Star Trek is at its best when it focuses on the drama. The thing that makes City such a great episode isn't the moral dilemma itself but the tragedy of Kirk's decision.
Bryan Fuller: Diversity is key
- Thread starter RAMA
- Start date
- Status
Usually the heavy episodes are the dreary ones. Comes down to balance.
No? You're just fine with brainwashing and the suppression of individuality and nonconformity - that's what TNG's "utopia" is about.
Throughout all Star Trek, from TOS to Discovery. There's more to drama than just "messages". You can have drama without some anvil to the head message. The drama can be about situations, characters and choices. And that's what most Trek stories revolve around.
You can strike a balance no problem, and I enjoy character moments because they help ground the escapism.
Keep up that good fight against evil straw utopia!
Inconveniencing people is a war crime now?
Hey, I could be one of the greatest creative minds of my generation....failing that I could always be a critic. That's usually how these things work no?
It is quite inconvenient to be bombed, lose your home, have your life altered against your will, lose family or die. The way the Baku were going to be inconvenienced in INS, or the way the Romulan Ambassador chap was inconvenienced by Garak....
I do wish Star Trek would try something other than the trolley care dilemma--and finally acknowledge "Needs of the many.." is stupid, reductive, and not logical at all.
They acknowledge it directly in the next film, and a few times later. People just didn't notice it seems sometimes. They do it again the film after the next, again in the next...it's flipped on its head a bit for the next, it's ignored again in the next (self sacrifice to save another who has and would do the same for you) in the next...it's shown from a couple of sides....in the next two characters and actors fight over who gets to be the one, but it's not quite as coldly stated...then...well....
A few things on that.
1. Spock used "needs of the many" to justify his personal sacrifice in TWOK.
2. Kirk used the reverse of it to justify his sacrifice and that of everyone else to rescue Spock in TSFS, "Because the needs of the one ...outweigh the needs of the many."
3. Fans tend to forget (2) and sweep it under the rug, only hammering on (1). Trek canon sometimes does, too.
4. Both (1) and (2) represent personal choices by the group making the sacrifice, not some third party weighing the needs of two subject groups, so these instances in the TOS films don't actually represent the trolley car dilemma.
5. The union of (1) and (2) eliminates any resemblance to the trolley car dilemma altogether, because it means that the TOS cast collectively didn't hold to the standard of making decisions on who to save by taking head counts or weighing pounds of flesh. They made decisions on who to save, and personally assumed the risks to accomplish that, based on who they cared for.
This contradictory application of metrics is worth raising an eyebrow over, it's at least as significant as Spock's realization that pursuit of Kolinahr was not right for him, and there's a straight line from Spock's "needs of the many" in TWOK, through Kirk's "needs of the one" in TSFS, to Spock's statement in TUC that "logic is the beginning of wisdom, ... not the end." By the time of TUC, Spock gets it that "needs of the many" is an error, when taken to the extreme.
By the way, making Spock have to learn his TMP Kolinahr lesson all over again in the TWOK/TSFS/TUC continuity is another point in favor of the idea that TWOK was a soft reboot.
TL;DR - This progression represents Spock himself agreeing with @CorporalClegg after his many adventures in the TOS films.
ninja'd by @jaime
But this ends up as "logic vs. emotion" debate. My point is that it's flawed to begin with because there is nothing logical about reducing people to a matter of numbers. It assumes all things are equal. All things are never equal. I could go on about why, but that would take the thread way off course. And plenty has been said about it before.
My problem with it has really been that, when you get right down to it, it was just poor writing. Anyway you look at it, Spock's decision to save his ship was purely emotional. But for whatever reason, Meyer felt it necessary to inject some sort of "logical" excuse. But that was unnecessary because we've seen him work from emotion plenty before that. (And, as you say, after.)
Now I suppose, one could argue Spock was really just to convince himself that this "logic" is sound. But I'd like to think he'd know better.
And now it's sort of become the prevailing mantra of absolute truth of Star Trek. That seems to be injected into everything. #Tuvix #Ba'ku When, in reality, it's faulty reasoning.
My problem with it has really been that, when you get right down to it, it was just poor writing. Anyway you look at it, Spock's decision to save his ship was purely emotional. But for whatever reason, Meyer felt it necessary to inject some sort of "logical" excuse. But that was unnecessary because we've seen him work from emotion plenty before that. (And, as you say, after.)
Now I suppose, one could argue Spock was really just to convince himself that this "logic" is sound. But I'd like to think he'd know better.
And now it's sort of become the prevailing mantra of absolute truth of Star Trek. That seems to be injected into everything. #Tuvix #Ba'ku When, in reality, it's faulty reasoning.
Spock himself said logic was only the beginning of wisdom, what lay beyond that would require those who followed to be prepared for non logical reasoning at the very least.
Kelvin!Spock even said he had lived "many lives", experiencing things he could not fathom his Prime counterpart having gone through let alone processed logically. Or even tried.
Vulcans on the front line had to sacrifice logic in order to cope with the challenges of service life.
Kelvin!Spock even said he had lived "many lives", experiencing things he could not fathom his Prime counterpart having gone through let alone processed logically. Or even tried.
Vulcans on the front line had to sacrifice logic in order to cope with the challenges of service life.
Isn't that usually the case when any train of thought is carried to the extreme?
Well said. This is one of the things I was trying to get at but couldn't quite express succinctly. This is a trait that Spock had all through TOS. Logic is often the outward justification he uses for his actions, even though he is often motivated by feelings on the inside.
