Are there ethical problems with Janeway's time travel in 'Endgame'?

[MacLeod]

Let characters be human and have flaws. As you watch Janeway doing something questionable, ask yourself, "Wouldn't I be tempted to do the same thing?" It's easy to sit in a comfortable chair watching TV, not facing these challenges ourselves, and judge. Good drama gets us to ask ourselves these questions, about our own weaknesses. They are attempting to do that.
.

Sure many if not most of us might be tempted to do what Janeway did and can understand why she did it, but isn't the test of character down to do we stick to our morals/ethics even if it puts us/our loved ones in a negative position?

But isn't the thread is asking us to sit in judgement with the question posed?

 

[Kirk Prime]

Doing the wrong thing for the right reasons doesn't make Janeway any less of a monster for what she did. Time travel has many consequences in Star Trek, and in other things as well.

In The Flash, Barry time traveled for selfish reasons, and even though the storyline was a bit flawed, when he attempted to put back the timeline as it was, he ended up changing some things including killing his friend's brother and John Diggle's baby daughter. All for selfish reasons. Now this is different than Janeway's situation, as Janeway was much worse.

In Barry's situation, another time traveler actually created the timeline where his mother died. But that didn't happen in Endgame. Had we learned say that the Borg time traveled first, and the future timeline that Janeway was from actually is the bad one (think Yesterday's Enterprise), then Janeway would have been justified. But that wasn't the case.

 

[DonIago]

Yeah, my love for this Barry Allen has been a tough love at times. But at least AFAWK he only changed events on a single planet.

 

[Kirk Prime]

It'll get off topic, but I think the writers actually dropped the ball with Barry in that situation. They failed to acknowledge the most important thing--Barry's mom died because of time travel. He had every right to save her life.

In the original timeline, Barry became the Flash, but at a later date. Thawne traveled back in time and killed his mom, and because he screwed up, Thawne arranged for Barry to become the Flash earlier.

The whole show is an altered timeline and when Barry saved his mother, his new timeline should have been much closer to the original timeline and it NEVER should have been a bad outcome. Whether it would have made life better for everyone is unknown, but Barry still should have been a Flash, and still should have married Iris. Maybe the whole Team Flash thing may have been different. The real Harrison Wells wouldn't have died, and maybe various events change. Maybe Ronnie lived.

But it should have been as good or better. The show discussed wrong things done with time travel, but forgets that the whole show is the result of time travel used in an evil way. There shouldn't have been time wraiths either since Barry actually fixed history. That's why Barry's actions are nowhere near as bad as Janeway.

In relative terms, Janeway was more Thawne, not Barry.

 

[DonIago]

I prefer the notion that intentionally time travelling to change events is a bad thing regardless of the nature of your intention.

 

[at Quark's]

But in Janeway's case, she just didn't like an event and time traveled to play god. Jake himself didn't time travel. He just broke the tether at a point where his father could be saved. It's a distinction.

I think the fact that Jake didn't time travel himself is irrelevant - he still erased a timeline. Annorax didn't time travel either, after all (well, at least not until the very end, when the destruction of his time ship presumably threw him back 200 years into the past and reunited with his wife).

 

[DonIago]

I don't think Annorax traveled back in time; I think the Primeverse just switched to an alternate timeline in which he opted to spend time with his wife rather than giving himself a temporal headache. He didn't really seem to retain any memory of what had transpired.

 

[Guy Gardener]

Annorax and his weapon were outside of time. Often new versions of Annorax were created inside of time, whenever Annorax outside of time jiggled the Galaxy and beyond.

The Annorax from the end was a new and different person.

 

[at Quark's]

The Annorax case seems paradoxical anyway. They are "outside of time", yes, but they apparently still experience some semblance of time, quite a lot of it in fact, since a shipmate says they've been two hundred years at it without success. So either he refers to "outside time", in which case Annorax' wife would probably have been long dead anyway (unless they are an extremely long-lived species), so that's why I presumed time travel at the end, or he refers to "on board pseudo-time" completely separate from outside time, but still, people on board (e.g. Paris and Chakotay) seem to experience roughly the same amount of 'on board pseudo-time' passing as outside time passes - though of course there is no way to be sure.

