Drop the S31 show for a Captain Pike show?

[starsuperion]

The fact that morally questionable things are presented in any Star Trek does not bother me. Star Trek has had genocide, and murder, and rape and all other kinds of moral issues that are not presented in the best way, or even in a way that invites comment. First thought that sprung to mind was "The Man Trap," with the only solution to kill a creature that is the last of its kind. Does that invoke such moral outrage and condemnation?

For me, I don't expect Star Trek to get it morally right or present the issue in a perfectly acceptable manner. What matters is how the audience engages with the material.

I think the "Man Trap" Was a brilliant episode. I don't care what anyone thinks the way to handle the Last Salt Vampire was or was not ethical. In some situations it comes down to the laws of Nature.
If the last of a race of beings is killing your crew, and there is only the choice of survival, Me vs you. It's the food chain, or unbridled nature that is being displayed. Kill or be killed. The Moral question of Genocide is usurped by this fundamental law of nature... "Survival" which is what the episode ultimately was preaching. That in the end, no matter how much trying to negotiate or convince the last salt vampire to stop trying to kill the crew, it could not go against her nature, and ultimately that nature is what ended with her being killed. Tragic, but if not for the killing and the lack of salt, the species would have kept going until she died of natural causes. So the moral of the story is that the species in a Darwinian sort of way, dies out due to it's nature, and that is just how some things in life are. Some species are destined to eventually die out. Usually they are predators that once the food sources are exhausted, and no alternatives are available, die off. IN the case of the Salt Vampire, she found a new source, but it is a high stakes play, because she the salt vampire left no choice to the crew, kill or be killed. The struggle of the salt vampire to curb it's own nature was also a feature of the program. I never understood why people (not you in particular) try to break down episodes to a simple it's this or that, without taking into account the full context of it, and subtlety of the message and acting ques within.

 

[Longinus]

I think Prime Directive is a good guideline. Look at the history of Earth and what happened when more advanced nations encroached if the affairs of others. Not a great track record. The Prime Directive is born as a reaction to the imperialism and all the proxy wars and other meddling that was going on in the 60s. Even well intentioned interactions by more advanced powers can utterly destabilise societies and destroy their way of life. That being said, even as a huge fan of TNG I agree that their take on it was sometimes too fundamentalistic. 'Homeward' is probably the biggest moral fail episode in TNG, I really don't like it. In TOS era they seemed to have a healthier attitude to the Prime Directive. Though perhaps Kirk sometimes went too far in his interventions.

I am really sad that we never saw a proper pre-PD episode on ENT. Not one where they just come up with the concept in worst possible moment to be dicks, but one where they genuinely try to help some pre-warp aliens and in the process end up completely upending their culture and making the situation much worse.

 

[fireproof78]

Yes, because over the last 53 years It has been the perfect foil to show that nothing is ever as 'Black & White' as some folks would like it to be.
Even in the imagined, "perfect" 24th Century.

I think my biggest struggle with the Prime Directive is how much like holy writ it is treated by the perfect 24th century inhabitants. While I can appreciate such a directive, and their justification based upon human history, there are times when it has such a black and white application as to be heartless.

 

[CorporalClegg]

The fundamental problem with the prime directive is it's based on a moral argument instead of an ethical one.

 

[F. King Daniel]

At the Discovery NYCC panel, again they teased a Pike series with a "we'll think about it" response.

 

[Bad Thoughts]

If a creator hasn't any insights to offer, it's often better to shut up about a topic, than to badly fumble it. DIS would have improved by avoiding that topic altogether.

But that's not what happened. Roddenberry himself made it impossible to address because of the desire to adhere to his philosophy. And yet it was a perfectly valid moral question to ask what rules can be broken in order to stop mass murder.

 

[Bad Thoughts]

I dunno about that. I mean, remember that Picard had the chance to genocide the Borg with Hugh, and he explicitly refused to do so, even though it was the "easy way" to solve the threat.

As others have argued, choosing not to commit genocide seems to be easy. What about stopping it?

 

[starsuperion]

As others have argued, choosing not to commit genocide seems to be easy. What about stopping it?

IDK.. For me, I guess I like the Captain Kirk POV when it comes to it..
Bending the rules, not breaking them. If they can get away with stopping it, without breaking the rules, then they ultimately end up being able to keep their moral position while also being able to enact an ethical solution. I would say that the Bending of the rules attitude was a later Kirk trait seen, as he was a staunch "by the book" rules enforcing sort of chap, in the early days of his captaincy.

 

[DaveyNY]

IDK.. For me, I guess I like the Captain Kirk POV when it comes to it..
Bending the rules, not breaking them. If they can get away with stopping it, without breaking the rules, then they ultimately end up being able to keep their moral position while also being able to enact an ethical solution. I would say that the Bending of the rules attitude was a later Kirk trait seen, as he was a staunch "by the book" rules enforcing sort of chap, in the early days of his captaincy.

But as in Real Life, bending the rules seldom leads to a positive outcome for everybody involved.

