Best and worst moral dilemmas in Star Trek
- Thread starter The Overlord
- Start date
And yet I'm the one who got called close-minded earlier. Priceless.
And it's a lie to say that gives them fewer rights than a larger group of people. That's just a form of tyranny, the domination of the weak by the strong. "I'm bigger than you are" is not a valid basis for asserting moral rightness. There is no liberty or justice unless the rights of every individual are respected, regardless of the size of whatever group you find it convenient to lump them in with.
Or, as Picard so memorably said in "Justice," "I refuse to let arithmetic decide questions like that!" It's lazy and morally bankrupt to reduce right and wrong to a simple matter of numbers. For instance, Data was only one person, so if morality were a matter of counting, then Bruce Maddox would've been right to deprive Data of his freedom and dissect him in the name of the greater good of the masses. But that's not how morality works. Justice means everyone has rights, even the little guys, even the outnumbered or the powerless. If a million bullies are forcing a dozen victims out of their homes and their lives, then the scales should tip in favor of the dozen.
I'm sure that's what the US government said to the Native Americans before the Trail of Tears. Killing people isn't the only way to violate or abuse them. Hell, what Ru'afo and Dougherty were planning was literally mass kidnapping.
By asking yourself what you would do if you were one of the Ba'ku and someone tried to force you from your home against your will.
Making people in the Federation live longer wouldn't have done a damn bit of good if they forgot to respect the rights of others, if they convinced themselves they were entitled to bully the small and less powerful for their own benefit. If that happened, the Federation would die, no matter how long its members lived.
And come on, it's not like some technobabble radiation from a planet's rings is the only possible way to improve people's health and longevity. Hell, Federation medicine is already amazingly advanced. It's not like there was some huge epidemic that needed to be cured. Most humans in the Federation are already living long, healthy lives well into their hundreds. Several other species in the Federation live for centuries. And medical science continues to advance, and with all the space exploration going on, you never know when Starfleet might discover some other means of extending life still further. Hell, if Federation humans weren't so ridiculously paranoid about genetic engineering, they could easily increase their own longevity and robustness. So there was no need to violate the rights of another culture in order to extend their own lifespans.
(Well, okay, the Dominion War was going on, so a means of improving regeneration and healing could be valuable. But the Dominion War was already eroding Federation morals pretty badly, as we saw in DS9. The Federation was in danger of losing the principles that made it worth saving. It was important to fight against that, against that "ends justify the means" mentality that would've made the Federation no different than the Dominion or any other self-serving, aggressive power in the galaxy.)
Only in the sense that they had to bring back Tim Russ and Ethan Phillips at the end because they were contracted regulars. But the whole blessed point of the episode was that there was no "obvious right decision." That's the whole thing that made it a compelling story.
'The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few'.
It's logical and sounds noble, but man, can this be really twisted for evil purposes. Every tyrant in the universe would keep this one in their rule book.
There's not enough context in this idea to automatically justify it all the time.
Besides, how many times has the crew ditched that philosophy to save a few fellow crew members?
There seems to be a lot of these dilemas throughout the serieses, some of them make Starfleet look pretty bad, others make them look like saints-albiet naive ones.
Like as stated above, letting the Federation be conquered by the Dominion, or tricking the (pretty obnoxious) Romulans into the war which would kill millions of innocent Romulans, but save the entire quadrant. (Particularly the Federation, which was the main intent, IMO)
It's logical and sounds noble, but man, can this be really twisted for evil purposes. Every tyrant in the universe would keep this one in their rule book.
There's not enough context in this idea to automatically justify it all the time.
Besides, how many times has the crew ditched that philosophy to save a few fellow crew members?
There seems to be a lot of these dilemas throughout the serieses, some of them make Starfleet look pretty bad, others make them look like saints-albiet naive ones.
Like as stated above, letting the Federation be conquered by the Dominion, or tricking the (pretty obnoxious) Romulans into the war which would kill millions of innocent Romulans, but save the entire quadrant. (Particularly the Federation, which was the main intent, IMO)
Last edited:
So then you would agree the moral dilemma in Insurrection isn't a dilemma at all? What's the point of making a whole movie about a moral dilemma, if the situation is presented in a black and white manner?
And if not take her into the future, then convince her (yes, actually talk to her) into stopping her peace movement. The problem wasn't that Edith was alive, it was what she was going to do with her life over the next decade or so. If Edith simply dropped out of sight, perhaps with that handsome new boyfriend people saw her with, then the problem is gone. No, this wouldn't have been the future that Spock saw in the obituary, but it also would not have been the future where America is slow to enter the war.
