Not rescuing Nero: thumbs up or down?

[Franklin]

Isn't the title of this thing a Spoiler? Can't people figure out how to avoid that? How about "Kirk's decision about Nero? (SPOILERS)" as a title?

Sorry, but the movie's been out a week since I started the thread. It's all over the place. Maybe you haven't seen it yet, but I'd guess you're in a very small minority of folks who read this forum, now. At some point, I'd assume we don't have to worry much about spoiling things.
Still, my apologies if I ruined anything for you. I think you will enjoy the movie when you see it in spite of having read my thread's title. (Well, you may have an opinion about the topic after you see it.)

 

[Jeri]

It's kind of a mystery to me why people would want to view this forum if they haven't seen the movie and don't enjoy spoilers.

 

[Jackson_Roykirk]

Nero kills 6 billion people by destroying Vulcan. Kills Spock's mom. Killed Kirk's dad. Orphans Kirk. Tried to destroy Earth. Was responsible for the death of more than a few Star Fleet officers along the way.

At this point:

Kirk offers Nero assistance. Nero spits back in his face he would rather die a thousand agonizing deaths than accept help. Kirk obliges.

I'm good with that.

Exactly --

Kirk offered Nero assistance not because he wanted to, but because of a general notion of that being the right thing to do -- even though in this specific situation (seeing that Nero Killed Kirk's father plus destroyed a whole planet with 6 billion people, and then tried to destroy the whole Planet Earth) Kirk personally had no real obligation for doing so, and nor did Spock. He only offered assistance (probably against his better judgement) because it was the moral thing to do. He was rightfully quite happy when Nero declined the offer.

I think Kirk and Spock acted exactly how the great majority of people would have acted given the same circumstances. Perhaps Kirk and Spock should have been less cavalier about it, but I think the decision not to argue with Nero about giving assistance was proper.

 

[Jackson_Roykirk]

Look, this is pointless. We can't have a debate about the morality of this situation if we don't agree on the facts pertaining to said situation.

These facts are not in dispute (I think):

- Kirk offered assistance to Nero if he surrendered.
- Nero refused.

- and that Spock a supposedly logical Vulcan, of all people, doesn't think it was appropriate to even offer assistance to Nero. Completely clouded by his anger and desire for revenge. Character growth in this movie for him: zero. He's as emotional as he was as a child.

Okay -- so this film now establishes that Spock has recognized his human half and doesn't try to convince himself that it does not exist by supressing real human feelings. He has come to terms with the fact that he is truly half Vulcan and half Human, rather than a Vulcan pretending he has no human emotions...

...what's wrong with that? Or are you saying that it is wrong that he is letting his human half show? Do you think Spock's "proper" character development should be greater supression of his human half?

 

[KirkusOveractus]

Throughout the history of TOS and the movies with that cast, there have been instances of back and forth between Spock and Kirk, and who was in favor of life-giving assistance and not:

-Spock: "They are dying." Kirk: "Let them die!" (TUC)
-Kirk: "I'm in love with Edith Keeler." Spock: "Jim, Edith Keeler must die."
...and so on.

While it may be bothersome that Spock opted against aid to Nero and crew, I tend to think he also had logic in mind: Nero was mentally beyond help. Even if the Narada's crew saved and the ship destroyed, the crew was simply too advanced and too hell-bent on their "mission" that it may have been difficult or even impossible to hold them somewhere.

 

[QuasarVM]

It's kind of a mystery to me why people would want to view this forum if they haven't seen the movie and don't enjoy spoilers.

Cos they can't help themselves and everybody has to be victim of *something* these days...

 

[Franklin]

Look, this is pointless. We can't have a debate about the morality of this situation if we don't agree on the facts pertaining to said situation.

These facts are not in dispute (I think):

- Kirk offered assistance to Nero if he surrendered.
- Nero refused.

- and that Spock a supposedly logical Vulcan, of all people, doesn't think it was appropriate to even offer assistance to Nero. Completely clouded by his anger and desire for revenge. Character growth in this movie for him: zero. He's as emotional as he was as a child.

Okay -- so this film now establishes that Spock has recognized his human half and doesn't try to convince himself that it does not exist by supressing real human feelings. He has come to terms with the fact that he is truly half Vulcan and half Human, rather than a Vulcan pretending he has no human emotions...

...what's wrong with that? Or are you saying that it is wrong that he is letting his human half show? Do you think Spock's "proper" character development should be greater supression of his human half?

