Best and Worst Treatment of Ethical Dilemmas

[Rowdy Roddy McDowall]

"Lift Us Where Suffering Cannot Reach" and "Under the Cloak of War" are better than any of these, in part because there are no answers.

Similarly, I's select A PRIVATE LITTLE WAR for best, as good options are nowhere to be found. And its end music concurs with a vengeance. The worst rhymes with ''Koovix,'' and was a remarkably poor theoretical dilemma to begin with. If one merged Kirk with Spock somehow, PHYSICALLY that would be a negative across the board......and the resulting episode title probably would have major trouble with the censors even today.

 

[DonIago]

I don't know what to think when people reduce the philosophical issues surrounding Tuvix to, "Well, he was ugly."

 

[BillJ]

Worst? Clearly "Dear Doctor".

Best? Really tough to pick one because we never see the fallout of the crew's actions. I do recommend the DC Comics "Return of the Serpent" storyline (#43-45 first run), which follows up on the events of "The Apple".

 

[Farscape One]

Similarly, I's select A PRIVATE LITTLE WAR for best, as good options are nowhere to be found. And its end music concurs with a vengeance. The worst rhymes with ''Koovix,'' and was a remarkably poor theoretical dilemma to begin with. If one merged Kirk with Spock somehow, PHYSICALLY that would be a negative across the board......and the resulting episode title probably would have major trouble with the censors even today.

I agree about "A PRIVATE LITTLE WAR". I always point to that as a first of many examples of TOS not always having a happy ending, but a more realistic one.

 

[XCV330]

Captive Pursuit was not a great moment for Starfleet ethics either. Starfleet's rules were so rigid that the Sisko and O'Brien had to be dishonest to intervene in a brutal sentient being hunt, even when Bajoran sovereign territory, which they were obliged to protect, had been attacked by Hunters. There's so much wrong with that episode.

 

[Farscape One]

I actually have to agree with the Starfleet regulations and not interfere with the hunt.

As distasteful as the hunt is, Starfleet (or the Federation or anyone else for that matter) doesn't have the right to tell a society what they can and can't do with their own people or members of their society. If they want to become Federation members, that's another matter entirely... obviously, ending the hunt would be a condition of even accepting the application.

It's exactly that kind of holier than thou (for lack of a better term) attitude that makes other societies somewhat skittish about the Federation. If the Prime Directive wasn't there, I'd bet good money that A LOT more wars and conflicts would have happened against the Federation.

Quark made a good point about the Federation... they DO practice tolerance and understanding, but they tend to reserve that for races and societies that are similar to their own. The Federation can be pretty hypocritical at times, actually.

 

[BillJ]

As distasteful as the hunt is, Starfleet (nor the Federation or anyone else for that matter) doesn't have the right to tell a society what they can and can't do with their own people or members of their society. If they want to become Federation members, that's another matter entirely... obviously, ending the hunt would be a condition of even accepting the application.

I tend to think that if they are on your turf, they are subject to your laws and customs until they leave your turf. Though I would probably need to go back and rewatch the episodes in question, before getting deeper into any kind of meaningful discussion.

 

[XCV330]

I actually have to agree with the Starfleet regulations and not interfere with the hunt.

As distasteful as the hunt is, Starfleet (or the Federation or anyone else for that matter) doesn't have the right to tell a society what they can and can't do with their own people or members of their society. If they want to become Federation members, that's another matter entirely... obviously, ending the hunt would be a condition of even accepting the application.

It's exactly that kind of holier than thou (for lack of a better term) attitude that makes other societies somewhat skittish about the Federation. If the Prime Directive wasn't there, I'd bet good money that A LOT more wars and conflicts would have happened against the Federation.

Quark made a good point about the Federation... they DO practice tolerance and understanding, but they tend to reserve that for races and societies that are similar to their own. The Federation can be pretty hypocritical at times, actually.

If Hunters had went on board a Klingon station where they were holding Tosk captive, and tried to blow up the police station door (not that Klingon's take prisoners.. except when they do), the Hunters would have been eradicated. Hell if Kira had been in charge of DS9, that probably would have happened.

 

[Farscape One]

I tend to think that if they are on your turf, they are subject to your laws and customs until they leave your turf. Though I would probably need to go back and rewatch the episodes in question, before getting deeper into any kind of meaningful discussion.

And that's a very fair point, which I agree with. The lead hunter did stop the hunt after he saw Tosk was in the cell, and he was going to take him and just leave, as well as make passage through the wormhole be considered 'out of bounds'.

It wasn't until O'Brien came to Odo's office and tell him he is 'officially' escorting Tosk and the lead hunter to the airlock and him being knocked out by O'Brien that he resumed the hunt. From the hunter's perspective, he may very well have thought it was fine to resume the hunt at that point. He had no way of knowing O'Brien was acting on his own.

