Most morally questionable act by a protagonist?

[Deranged Nasat]

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'.

Oppression, mistreatment, etc, are in the eyes of the beholder, believe me. You wouldn't imagine the struggles I have convincing people that some of society's actions I have issues with- today or historically- constitute great mistreatment and oppression of certain people, yet these actions are still defended and promoted. There is no such thing as an absolute morality. There is no such thing as universal rights in practice. The UN says there is, but that has never stopped them ignoring or dismissing the plight of certain groups of people it has no interest in defending. They apply their standards on assisting those whose "rights" are violated hypocritically. I'd much rather not get involved than start down that path.

I also find it quite incomprehensible that you think NOT applying your own cultural beliefs to another race is racist. I would suggest it is not one culture or race's place to decide it can apply some sort of moral standard to others. Imperialism often insisted that other races be changed. No imperialist would say: If these "savages"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'. They went out of their way to try and make these other races "enlightened" and behave like themselves. Most people-happily- now believe this was wrong. No-one mentioned "savages" or "enlightened" here but you. I take it from your comments that you don't believe in "letting "them" go on doing it", whatever "it" is. And if they have issues with your actions and beliefs and want to stop you doing it? What then? If you have the right to interfere, so do they. If you're saying they don't...what, you're better than them? More enlightened, perhaps? Also, as I said, I have issues with ALL culture's morality, so what arguments of us-vs-them racism have to do with it I'm not quite sure. You seem to automatically assume we're talking about OTHER cultures and races only- again, the impression I'm getting is that you think your own culture is somehow inherently "better" than others.

we're talking about allowing a bunch of other people to impose their will on an individual against their will.

Er...criminals? Imprisonment, etc? All societies impose themselves upon people who refuse to toe the line, to differing degrees of course. Change comes from within a society, possibly due to influence from other societies, but I maintain that to interfere is a cultural imperialism of the worst kind.

 

[DevilEyes]

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'.

Oppression, mistreatment, etc, are in the eyes of the beholder, believe me. You wouldn't imagine the struggles I have convincing people that some of society's actions I have issues with- today or historically- constitute great mistreatment and oppression of certain people, yet these actions are still defended and promoted. There is no such thing as an absolute morality. There is no such thing as universal rights in practice. The UN says there is, but that has never stopped them ignoring or dismissing the plight of certain groups of people it has no interest in defending. I also find it quite incomprehensible that you think NOT applying your own cultural beliefs to another race is racist. No-one mentioned "savages" or "enlightened" but you. I take it you don't believe in "letting "them" go on doing it", whatever "it" is. And if they have issues with your actions and beliefs and want to stop you doing it? What then? Also, as I said, I have issues with ALL culture's morality, so what arguments of us vs them racism have to do with it I'm not quite sure.

we're talking about allowing a bunch of other people to impose their will on an individual against their will.

Er...criminals? Imprisonment, etc? All societies impose themselves upon people who refuse to toe the line, to differing degrees of course. Change comes from within a society, possibly due to influence from other societies, but I maintain that to interfere is a cultural imperialism of the worst kind.

So let's see, if someone asks for an asylum because they feel mistreated and oppressed in their culture which is, you will turn them away, telling them they have no right to ask for it - they should be loyal to "their culture" instead?

This also must mean that, by implication, all the people throughout your own history who have rebelled against oppressive traditions, fought for their ideas which were not popular in their time and society, were wrong to oppose their culture - right? And yet you reap the fruits of the progress they've helped accomplish. Hypocritical or what?

I also find it quite incomprehensible that you think NOT applying your own cultural beliefs to another race is racist.

I find it incomprehensible that you think NOT applying UNIVERSAL moral principles to another race is NOT racist.

I especially find it incomprehensible that you don't think it is racist to assume that your own culture was able to have progress, but another one has to stagnate

I thought the idea was to let cultures develop on their own. By denying help to those who disagree with their collective, you are denying the idea that they could ever develop.

Or let me put it in the simplest way possible: non-interference makes sense when it is the case of "nobody asked you to interfere" (although even this could be questionable in the case when some people would not be able to ask for help in the first place). But here we're talking about a case when someone is asking for help, and you're just refusing to do a thing. And you're supposed to be this peacekeeping, humanitarian (for lack of better word) intergalactic organization, not an isolationist, "I don't give a damn about anyone else" state. How can you defend that?

we're talking about allowing a bunch of other people to impose their will on an individual against their will.

