Most morally questionable act by a protagonist?

[Too Much Fun]

I'm surprised nobody mentioned Worf, Dax, and Bashir collaborating to memory wipe Kurn, especially since there's a thread about it going in the DS9 forum right now. Personally, I felt so sorry for Kurn that I could forgive it, but a fair amount of people seem to be very, very disgusted by what they did.

 

[Nerys Ghemor]

Sisko poisoning an entire planet just to catch one guy, killing probably thousands of innocent civilians in the process (there was no way everyone escaped in time). Seriously, how he got away with that and NO punishment is just absurd.

He should at the VERY least have been punished by Starfleet. I vote for this as well.

And don't forget, the Cardassians would have a DAMN good argument that he should be extradited and dealt with by them.

 

[Lindley]

And don't forget, the Cardassians would have a DAMN good argument that he should be extradited and dealt with by them.

Why? The planet Sisko attacked was a Maquis colony, not Cardassian. In fact, as I recall the humans and Cardies of the two poisoned worlds basically switched places at the end.

 

[Deranged Nasat]

Other: Admiral Janeway time travelling to the past and changed 20-odd years of history.

Seconded. What makes it worse in my opinion is that this is exactly the crime Annorax was guilty of (rewriting history for selfish reasons and to restore his family/people without considering the cost to anyone else), and it was younger Janeway who (heroically) put a stop to him.

 

[Peter the Younger]

Jonathan Archer, for turning over the Vissian "Charles", who was seeking asylum in Cogenitor. This individual was shown to have a mind of her own, the capacity to learn and live like any other member of her species, despite the insistence by the other Vissians that "she" (we don't have enough pronouns for three sexes) was little more than a breeder cow. The episode strongly suggested - through Archer's speech at the end - that we had no right, as humans, to interfere in the alien culture, that the whole episode was Trip's fault for giving Charles false hope (they did everything but call her "uppity.") I don't think any episode has ever left me so enraged.

It would have been slightly less reprehensible if Archer had characterized it purely in terms of diplomacy and realpolitik (i.e., "we can't afford to question the culture of these people, they are more advanced and Earth doesn't need more enemies.") But Archer's argument is sprinkled with the worst sort of moral relativism, and the parochial notion that individual rights don't apply because it's an alien species (keep in mind we aren't talking about Borg-like hive creatures here, theses were standard-issue ST "just like us" humanoids.) With a few tweaks, you could have used Archer's speech as a defense of female gential mutilation or religious honor killings.

The thing is, it was so outrageous that I couldn't actually believe the character would say it, so I don't know if if even qualifies in my mind as the most morally questionable act by a protagonist. It was, however, the most morally questionable script by any Trek writer (or rather, writers, who were - surprise! - Rick Berman and Brannon Braga.)

Note: the others are all good choices, mind you. But this is the one I had the biggest emotional reaction to.

 

[Deranged Nasat]

Jonathan Archer, for turning over the Vissian "Charles", who was seeking asylum in "Cogenitor". This individual was shown to have a mind of her own, the capacity to learn and live like any other member of her species, despite the insistence by the other Vissians that "she" (we don't have enough pronouns for three sexes) was little more than a breeder cow. The episode strongly suggested - through Archer's speech at the end - that we had no right, as humans, to interfere in the alien culture, that the whole episode was Trip's fault for giving Charles false hope (they did everything but call her "uppity.") I don't think any episode has ever left me so enraged.

It would have been slightly less reprehensible if Archer had characterized it purely in terms of diplomacy and realpolitik (i.e., "we can't afford to question the culture of these people, they are more advanced and Earth doesn't need more enemies.") But Archer's argument is sprinkled with the worst sort of moral relativism, and the parochial notion that individual rights don't apply because it's an alien species (keep in mind we aren't talking about Borg-like hive creatures here, theses were standard-issue ST "just like us" humanoids.) With a few tweaks, you could have used Archer's speech as a defense of female gential mutilation or religious honor killings.