This might have resulted in Kirk, Spock, and McCoy not returning to the future. But the original timeline would be re-established, and Edith Keeler would live (differently).
Moral dilemmas, what would be the moral thing to do?
Part of the problem there is the Klingon weren't just handing the guns to the natives, they were showing them how to make guns themselves. Deprived of the original imported guns and the workshops, the native could have still begun making the guns again, maybe not initially as good as the imported weapons, but weapons of that sort are cottage industry, factories are not necessary.
Earth was still "pre-industrial" when we were making muskets.
Picard (on the holoship): "In a few days, you're relocated on a similar planet without ever realizing it."
What the Baku would "get" would have been a similar planet, but without the metaphasic rings.
Ahh, but the Baku were told the whole story by Picard, after he traveled back the the planet in his yacht. The Baku could have at that time selflessly offer to leave the Federation's planet, voluntarily relocate, so as the metaphasic particles could be then harvested for the benefit of many billions of people.
As I recall the movie Christopher, the Baku never claim the planet, never said it was theirs. That solely came from Picard. Neither did the Sona claim it. The Federation clearly thought of it as theirs.
I agree with most of your points Sonak, except this. Apparent only Picard and his crew were under the initial impression that the Baku were primitive and indigenous. And that was short lived.
The Baku should have been openly contacted by the Federation Council, politely (but firmly) informed that they had to leave the Federation's world. The Federation could have offered to assist in their relocation. If the Baku refused, then Starfleet would have been sent in to simply remove them.
Out-universe, the reason the movie's makers did want to do this is easy to see, when the Baku refused after the medical benefits to many billions was explained to them, the Baku collectively would have been branded in the eyes of the viewing audience as utter assholes. There would have been little (if any) sympathy for them for the remainder of the movie.
The Baku would have become the main villains.
Admiral Dougherty indicated that the Federation had looked at it. "Our best scientific minds," not Dougherty himself. And the Federation Council (not Dougherty) signed off on it and sent Dougherty in.
The thing is, throughout the majority of the movie, the Sona went out of their way to avoid harming the Baku. Even after the desperate Sona leader activated the collector, the Enterprise would have had time to remove the remaining Baku from the surface.
To be fair, any ethic can be abused by those with bad intent.
It never fails to amaze me how many people look at Star Trek: Insurrection in a vacuum. Whether people like it or not, the presence of the Federation is probably the only thing that will ensure that the Ba'ku continue on as a culture even if they returned to living a normal (for their species) lifespan. Does anyone here honestly believe that if the S'ona if left on their own would care about the culture that exists? Or whether the Ba'ku lived or died?
People who disagree with moving the Ba'ku simply aren't thinking though the long-term ramifications for the Ba'ku. Yes the Federation gains from moving the Ba'ku. But the Ba'ku benefit from the fact that the Federation is involved. It ensures that the Ba'ku are treated humanely (or it would have if Picard hadn't interfered) instead of just being slaughtered for the meta-phasic particles.
Star Trek: Insurrection was a sad end to Michael Piller's brilliant Trek run...
I'm not necessarily disagreeing with that, what I am saying is either you slice it Insurrection was a bad moral dilemma, which is the main topic. In terms of both arguments on this issue, either Insurrection was just a black and white issue or was a gray issue presented by the writers to be a black and white issue.
Whether you agreed with Picard's actions with Insurrection or not, its not a good moral dilemma. If it was a good dilemma, Picard would have questioned his actions, instead of just declaring that he is right. I haven't heard anyone say the moral dilemma in Insurrection was a good one, regardless of their opinions on Picard's actions. There was potential for a good moral dilemma in Insurrection, but the writers chickened out in the end.
And what if Edith didn't believe Kirk or Spock? What if she thought Kirk and Spock were just delusional addicts? Isn't that a very real possibility? These sorts of suggestions just compound the risk to the timeline.
For me, 'I Borg' might qualify as the worst moral dillemma. They know the Borg have wiped out or assimilated billions, they find something that MIGHT stop the Borg cold, nobody else has a real issue with this, and Dr Crusher then starts blathering about the ethics of wiping the Borg out.
I'm sorry, Doc. Any idea how many people, Galaxy-wide, were killed or assimilated by the Borg just during your little ego-trip? I don't know, but would guess that it is probably a lot more than one. Every time I see this episode, I seriously want to slap the bejeezus out of the good Doctor.