Then again, all stories that mess with time are bound to be paradoxical ...

 

[DonIago]

I assumed "outside of time" meant they were protected from aging and such so they could muck around with the timeline as much as they wanted. They know it's been 200 years because they've witnessed 200 years pass.

 

[UnknownSample]

Maybe I'm missing something very obvious, but I don't remember the many deaths and disasters older Janeway caused through time travel. I definitely don't accept the idea that preventing a few people from having been born is murder.
--------------------------------
It was reckless, definitely. We do seem driven to judge, sometimes for mere rule breaking, and I'm a TV viewer, not a cop. Yes, the thread is about judging Janeway, but I can still question that a little bit, if I want.
-----------------------------------
Maybe I'm saying, don't make such a big deal out of it? We ourselves are not perfect in the way we expect TV heroes to be. I think we need to be weaned off of noble heroes. I'm grateful when TV shows us human complexities and flaws.
------------------------------
As I see it, future Janeway was an off balance person, someone who had gone down an unhealthy path. We sometimes find ways of confronting that and dealing with it. Janeway just happened to find an especially weirdo way of doing that, that involved time travel! It's like she was unconsciously groping toward making herself whole again, and her unconscious steered her in the right direction. I mean, it was an alarmingly wrong headed decision to mess with time, in the practical sense, but by doing so, she worked things out with her earlier self and got put on the right path. Younger Janeway was, unexpectedly, almost a sort of guru to older Janeway, in the end.
--------------------------------
Want to throw her in the brig? Put her on trial for crimes against sentient life everywhere? I'm content knowing younger Janeway now stands a better chance of not becoming that particular version of older Janeway. That's more Star Trek than pointing and accusing. And fortunately, things worked out, and apparently, the Borg got squashed... for good? I couldn't tell. Anyway, I have a soft spot for crochety old time bandit Kathryn.

 

[DonIago]

Well, we have no idea how much damage was caused because we have no idea what Voyager may have accomplished during the part of the journey that Janeway preempted.

And it's hard not to think the writers intentionally downplayed that, because how much harder would it be to sympathize with Janeway's decision if we knew, for instance, that Voyager would have originally developed a cure for a pandemic and saved millions of lives? How much good do we think Voyager did even during just the seven years we did see?

 

[at Quark's]

I'm still not sure what exactly is inherently wrong with changing the past (not saying it isn't, just doubting).

To simplify matters, suppose character "X" has the choice between two morally neutral choices "A" and "B" with different advantages and drawbacks, which will affect how things turns out, but overall , choice "A" cannot be said to be better or worse than choice "B". So suppose X cannot decide, tosses a coin, and it lands on side "A", so that's the action X chooses. 25 years pass, and over the years, X gets the feeling choosing "B" would have been slightly preferable after all. So he decides to go back in time and convince his younger self -without divulging other information than that he is himself from the future- to choose "B" after all.

Is this inherently wrong - or at least, is this worse than if X had chosen "B" to begin with? You could just as well argue that the people weren't "robbed" of that "erased" timeline; the timeline just unfolds differently (now), the same as if X had chosen "B" from the very start. The only "bad" thing I can discern in this is that X is given an "unfair advantage" in making a better choice because he has received some extra information. And yes, people without morally supreme standards would certainly use such a power to benefit themselves, which is why it should be kept out of reach.

But still .....would it even be wrong even if choice "B" turns out better for everyone? (if such a thing would be possible).

Of course, the haunting aspect of it would be that no history would ever be definitive, since it can always be changed. But as a character living in such a universe, you wouldn't know about that, it wouldn't feel any different than we live today. Heck, we already may live in such a universe without knowing about it

 

[chris of nine]

I’ll go with parallel universe theory. Every time you go back and change stuff with different choices, timelines split, and run concurrently in the same space, and you have multiple realities in infinite combinations, all with the same people making different choices, and having different destiny.

