Episode: Time Squared

[sonak]

It looks to me that Riker and Pulaski are making a highly moral decision when erasing their disgusting clones from existence. It's just not the type of morals that would be familiar to us - but it's consistent with the disgust expressed earlier in the episode, and consistent with Picard shooting his temporal clone in another episode. By killing a clone, our heroes are setting an example to the world, showing everybody that crime (cloning) doesn't pay, and thus giving their Starfleet uniforms and extra sheen of honor.

It's difficult to say what other effects the antipathy towards cloning would have in the 24th century society. It might lead to certain other types of killing being considered okay and necessary; Riker had little objection to the idea of mercy killing in "Half a Life" or "The Vengeance Factor", for example. Or the murderous mentality might truncate at clones made against the template's will, and the hatred of such clones would in fact increase the respect for other types of life and hold back the trigger finger.

Timo Saloniemi

um, they're making a "highly moral decision" based on prejudice against cloning? I don't think so. I think the writers were appealing to 20th century attitudes toward clones, but if you looked at the way the characters treated the clones, we'd find that disgusting if they were anything else.

And again, for consistency's sake, why doesn't Will Riker want to kill Thomas Riker, who is his duplicate, who was also created involuntarily?

 

[horatio83]

I like that it show Picard in a confusing situation. I never have understood why present Picard shot and killed future Picard, it didn't seem necessary to his course of actions.

It's been a while since I have seen it, however, if I'm remembering it correctly, I believe Picard killing his other version served dual purposes. One, the action is representative of him erasing his own self doubt and single mindedness. Two, and more important, he was ensuring that should he cause another loop, it would be the Picard that understood he needed to keep his options open that made it into the next one.

Precisely, the episode makes it pretty clear why Picard does what he does. All this talk about the rights of Picard's future self totally misses what the episode is about.
I am a sucker for TNG's second season, it is the last TNG season with this "lonely out there" atmosphere from TOS, In my opinion "Time Squared" is one of TNG's finest episodes, not at least because it uses time travel in order to explore ourselves. Often time travel in Trek serves no other purpose besides playing around with causality paradoxes or delves too deeply into stupid technicalities. The benchmark for time travel is still Wells' "Time Machine": ten pages to deal with the technical aspect and the rest focuses upon the real story.

 

[F. King Daniel]

I really liked "Time Squared". Very eerie atmosphere, and the first time Young Me saw an Enterprise destroyed - a powerful image.

 

[KNH]

And again, for consistency's sake, why doesn't Will Riker want to kill Thomas Riker, who is his duplicate, who was also created involuntarily?

Maybe, you know, he actually reflected upon things and learned? Five seasons is a lot of room for character development.

 

[T'Girl]

I think it's the identical twins that have the same DNA and fraternal twins don't.

you're right, i got it reversed

 

[Timo]

um, they're making a "highly moral decision" based on prejudice against cloning? I don't think so.

Why should what you think bear any relevance on whether the fictional heroes are making a highly moral decision? It's their morals, not yours.

Which is more or less the point of not just the episode, but of Star Trek in general. Cloning in the 1980s was rather a non-issue, and of no general interest (and it still basically remains just scifi). But a story about cloning was a fictional way to approach more down-to-earth questions about the rights over one's body, such as abortion - and Star Trek approaches such questions through analogies and through distancing the audience with centuries of "moral development" that has resulted in different ways of thinking.

When Riker and Pulaski kill clones, it can be read as commentary on all sorts of things, without actually being any of those things. Which is by design.

In any case, morals = prejudices. That's the very idea: that there would be a set pattern for dealing with any eventuality, for judging the rights and wrongs of a complex situation with a minimum of expended effort and time. That's also the main shortcoming of morals, as the approach of fitting pegs of all shapes through square holes is not generally viable... Which is why we rework our morals constantly and sometimes very radically, without necessarily noticing the process or the results. A bit of hyperbole and a few centuries of distancing work wonders in revealing the process, though!

Timo Saloniemi

 

[sonak]

um, they're making a "highly moral decision" based on prejudice against cloning? I don't think so.

Why should what you think bear any relevance on whether the fictional heroes are making a highly moral decision? It's their morals, not yours.

Which is more or less the point of not just the episode, but of Star Trek in general. Cloning in the 1980s was rather a non-issue, and of no general interest (and it still basically remains just scifi). But a story about cloning was a fictional way to approach more down-to-earth questions about the rights over one's body, such as abortion - and Star Trek approaches such questions through analogies and through distancing the audience with centuries of "moral development" that has resulted in different ways of thinking.

When Riker and Pulaski kill clones, it can be read as commentary on all sorts of things, without actually being any of those things. Which is by design.