Not a very savory part of his human half, by the way. In other words, saying what he did was "only human" is no defense of the action.

Greater supression of his human half was the direction in which Spock Prime was going up until TMP, when he decided against the Way of Kolinhar. Of course, who know's what Spock will do in this timeline? Maybe his emotions will stay on the surface and he will use them more often. And yes, I would think that in terms of how that affects the McCoy-Kirk-Spock triad that worked so well in TOS, that's not a good thing.

 

[KirkusOveractus]

Ya know, this could also be a good question for Nimoy. I would really be interested to hear his take on that situation.

 

[Jackson_Roykirk]

Not a very savory part of his human half, by the way. In other words, saying what he did was "only human" is no defense of the action.

Greater supression of his human half was the direction in which Spock Prime was going up until TMP, when he decided against the Way of Kolinhar. Of course, who know's what Spock will do in this timeline? Maybe his emotions will stay on the surface and he will use them more often. And yes, I would think that in terms of how that affects the McCoy-Kirk-Spock triad that worked so well in TOS, that's not a good thing.

I think Spocked acted like he should have acted in the face of his entire species being almost wiped out by this man. Spock had no personal obligation whatsoever to help Nero, yet they still felt obliged to give him the chance to be saved because it was the "ethical thing" to do. Once Nero refused the "ethical" choice, Kirk and Spock no longer had any obligation to render assistance.

...and as for the Kirk/Spock/McCoy triad: I think Spock will STILL be plenty "logical enough", Kirk will be plenty "brash enough", and McCoy will be plenty "morally passionate enough" for it to work. It's Spock's logic that is important, not his lack of emotions --although too much emotion CAN cloud logic, and they do need to be careful not to make him too emotional.

However, I think Spock gets an emotional "free pass" with respects to Nero and the near-destruction of Spock's entire species.

 

[Feofilakt]

UGH.

I hope to God this kind of PC mind-set does not find its way into future Star Trek movies...

Kirk and Spock acted PERFECTLY.

It's funny how being enlightened, altruistic, and ethical is now derided as "PC" by people who value jingoistic, primitive violence and bluster.

Um, no.

It's about consequences. One should not expect to live if one commits genocide against another.

Anyone who disagrees is a part of the problem...and not the solution. And ye who support the continued existence of mass murderers are an accessory and accomplice to that mass murder.

The "primitive violence" was committed by the perpetrator of the genocide in this case.

Death is the only justice for Nero. Even HE recognized that. So, people whose hearts were bleeding for Nero are wasting that blood...on someone who neither deserved nor asked for it. LOL!!!

Pretty stupid.

What is with this suicidal compulsion to embrace homocidal maniacs -- of both fact and fiction by some people?

What exactly is your ethical position, by the way? Even the most utilitarian of ethicists acknowledge the primacy of rule of law in society and the overriding nature of justice through law over justice through individuals. Why? Because justice through law is formal and (or at least attempts to be) consistent while justice through individuals is patchwork, tainted by perception and emotion, and wholly uneven. Or are you honestly stating that the proto-Germanic blood feud is a superior legal system over civil law?

Furthermore, you are entirely ignoring my point that the Federation are deontologists. They are, an investigation of the entire series, particularly TOS and TNG would show that to be true. They don't think about consequences and cost/benefit so much as the overriding factors of following an ideal because that ideal must or should be preserved. Honestly, if you want a consequentialist and utilitarian view of the world then you are on the wrong fandom. That was never what Trek was about, and most sci-fi series that take such positions to their ultimate end seem almost dystopian.

Finally, you may want to brush up on your communication skills. You have been consistently attributing positions to people that they have never proposed. This is called a "straw man" and it's a poor form of argumentation. None of us have said that we should save Nero or any other mass murdered at the cost of our own lives or we should "let him go". What I have seen, however, were viewpoints that ranged from letting him sink, to arresting him and putting him on trial, and firing on the ship with a better plot and adequately explained circumstances. None of us, and I mean not a single individual, has advocated sacrificing ourselves for his sake or letting him go. Drop the straw man.

 

[AlanC9]

Furthermore, you are entirely ignoring my point that the Federation are deontologists. They are, an investigation of the entire series, particularly TOS and TNG would show that to be true. They don't think about consequences and cost/benefit so much as the overriding factors of following an ideal because that ideal must or should be preserved.