The thing is, it was so outrageous that I couldn't actually believe the character would say it, so I don't know if I can even say it was the most morally questionable act by a protagonist. It was, however, the most morally questionable script by any Trek writer (or rather, writers, who were - surprise! - Rick Berman and Brannon Braga.)

An interesting argument, but, well, I don't agree. It would be worse in my eyes to insist that Humans had some sort of moral authority over Vissians and could exert their will on this other culture. Change never comes through those sort of actions. Sadly, individual rights DO NOT apply to cogenitors, as much as the audience wishes they did. It is up to the Vissians to deal with this, not the Humans. I think the episode was very intelligent. It showed us a pleasant, helpful, friendly, peaceful race...who have a social structure in some ways very troubling to a Human. The question being asked was: "do we have the right to interfere"? What if Vissians have issues with aspects of our culture, and find some of our actions immoral or upsetting. One culture's outrage is another culture's moral norm. You yourself demonstrate this: Look at it this way- why did you mention female genital mutilation and not male genital mutilation? Because the one is illegal in your society/condemned by your culture and the other is not. Also, you condemned religious honour killing (but not the other, more common types of honour killing?) but your culture uses the death sentence. If an American criminal asked someone in my nation to give them asylum...? I know that might sound entirely different, but the principal is the same. Morality is always subjective, what to one culture is acceptable will look outrageous, barbaric or uncivilized to another. The episode, I'd say, is intelligent enough to demonstrate this without providing any easy answers...and in my opinion the cogenitor was always portrayed sympathetically, so its plight was certainly communicated.

 

[ProtoAvatar]

In Star Trek, humans have a very well established moral code - one that values life above all else.

By not applying this moral code to other cultures - by letting other people get killed/mutilated against their will because they're not human, for example - they betray it.
If the so-called Prime Directive is so far reaching that it overwrites even the most basic moral percepts, then the Prime Directive negates/betrays human morality.

 

[Deranged Nasat]

In Star Trek, humans have a very well established moral code - one that values life above all else.

By not applying this moral code to other cultures - by letting other people get killed/mutilated against their will because they're not human, for example - they betray it.

Ah, yes, the almighty Humans, whose morality is absolute.

What you describe is imperialism. We do not "betray" our morals simply because we don't impose them on others. Do I have the right to impose my beliefs on you? If I disagree with the American death penalty, do I have the right to "not let other people be killed against their will" by breaking convicted death-row criminals out of your jails?

I'm not at all saying "aliens matter less than humans". I think you have misunderstood my meaning. I'm saying, if we suggest Humans can impose their view on Vissians and interfere with Vissian culture, what's to stop them taking issue with Human culture and deciding to interfere? Unless, as you seemed to suggest, Human moral norms are absolute and RIGHT, points of view be damned?

Finally, Humans themselves have varied moralities. I have BIG issues with the morality of all Human cultures, including my own, and I mean BIG issues. I, however, would never suggest it is my place to interfere with other societies.

If the so-called Prime Directive is so far reaching that it overwrites even the most basic moral percepts, then the Prime Directive negates/betrays human morality.

Again, WHOSE basic moral precepts?

Also, the Prime Directive required Picard to let the world of Boraal die. It required an entire species to be allowed to die. The Federation's morality is not absolute. It is- wisely- left open to criticism.

 

[ProtoAvatar]

Again, WHOSE basic moral precepts?

Also, the Prime Directive required Picard to let the world of Boraal die. It required an entire species to be allowed to die. The Federation's morality is not absolute. It is- wisely- left open to criticism.

I have big issues with THG:Homeward. Picard is a mass-murderer, pure and simple. He had the means to save millions of people and he didn't.
And he justified his inaction with the ludicrous notion that the less advanced people would all comit suicide as soon as they found out about him. He didn't even have the excuse of following Boraal - or human - morals; only the prime directive.

As for the "morality" thing.
When dealing with another culture with another moral system, certain compromises must be made. But these compromises must only go so far - beyond a certain point, you're not following/betraying your own culture.