Er...criminals? Imprisonment, etc?

Er... so people being, say, murdered, mutilated, mistreated only because of being born into a certain racial/ethnic group or gender is the same to you as people being imprisoned because of a crime they've commited? So slavery is OK? Genital mutilation of little girls is OK? How about killing newborn female children, or leaving them to die? That is OK, too?

There is no such thing as an absolute morality.

Yes, there is.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_universalism

 

[Deranged Nasat]

So let's see, if someone asks for an asylum because they feel mistreated and oppressed in their culture which is, you will turn them away, telling them they have no right to ask for it - they should be loyal to "their culture" instead?

My people were turned away every time they asked. They were told exactly that. Who told them that? The UN. And yet, the same people who do not blink at their treatment and draw no attention to it or show any awareness of it insist that this is wrong if applied to other types of people? Hypocrisy- that's all it is. A hierarchy of worth in which some people's plea for help matters, others, no. Turning everyone away is preferrable to hypocrisy in my eyes.

This also must mean that, by implication, all the people throughout your own history who have rebelled against oppressive traditions, fought for their ideas which were not popular in their time and society, were wrong to oppose their culture - right? And yet you reap the fruits of the progress they've helped accomplish. Hypocritical or what?

Or let me put it in the simplest way possible: non-interference makes sense when it is the case of "nobody asked you to interfere" (although even this could be questionable in the case when some people would not be able to ask for help in the first place). But here we're talking about a case when someone is asking for help, and you're just refusing to do a thing. And you're supposed to be this peacekeeping, humanitarian (for lack of better word) intergalactic organization, not an isolationist, "I don't give a damn about anyone else" state. How can you defend that?

You misunderstand me. As I said in above posts, I myself spend large amounts of time protesting against my culture and its practices, and those of other cultures. I simply don't suggest I have some sort of moral authority over them all. Change comes through peaceful influence and words, not interference.

Er... so people being, say, murdered, mutilated, mistreated only because of being born into a certain racial/ethnic group or gender is the same to you as people being imprisoned because of a crime they've commited? So slavery is OK? Genital mutilation of little girls is OK? How about killing newborn female children, or leaving them to die? That is OK, too?

I never said I find any of those things okay. For what it's worth, I do not. I protest against such things quite loudly, I assure you. No offense meant, but you seem unable to comprehend the difference between holding moral beliefs and standards and believing that means I should impose them on everyone around me. Another point, and I say this with respect: your examples reveal your own moral prejudices and a hierarchy of worth. If you apparently don't treat all suffering equal, why are you complaining?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_universalism

What I meant was, all beings have their own morality. There is no such thing as RIGHT and WRONG in an abstract sense. Believing there is is the worse kind of zealotism.

 

[DevilEyes]

Another point, and I say this with respect: your examples reveal your own moral prejudices and a hierarchy of worth.

How so?

If you apparently don't treat all suffering equal, why are you complaining?

 

[Deranged Nasat]

Another point, and I say this with respect: your examples reveal your own moral prejudices and a hierarchy of worth.

How so?

If you apparently don't treat all suffering equal, why are you complaining?

I apologise if I offended you, it wasn't my intent. Perhaps I am misunderstanding you. I simply thought your examples displayed a dislike of certain cultures and their practices while overlooking others, and were treating, say, the mutilation or murder of girls as worthy of attention and the murders of boys in other cultures as not. Perhaps I am taking your examples as an exhaustive list when I shouldn't be. Again, I apologise if I was at fault there, which I believe I may have been.

 

[JiNX-01]

Oh yes, I hated that. Although they eventually did save them, as far as I remember. But up to that point, I was so annoyed with Picard, that was the worst possible example of rigid, absurd, stupid interpretation of the Prime Directive.

They saved them, but only after Worf's adoptee brother had forced them to do something besides stand back and watch.

I voted for when the Enterprise refused to help save those people that Worf's brother managed to smuggle on to the ship's holodeck (forget the episode). I'd however vote for the below too if it had been multiple choice.

I voted for what Sisko did in "For the Uniform", because the stakes there were much lower.

I voted for when the Enterprise refused to help save those people that Worf's brother managed to smuggle on to the ship's holodeck (forget the episode).

Oh yes, I hated that. Although they eventually did save them, as far as I remember. But up to that point, I was so annoyed with Picard, that was the worst possible example of rigid, absurd, stupid interpretation of the Prime Directive.