An April Fools piece of magical thinking. My head hurts.

 

[MacLeod]

I'm still not sure what exactly is inherently wrong with changing the past (not saying it isn't, just doubting).

To simplify matters, suppose character "X" has the choice between two morally neutral choices "A" and "B" with different advantages and drawbacks, which will affect how things turns out, but overall , choice "A" cannot be said to be better or worse than choice "B". So suppose X cannot decide, tosses a coin, and it lands on side "A", so that's the action X chooses. 25 years pass, and over the years, X gets the feeling choosing "B" would have been slightly preferable after all. So he decides to go back in time and convince his younger self -without divulging other information than that he is himself from the future- to choose "B" after all.

Is this inherently wrong - or at least, is this worse than if X had chosen "B" to begin with? You could just as well argue that the people weren't "robbed" of that "erased" timeline; the timeline just unfolds differently (now), the same as if X had chosen "B" from the very start. The only "bad" thing I can discern in this is that X is given an "unfair advantage" in making a better choice because he has received some extra information. And yes, people without morally supreme standards would certainly use such a power to benefit themselves, which is why it should be kept out of reach.

But still .....would it even be wrong even if choice "B" turns out better for everyone? (if such a thing would be possible).

Of course, the haunting aspect of it would be that no history would ever be definitive, since it can always be changed. But as a character living in such a universe, you wouldn't know about that, it wouldn't feel any different than we live today. Heck, we already may live in such a universe without knowing about it

The problem with changing the past is you don't know how events will play out in the future you've created because of your interference could actually be worse than the one you knew before your interference.

Would the world be better if someone had travelled back in time and killed someone like Hitler? What about the opposite someone travelling back in time to ensure the Axis won WWII?

Sure you might make things better for a few people, but you could also make things worse for others sure they might not know it due to being unaware of your temporal manipulation but that doesn't mean you as the time travel didn't behave in an ethical way. You travelled back in time in order to (hopefully) make things better for you and those close to you screw everyone else who might be worse off because of it.

 

[Farscape One]

I think there is a basic reason why Jake gets a pass and Janeway doesn't.

Jake is a civilian. He never joined Starfleet or any other official organization. Janeway was a Starfleet admiral.

It's the reverse of how we see officials breaking rules and getting away with things while regular people get the book thrown at them for doing the same things.

 

[Kirk Prime]

I think the fact that Jake didn't time travel himself is irrelevant - he still erased a timeline. Annorax didn't time travel either, after all (well, at least not until the very end, when the destruction of his time ship presumably threw him back 200 years into the past and reunited with his wife).

Look at it from Sisko's point of view. He never changed anything. Sisko had a right to live. You could argue that Sisko's absence is what created an altered timeline, and Jake's actions were the natural course of events. Because he didn't travel back in time, Jake did not do anything unnatural. He just snapped his father back after a freak accident which created a timeline that was always meant to be erased. Jake didn't do anything unnatural. Janeway traveled back in time for the purpose of selfishly making her own past better. Jake's actions did not alter the natural course of events because he did not use time travel. He, through the natural course of events, saved his father's life. It's a difference.

Maybe I'm missing something very obvious, but I don't remember the many deaths and disasters older Janeway caused through time travel. I definitely don't accept the idea that preventing a few people from having been born is murder.

You insert over 100 people into a timeline at a point they shouldn't be there, and they will interact with people. They will have kids. Their kids will have kids. Different spouses will meet. People who were born will not be born. People who die will not die. People who lived will not live. What Janeway did was monstrous.

Preventing people from being born is far worse than murder. At least murder victims existed. They are remembered by people who cared for them. But when they are prevented from being born, they lose everything.

I think there is a basic reason why Jake gets a pass and Janeway doesn't.

Jake is a civilian. He never joined Starfleet or any other official organization. Janeway was a Starfleet admiral.

It's the reverse of how we see officials breaking rules and getting away with things while regular people get the book thrown at them for doing the same things.

