Well, one of the show writers, that is.
What are all the possible outcomes?
a) Feds are gods/demons
b) Feds are magical
c) Feds are just people like us with cool machines
d) Feds are imaginary
etc.
a) Feds are gods/demons
b) Feds are magical
c) Feds are just people like us with cool machines
d) Feds are imaginary
etc.
e) Feds turn the world into a Gangster Planet
f) Feds turn the world into a Nazi Planet
g) Feds use phasers to support one side of a war so they can steal the fountain of youth.
h) Feds kidnap everyone in a holoship so they can steal the fountain of youth.
Last edited:
I was thinking about two different points I made earlier in this thread and how they might relate.
My original post expressed admiration for the way Picard would arbitrate debates with an open-mind and recognize the validity of both sides' arguments. He understood that differences of opinion, and determinations of right versus wrong, were often the result of different perspectives.
Might that disposition explain his devotion to the Prime Directive, at least when it comes to respecting the customs and laws of alien civilizations? If we're talking about social, political or judicial debates on an alien planet, Picard would recognize that the aliens were coming at the issue from a different and unrelatable perspective -- a perspective informed by their own unique experiences and distinct values that would be unknowable to a human. Who was he to judge the validity of their position?
(Obviously this wouldn't apply to situations where alien worlds were threatened with environmental calamity and the PD prevented Starfleet from acting, which is why I set that aside and focused on situations where Picard was urged to intervene in the domestic affairs of a planet.)
Last edited:
That makes a lot of sense. Plus as a student of history he was very aware of what happens when people assume that more advanced technology also means a superior culture and way of life, and believe that its their place to bring their 'more enlightened' civilisation to the primitives.
I think we could've gotten some better debates on the subject in the episodes themselves though!
I think we could've gotten some better debates on the subject in the episodes themselves though!
100% agree. I was going to make that same point but figured my post was already too long.
I would argue that "Symbiosis," while a mediocre episode of TNG, is an example of the Prime Directive working. Picard, in the end, decides to strictly apply the Prime Directive and, by doing so, the two societies are actually forced into a scenario where the exploitation of one group by another will likely end.
When I first saw the episode (back in 1988!), I was stunned. I didn't expect his decision, but it was wise.
The 30,000-foot view neatly disposed of empathy for suffering individuals, there. Crusher knew Picard was wrong.
But Geordi assuaged everyone's qualms by suggesting they go for ice cream, and soon the world was right again.
Sounds like that extra-bad episode of LOVE BOAT when Marcia Brady smiled her way out of her terminal illness for the epilogue. Not that there's anything TREK with that, except for the similar approach Dennis mentioned.
I) Feds suspiciously get caught spying on us
J) Feds try to enlist one faction of an ununited planet
K) Feds stupidly get mixed up in our unlawful imprisonment scheme
L) Feds barely figure out how to talk to us without getting us all killed
This is fun
Me too!
It was usual for the treatment of ethical dilemmas by M*A*S*H to put Star Trek's treatment of them to shame. I can name three examples.
"Goodbye, Farewell and Amen," for the incident on the bus that broke Hawkeye. It's especially well handled because it never prompts us to judge what was right and what was wrong. It only has us share Hawkeye's horror. I'll just leave "Guerilla My Dreams" and "Mulcahy's War" here, since this isn't a M*A*S*H forum. They have a lot of moving parts that would require extended (though interesting) discussion. Their key strength was to make us care about the characters involved. Regardless of whether they were right or wrong, we felt for them.
I can pick two Berman-era episodes that might have similar flavors, "The Defector" and "Duet". Where they don't measure up is that we are prompted to take a side in a way that is more heavy-handed.
It's worth pointing out that M*A*S*H's format helped maintain greater ambiguity and openness to opposing viewpoints by not having the main characters at the top of the chain of command of where the show is set. Yeah, Picard's not at the top of the chain of command either, there is Starfleet command, its general orders, and the Federation above him, same goes for Kirk, but they were in charge of their ships, which is where the show is set.
If we're going to look at moral ambiguity in Berman-era Trek, perhaps we should be looking at "In the Pale Moonlight". I can say right off the bat that I hate the episode structurally. About the last thing I wanted to see was having the thing framed as an inner monologue, where Sisko is arguing with himself about whether he did the right thing. I see it as an artifact of the rule to which this episode is setting itself up as the exception.
More broadly, there is a discussion to be had about DS9's treatment of the necessities of war, and yeah DS9 went there with Section 31, the genocide angle, and the morphogenic virus used against the Founders. Although we can say that the characters came to a firm decision about whether the genocide was necessary, it was a more protracted debate than what would have occurred on other series, like where the idea to commit genocide against the Borg doesn't even survive the episode where Picard and crew believe they have the opportunity to carry it out ("I Borg").
TL;DR - It isn't hard to find examples of other shows handling ethical dilemmas better than Star Trek did. There's also variation within the Star Trek franchise. While there might be rules, there were also exceptions, not always isolated.
Similar threads
