I think this was where CBS Trek just really lost me. Riker and Troi allowing their own child to die just went against everything those characters were.
Best and Worst Treatment of Ethical Dilemmas
- Thread starter DonIago
- Start date
I think this was where CBS Trek just really lost me. Riker and Troi allowing their own child to die just went against everything those characters were.
It was absolute crap! It would have been a better plot point if they moved to the planet because the procedure was legal there, but it failed.
Going back to start...
Had I been in Picard's shoes, I'd have beamed up Boraalans until my transport coils burned out or I reached the ship's life support capacity. Then, jetted them off to a new home, and if Starfleet later court martialed me for SAVING THOUSANDS OF LIVES, I'd head off to New Zealand with a smile on my face.
I actually find this one a bit crazy. The chief engineer and his wife were treating Charles like garbage. Trip made Charles aware that she was being treated like garbage. But when Charles refused to be treated like garbage anymore, the blame is laid on Trip.
These two are opposite sides of the same coin. Picard and Sisko are both in a position to do a deplorable action for a greater good. I am of the mind that Picard chose wrong. Perhaps that is to my shame.
Naomi mentioned it once, while many controversial events weren't mentioned at all. But that was Voyager: Reset button, reset button, reset button, ad nauseum.
Archer invokes the worst aspect of the Prime Directive before there's a Prime Directive to invoke.
When Deanna snootily said that "the Prime Ditective was created to ensure non-interference", I wanted to smack her.
Had I been in Picard's shoes, I'd have beamed up Boraalans until my transport coils burned out or I reached the ship's life support capacity. Then, jetted them off to a new home, and if Starfleet later court martialed me for SAVING THOUSANDS OF LIVES, I'd head off to New Zealand with a smile on my face.
Didn't bury them deep enough. I could not force myself to root for the Baku.
Homeward just makes me shake my head. What the hell were the writers and producers thinking with that one? There's not even an ethical dilemma there.
The Prime Directive is basically 'don't screw around with other civilisations under the assumption that you're doing them a favour', and that makes sense to me, especially as TOS mentioned sensible exceptions. Like if their culture has become stagnant due to an evil computer or whatever. What's important is that they're able to live their own lives. They've got to be living to do that.
One thing that doesn't make sense to me, is Worf getting surgically altered to go undercover on a planet of people that will be dead in two days. It's absolutely crucial that these people not even look at a weird forehead before they all die, as it could radically alter their culture... for the next 30 hours. Before they all die. They might be so shocked by contact with aliens that they kill themselves. And then they'd die!
Maybe there's a version of the story that could work. Like maybe the Enterprise arrives at a planet in its 5th century-era, with 200 million occupants and they're all going to be fine. Except for one isolated community of 500 people who are about to get wiped out by a disaster they won't see coming. Should the crew interfere and take them to another part of their own world? Same basic dilemma, but one that's harder to answer.
The Prime Directive is basically 'don't screw around with other civilisations under the assumption that you're doing them a favour', and that makes sense to me, especially as TOS mentioned sensible exceptions. Like if their culture has become stagnant due to an evil computer or whatever. What's important is that they're able to live their own lives. They've got to be living to do that.
One thing that doesn't make sense to me, is Worf getting surgically altered to go undercover on a planet of people that will be dead in two days. It's absolutely crucial that these people not even look at a weird forehead before they all die, as it could radically alter their culture... for the next 30 hours. Before they all die. They might be so shocked by contact with aliens that they kill themselves. And then they'd die!
Maybe there's a version of the story that could work. Like maybe the Enterprise arrives at a planet in its 5th century-era, with 200 million occupants and they're all going to be fine. Except for one isolated community of 500 people who are about to get wiped out by a disaster they won't see coming. Should the crew interfere and take them to another part of their own world? Same basic dilemma, but one that's harder to answer.
As long as that includes no contact with pre-warp societies, I can get behind that definition.
If Starfleet really wanted to have no impact on anyone ever, then they shouldn’t be out in space at all.
Was there ever a Trek story about a society that did exactly that for that reason?
Not exactly such, but the government in "First Contact" did decide that their people weren't ready to embrace the idea that there were aliens out there.
Hmm. It'd be interesting if someone made an informed decision to stay out of things out of a sense of duty rather than fear or isolationism. That is, not worried about the changes to their society, but how they might change others.
That was a conscious decision by Chancellor Durken, and one he did not want to make. But when Crolla, his security minister and old friend, was ready to martyr himself to stop first contact from continuing, Durken knew he had no choice. And, he clearly stated that his people would not pursue warp drive technology until they were ready to embrace that idea.
Isn't this basically the scenario in Into Darkness? Or, I guess we don't really know whether there's more people on the Nibiru(?) planet.
I say it depends on if they could save the 500 without raising awareness. If I were trying to save a bunch of Boraalans, I'd flood a portion of the ship with low levels anesthazine gas, then beam sleeping ones into that area. Then, keep them safely knocked out until delivery. They would know something happened to them, but they wouldn't know about aliens, starship, or the Federation.
That could work for the scenario @Ray Hardgrit came up with as well.
That could work for the scenario @Ray Hardgrit came up with as well.
I haven't read through all the other posts, but the worst treatment of an ethical dilemma goes to Dear Doctor. It's bad because Star Trek used to try to take care over getting some Science into the Fiction. But here, evolution is presented as a 'forward thinking' force. It treats evolution as a ladder working in a certain direction, rather than an ever-branching tree that spreads in all directions. The episode is saying that fundamentally, one group of people can at least in principle be viewed as "more evolved" than others. And no they can't, not based on an accurate understanding of science in general or evolution in particular. It's a dangerous idea that they perpetrate.
This reddit poster explains better than I can here, I have paraphrased some of this post:
The best? Well, Measure of a Man is good - but little more than an A-level balloon debate and Tuvix still gets people talking all these years later.
This reddit poster explains better than I can here, I have paraphrased some of this post:
The best? Well, Measure of a Man is good - but little more than an A-level balloon debate and Tuvix still gets people talking all these years later.
its also the difficulty of having writers write for a show with hundreds of episodes and movies. They wanted to put them in a no-win scenario that even by the show's own rules, did not exist. Star Trek probably should have been rebooted periodically (ENT, 09, DISCO) but no one wants to do it because THE FANS, and so messes and shoddy writing are just going to get worse. Same thing would have happened to Tarantino if he'd got to do his movie.
There were probably many roadblocks they could have used. Treatment was approved too late, diagnosis came too late, he caught another disease that made even that treatment impossible, due to weakness or quick death, attempted (transporter or freezing) stasis failed, etc.
That was an awesome post, and a slightly more sophisticated variant of how I understand the engine of evolution is fueled (mutation, reproduction, and death). Mutation yields new genetic traits. If a new trait fosters reproduction (and survival usually does), it persists. If a new trait yields death, it goes extinct. The Stinky Menkies were almost certain to evolve traits that facilitated their survival whether the Valakians were there or not.