I don't think that's why Jake gets a pass and Janeway doesn't. Yes it's worse. But Sisko never died. There is a strong argument that Sisko's adventure through time was the alternate reality. Jake did what he did to save his father's life, not to change history. From Sisko's point of view, his absence caused the timeline, he wasn't killed and his death wasn't prevented. Jake's actions were all part of the natural course of events, and from Sisko's point of view, time was like a hotwheel loop. He was always moving forward, even when he moved backwards to his starting point.

Janeway simply didn't like something and changed it, using time travel, for her own selfish reasons.

Want to throw her in the brig? Put her on trial for crimes against sentient life everywhere? I'm content knowing younger Janeway now stands a better chance of not becoming that particular version of older Janeway. That's more Star Trek than pointing and accusing. And fortunately, things worked out, and apparently, the Borg got squashed... for good? I couldn't tell. Anyway, I have a soft spot for crochety old time bandit Kathryn.

Here's the problem--the writers were so messed up that they thought this was a good idea. The Temporal Police should have been involved and fixed things.

Maybe I'm saying, don't make such a big deal out of it? We ourselves are not perfect in the way we expect TV heroes to be. I think we need to be weaned off of noble heroes. I'm grateful when TV shows us human complexities and flaws.

Our TV "heroes" don't have to be perfect, but they do have to have some sense of moral grounding. Older Janeway was not a hero in any sense of the word. She was the most evil character in Star Trek history, with no one coming close. Even the Borg, when they assimilate you, upload your knowledge to their collective. They don't completely erase you from existence. Janeway changed history, a history that was perfectly fine, out of pure selfishness. She is not a hero. She is a monster.

And it's hard not to think the writers intentionally downplayed that, because how much harder would it be to sympathize with Janeway's decision if we knew, for instance, that Voyager would have originally developed a cure for a pandemic and saved millions of lives? How much good do we think Voyager did even during just the seven years we did see?

This was a flaw in the episode. The writers showed us a future where everything was fine. Perhaps if we learned that Janeway was fixing a timeline--that another time traveler prevented Voyager from getting home and THAT caused a timeline change that older Janeway had to fix. If someone died on Voyager that shouldn't have died--that would have mattered. But that wasn't the episode.

Or show us something that maybe forces the hypocrisy--where Earth is completely destroyed and there is no other option but to time travel because there is something on Voyager that could have prevented it.

None of that happened.

The problem with changing the past is you don't know how events will play out in the future you've created because of your interference could actually be worse than the one you knew before your interference.

This is very true. That's another reason Janeway was such a monster. She took away a timeline that was good, for selfish reasons. You used Hitler as an example, and it's a good one. What would killing Hitler accomplish? Let's say killing Hitler did change the world. No WWII. Millions of lives saved. Inject that into the timeline, and where would Earth be in 2019? What if someone who cured a disease was never born?

What if the USSR conquers Europe instead, and a nuclear war happens,ending all history? What if there is a seeming utopia, which leads to the events of the Terminator movies?

Killing Hitler would be a great idea--but it would have a huge impact on the world--with many unforeseen consequences.

So the answer is that changing history knowingly would only make sense if all is lost. Humanity is dead. The Earth is in nuclear winter. Then and only then, would it make sense to try to prevent that. But regarding Hitler, for better or worse, the world rebounded from WWII. We're still here.

 

[valkyrie013]

There's plenty of examples of where in Star Trek that a timeline was erased..
Ds9 has a number, we have Jake, but we also have that whole planet that existed from the Defiant crew that got wiped, then the E2 from enterprise.. thousands of people lost there existance..
What makes Janeway different in a way is that.. she does it conciously.. she intentionally destroyes the last.. 23.. years of the past.. to save a few.. with little reguard to what the consequences are , as in the borg getting pissed off, or whatever speicies they got involved with on there further 16 years of travels..
Sometimes you can futz with history and not have that many waves.. but I'm sorry, Voyager impacted a crap load of stuff.. its like scrubbing Lincoln from the history.. and saying. .okay.. good luck..
Makes her a worse villian than Anorax

 

[suarezguy]

The Temporal Police should have been involved and fixed things.