I'm with all of you. That episode was soooooo bad. How in the world could they rationalize that a pre-warp species should left to extinction rather than expose them to advanced techology?

IMO, biggest in all of Trek.

 

[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)

By all means - let's hear your arguments.

There was no way to evacuate that entire planet in the time they had, and if they had tried it would have taken hundreds of ships working round the clock to do so. Then they'd have to transport them to another world suitable for them and leave behind a large task force to adjust their culture to the massive changes.

Once done, this would set a precedent that the pro-interventionalists would continually bring up, forcing Starfleet to have to establish a bureau for this. A bureau dedicated to finding endangered worlds and protecting them/transplanting them.

Where are the ships, crews and resources for such an operation to come from? Starfleet would run its' resources dry to do so, and deplete their numbers from other areas such as DEFENSE in order to even try it. The Federation would become a Galactic Nanny State and leave itself wide open to attacks from their enemies while spending everything they had babying the rest of the galaxy.

 

[john titor]

Janeway, for just about, well, everything. Her admiral status just highlights starfleets culture of incompetency.

 

[CDP]

It has to be Sisko conning the Romulans into entering the Dominion war, resulting in thousand of Romulan lives being lost.

What Sisko did to get them in the war was very morally problematic, but I don't think that getting them in the war in the first place was wrong. That's like saying that, if you were in the position to try to bring USA into the World War Two, you shouldn't have done it because there would be many American lives lost, nevermind that the opposite might mean the Nazis winning the war.

I voted for what Sisko did in "For the Uniform", because the stakes there were much lower.

I have to disagree. what Sisko did in FTU was morally wrong, but impacted a limited number of people, and also left them with a compatible planet that was inhabitable for cardassians to move too.

what Sisko did in ITPM was to trick a neutral nation into war with the Dominion, condemning a significant amount of their armed forces to their deaths, risking the following;

If the Dominion won, the enslavery of the entire Romulan empire - no doubt containing billions of people.

If the Romulans sussed Siskos plan, having the entire empire probably take up arms against the federations, most likely condemning the federations to Romulan/Dominio n sudjugation, and resulting in the deaths of millions/billions (see what happended to Cardassia for that one)

I'm not saying that iot wasn;t worth it, keeping in mind how things turned out, but looking at what he did, in the grander scheme of things, i beleive that this was the most morally questionable act committed in Star Trek based upon the poll above.

Opinions/counter arguements welcome.

Outside of that poll, there is also kevin Uxbridge and the Husnoc to consider.

Best regards,

CDP

 

[CDP]

Janeway's murder of Tuvix was done for selfish personal reasons and therefore for me trumps Sisko and Garak getting up to no good in defense of the Federation.

It has to be Sisko conning the Romulans into entering the Dominion war, resulting in thousand of Romulan lives being lost.

But how many more Romulan lives would have been lost if they'd stupidly decided to remain neutral while the Dominion prepared to attack them?

Anyway, I'm in the school of thought that Vreenak had his enemies in the Senate who 1) knew very well what happened on DS9 (either they had direct intel or they deduced the general situation - I cannot fathom Romulans being so dense that they wouldn't have any inkling of what happened) and 2) were happy to keep their mouths shut because they had the same opinion as Sisko and Garak.

The Rommies join the winning side late enough in the game that they don't get mussed too badly vs their dimwitted allies, and will use this information against the Federation in good time. Works out nicely for them, huh? So typical of Romulans.

Hi Temis,

please see my last post for the counter arguement on the next page.

Best,

CDP

 

[erastus25]

The actions of old Odo in Children of Time were almost unbelievable. It was shocking.

I don't understand why everybody makes such a big deal about Tuvix. There was no good choice in that scenario. If Janeway did nothing than Neelix and Tuvok would have lost their lives. Ultimately she was sacrificing one life for two, despite Tuvix's wishes. And his insistence on surviving despite costing two other people their lives made it clear that he did not have the same extremely high moral ideals that Tuvok and Neelix did. I would have separated him too.

I think the worst, though, was Picard in Justice. It would have saved everyone a lot of trouble if he had just let them kill Wesley.