I'm sorry, Doc. Any idea how many people, Galaxy-wide, were killed or assimilated by the Borg just during your little ego-trip? I don't know, but would guess that it is probably a lot more than one. Every time I see this episode, I seriously want to slap the bejeezus out of the good Doctor.
In this case, eminent domain is a form of tyranny that gives the dispossessed fewer rights than a larger group of people.
Which is why all your rhetoric ("justice") and all your straw-men (holocaust) are ineffectual.
And the 'gentle' Crusher - and Picard, who made the decision - stained their hands with the blood of BILLIONS the borg assimilated after 'I, borg'.
That's because they knew it will happen, because they could have stopped all this horror and chose not to.
Instead, they made the "moral" decision - apparently, letting BILLIONS be murdered is moral, as long as you don't have to look them in the eyes as they die.
BILLIONS dead, MILLIONS more every month - that's a pretty interesting record for a 'gentle' doctor, don't you think?
I wonder how long it takes her - and Picard - to wash all those billions of blood stains off their hands every morning?
Last edited:
is it just me, or is Christopher's entire argument nothing but faulty historical analogies(European colonialists never thought they were bringing revolutionary technological/medical advances that would benefit all of Europe, they were just looking to conquer territory/acquire riches), slippery slope fallacies, and rigid ethical rules stripped of any context or pragmatism?("individual property rights must be preserved at all costs, the weak must be defended against the strong, even if the weaker party is wrong!")
not that this is unique to this thread. When you get rid of these arguments, there's really nothing to be said for the Baku. I love Roger Ebert's take on this argument thirteen years ago. Michael Piller even respondede to it in his never-published book.
you know, BillJ, you're the only one I notice who keeps bringing this particular point to the INS threads, and it's a really good one. Since the Son'a already know of the Baku, those arguing against removal, would as you say, have to argue for the UFP protecting them around the clock from interference.(theoretically, from more galactic powers still,if the Son'a really get the word out)
You really can't even argue for protecting them if, as some people say, the planet doesn't belong to the Federation (which I disagree with).
By some people's logic, the S'ona can beam down, line up the Ba'ku and burn them all to the ground then take the meta-phasic particles and the Federation can't say anything.
Yet I'm constantly told I'm the one with poor ethics...
Ah, I see your point. If it's not their planet, then it's not the UFP's fight at all, and they would leave the Baku to fight it out with the Son'a, and the Son'a would win.
So Picard's a hypocrite either way. He's basically taking sides while condemning Doughertty for "bringing the Federation into a blood feud!"
er, you're doing that too, Jean-Luc, and for less pure motives than Dougherty.
Ideally, the moral dilemma in Star Trek: Insurrection should've played out much like TOS' A Private Little War. Acknowledging the potential pitfalls any solution has for the Ba'ku and for the Federation. Acknowledging that no perfect solution existed.
But then you couldn't have Picard prancing around on his high-horse telling everyone how he is going to single-handedly lead the Federation back from the brink of moral decay...
While I wouldn't argue with interfering to prevent the Son'a from exterminating the Baku, and I don't think it's ethical to remove the Baku from their planet without consent, I also don't think it's especially ethical of the Baku to choose to sit on their current planet when millions to billions of people could benefit if they'd be willing to relocate.
While not a very sympathetic argument, there's something to be said for the fact that the Baku exiled and in relative terms sentenced the Son'a to death only to face the music when the Son'a developed technology while the Baku essentially stagnated.
Actually, from that standpoint it's not so dissimilar from "Space Seed"/TWOK.
While not a very sympathetic argument, there's something to be said for the fact that the Baku exiled and in relative terms sentenced the Son'a to death only to face the music when the Son'a developed technology while the Baku essentially stagnated.
Actually, from that standpoint it's not so dissimilar from "Space Seed"/TWOK.
You know I think that you could even make an argument that the Ba'ku had reached an evolutionary endpoint. That they were no longer capable of surviving in the environment that surrounded them. If the Federation doesn't move them, how long before another predatory race learns of meta-phasics and wants to extract the particles?
They were essentially prey waiting for a predator...
yeah, even if I could bring myself to agree with the anti-removal crowd, the Baku would still come across poorly, and the movie would still fail, because the plot just wouldn't be something you could get behind.
"we're going to make sure that a bunch of boring, New Age hippies don't have their lifestyles inconvenienced!"
there's an inspiring adventure for you, combined with some awkward humor.
Similar threads
