I hope for more traditional space battles
- Thread starter Infern0
- Start date
Your conclusion is remarkably logical, but I think you are getting a little side tracked by the fact Nero and Co are such a nasty bunch of villains. I mean, would it be OK to "help it along" if the people on the Narada were in the same situation but innocent of any crime? I'm thinking not. So there is something a little dodgy about the principle that it is OK to kill someone (especially when at your mercy) if they are going to die soon anyway. Interesting ethical point though.
Their guilt isn't really a factor in my thinking. Obviously if Nero is prepared to accept their assistance, then they're obliged to provide it. But he isn't:
Nero said:
Given Nero's situation, his death is inevitable without outside assistance. Assuming that his co-operation is required for that assistance to be provided, there is no helping him so long as he feels the way his lines there indicate. Since assisting him will almost certainly mean at least dropping the shields, and since it's reasonable to assume that at least some of his weapons remain both online and operable by him, there is no reasonable path open to Kirk that ends with rescuing Nero. Hence the deaths of Nero and his crew are inevitable and hence my indifference to the firing.
If the ship were crewed by a posse of fanatically suicidal innocents who are willing and able to prevent their own rescue, I still see no significant ethical distinction to draw between watching it happen and hurrying it along. It all hinges on the feasibility of forced rescue. If you can persuade me that they could have forced Nero or some of his crew to be rescued without exposing the Enterprise to grave risk, I'll have to change my mind. On the other hand, if you accept that their death was inevitable, you have some work to do to justify distinguishing between watching and firing (IMO at least).
Well speaking solely for myself I cannot tell you how much your kind words of encouragement light up my heart. Of course I wouldn't tell you if I could.
But that confirms it. "Nitpick" had definitely been redefined while I wasn't looking. 
True, but I couldn't wait 25 years for an issue of that magnitude to become fashionable again.
You almost make me doubt that my previous answer to this very question was adequate. No, its about right. I would only reiterate that the torpedo appeared to do more damage that anyone in-universe probably realised.
In any event, Chang didn't surrender (he was probable dead of course) and the good guy's couldn't risk secondary power systems reinstating the cloak at any moment or the BOP getting in a luck shot etc so they reacted quickly. Granted that would have made it necessary for Chang to surrender even more rapidly if he could have. But lets face it, he was never going to and everyone knew that so making sure he was out of action ASAP was imperative. Nothing wrong with that I can see. Not the same situation either given the unknowns and timing.
Nor is such behaviour uncommon in navy tradition. Enemy ships are often pounded into submission, if they don't surrender. Besides in Chang's case it was only about four to six shots and barely lasted eight seconds. As I said, not a lot of time for chit chat.
You perhaps recall the phrase" "Fire everything"? Nero's previous sucessful missile attack had punched right through the Enterprise's shields. Had Nero had anything left to hurt Kirk with, however feeble, I'm sure he would have used it. So we are left with a completely defenceless Narada. But you say, perhaps he was playing possum. That turned out not to be the case, though Kirk, despite sensors, may not have known that. But then why offer help in the first place if he wasn't confident of his safety? You seem to be saying he wouldn’t or shouldn’t take that risk.
Do I? So you are saying that, as a principle, if someone's death is inevitable, it should be ethically OK to kill them, irrespective of that person's ethical status? I would caution you to think about that before answering.
"Fire everything" was aimed at the jellyfish, before Enterprise's arrival. They fire about a dozen torpedoes, no energy weapons. I don't see any reason to assume they had no weapon capacity. (ETA by this I mean that "Fire everything" can easily be read as "Full spread, maximum yield" rather than "Empty the phaser banks and torpedo bays completely!")
As for offering help, as I said, they're compelled to provide it if Nero is prepared to accept it. They can hardly just guess that he isn't.
All our deaths are inevitable.
You're ignoring the stipulation that the person is actively indifferent to their impending death.
How about this. Kirk wasn't cruel for firing on Nero's ship, he was merciful.
Instead of leaving the Romulans to be shredded to pieces or crushed to pulp by the black hole's gravity force, he gave them a clean, quick death.
