Well, I think Kirk was arguably the right man for his time; one of the things that stands out to me in TOS series is that it seems like a more militarized situation, and maybe an aggressive, tough posture was the right one for Starfleet at the time. The progression is one of the things I love about Star Trek. There's a kind of development. If we're going to get all meta about it, we can talk about how Roddenberry's sensibilities evolved as he became an older man, but I think it's more fun and more interesting to take the text as a whole (for a philosophical justification see, 'The Intentionalist's Fallacy'), and I would like to say, while I consider Picard to be the best Captain (favorite Captain, I'd be divided between Picard and Kirk), perhaps the more revealing question is who was the worst Captain within the context of his/her circumstances. I'd cast my vote for Janeway. I would be inclined to argue that Janeway's alliance with the Borg was not only morally inexcusable, it's probably the only case where a Captain's decision was clearly disadvantageous to the progress of Starfleet. As a side note, I never saw a Captain make a more immediately morally horrifying decision (Archer's bullshit in the Congenitor episode takes second place) than the murder of Tuvix, but I give props to Kate Mulgrew whose performance in the series I consider to be fantastic.
Favourite Captain
- Thread starter Terok Nor
- Start date
Morally inexcusable? That sounds lofty and convincing, but how is it supported by reality? There have been other examples where accepted antagonists, act against their regular and common rationales, willingly or not and sometimes by suberfuge, to essentially work together in facing a clear existential threat (DS9). How exactly was Starfleet's "progress" (in the DQ?), set back by her decision? Maybe, you would submit its likely annihilation, barring her action, would have been advantageous, but I find that an odd stretch of logic.
As for Tuvix, well, this will continue until the end of time, I suppose, and honestly I'm loath to simply dismiss as fallacy someone's principled belief on the matter. But I've never viewed it in that sense at all. Neither Neelix nor Tuvok were dead, but simply integrated into an ersatz, though distinctive and valuable creation, until such time as a means to reconstitute them could be found. From my perspective, there was nothing questionable or horrifying about Janeway's decision, however grippingly dramatically the scenario played out, but rather inevitable and the only valid choice that could be arrived at. Now, I would say that to maintain Tuvix's presence by cloning him and allowing him to remain amongst those who had come to know and admire him, evolving, over time, into a distinctive personality of his own, certainly could have been done and would have provided an interesting dramatic possibility if, in an encore performance or two, he ultimately encountered his original progenitors. But all that aside, I think it's incontrovertibly the case, that his continued existence, which prevented two viably alive crew members with full lives and histories, from being restored, could not be justified and certainly can't be qualified as murder, rather than dissolution, if you will.
It could be argued that Janeway should have allowed Species 8472 to wipe out the Borg, but I wouldn't do that, since 8472 appeared quite intent on exterminating ALL life ("The weak shall perish").
And just to defend Cogenitor, certainly not one of my favourite episodes, Archer's decision makes sense in context. He was trying to establish relations with a new species, and if his first act was to offer a member of that species asylum, then not only would he be denying a couple their opportunity to have a child, he would basically be spitting on their society's customs and morals, and sabotaging any favourable cultural/diplomatic relationship before it even began.
Exactly. The Borg wouldn't have been wiped out regardless, as obviously they were present elsewhere. Their ultimate disposal would simply be delayed, as would everyone else's, including Starfleet.
Jean Luc.
My favorite Captain has always been James T. Kirk.
me too
Kirk everytime.
Same here. I like them all but he's always been my fave. Just epitomises Star Trek for me
Kirk will always be the man of action while Picard will always be the diplomat. Kirk resorts to violence first, Picard last. Kirk breaks the rules blatantly while Picard tries to adhere to them faithfully. They both get the job done, but Kirk is the wild gambler who doesn't like to lose at any cost.
