as well, but in this humble viewer's opinion he made the only call he could reasonably make.

 

This is one moral point we fundamentally disagree upon. Just because a person was ignorant of what they desired in life, does not mean someone is wrong to show them the light.

She did not start living until she met Trip, and Archer took her life away based on that. I consider it one of Starfleets greatest moral failures.

 

So you think humanity has the right to tell other civlizations how they should be after knowing them for less than a week?

 

No, since that’s not what happened. Starfleet is not imposing any cultural or political changes upon anyone. They are deliberating the desires of an individual.

If they were telling them to liberate all cogenitors then your stance would be relevant. But since they are not your statement has no baring on the idea that Archer is responsible for the Cogenitor’s death

 

In my estimation, they would have been doing both.

 

'The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few, or the one'.
While individual rights in one culture need to be respected... we shouldn't callously apply the same perception or way of thinking to other cultures.
One cultures view doesn't automatically mean its superior to the other one.

Trip was wrong to interfere, PERIOD.
He shouldn't have put Archer into that horrible position to begin with. And no, I don't think Archer was wrong in denying the asylum.
Remember, this was before the Federation was founded... but Archer also learned his lesson about meddling in other cultures affairs. He was representing Humanity out there... and I don't think he had too many options given the circumstances.

But if you want to ignore the fact the Cogenitor aliens were FAR more technologically advanced and probably could have destroyed NX-01 if they wanted to and the fact Archer also had his entire crew to look after... sure... ignore it.

Because as Captain he can make the decision on whether or not he can grant the asylum and as such, he needs to weigh multiple options and to handle the situation in an appropriate manner. What are the long lasting repercussions of granting the asylum for example? How would this reflect on his standing with Starfleet and Vulcan high command? Is it worth souring relations with a friendly species (which aren't exactly in abundance)?
How would this decision affect the Cogenitor?
No one could have predicted that she would decide to commit suicide. Trip caused the problem. He should have been reprimanded more seriously.

And you think the Vissians would have just allowed the NX-01 (a strange alien race) to leave with the Cogenitor?
I don't think so.

Again, you lack the context. Within Trek, we're talking about another alien species that has their own social rules and regulations.
Here's a quote from Janeway that might be fitting:
"Who are we to swoop in, play god and then continue on our way without the slightest consideration of the long term effects of our actions?"

You want another example?
Just look at what we are presently doing in real life to non-human animals and the environment for the sake of profit, cost efficiency and ludicrous concept of 'infinite growth'?
Oh and this is coming from 'western civilization' to boot.

You're focusing on Archer because you still refuse to look at who CAUSED the problem in the first place (that was Trip, plain and simple).
Its not Archer's job to constantly clean up after Trip's mess. Each member of the crew is expected to behave as an adult and not project their values onto another species.

 

I understand your points. With the needs of the many, i’d refer to the follow up quote of “The needs of the one outweigh the needs of the many.”

I do agree that Trip’s involvement started the entire situation. And that Archer did have security and safety concerns in deciding his choice, as is common in a real world scenario.

Is it possible that we can both be correct? Trip is responsible, Archer had a tough and complex situation, but that ultimately he placed diplomatic relations above the interest of the Cogenitor and thus is a responsible entity in her suicide.

And finally, your points beg another question to me: How long do two cultures have to coexist for it to be okay to comfortably grant asylum in this situation? On a small scale we can see this in the real world today - different cultures clashing over asylum cases.

 

That one was said by Kirk. Vulcans at large did NOT ascribe to that view at that time (and most certainly not 100 years prior).

And yet, Archer didn't know and couldn't know the Cogenitor would decide to end her life (which she did well AFTER he reached his decision).

Plus, from his perspective, she wasn't in any immediate danger. For all he knew, this is how their society worked... and heck, it DID.

Given the situation he was put in (irresponsibly so) by Trip, he probably had to put diplomatic relations with another species (an entire alien race) above the interest of the Cogenitor (1 person).
He may have thought that once better and formal relations are established, the Vissians might be persuaded to change their stance on Cogenitors as a whole.

Until formal diplomatic ties can be established along with guidelines on how to interact with each other on a more deeper level to AVOID cultural clashes since First Contact may not cover everything in full detail.
The purpose of F.C is for 2 (or more) alien species to get to know something about each other... sort of like 'first impressions' situation... and while no one is expected to be PERFECT in such situations, certain protocol needs to be observed with least amount of assumptions (or better yet, NO assumptions) being put forth.

For example, if the Vissians met another Federation Starfleet ship in say mid 23rd century, and they expressed interest in joining the Federation, the Federation would likely ask them to meet various guidelines for joining (much like every other subsequent species had to).
For instance, if the Bajorans re-adopted the di'jarrahs, it would have ended their prospects for joining the Federation as it would have re-created a class system (which is highly discriminatory).

A prospective species that wants to join the Federation needs to have a largely cohesive society without discriminating against other sentient creatures on its own planet - so if the Vissians wanted to join the Federation, they would probably have to adjust their current approach to Cogenitors, educate them, extend rights to them and provide them a choice in regards to conception (though its a bit of a stretch to think the Vissians couldn't just use science and technology to procreate if a Cogenitor was not available at the stage they were at... that would have avoided the whole problem to begin with - heck, the Federation could offer to HELP the Vissians in procreating via artificial means in that case so they don't need to use the Cogenitors in the first place... or at least, it would give the Cogenitors a choice to participate in the conception and raising of the child eventually).

 

Deks just stole most of my thunder.

I think if Archer had been left to his own devices and hadn't had the larger considerations to...consider...then he likely would have granted the request. I don't think he was thrilled with how the Vissians were handling things but understood that it wasn't humanity's place to interfere either.

There's obviously no compassionate way to have a bright-line rule in terms of when asylum-granting without fear of consequences is viable...if there wasn't fear of consequences, there likely wouldn't be an asylum request to begin with... But it never should have come to this, and I think it was terrible that Trip put Archer in this situation. There should have been diplomats involved, and a better understanding of and respect for each others' cultural differences. Hell, perhaps human medical science could have obviated the need for the Cogenitors given time. If this had been a two-part episode, maybe we would have met the Vissian government and learned more about their society, and possibly found better options.

I give major props to TPTB for making the Vissians as generally reasonable and hospitable as they were. It's not even entirely clear that they were themselves happy about the Cogenitor situation given our limited exposure to them.

 

As it should be.

The "greater agenda", in this case, is nothing less than the survival of the entire Vissian species.

Cogenitors as a whole are rare, but nevertheless, their existence is vital to the propagation of the race. Given this, a few sacrifices will need to be made. Of course, cogenitors should not be abused (and, I might add, there's no real evidence that they are), but at the same time...they're going to have to know their place.

And prior to contact with humanity, "Charles" DID know her place. Up to that point, she was content with her lot. There was a system in place - a system that worked. It was only because of Trip's interference that Charles started getting ideas. And once that happened, she put the future of her entire species at risk. In what way is this acceptable?