In any case, morals = prejudices. That's the very idea: that there would be a set pattern for dealing with any eventuality, for judging the rights and wrongs of a complex situation with a minimum of expended effort and time. That's also the main shortcoming of morals, as the approach of fitting pegs of all shapes through square holes is not generally viable... Which is why we rework our morals constantly and sometimes very radically, without necessarily noticing the process or the results. A bit of hyperbole and a few centuries of distancing work wonders in revealing the process, though!

Timo Saloniemi

this is nonsense. Would you say the same about the Ferengi keeping women as virtual slaves or the Cardassian occupation's brutal treatment of the Bajorans?

It's easy to preach moral relativism when the mistreatment that would result from such a philosophy won't be affecting you.

 

[Timo]

That's prejudice speaking, pure and simple.

Doesn't mean it would be bad prejudice. If prejudice were bad for the majority, it would be much less common - people would be prejudiced against it! That's what holds societies together.

The 24th century society just appears to be held together by (among other things) a hatred of unauthorized cloning, much as today's society is held together by (among other things) a hatred of pedophilia, and yesterday's was held together by (among other things) a hatred of homosexuality. The targets of hatred come and go - and sometimes come again. And any scifi show would be lax in not inventing a few of its own.

Timo Saloniemi

 

[sonak]

That's prejudice speaking, pure and simple.

Doesn't mean it would be bad prejudice. If prejudice were bad for the majority, it would be much less common - people would be prejudiced against it! That's what holds societies together.

The 24th century society just appears to be held together by (among other things) a hatred of unauthorized cloning, much as today's society is held together by (among other things) a hatred of pedophilia, and yesterday's was held together by (among other things) a hatred of homosexuality. The targets of hatred come and go - and sometimes come again. And any scifi show would be lax in not inventing a few of its own.

Timo Saloniemi

that's not really an argument, it's more of an assertion. And trotting out examples of a few things on which attitudes have changed or evolved doesn't prove a point. But we're getting off-topic I guess, and if your position is moral relativism, I doubt that arguments would convince you.

 

[horatio83]

Indeed, arguing with ethical relativists is pointless. Only being robbed, raped or attacked might make them reconsider their nihilistic position.

 

[Shikarnov]

How do we know that Picard didn't try to simply stun his double? In most instances in which we see phasers set to kill, the target is vaporized. Perhaps the double's death had to do more with his weakened state than it did with Picard's intent.

 

[Timo]

And trotting out examples of a few things on which attitudes have changed or evolved doesn't prove a point.

It does prove nicely enough that when a "moral absolutist" sees even a tiny corner of his system of beliefs threatened, the reaction is always extremism: nothing will prove anything, down that path lies anarchy, I hope your wife gets raped and killed...

Only being robbed, raped or attacked might make them reconsider their nihilistic position.

Ah, but it's only the absolutist position that has trouble in that respect. A moralist of that ilk cannot react to the deed in any way - because punishment by definition is an evil deed, and absolutes must be upheld. So punishing the culprits is right out, and even calling the police and outsourcing the punishment is morally untenable. Any other approach would hinge on double standards and hypocrisy.

Which just goes to show that moral absolutism doesn't exist. Only self-deceit does.

The idea that Picard wanted to stun himself makes perfect sense, BTW. The season would see LaForge nearly get killed by a stun phaser, too ("Samaritan Snare").

Timo Saloniemi

 

[sonak]

And trotting out examples of a few things on which attitudes have changed or evolved doesn't prove a point.

It does prove nicely enough that when a "moral absolutist" sees even a tiny corner of his system of beliefs threatened, the reaction is always extremism: nothing will prove anything, down that path lies anarchy, I hope your wife gets raped and killed...

Only being robbed, raped or attacked might make them reconsider their nihilistic position.

Ah, but it's only the absolutist position that has trouble in that respect. A moralist of that ilk cannot react to the deed in any way - because punishment by definition is an evil deed, and absolutes must be upheld. So punishing the culprits is right out, and even calling the police and outsourcing the punishment is morally untenable. Any other approach would hinge on double standards and hypocrisy.

Which just goes to show that moral absolutism doesn't exist. Only self-deceit does.

The idea that Picard wanted to stun himself makes perfect sense, BTW. The season would see LaForge nearly get killed by a stun phaser, too ("Samaritan Snare").

Timo Saloniemi

none of the top part of that response made any sense. It was just a bunch of word salad. Believing in objective ethics means that one has to find punishment evil? What a bunch of arbitrary nonsense. I might just as well respond that your being a member of the TrekBBS means that you must like chocolate ice cream. That conclusion follows from the premise just as much as yours did.


But I do agree that within the premise of the episode, Picard's actions regarding his double are understandable. Riker's in "UTLL" are less so.

 

[horatio83]

Ah, but it's only the absolutist position that has trouble in that respect. A moralist of that ilk cannot react to the deed in any way - because punishment by definition is an evil deed, and absolutes must be upheld. So punishing the culprits is right out, and even calling the police and outsourcing the punishment is morally untenable. Any other approach would hinge on double standards and hypocrisy.