If a human witnessed something in vissian behaviour that contradicted the most basic precepts of his morals and he did't intervene, he would be betraying his morals.
And if a vissian saw something in human society that contradicted a fundamental vissian moral rule and he didn't do something about it, he'll be betraying his morals.
In these situations, it's obvious that, at least in some parts, human and vissian morality are contradictory.
What will follow, if contact between the two cultures persists - for a few centuries, let's say? A "war of ideas" so to speak. Contradictory fundamental moral precepts can't all be right and correct at the same time. Perhaps, in the end, a new morality will emerge.

 

[Captrek]

I’m not so sure about Picard & co. getting a bunch of Sona killed in order to help 600 Baku, who were happy and proud about the fact that they contributed absolutely zilch to larger society, hoard for themselves a resource that could have had incalculable value for hundreds of billions of people.

I agree that it was wrong for Ruafo to try to forcibly relocate the Baku. He should have just let them stay there and die. A more useless and selfish group of people we have never seen.

 

[Deranged Nasat]

Again, WHOSE basic moral precepts?

Also, the Prime Directive required Picard to let the world of Boraal die. It required an entire species to be allowed to die. The Federation's morality is not absolute. It is- wisely- left open to criticism.

I have big issues with THG:Homeward. Picard is a mass-murderer, pure and simple. He had the means to save millions of people and he didn't.
And he justified his inaction with the ludicrous notion that the less advanced people would all comit suicide as soon as they found out about him. He didn't even have the excuse of following Boraal morals..

I agree, believe me.

As for the "morality" thing.
When dealing with another culture with another moral system, certain compromises must be made. But these compromises must only go so far - beyond a certain point, you're not following/betraying your own culture.

If a human witnessed something in vissian that contradicted the most basic precepts of his moral and he did't intervene, he would be betraying his morals.
And if a vissian saw something in human society that contradicted a fundamental vissian moral rule and he did,t do something about it, he'll be betraying his morals.
In these situations, it's obvious that, at least in some parts, human and vissian morality are contradictory.
What will follow, if contact between the two cultures persists - for a few centuries, let's say? A "war of ideas" so to speak. Contradictory fundamental moral precepts can't be all right and correct at the same time. Perhaps, in the end, a new morality will emerge.

That is a very good answer, if I may be so bold to say so. The sort of peaceful influence over time you describe in the last paragraph- with the hope of each race giving new insights- would be most welcome. As for interfering, though, I personally wouldn't. As I say, I have big issues with my own culture's morality, to say nothing of every others'. I can show them a better way (in my view), state my case, but I couldn't impose on them. If Archer wanted to write a lengthy essay on Vissian cogenitor social status and his views on how it should change, and send it over, that would be great (though the Vissians would likely say "what do you know about our culture?"), but to actually refuse to hand the cogenitor over to its legal system would be to violate the right of Vissian society to find its own path. Believe me, I understand why some hate that- there are historical cases where I've seethed at how unfair it is when those seeking freedom are denied it- but to do otherwise would be hostile to the Vissian people's self determination and freedom.

 

[Peter the Younger]

An interesting argument, but, well, I don't agree. It would be worse in my eyes to insist that Humans had some sort of moral authority over Vissians and could exert their will on this other culture. Change never comes through those sort of actions.

I'm not talking about leading a crusade against the Vissian civilization, sending missionaries to Vissia or secretly distributing books to all the cogenitors on their planet. This was about offering refuge to a single sentient being, an individual who is treated as a second class citizen.

Are you saying that all nations should start deporting those who seek asylum, if the oppressing society has some cultural claim against the person? This will be awful news to those who are subject to executions, torture, rape, or imprisonment upon their return.

Sadly, individual rights DO NOT apply to cogenitors, as much as the audience wishes they did. It is up to the Vissians to deal with this, not the Humans. I think the episode was very intelligent. It showed us a pleasant, helpful, friendly, peaceful race...who have a social structure in some ways very troubling to a Human. The question being asked was: "do we have the right to interfere"?

I understand what they were shooting for, and I will say that Trip should have considered the implications before striking the match, as it were (but well, that's Trip, leads with his heart.) My objection was that, when it got to the point of Charles asking for asylum, events had already gone past the question whether you should have exposed "her" to the knowledge of "her" own potential or not. It was Archer's decision: the culture has rights, the individual does not. The takeaway must then be, individual freedom is just a cultural peculiarity, a preference of some human cultures like shaking hands or dancing.

What if Vissians have issues with aspects of our culture, and find some of our actions immoral or upsetting. One culture's outrage is another culture's moral norm. You yourself demonstrate this: Look at it this way- why did you mention female genital mutilation and not male genital mutilation? Because the one is illegal in your society/condemned by your culture and the other is not.

First, quick clarification: I don't agree with male circumcision without consent, either, I think it's freaky and barbaric and medically unnecessary, but it's not an issue most people would recognize from the news. Female genital mutilation, on the other hand (as performed in much of the world) is a major topic in just these sorts of discussions, as it is: a) medically harmful, b) often inhibits or destroys the ability of the woman to experience sexual pleasure. Real harm, done to individuals, because their culture dictates it.

Let me be clear: I'm not saying any nation, army, religion, or other organization has the right to change these cultures by force or coersion. Such efforts, as you suggest, inevitably end in tragedy. But there's a wide gulf between saying that, and saying "there is no universal right and wrong, there are no universal human rights." It is logically incoherent to say that an individual's rights are paramount if they are lucky enough to be born in one culture, and if they aren't, well that's just their way.

Also, you condemned religious honour killing (but not the other, more common types of honour killing?) but your culture uses the death sentence. If an American criminal asked someone in my nation to give them asylum...? I know that might sound entirely different, but the principal is the same. Morality is always subjective, what to one culture is acceptable will look outrageous, barbaric or uncivilized to another.

Alright then, another clarification: I do not approve of any sort of honor killing, or the death penalty, or the chopping off of fingers for thieves, or the beating of unmarried women with clubs, or ritual sacrifices, or slavery, or the burning of witches, etc, etc. You seem to be making a great many assumptions about what I believe and why I believe it, based on the nation-state in which I reside.

I don't claim to be in possession of the perfect sense of right and wrong. What I'm saying is that I believe there is a universal standard of sentient rights, that is based not on cultural norms or any particular religious tradition, but on reason and the commonalities of human nature (or, to extend it to Trekkian terms, the common behavior between cognitively-similar sentient beings.)

The episode, I'd say, is intelligent enough to demonstrate this without providing any easy answers...and in my opinion the cogenitor was always portrayed sympathetically, so its plight was certainly communicated.

If Archer had expressed more sympathy for Charles' situation, if he had taken the time to speak to her and tell her that they just couldn't afford to inject themselves into Vissian culture, I might agree. But he didn't. He treated her like a beaten slave he didn't want to look at, lest her bruises force him to confront some unpleasant truth. And then he lambasted Trip for causing the whole thing, as if it were almost unforgivable to respond someone's cries for help.

 

[DevilEyes]

Jonathan Archer, for turning over the Vissian "Charles", who was seeking asylum in Cogenitor. This individual was shown to have a mind of her own, the capacity to learn and live like any other member of her species, despite the insistence by the other Vissians that "she" (we don't have enough pronouns for three sexes) was little more than a breeder cow. The episode strongly suggested - through Archer's speech at the end - that we had no right, as humans, to interfere in the alien culture, that the whole episode was Trip's fault for giving Charles false hope (they did everything but call her "uppity.") I don't think any episode has ever left me so enraged.

It would have been slightly less reprehensible if Archer had characterized it purely in terms of diplomacy and realpolitik (i.e., "we can't afford to question the culture of these people, they are more advanced and Earth doesn't need more enemies.") But Archer's argument is sprinkled with the worst sort of moral relativism, and the parochial notion that individual rights don't apply because it's an alien species (keep in mind we aren't talking about Borg-like hive creatures here, theses were standard-issue ST "just like us" humanoids.) With a few tweaks, you could have used Archer's speech as a defense of female gential mutilation or religious honor killings.