Instead of leaving the Romulans to be shredded to pieces or crushed to pulp by the black hole's gravity force, he gave them a clean, quick death.
He executed six billion men, women and children. I have no problem with Kirk giving him a parting shot.
Nor do I. Nero also was responsible for Kirk's Father and Spock's mother. Makes it very personal and if they had played it that way as revenge or pay back I think it would sit better with me. But this way is kinda played for laughs.
Kirk: We show them compassion-- it may be the only way to earn peace with Romulus. It's logic, Spock! I thought you'd like that.
SPOCK No, not really, not this time.
NERO I would rather suffer the death of Romulus a thousand times than accept assistance from you.
KIRK You got it. Lock phasers! Fire everything we've got!
It could, but as I mentioned: "Nero's previous
successful missile attack had punched right through the Enterprise's shields. Had Nero had anything left to hurt Kirk with, however feeble, I'm sure he would have used it. So we are left with a completely defenceless Narada." He never did fire anything so we can be sure he didn't have anything left. You seem to have missed that point.
But you also wrote:
However you are now saying they have to offer help no matter how risky it might be? What is wrong with saying it too damned risky for a number of reasons (blackholes included), lets just high tail it? Remember nuKirk didn't offer help because he was he compelled or obliged to. He did it for political reasons only (another issue I have with nuKirk).
All our deaths are inevitable.
Exactly, so how much time is it OK to take from someone? A minute, an hour a lifetime?
There is no such stipulation. Nero didn't want Kirk's help, but would have probably been happy to accept assistence from a Romulan vessel, had one be handy. In any event, he never said he wanted to die, nor did he imply that he didn't care if he died.
I was wondering how long it would take for someone to suggest that. And that is a good reason why Star Trek should continue to have a problem with it (in my opinion), as it always (previously) has, as far as I can tell. Only the scale is different. Note, I am not saying Nero couldn't come to a sticky end, just do it right, if that's what's required.
A good point and what exactly had Kirk done to offend Nero?
The timeline? How would he be dangerous to "the timeline"? He doesn't really have time travel powers.
It punched right through the shields but it didn't destroy the Enterprise. Sulu says: "Shields at 32%. Their weapons are powerful, Sir - we can't take another hit like that."
Now, given that it's torpedoes being fired, how exactly that works, I confess I don't know. It seems to imply that the shields are a factor, though, or why would Sulu report their status? Presumably maintenance crews have been at work in the interim. The Enterprise remains manoeuvrable, while the Narada is not. Why is Nero bothered firing if it won't destroy the Enterprise?
Offering help is not the same as providing help. They are obliged to offer help; if it's accepted, then having offered it they must provide it. That's what I meant by:
I realise certain stock phrases like "offering assistance" are generally understood to entail providing it, but I assumed from the context that there's cause to distinguish here.
Any amount of time is fine so long as the conditions can be expected to remain the same if the events are allowed to play out without pulling the trigger - ie, if Kirk has some reason to suppose that if he doesn't fire, after a few seconds Nero might hail him and say You know what, I changed my mind, then he shouldn't fire.
All of which is to say that this isn't a license to kill people who are currently down in the dumps, since I assume that's what you're worried it might be.
Counterfactuals don't apply. It doesn't matter if Nero would be happy to be rescued by Romulans - there are none around. He has two options: Be rescued by Kirk or die. There is no third way available. Given that reality, Nero makes it abundantly clear that he strongly prefers death.
That wasn't in the movie. While it would probably explain his madness, it also raises other issues, as was mentioned in this thread.
There's being an asshole and then there's blowing up entire planets, killing billions of innocent people.
It's true that throughout history there have been some very disturbed people, namely Nazis, Stalinists and others of the kind. Nero could've been a Romulan Hitler or Pol Pot, that's for sure.
I do think those kind of people are rare though, and I didn't believe what Nero went through was enough to put him in a state where, after 25 years, he would still be raging mad and willing to murder billions of people.
Yes, it's quite hysterical to discuss a Star Trek movie in a Star Trek dedicated forum.
His madness is already explained by him watching his family and entire planet die.