A prime example (no pun intended, honest) is from "Amok Time." Spock cries out "Jim!" in yelling-Spock mode ("THE WOMEN!") when he sees that Kirk is still alive. A short time later he offers this rationalization [http://www.chakoteya.net/StarTrek/34.htm]:
MCCOY: There's just one thing, Mister Spock. You can't tell me that when you first saw Jim alive that you weren't on the verge of giving us an emotional scene that would have brought the house down. .
SPOCK: Merely my quite logical relief that Starfleet had not lost a highly proficient captain.
SPOCK: Merely my quite logical relief that Starfleet had not lost a highly proficient captain.
Similarly, in "The Apple," Spock also cries out "Jim!" and steps in front of the poison plant darts about to shoot Kirk, taking the full cluster of darts himself instead, or almost all of them. After Spock recovers, there is this exchange [http://www.chakoteya.net/StarTrek/38.htm]:
KIRK: Just what do you think you were trying to do?
SPOCK: I surmised you were unaware of that plant, so I
KIRK: Stepped in front and took the thorns yourself.
SPOCK: I assure you, Captain, I had no intention of doing that. It was merely my own clumsiness prevented me which prevented me from moving out of the way.
KIRK: I see. Well next time, just yell. I can step out of the way as quickly as the next man.
SPOCK: I shall do so.
KIRK: Trying to get yourself killed. Do you know how much Starfleet has invested in you?
SPOCK: One hundred twenty two thousand two hundred
KIRK: Never mind. But thanks. Kaplan, take the post.
SPOCK: I surmised you were unaware of that plant, so I
KIRK: Stepped in front and took the thorns yourself.
SPOCK: I assure you, Captain, I had no intention of doing that. It was merely my own clumsiness prevented me which prevented me from moving out of the way.
KIRK: I see. Well next time, just yell. I can step out of the way as quickly as the next man.
SPOCK: I shall do so.
KIRK: Trying to get yourself killed. Do you know how much Starfleet has invested in you?
SPOCK: One hundred twenty two thousand two hundred
KIRK: Never mind. But thanks. Kaplan, take the post.
He jumped between Jim and the plant, because he loves Kirk as his best friend, obviously, but he could never admit that at this point, because it's been drummed into his head that he must behave logically.
So, getting back to TWOK, part of me actually "wonders" whether Spock really bought into his "needs of the many" axiom or if it was that he had nothing better than that to justify his actions and positions logically. If this is what's going on, and maybe it is, then the development of his character from TWOK to TUC, I mean glossing over the fact that he died, is in coming to accept that he doesn't need to provide logical justification for his actions, even to the point of denying that logic is the be-all and end-all out loud.
In any case, what Spock feels deep down and what motivates his actions has really always been different that the reasons he gives for his actions on the surface.
Well, what Spock does in TWOK is logical. He was comparing two situations, one in which everyone died, and one in which everyone survived but him. Sacrificing himself was logical, and "needs of the many" applies in this case. This isn't to say that there wasn't an emotional component in it for him, but it was certainly logical as well.
But that's only true if everyone on the ship is of equal value, which, as I already pointed out, is never the case.
Some people's effect on the universe is just greater than others'. That's just the way it is. [And, no, that's not all the same as saying people shouldn't be treated equally or given equal opportunity.]
But Spock would go on to be one the biggest positive forces in Federation history, all of which would have never have happened had he stayed dead. Hell, the guy would go on to create a whole second universe.
That's a helluva lot more "many" than the 200 people on the Enterprise.
Which is why the axiom is fundamentally flawed and not at all logical. Because any decision one uses it on will always be situational and in the moment--and never takes the "big picture" into account. Therefore it is, by definition, a purely emotional choice.
Some people's effect on the universe is just greater than others'. That's just the way it is. [And, no, that's not all the same as saying people shouldn't be treated equally or given equal opportunity.]
But Spock would go on to be one the biggest positive forces in Federation history, all of which would have never have happened had he stayed dead. Hell, the guy would go on to create a whole second universe.
That's a helluva lot more "many" than the 200 people on the Enterprise.
Which is why the axiom is fundamentally flawed and not at all logical. Because any decision one uses it on will always be situational and in the moment--and never takes the "big picture" into account. Therefore it is, by definition, a purely emotional choice.
That "big picture" is entirely subjective.
It also masks the reality of a survival situation like that, which is that any attempt to decide whose life is most valuable can only assess their status as understood by the individual making the decision at that moment. There is no such thing as an objective point of view with the omniscience necessary to make a really informed decision on whose "effect on the universe is greater."
Edith Keeler was a young woman feeding some homeless guys in New York. Laudable, but far from unique or important at the time.
There's probably no logic or system of ethics other than Ayn Rand's that could have justified Spock viewing his own existence as more worthy or important than four hundred other people's.
It also masks the reality of a survival situation like that, which is that any attempt to decide whose life is most valuable can only assess their status as understood by the individual making the decision at that moment. There is no such thing as an objective point of view with the omniscience necessary to make a really informed decision on whose "effect on the universe is greater."
Edith Keeler was a young woman feeding some homeless guys in New York. Laudable, but far from unique or important at the time.
There's probably no logic or system of ethics other than Ayn Rand's that could have justified Spock viewing his own existence as more worthy or important than four hundred other people's.
- Status