Seriously though, the thing that disturbs me the most is that some officers refuse to think about whether or not the prime directive actually makes sense. It went from being something that protected to lives, to a rigid, unforgiving rule that made it impossible to save lives. In earlier episodes we see Kirk and Picard take some latitude with it and do what is best, but later on (i.e. Homeward) the captains become totally inflexible. And I realize that military officers can't start reinterpreting regulations on a whim or total chaos ensues, but the fact that none of the officers in Starfleet (as far as we know) argued to change it or at least review the application of the rule contemtible.

 

[Myasishchev]

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.

Entire planet, but also just a colony, in a rather bad neighborhood. There might've been only a few thousand, ten thousand people on it. Also I got the impression that the trilithium resin (sigh) was more of a slow killer, nothing that would cause instant death, or even particular harm in the days, weeks, or even months it would take to fully evacuate the planet.

My vote is a toss-up between Riker's incredibly monstrous clonekilling and Phlox' naziesque behavior.

I voted for Riker, because as terrible as Phlox was, iirc, he doesn't commit an affirmative act to harm the Venkians. Whereas Riker, in a fit of pique, affirmatively commits murder, in what in my estimation must be the laziest-written, most off-message scene in Star Trek history.

An honorary mention goes to Sisko. I have little problem with his accessorizing to murder, but the question we should ask is, "How moral is it to bring the Romulans into the war at all?" The Romulans are ordinarily portrayed as total warriors and utter xenophobes, completely willing and able to obliterate entire planetary populations. I wonder how many Cardassian and Breen civilians died from orbital bombardment because Sisko brought the Roms into the war.

 

[Nerys Ghemor]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_universalism

What I meant was, all beings have their own morality. There is no such thing as RIGHT and WRONG in an abstract sense. Believing there is is the worse kind of zealotism.

Believing you have to convince others of the truth by force, intimidation, harassment, or any sort of unkind behavior...I would agree, that is the worst sort of zealotry.

However, there is nothing wrong with believing that there is indeed a such thing as objective truth. What a wise person recognizes is that he or she needs to continually be on the lookout for new information that may refine or revise that understanding, and not let whatever insight he or she has lead to arrogance. Humility comes from understanding that while there IS a complete picture out there, that we each only have our particular pieces of the puzzle.

Put simply...I believe that there is only one truth. I do, however, fully expect to be corrected from time to time when I have gone astray, and I know this is necessary in order to come closer to that truth. Does that make accepting correction much easier? Not in the initial heat of the moment. Still, once I step back and think about it, I see that necessity.

To me, it is nonsensical to believe there is no such thing as objective truth. Either a thing is, or it is not. (Yes, I'm aware of what quantum physics says may be true. But let's confine our discussion to ONE timeline--the one that we all share.)

 

[Myasishchev]

To me, it is nonsensical to believe there is no such thing as objective truth. Either a thing is, or it is not. (Yes, I'm aware of what quantum physics says may be true. But let's confine our discussion to ONE timeline--the one that we all share.)

Morality isn't about what is, it's about what ought to be.

And famously, you can't derive an ought from an is, or the other way around.

 

[Deranged Nasat]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_universalism

What I meant was, all beings have their own morality. There is no such thing as RIGHT and WRONG in an abstract sense. Believing there is is the worse kind of zealotism.

Believing you have to convince others of the truth by force, intimidation, harassment, or any sort of unkind behavior...I would agree, that is the worst sort of zealotry.

However, there is nothing wrong with believing that there is indeed a such thing as objective truth. What a wise person recognizes is that he or she needs to continually be on the lookout for new information that may refine or revise that understanding, and not let whatever insight he or she has lead to arrogance. Humility comes from understanding that while there IS a complete picture out there, that we each only have our particular pieces of the puzzle.

Put simply...I believe that there is only one truth. I do, however, fully expect to be corrected from time to time when I have gone astray, and I know this is necessary in order to come closer to that truth. Does that make accepting correction much easier? Not in the initial heat of the moment. Still, once I step back and think about it, I see that necessity.

To me, it is nonsensical to believe there is no such thing as objective truth. Either a thing is, or it is not. (Yes, I'm aware of what quantum physics says may be true. But let's confine our discussion to ONE timeline--the one that we all share.)

Good response! I apologise, because I didn't phrase my comment well. Your comment has shown me what I should have said was " (I personally believe)there is no such thing as objective moral truth", as morality is by definition subjective. You're quite right that there is such a thing as objective truth in the sense of our reality. Again, I apologise for the rather ill-thought-out phrasing.

 

[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.

There was no way to evacuate that entire planet in the time they had, and if they had tried it would have taken hundreds of ships working round the clock to do so. Then they'd have to transport them to another world suitable for them and leave behind a large task force to adjust their culture to the massive changes.

Once done, this would set a precedent that the pro-interventionalists would continually bring up, forcing Starfleet to have to establish a bureau for this. A bureau dedicated to finding endangered worlds and protecting them/transplanting them.

Where are the ships, crews and resources for such an operation to come from? Starfleet would run its' resources dry to do so, and deplete their numbers from other areas such as DEFENSE in order to even try it. The Federation would become a Galactic Nanny State and leave itself wide open to attacks from their enemies while spending everything they had babying the rest of the galaxy.

I'm not talking about evacuating the native population; primarily, I'm talking about stopping the disaster altogether.
The TNG crew did such a thing many times - for example, in pen pals, deja Q, a matter of time, cost of living, and probably a few other episodes. But in homeward, they didn't even try to come up with a solution; the creeps just watched how millions die, in order to obey the prime directive.

And if stopping Boraal's destruction wasn't possible, they should have evacuated as many as possibe. I'm not talking about the few dozen that survived; I'm talking about tens/hundreds of thousands.

As for the Federation having no resources - Enterprise did exactly nothing during that entire episode. Picard was not willing to use availabe/unused resources to save tens of thousands!
If the Federation does not have the ability to evacuate millions from a doomed planet without sacrificing its security - and that's far from being proven - then Starfleet shoud try to save as many as possible with the availabe resources.

If the Federation/Picard don't do even that, they have no right to call themselves a moral man/a moral, humanitarian organization - because they're not. The Federation is a narcissistic empire, calously leting others die because they're not worthy of salvation, and Picard is a fanatic, killing millions in order to follow a nonsensical rule or because he's afraid of a future that will never happen:

Your "nanny state" is based on an impossibility; you assume that these mass extinction events are so widespread, that if the Federation tries to save the sentient species that are threatened with extinction, it will have no resources left. That's nonsense; if these events would happen so often, then no intelligent species would exist in the entire universe - life being snuffed out everywhere long before evolving sentience.

Even if, by some impossibility, an universe with frequent mass extiction events and intelligent life would exist, the Federation would not go bankrupt if it tried to save threatened species - multiple times in TNG, this was accomplished in record time, by some tech solution; and if it comes to evacuating the population, the Federation could at least use its unused resources - which are huge - to save as many as possible.

 

[Xerxes1979]

I don't really have a problem with Riker's clone kiling since they seemed to be unfinished "blanks".

Does murder exist without the mind?

Either those clones would have gone through adult infancy or they they would implanted with fully formed knowledge via technolgy somehow. I would argue sentience was several hours or days away atleast from what we saw.

In any case Riker putting a phaser to a meat locker seems in inappropriate response to kidnapping. Taking the cloning administrators into custody would have been a better reponse than vandalism.

 

[Myasishchev]

I don't really have a problem with Riker's clone kiling since they seemed to be unfinished "blanks".

Does murder exist without the mind?

Either those clones would have gone through adult infancy or they they would implanted with fully formed knowledge via technolgy somehow. I would argue sentience was several hours or days away atleast from what we saw.

In any case Riker putting a phaser to a meat locker seems in inappropriate response to kidnapping. Taking the cloning administrators into custody would have been a better reponse than vandalism.

If you break a newborn with a hammer, is it still abortion?

Even if so, it's no doubt poor form to do it to someone else's child.

Generally speaking, it's illegal to destroy a fully grown human, regardless of its mental capacity. And surely the clones were fully grown. One of them had facial hair. This is also pretty stupid in a lot of ways not relating to morality. Firstly, the maturation process would be scalding hot. Secondly, aging the brain to that point would make a physically mature person with almost nonexistent cognitive abilities. Up the Long Ladder's a pretty bad episode, in retrospect, even before you factor in the Irish.

Anyway, I wonder why Riker didn't blast Thomas the Transporter Clone, too.

 

[Xerxes1979]

. And surely the clones were fully grown. One of them had facial hair.

Yeah I seem to remember that now. Its not my fault that Judge Dred has been on tv constantly this summer, Up the Long Ladder not so much.

 

[Myasishchev]

. And surely the clones were fully grown. One of them had facial hair.

Yeah I seem to remember that now. Its not my fault that Judge Dred has been on tv constantly this summer, Up the Long Ladder not so much.

I would totally clone Diane Lane.