People have gone mad for a lot less.
That is true! I guess it's such a OTT event that I suppose it's hard for me to relate to. I do think Nero makes a hell of lot more sense than Shinzon, and is on par with Soran. As was said, as far as villains are concerned, he's quite standard when it comes to Trek movies. That doesn't mean he's a good villain though, just that most of the villains are bad, at least to me.
This is what's wrong with Star Trek, or more exactly a portion of the Star Trek fanbase. They bought Roddenberry's 'perfect human' non-sense hook, line and sinker. As much as I love The Next Generation, the characters are mostly unrecognizable as human beings. Thankfully, DS9 and the two other spinoffs did a bit to reel it back in.
What we got from Kirk was an offer to save his father's killer, likely through gritted teeth and he was promptly told to go fuck himself. Him giving Nero a sweet kiss goodnight with a bucket of photon torpedoes was an incredibly human reaction. A reaction those sitting in the theater seats could understand. Likely the reason the movie was a hit was because the characters in a Trek movie acted like humans again for the first time in a long time.
Last edited:
True, I'm not just seeing how Kirk's actions are somehow imoral. He offered help, but it was refused. Nothing else to do except make sure the threat is eliminated.
He's an asshole with a weapon. Like Grand Moff Tarkin in Star Wars. He didn't have to blow up Alderaan, but he did because that's what assholes in positions of power do.
Thankfully in fiction they get blow up by the good guys. That only rarely happens in reality.
That first attack did a lot of damage to the Enterprise including reducing its speed to warp four. So one torpedo is a significant threat (if Nero had had any). You yourself quote Sulu saying they couldn't take two hits from the Narada even with sheilds up. But you are arguing Nero wouldn't bother trying to take a few more humans (maybe even Kirk and Spock) with him if he could? I don't think so.
Well I'm glad of that but that is not the problem. You seem to have misunderstood my question. I asked how much time (from their lives) is it OK to take from them? And what gives anyone the right to make that decision just because they are going to die at some unspecified point in the future? I am trying to find the ethical principle you are using here. So far it seems if we are talking a couple of seconds its fine, but what about longer periods? There is not apparent logical end point.
Your suggestion it has something to do with Kirk's impression about Nero's chances of changing his mind are not just subjective and arbitrary but don't address the question. Which is: Why is it OK to kill someone just because their death is inevitable (aren't we still robbing them of their life however short), and does the amount of time they have left change how or if it is "OK". Other factors are not relevant. I would be greatful if you could keep that in mind.
A) Of course it matters if Nero would be happy to be rescued by Romulans. You are trying to claim he was indifferent to his death. Accepting Romulan help would show he isn't.
B) The issue has nothing to do with his actual options but solely how he felt about his death.
C) His preference for death in that situation does not in any way suggest he is indifferent to it or welcomes it.
On the other hand, if you are saying your policy only applies to people who are indifferent to their impending deaths then it doesn't apply to Nero. Which logically means Kirk had no right to fire at him.
BTW counterfactuals are theoretical exercises. It doesn't matter if the Romulans are really there. All that matters is what Nero would do if they were.
I am only talking about the behaviour of Prime Kirk not TNG. As I have said in the past, I am only interested in a "better" world, not a perfect one (which of course is impossible). I shouldn't let your red herrings side track me, but surely there is nothing wrong with having goals to shoot for or inspire us? Most fiction is happy enough to show us standard mark one production model humans. I like Star Trek because it is not just Avatar or Transformers etc. I would like the future to be a little more optimistic than the present. And wasn't TNG the popular one? A rhetorical question of course.
I would be happy if they just went back to having the characters act the same as in TOS. Ie. from the 23rd century. As we both know, there were plenty of other occasions for the characters to look like "us" (and they took all of them). Why can't Star Trek have it's small point of difference? Or, if most ST fans are not that charitable, then at least don't deliberately orchestrate scenes where they have to do the wrong thing. As I said, they could have had blood and guts and not contradicted previous Trek. However much anyone may like the movie, I can't see a reason to applaud making it less uniquely Trek.
Similar threads