Which just goes to show that moral absolutism doesn't exist. Only self-deceit does. i

The opposite of your nihilistic ethical relativism is not absolutism but common sense. That murder, rape and robbery is wrong is not my "belief system" but common decency.
You can try to paint with all the sophistry in the world over this postmodern ethical void but the trick does not work.

 

[TerragonSix]

How do we know that Picard didn't try to simply stun his double? In most instances in which we see phasers set to kill, the target is vaporized. Perhaps the double's death had to do more with his weakened state than it did with Picard's intent.

Well... do you recall what he said right before he activated his hand phaser?

"I cannot allow you to leave the ship. In order to move forward, the cycle must end."

End seems pretty plain to me.

 

[Shikarnov]

How do we know that Picard didn't try to simply stun his double? In most instances in which we see phasers set to kill, the target is vaporized. Perhaps the double's death had to do more with his weakened state than it did with Picard's intent.

Well... do you recall what he said right before he activated his hand phaser?

"I cannot allow you to leave the ship. In order to move forward, the cycle must end."

End seems pretty plain to me.

I recall it vividly as it's my favorite TNG episode. But "the cycle must end" implies nothing about phaser settings or intent to kill or stun. For the cycle to end, neither Picard can leave the ship. The stunned double is just as unlikely as a dead one to leave the ship prior to the new plan being enacted.

 

[horatio83]

That's a great point, not having actually thought about it I always assumed that he killed his future self.

 

[TerragonSix]

How do we know that Picard didn't try to simply stun his double? In most instances in which we see phasers set to kill, the target is vaporized. Perhaps the double's death had to do more with his weakened state than it did with Picard's intent.

Well... do you recall what he said right before he activated his hand phaser?

"I cannot allow you to leave the ship. In order to move forward, the cycle must end."

End seems pretty plain to me.

I recall it vividly as it's my favorite TNG episode. But "the cycle must end" implies nothing about phaser settings or intent to kill or stun. For the cycle to end, neither Picard can leave the ship. The stunned double is just as unlikely as a dead one to leave the ship prior to the new plan being enacted.

We are going under the premise that Picard supposedly stunned his future self. Why not on kill setting?

We do not see Picard adjust the setting on the phaser to make sure it is on stun. Therefore, either all phasers on board the Enterprise are defaulted set to stun, or he fired on the kill setting.

Since in the show, it is ordered to always 'set phasers on stun', I'm under the assumption that they are programmed by default to be on the 'kill' setting.

Here is an example of a 'stun' shot, according to the TNG. Episode: "A Matter Of Honor", Season 2. The Captain of a Klingon vessel was tricked into being beamed aboard the Enterprise, attempted to kill Federation personel, and was shot on a stun setting. Note the rings of energy, no smoke or sparks indicating energy penetration.

Now, lets look at "Time Squared", the focal point of the argument. Picard, realizing that he cannot allow his future self to leave the ship and re-loop the timeline, he takes a phaser immediately from the shuttle hangar arsenal, shows no signs of attempting to adjust or verify its settings, aims at his target 'Center Mass', and with highly emotional music in the background, fires.

Note the infliction of the bolt below the chest cavity, near midline of the interior portion of the body, on the victims (R) - right side of his Xyphoid Process, where the liver and part of the stomach would be. Also note the sparks, and smoke as the phaser bolt penetrates the body. This is NOT an indication of a non-penetration wound.

The future Picard was suffering from a diluted, emotional trauma, having seen the destruction of the Enterprise, as well as his fellow crew members killed in the process. This Picard is living in the future and present at the same time. It's like Troi explained: "This Picard is on the other side of a canyon, seeing us only though a mist of illusion and nightmare, unable to speak to us (or something to that effect)"

This is not the same Picard we know. It is a broken man we see. Set on only one objective, not trying to find other options.

I could make just as a valid argument that Picard killed his future self out of mercy as you can make an argument that Picard meant to stun his future self, and accidentally killed him in the process (does this mean he committed manslaughter on himself? -joke- )

 

[Timo]

There is no real support for the idea that phasers have default settings other than "off". Your own example of Worf stunning Captain Kargan is a case in point: no dialogue or fidgeting indicates a switch from kill to stun, yet stun is the supposed outcome nevertheless, so either kill can't be the default setting, or then the move from default to desired involves no dialogue or fidgeting.

TNG phasers have clearly visible indicator lights for settings. Close-ups of these lights generally match the witnessed effects very well: up to three lights is nonlethal, while at least eight is required for vaporizing the target. (Alas, the camera angles of "Time Squared" don't reveal the setting of Picard's gun.)

On the other hand, perhaps Worf in "A Matter of Honor" shot to kill, but failed. Klingons are hard to kill sometimes. And a shot looking much like that (orange beam, concentric rings) took out the Klingon crony on Genesis Planet for good - we never see him recover.

Timo Saloniemi

 

[TerragonSix]

Pictures were removed. Oh well.