 

[starsuperion]

But as in Real Life, bending the rules seldom leads to a positive outcome for everybody involved.

hmm.. I don't agree with that statement. For me it depends on the situation. If handled correctly, smartly, and with tact and finesse a bending of the rules could always end up with a positive result. It just takes careful consideration.

 

[DaveyNY]

hmm.. I don't agree with that statement. For me it depends on the situation. If handled correctly, smartly, and with tact and finesse a bending of the rules could always end up with a positive result. It just takes careful consideration.

In my 60 years of experience, somebody always ends up with the short stick when the rules are bent in any way.

 

[fireproof78]

Bending the rules is rarely done with thoughtful consideration.

 

[starsuperion]

In my 60 years of experience, somebody always ends up with the short stick when the rules are bent in any way.

True, I'm not saying it doesn't end up with an outcome that isn't favorable, but it depends on the degree of short stick result. If a result still ends up with a not so favorable outcome for a particular party, but the end result does improve the other party's circumstances over where they began, then I call it a win. It moves the ball forward, rather then backwards as to where it would have been going on the trajectory it originally was on, before the intervention and bending of the rules.

 

[DaveyNY]

Try imagining that you're the one with the "not so favorable outcome" and go from there.

 

[starsuperion]

Try imagining that you're the one with the "not so favorable outcome" and go from there.

if it's a choice between extinction and the ability to improve, survive and thrive eventually.. Then Yea. I can see that being fine with me, especially if the situation is too intractable to overcome in a single generation. The hope and the promise of a bright future is a powerful force that the short end of the stick can atleast look towards, where the other result would end up in destruction. Then yes, I can imagine that.

 

[DaveyNY]

Very rarely does rule bending have anything to do with the promise of a bright future.

It almost always involves someone getting the better of something at the expense of someone else.
That is not a morality choice I would like to have on my conscience.

 

[starsuperion]

Very rarely does rule bending have anything to do with the promise of a bright future.

It almost always involves someone getting the better of something at the expense of someone else.
That is not a morality choice I would like to have on my conscience.

A Winner makes commitments; A Loser makes promises. Winners say, “I must do something”; Losers say, “Something must be done.” Winners are a part of the team; Losers are apart from the team. Winners see the gain; Losers see the pain. These are the fundamental forces of life in this reality, no matter the way we moralize it, any instance of life can be derived from the tenants above. No matter how much we aspire to achieve an equal utopia, there will always be winners and losers. That is also a bi-product of what is the concept of free will. Independence comes with a consequence as well as reward. It's the struggle to remain true and just that ultimately counts in the end, because the winner and loser game will always be a fundamental force of existence.

 

[DaveyNY]

Up until 10 or 15 years ago, Compromise, was the best fundamental force of Existence.

Where everybody wins a little and looses a little, but no one is completely left out.

The Absolute Winner & Looser "Game" has been and always will be, a No Win type of situation for everybody.

 

[Rahul]

I think Prime Directive is a good guideline. Look at the history of Earth and what happened when more advanced nations encroached if the affairs of others. Not a great track record. The Prime Directive is born as a reaction to the imperialism and all the proxy wars and other meddling that was going on in the 60s. Even well intentioned interactions by more advanced powers can utterly destabilise societies and destroy their way of life. That being said, even as a huge fan of TNG I agree that their take on it was sometimes too fundamentalistic. 'Homeward' is probably the biggest moral fail episode in TNG, I really don't like it. In TOS era they seemed to have a healthier attitude to the Prime Directive. Though perhaps Kirk sometimes went too far in his interventions.

I am really sad that we never saw a proper pre-PD episode on ENT. Not one where they just come up with the concept in worst possible moment to be dicks, but one where they genuinely try to help some pre-warp aliens and in the process end up completely upending their culture and making the situation much worse.

I think the prime directive works absolutely perfect - EXCEPT for the episodes that actually do focus on the prime directive!

In those, they always go waaay of the rails in not helping people and justifying themselves for it - even in situations where they really could have helped. TOS did that better - is the interference already there? Is the alternative total destruction? Fuck it - go and help!

What the prime directive DOES avoid is the Stargate-model - where heavily armed Americans go to every planet and teach the locals the American way of life via guns. The PD is specifically designed to not do that - to let other peoples learn for themselves, and don't even assume your own way necessarily has to be the better one.

 

[CorporalClegg]

I think the prime directive works absolutely perfect - EXCEPT for the episodes that actually do focus on the prime directive!

In those, they always go waaay of the rails in not helping people and justifying themselves for it - even in situations where they really could have helped. TOS did that better - is the interference already there? Is the alternative total destruction? Fuck it - go and help!

What the prime directive DOES avoid is the Stargate-model - where heavily armed Americans go to every planet and teach the locals the American way of life via guns. The PD is specifically designed to not do that - to let other peoples learn for themselves, and don't even assume your own way necessarily has to be the better one.

Which is as I said. The writers use it from a basis of morality instead of ethics.

Basically it's "Thou shall not kill" versus the exhaustively meticulous and nuanced jurisprudence that [attempts to] cover the vast spectrum of murder and manslaughter.

They treat a philosophical theory as black and white and then enforce it as ruling law.