 

[Farscape One]

If Hunters had went on board a Klingon station where they were holding Tosk captive, and tried to blow up the police station door (not that Klingon's take prisoners.. except when they do), the Hunters would have been eradicated. Hell if Kira had been in charge of DS9, that probably would have happened.

True, and if the hunters had simply opened a hailing frequency and not started off guns blazing, the episode would have been a bit different. (At least, I doubt there would have been as much fighting.)

The hunters' mistake was not talking when they first appeared. Sisko would almost certainly have let them take Tosk, but then O'Brien would have gotten into deeper trouble because if the hunters hadn't fired first at the station, it would mean HE started a conflict with a brand new civilization. At least as the episode turned out, the hunters attacking first gave Sisko and O'Brien an out for what they did.

 

[XCV330]

True, and if the hunters had simply opened a hailing frequency and not started off guns blazing, the episode would have been a bit different. (At least, I doubt there would have been as much fighting.)

Yes. I could imagine the Sisko getting an undersanding of the situation, then making sure both parties were on their ships well away from DS9, or even let tosk through the wormhole first and let the hunters follow, washing his hands of the whole thing.

But its hard to see the Prime Directive applying when two warp capable species are visiting a space station that you're pledged to protect on behalf of another foreign power, and then both start committing crimes on board.

 

[Farscape One]

Yes. I could imagine the Sisko getting an undersanding of the situation, then making sure both parties were on their ships well away from DS9, or even let tosk through the wormhole first and let the hunters follow, washing his hands of the whole thing.

But its hard to see the Prime Directive applying when two warp capable species are visiting a space station that you're pledged to protect on behalf of another foreign power, and then both start committing crimes on board.

Tosk was arrested for trying to break into the weapons locker. That's why he was in the cell when the hunter found him.

And the hunter had his people immediately cease fire when he found Tosk there. Not sure what more was to be gained by keeping the attack going when the shooting stopped, especially since Sisko and the hunter were in Sisko's office talking about the situation.

 

[Oddish]

Quark made a good point about the Federation... they DO practice tolerance and understanding, but they tend to reserve that for races and societies that are similar to their own. The Federation can be pretty hypocritical at times, actually.

A moral people can only be tolerant of so much. To willingly coexist with evil is to be a part of it. The Prime Directive, whatever grandiose words are used to justify it, sometimes requires that the Federation coexist with evil.

 

[Nyotarules]

Tolerance is not always the right thing to do.

 

[Oddish]

The dilemma of "Lift Us Up" is especially hard to face.

Imagine you're in "City on the Edge of Forever". Someone with infallible knowledge points out a young woman on the street and tells you "Edith Keeler has to die in a car accident to stop the Nazis from winning World War 2."

Pretty bad. But all you have to do is nothing.

Now let's say the same someone hands you a .38 and says, "Edith Keeler has to be murdered in the street to stop the Nazis from winning World War 2."

Little harder, isn't it?

Now let's suppose the same someone says, "sorry, that isn't Edith Keeler. That's her over there." They point to the 9-year-old standing next to the woman.

Now it's horrible. But your infallible source of information isn't done. He takes away the gun and hands you a pair of pliers. The implication is clear.

So at what point do you decide it's not worth it?

 

[BillJ]

The dilemma of "Lift Us Up" is especially hard to face.

Imagine you're in "City on the Edge of Forever". Someone with infallible knowledge points out a young woman on the street and tells you "Edith Keeler has to die in a car accident to stop the Nazis from winning World War 2."

Pretty bad. But all you have to do is nothing.

Now let's say the same someone hands you a .38 and says, "Edith Keeler has to be murdered in the street to stop the Nazis from winning World War 2."

Little harder, isn't it?

Now let's suppose the same someone says, "sorry, that isn't Edith Keeler. That's her over there." They point to the 9-year-old standing next to the woman.

Now it's horrible. But your infallible source of information isn't done. He takes away the gun and hands you a pair of pliers. The implication is clear.

So at what point do you decide it's not worth it?

At the first point violence is asked of me. I have no right to take that person’s life.

 

[Crazyewok]

"In the Pale Moonlight" - Sisko not only faces an ethical dilemma that he arguably fails, but he can't even share what he's going through with any of his usual sounding boards. In the end, the dilemma is effectively taken out of his hands in a way that only digs the knife in deeper.

Sisko didnt fail. He made the correct choice. One man to save a quadrant is a no brainer.

 

[DonIago]

Sisko didnt fail. He made the correct choice. One man to save a quadrant is a no brainer.

Except it wasn't just one man.

 

[Crazyewok]

Except it wasn't just one man.

Still a good deal.


War is not fair, war is not just and war is not pretty.

To win it you need to get your hands dirty.

Or be a conquered loser.

Soldiers, politicians, government officials and those with powerful links to a government are all fair game in a war.