Exactly so. That's why the Federation needs Section 31; to do the things they can't do for themselves.

 

[scottydog]

Unless you've walked in Spock's shoes, it's difficult to judge him. Ideally, yes, spare the mass-murdering, mother-murdering, villain. But reality often parts from the ideal. This scene reminds me of that TNG episode "The Most Toys" where Data has to decide whether to kill Fajo and indeed fires his phaser during transport. Should he have fired? A reasonable person could argue 'yes'.

 

[QuasarVM]

It's funny how being enlightened, altruistic, and ethical is now derided as "PC" by people who value jingoistic, primitive violence and bluster.

Um, no.

It's about consequences. One should not expect to live if one commits genocide against another.

Anyone who disagrees is a part of the problem...and not the solution. And ye who support the continued existence of mass murderers are an accessory and accomplice to that mass murder.

The "primitive violence" was committed by the perpetrator of the genocide in this case.

Death is the only justice for Nero. Even HE recognized that. So, people whose hearts were bleeding for Nero are wasting that blood...on someone who neither deserved nor asked for it. LOL!!!

Pretty stupid.

What is with this suicidal compulsion to embrace homocidal maniacs -- of both fact and fiction by some people?

What exactly is your ethical position, by the way? Even the most utilitarian of ethicists acknowledge the primacy of rule of law in society and the overriding nature of justice through law over justice through individuals. Why? Because justice through law is formal and (or at least attempts to be) consistent while justice through individuals is patchwork, tainted by perception and emotion, and wholly uneven. Or are you honestly stating that the proto-Germanic blood feud is a superior legal system over civil law?

Furthermore, you are entirely ignoring my point that the Federation are deontologists. They are, an investigation of the entire series, particularly TOS and TNG would show that to be true. They don't think about consequences and cost/benefit so much as the overriding factors of following an ideal because that ideal must or should be preserved. Honestly, if you want a consequentialist and utilitarian view of the world then you are on the wrong fandom. That was never what Trek was about, and most sci-fi series that take such positions to their ultimate end seem almost dystopian.

Finally, you may want to brush up on your communication skills. You have been consistently attributing positions to people that they have never proposed. This is called a "straw man" and it's a poor form of argumentation. None of us have said that we should save Nero or any other mass murdered at the cost of our own lives or we should "let him go". What I have seen, however, were viewpoints that ranged from letting him sink, to arresting him and putting him on trial, and firing on the ship with a better plot and adequately explained circumstances. None of us, and I mean not a single individual, has advocated sacrificing ourselves for his sake or letting him go. Drop the straw man.

My ethical position is eye for an eye...tooth for a tooth. No, ifs ands buts or maybes. If ya can't do the time, then don't do the crime...etc., etc. I know bleeding hearts can't understand that...oh well..."lifes a bitch and then ya marry one". Heheheheh!!!

Your definition of "strawman" is any counter argument to your silly world view...on this issue (and I suspect with any other issue as well). With you, it's let the guy go or let the black hole gobble him up. Those are the only options acceptable to you and your world view -- am I correct in this?

As for strawmen -- I got yer strawman...

How's that for communication?

Beeotch.

 

[Feofilakt]

Um, no.

It's about consequences. One should not expect to live if one commits genocide against another.

Anyone who disagrees is a part of the problem...and not the solution. And ye who support the continued existence of mass murderers are an accessory and accomplice to that mass murder.

The "primitive violence" was committed by the perpetrator of the genocide in this case.

Death is the only justice for Nero. Even HE recognized that. So, people whose hearts were bleeding for Nero are wasting that blood...on someone who neither deserved nor asked for it. LOL!!!

Pretty stupid.

What is with this suicidal compulsion to embrace homocidal maniacs -- of both fact and fiction by some people?

What exactly is your ethical position, by the way? Even the most utilitarian of ethicists acknowledge the primacy of rule of law in society and the overriding nature of justice through law over justice through individuals. Why? Because justice through law is formal and (or at least attempts to be) consistent while justice through individuals is patchwork, tainted by perception and emotion, and wholly uneven. Or are you honestly stating that the proto-Germanic blood feud is a superior legal system over civil law?

Furthermore, you are entirely ignoring my point that the Federation are deontologists. They are, an investigation of the entire series, particularly TOS and TNG would show that to be true. They don't think about consequences and cost/benefit so much as the overriding factors of following an ideal because that ideal must or should be preserved. Honestly, if you want a consequentialist and utilitarian view of the world then you are on the wrong fandom. That was never what Trek was about, and most sci-fi series that take such positions to their ultimate end seem almost dystopian.