I loved that even with their super-advanced technology they were depicted as very fallible or even incompetent. And again future Harry's (and Chakotay's) time changing in "Timeless" also gets a pass from the viewers, and the Temporal Police are not considered, although there he was preventing a big tragedy.

Maybe I'm missing something very obvious, but I don't remember the many deaths and disasters older Janeway caused through time travel. I definitely don't accept the idea that preventing a few people from having been born is murder.

I agree, I guess time change should be considered controversial but no more than most decisions, in changing things you can also do as much or more good for people than harm including more concrete good for some and only pretty vague harm to others.

Preventing people from being born is far worse than murder. At least murder victims existed. They are remembered by people who cared for them. But when they are prevented from being born, they lose everything.

Older Janeway was not a hero in any sense of the word. She was the most evil character in Star Trek history, with no one coming close. Even the Borg, when they assimilate you, upload your knowledge to their collective. They don't completely erase you from existence. Janeway changed history, a history that was perfectly fine, out of pure selfishness. She is not a hero. She is a monster.

From another Deep Space Nine episode and comparison, do you consider O'Brien in "Children of Time" to be a monster for wanting to and trying to insist on returning to the station, preventing all the crew's descendants from existing? Not doing so would instead prevent the descendants they could have instead had from existing (and, since they do return although without them making the choice to, that they do create), that's a case of where the impacts of either not change or change seem particularly equivalent rather than right and wrong.

 

[Kirk Prime]

I loved that even with their super-advanced technology they were depicted as very fallible or even incompetent. And again future Harry's (and Chakotay's) time changing in "Timeless" also gets a pass from the viewers, and the Temporal Police are not considered, although there he was preventing a big tragedy.

I would need my memory refreshed on this episode. It's been a very long time since I've seen it. But from what I remember, Endgame was basically the same general story, but with Chakotay and Kim involved. Again, I remember very little, but I seem to recall at the time that when I watched Endgame, I thought it was exactly the same thing. If I'm right, then no, Chakotay and Kim do not get a pass at all. It's very different than Jake.

Regarding the Temporal Police--it's clear they exist. They must have some capacity to be immune from time changes or they would be completely useless. Their inconsistent use is one of many flaws of Star Trek of that era.

From another Deep Space Nine episode and comparison, do you consider O'Brien in "Children of Time" to be a monster for wanting to and trying to insist on returning to the station, preventing all the crew's descendants from existing? Not doing so would instead prevent the descendants they could have instead had from existing (and, since they do return although without them making the choice to, that they do create), that's a case of where the impacts of either not change or change seem particularly equivalent rather than right and wrong.

That's another episode that would make me want to refresh my memory. But as I remember it, it was future Odo that really was the culprit, not O'Brien.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but as I understood it, there was some sort of accident that sent the Defiant back in time, and the Defiant was trapped in a bubble before that accident happened, over a planet that had their descendants.

To answer your question, the answer is no. O'Brien is not a monster at all. It's completely different. The people of the past owe nothing to the people of the future. The people of the past do not have to submit to preordained outcomes and fates. They have free will, and have the right to make their own decisions. If someone travels back in time and tells you that you are going to die to save their future, and you want to live, you have every right to tell them to go suck an egg. However, the future people have no right to change history to suit their needs.

It's a one way relationship. Now, the people of the future certainly had a right to try to get O'Brien to stay.

But you can't fault O'Brien for wanting to be with his family.

O'Brien did not do anything to hurt those descendants either. The Defiant crew decided on their own to make this timeline happen. Even though O'Brien wasn't bound, he was going to go along with it. In the absence of interference from the future, those people would have existed. It wasn't O'Brien, it was Odo.

I'll also point out that there was another major difference. Those descendants couldn't leave the planet. The affect on the timeline was quite minimal in those 200 years. It was confined to that planet.