The thing is, it was so outrageous that I couldn't actually believe the character would say it, so I don't know if if even qualifies in my mind as the most morally questionable act by a protagonist. It was, however, the most morally questionable script by any Trek writer (or rather, writers, who were - surprise! - Rick Berman and Brannon Braga.)

Note: the others are all good choices, mind you. But this is the one I had the biggest emotional reaction to.

Wow. I haven't watched ENT past the pilot - one of the reasons being the fact that I found Archer so annoying - but from the things I read here, it seems that I would hate him even more if I watched the rest of the series. This is exactly the kind of attitude that makes me enraged in real life. Not imposing one's rules on another culture is one thing; not protecting universal rights of a sentient being is something completely different. Or, in other words, here we're not talking about trying not to impose your will and values on a bunch of other people; we're talking about allowing a bunch of other people to impose their will on an individual against their will. Huge difference there. I hate it when people use multi-culturalism to support the idea that tradition and values of a group should be more important than individual rights and freedom. And I think that this attitude is, actually, deeply racist, and reeks of the view that can be pretty much summed up like this: 'they are savages, unlike us, and if they want to kill each other, or oppress, mistreat or mutilate members of their society, let them go on doing it, because they're always done it. It's the way they are, you can't expect them to be as enlightened as we are'.

 

[Furtados_Feet]

I’m not so sure about Picard & co. getting a bunch of Sona killed in order to help 600 Baku, who were happy and proud about the fact that they contributed absolutely zilch to larger society, hoard for themselves a resource that could have had incalculable value for hundreds of billions of people.

I agree that it was wrong for Ruafo to try to forcibly relocate the Baku. He should have just let them stay there and die. A more useless and selfish group of people we have never seen.

LOL, I agree 100%, I simply didn't agree with the Enterprise crew's outlook on the whole situation.

 

[Anwar]

I have big issues with THG:Homeward. Picard is a mass-murderer, pure and simple. He had the means to save millions of people and he didn't.
And he justified his inaction with the ludicrous notion that the less advanced people would all comit suicide as soon as they found out about him. He didn't even have the excuse of following Boraal - or human - morals; only the prime directive.

I already had a big argument over the larger negative consequences if Picard HAD saved them of his own accord, would you like me to repost them here? (my arguments agree with Picard)

 

[Nerys Ghemor]

And don't forget, the Cardassians would have a DAMN good argument that he should be extradited and dealt with by them.

Why? The planet Sisko attacked was a Maquis colony, not Cardassian. In fact, as I recall the humans and Cardies of the two poisoned worlds basically switched places at the end.

Whoops...mind fart!

Eddington should've been extradited.

But, Sisko deserved SEVERE punishment for what he did, that's for sure.

 

[SilentP]

I already had a big argument over the larger negative consequences if Picard HAD saved them of his own accord, would you like me to repost them here? (my arguments agree with Picard)

The 'inter-galactic Nanny State Starfleet' argument? I've heard your argument on this point, it's a fairly logical argument. It is however hard to just accept it on some levels, mainly gut instinct need to not just let life die needlessly, though I'm sure there are better arguments against them.

 

[someguy1231]

I don't think what Ransom and co. did would qualify for this topic. They were still portrayed as antagonists. Sympathetic, perhaps, but still antagonists nonetheless.

And please try to keep this thread on-topic. Discuss the morality of the Prime Directive in the appropriate thread.

 

[2 of 10]

I have a different take on the choices, so I will choose "Other" in DS-9 Ep
"Children of Time" the clone/other Odo tampers with the Defients take off parameters and dooms the thousands of people on the planet to ceise to exitst, all for the love of a woman.

Resistance is Futile

 

[ProtoAvatar]

I have big issues with THG:Homeward. Picard is a mass-murderer, pure and simple. He had the means to save millions of people and he didn't.
And he justified his inaction with the ludicrous notion that the less advanced people would all comit suicide as soon as they found out about him. He didn't even have the excuse of following Boraal - or human - morals; only the prime directive.

I already had a big argument over the larger negative consequences if Picard HAD saved them of his own accord, would you like me to repost them here? (my arguments agree with Picard)

By all means - let's hear your arguments.