I appreciated Roddenberry's edict against interpersonal conflict among the crew, not because I find utopianism appealing or realistic, but because it forced the writers to find conflict in other places. And often that manifest in the crew disagreeing on the moral or ethical dilemmas they faced. Those debates were my favorite part of the show.
I was particularly impressed that the arguments in TNG were usually two-sided. Meaning, each side typically had intelligent, decent people making compelling, good faith arguments. Issues were portrayed as nuanced and complex, rather than black-and-white. Positions were "steel-manned" rather than "straw-manned". Picard listened as a open-minded arbitrator, conceded that both sides made strong points and struggled with the decision. If one of the crew tried to paint the issue as one-sided, Picard would caution them that morality can be a matter of perspective (e.g. Picard trying to get Riker to understand Worf's desire to end his own life after he became paralyzed).
For me, those debates made the show not only more intellectual, but also more entertaining. When the answer to a quandary isn't obvious I get sucked in. I think, "Jesus, that's a goddamn pickle! If I was Picard I'm not sure what I'd do." I become more invested in the drama. In other words, tough decisions engage the viewer in a way obvious decisions can't.
Clearly the writers of TNG had opinions on these topics (which were obviously allegorical for real world social and political issues). But rather than bludgeon the audience over the head with their opinions, they gently and gradually steered the audience to what they believed to be the correct outcome. The writers understood that they needed to make their case, rather than assume the correct solution was self-evident and the audience was already on their side. They aimed to persuade rather than preach to choir. They didn't rely on straw-men or demagoguery to make their points. Like the character of Picard, the writers avoided being dismissive or contemptuous of opposing points of view. That sophistication in writing is rare in television.
I also liked that the crew didn't take these debates personally. No matter how strongly they disagreed over the appropriate course of action, they still respected and liked each other. They were able to agree to disagree. No one in TNG was ending relationships with friends or family because they had a different opinion on a social issue.
I was particularly impressed that the arguments in TNG were usually two-sided. Meaning, each side typically had intelligent, decent people making compelling, good faith arguments. Issues were portrayed as nuanced and complex, rather than black-and-white. Positions were "steel-manned" rather than "straw-manned". Picard listened as a open-minded arbitrator, conceded that both sides made strong points and struggled with the decision. If one of the crew tried to paint the issue as one-sided, Picard would caution them that morality can be a matter of perspective (e.g. Picard trying to get Riker to understand Worf's desire to end his own life after he became paralyzed).
For me, those debates made the show not only more intellectual, but also more entertaining. When the answer to a quandary isn't obvious I get sucked in. I think, "Jesus, that's a goddamn pickle! If I was Picard I'm not sure what I'd do." I become more invested in the drama. In other words, tough decisions engage the viewer in a way obvious decisions can't.
Clearly the writers of TNG had opinions on these topics (which were obviously allegorical for real world social and political issues). But rather than bludgeon the audience over the head with their opinions, they gently and gradually steered the audience to what they believed to be the correct outcome. The writers understood that they needed to make their case, rather than assume the correct solution was self-evident and the audience was already on their side. They aimed to persuade rather than preach to choir. They didn't rely on straw-men or demagoguery to make their points. Like the character of Picard, the writers avoided being dismissive or contemptuous of opposing points of view. That sophistication in writing is rare in television.
I also liked that the crew didn't take these debates personally. No matter how strongly they disagreed over the appropriate course of action, they still respected and liked each other. They were able to agree to disagree. No one in TNG was ending relationships with friends or family because they had a different opinion on a social issue.
Last edited:
