Most morally questionable act by a protagonist?

[barnaclelapse]

All this fascinating discussion has gotten me thinking, and I hope this is still on topic and doesn't warrant a new thread:

Do you think sometimes the morally questionable actions were diluted by the exact circumstances the writers chose to put them in? That didn't come out at all well, so I'll give an example:

Oh, definitely! For instance, it sure was fortunate for Riker that his clone hadn't woken up yet - how would it have changed things the clone had opened his eyes, or worse yet, started begging for his life? What if the procedure to save Sim's life wasn't conveniently unrealistic? Hell, how many times in Trek has some planet's problem been wrapped up neat as a bow via some inspiring speech by the captain? The writers/producers let themselves off the hook all the time.

Do you think they could have gone that dark on network TV at that time?

 

[ProtoAvatar]

Anwar
Even if - and it's a big a big IF - they couldn't save everyone, they could certainly save a large part of the boraalans. They didn't - not because they couldn't but because they didn't want to.

 

[The Badger]

True, but that's not really what I am getting at. In Homeward the crew of the Enterprise are unwilling to even consider saving lives. If they'd discussed the issue and concluded that there was nothing they could realistically do, that'd be tragic, but also understandable.

Instead, it's a quick quote of the Prime Directive, which in this case seems to be saying that the morally superior option is to let them all frazzle.

That is what I find disturbing about this episode.

 

[Anwar]

I took it that these sort of situations have occurred many times to the crew in the past, and they figured there was no point in getting all weepy or strung-out over it and just deal with it as usual.

And no, the Ent-D couldn't hold thousands of Boraalans and if they did then they'd have to go through the process of choosing which ones to survive out of millions and millions. Nikolai only chose that one small tribe because he knocked one of them up, selfish.

 

[DWF]

All this fascinating discussion has gotten me thinking, and I hope this is still on topic and doesn't warrant a new thread:

Do you think sometimes the morally questionable actions were diluted by the exact circumstances the writers chose to put them in? That didn't come out at all well, so I'll give an example:

Oh, definitely! For instance, it sure was fortunate for Riker that his clone hadn't woken up yet - how would it have changed things the clone had opened his eyes, or worse yet, started begging for his life? What if the procedure to save Sim's life wasn't conveniently unrealistic? Hell, how many times in Trek has some planet's problem been wrapped up neat as a bow via some inspiring speech by the captain? The writers/producers let themselves off the hook all the time.

Do you think they could have gone that dark on network TV at that time?

TNG was syndicated and after the ending of Conspiracy I think they've done it.

 

[Anwar]

Funny how the ending of Conspiracy is pretty much everything Behr wanted DS9 to be: The enemy taunts/uses Federation values and Picard responds by blowing him up without a moment's consideration.

 

[The Badger]

I took it that these sort of situations have occurred many times to the crew in the past, and they figured there was no point in getting all weepy or strung-out over it and just deal with it as usual.

That's really not the issue here, and I apologise If I've not expressed my objection to this episode clearly.

I fully agree with you, Anwar, when you say there can be circumstances when acting to save a pre warp civilisation could be impractical. I'm even willing to accept that there may have been nothing the Enterprise crew could do to help in the episode Homeward.

What offends me, truly offends me, about this episode is that the crew, the heroes, are unwilling to even discuss the possibility of saving them. They apparently believe that total extinction is preferable to 'cultural contamination'. Instead of the hopeful, optimistic view of the future we normally get in Trek, here we have a cynical, jaded version.

I can't remember if it was this episode or not, but I recall a Picard speech about how the PD is intended to protect Star Fleet from making such decisions. So rather than an attempt to help pre-warp cultures, it has suddenly become selfish.

 

[Anwar]

I took what Picard said to be that the PD is to keep Starfleet captains from messing with hopeless situations thus creating false hope and further damage to a bad situation. Once it's reached a certain point they just have to back off.

 

[KayArr]

I voted Tuvix--but would have liked the killing of Sim to have been a choice, too. Not sure which was worse...Tuvix, I think was a little worse, so I vote that one #1.

 

[JB2005]

I can't believe no one has mentioned the Valakians yet...

"That's how evolution works"

Umm, no it's not. Evolution is the changing of a species to make it stronger, faster, more resilient, whatever. The natural end of evolution is not extinction.

 

[Anwar]

Actually, your definition isn't really evolution either. Evolution is adapting on a physical/genetic level to environmental surroundings. Being in a different environment could result in evolution to a form that's better suited to that environment but inferior to the forms we have now.

Phlox's reasoning almost seemed like Nazi Eugenics.

 

[Captrek]

In “The Paradise Syndrome,” did Spock and McCoy violate the Prime Directive when they showed up in uniform, frightening and confusing the natives? Maybe they should have let the asteroid wipe out the planet instead of contaminating the natives by exposing them to Starfleet officers.

 

[JB2005]

In “The Paradise Syndrome,” did Spock and McCoy violate the Prime Directive when they showed up in uniform, frightening and confusing the natives? Maybe they should have let the asteroid wipe out the planet instead of contaminating the natives by exposing them to Starfleet officers.

Because that's moral...?

 

[Jeyl]

My vote goes to NuKirk for firing all weapons on the Narada. The ship was already gone. No need to be a bada** about it.

 

[DevilEyes]

In “The Paradise Syndrome,” did Spock and McCoy violate the Prime Directive when they showed up in uniform, frightening and confusing the natives? Maybe they should have let the asteroid wipe out the planet instead of contaminating the natives by exposing them to Starfleet officers.

An even better question: what the hell is the Federation Starfleet doing in the first place, looking for various planets and having Starfleet officers beam there, if they don't want to affect those cultures in any way? Guess what, guys: if you didn't want to risk affecting those cultures in any way, you should have just stayed home!

And another thing: what is the purpose of all that exploration? You want to explore, why? To gain knowledge about other cultures, right? Knowledge is power, and by gaining knowledge, and knowledge can help you improve yourself, your technology, medicine, etc., or even simply know if you have something to fear or not. But at the same time, in accordance with the PD, you do not want to share your knowledge, technology etc. with less advanced cultures... Well, some might call that one-sided. Some might even call it selfish.

I don't necessarily support these ideas. But these are the kind of questions I would like someone in the Trek universe to ask the Federation officials and Starfleet officers.

 

[Itisnotlogical]

When Kes came back and nearly destroyed Voyager in "Fury". She used her nearly infinite power in an attempt to destroy the comparatively helpless Voyager crew, and if Janeway hadn't shot her ass they would all have died.

 

[Anika Hanson]

Janeway's actions in Equinox. The other's I can kind of see where they were comming from, and see that they were faced with a hard decision. But Janeway's actions I will never understand, to me it was like she was posessed or something. What she did was not justifiable in any way to me.

 

[rahullak]

I took it that these sort of situations have occurred many times to the crew in the past, and they figured there was no point in getting all weepy or strung-out over it and just deal with it as usual.

That's really not the issue here, and I apologise If I've not expressed my objection to this episode clearly.

I fully agree with you, Anwar, when you say there can be circumstances when acting to save a pre warp civilisation could be impractical. I'm even willing to accept that there may have been nothing the Enterprise crew could do to help in the episode Homeward.

What offends me, truly offends me, about this episode is that the crew, the heroes, are unwilling to even discuss the possibility of saving them. They apparently believe that total extinction is preferable to 'cultural contamination'. Instead of the hopeful, optimistic view of the future we normally get in Trek, here we have a cynical, jaded version.

I can't remember if it was this episode or not, but I recall a Picard speech about how the PD is intended to protect Star Fleet from making such decisions. So rather than an attempt to help pre-warp cultures, it has suddenly become selfish.

I agree here. At the very least they should have portrayed the crew frantically searching for options to save the Boraalans (or even save some of them or the most important cultural people: like in the new Star Trek movie when the Vulcan elders who are responsible for preserving the Vulcan culture are saved and the planet is destroyed thereafter).

They were unwilling to even consider the possibility of saving some Boraalans to prevent extinction, quoting the Prime Directive. As someone mentioned earlier, even 150 people could have been enough of a gene pool to start repopulation elsewhere and the Enterprise was definitely capable of holding much more. It would have been repulsive to pick and choose among millions of Boraalans, but not more so than condemning the culture and the species to extinction because of some moral high-ground.

 

[Anwar]

So either way you'd consider it repulsive, meaning you'd still be here complaining about it and not thinking about the larger negative consequences of saving the Boraalans. Meaning there's simply no way for TNG to win for people like you, and thus your bias makes any debate meaningless.

In "Paradise Syndrome" the Natives were already exposed to contamination when they were transplanted there in the first place.

As for exploring, it's to find new worlds and civilizations who can interact back. Stone Agers don't apply except in hidden observation cases.

 

[rahullak]

So either way you'd consider it repulsive, meaning you'd still be here complaining about it and not thinking about the larger negative consequences of saving the Boraalans. Meaning there's simply no way for TNG to win for people like you, and thus your bias makes any debate meaningless.

No. You draw the wrong conclusions.

Frankly, your personal attacks and gross generalizations about bias are unwelcome.

For the record, TNG remains my favorite show and Picard my favorite captain.