Finally, you may want to brush up on your communication skills. You have been consistently attributing positions to people that they have never proposed. This is called a "straw man" and it's a poor form of argumentation. None of us have said that we should save Nero or any other mass murdered at the cost of our own lives or we should "let him go". What I have seen, however, were viewpoints that ranged from letting him sink, to arresting him and putting him on trial, and firing on the ship with a better plot and adequately explained circumstances. None of us, and I mean not a single individual, has advocated sacrificing ourselves for his sake or letting him go. Drop the straw man.

Your definition of "strawman" is any counter argument to your silly world view...

I got yer strawman...

How's that for communication?

No, you fit the classical definition of strawman in your argumentation.

Nice response, though, very well thought out. You are really making yourself look good

 

[QuasarVM]

Unless you've walked in Spock's shoes, it's difficult to judge him. Ideally, yes, spare the mass-murdering, mother-murdering, villain. But reality often parts from the ideal. This scene reminds me of that TNG episode "The Most Toys" where Data has to decide whether to kill Fajo and indeed fires his phaser during transport. Should he have fired? A reasonable person could argue 'yes'.

Exactly, Scottydog!

I can tell you're not a wimp -- unlike some of these bleeding hearts on here...

 

[QuasarVM]

What exactly is your ethical position, by the way? Even the most utilitarian of ethicists acknowledge the primacy of rule of law in society and the overriding nature of justice through law over justice through individuals. Why? Because justice through law is formal and (or at least attempts to be) consistent while justice through individuals is patchwork, tainted by perception and emotion, and wholly uneven. Or are you honestly stating that the proto-Germanic blood feud is a superior legal system over civil law?

Furthermore, you are entirely ignoring my point that the Federation are deontologists. They are, an investigation of the entire series, particularly TOS and TNG would show that to be true. They don't think about consequences and cost/benefit so much as the overriding factors of following an ideal because that ideal must or should be preserved. Honestly, if you want a consequentialist and utilitarian view of the world then you are on the wrong fandom. That was never what Trek was about, and most sci-fi series that take such positions to their ultimate end seem almost dystopian.

Finally, you may want to brush up on your communication skills. You have been consistently attributing positions to people that they have never proposed. This is called a "straw man" and it's a poor form of argumentation. None of us have said that we should save Nero or any other mass murdered at the cost of our own lives or we should "let him go". What I have seen, however, were viewpoints that ranged from letting him sink, to arresting him and putting him on trial, and firing on the ship with a better plot and adequately explained circumstances. None of us, and I mean not a single individual, has advocated sacrificing ourselves for his sake or letting him go. Drop the straw man.

Your definition of "strawman" is any counter argument to your silly world view...

I got yer strawman...

How's that for communication?

No, you fit the classical definition of strawman in your argumentation.

Nice response, though, very well thought out. You are really making yourself look good

I'm not here to make myself "look" like anything...I yam what I yam and dat's all dat I yam....

I'm very "Popeye" today...

Explain to me how it would have been wise to spare Nero? What benefit or gain would there be from that? Do you dismiss the possibility of him coming back or escaping the penal colony to wreck more havoc and kill billions more?

What's the benefit? Just to feeeeeel good and pat yourself on the back for your charity and idealism?

PISH on that, says I! PISH and padoodle!

Finally, but more importantly -- a strawman can be burned or blown down. I'm flame retardant and cannot be blown down.

So what do you say to that?

 

[Feofilakt]

Your definition of "strawman" is any counter argument to your silly world view...

I got yer strawman...

How's that for communication?

No, you fit the classical definition of strawman in your argumentation.

Nice response, though, very well thought out. You are really making yourself look good

I'm not here to make myself "look" like anything...I yam what I yam and dat's all dat I yam....

I'm very "Popeye" today...

Explain to me how it would have been wise to spare Nero? What benefit or gain would there be from that? Do you dismiss the possibility of him coming back or escaping the penal colony to wreck more havoc and kill billions more?

What's the benefit? Just to feeeeeel good?

PISH on that, says I!

Once again, your ignore my statements and carry on as if adding smilies and exclamations points on vapid responses adds more weight to your argument.

Nobody said let him go. Nobody. The arguments that have been proposed break down like so.

1. Arrest him and try him for crimes against sentient lifeforms
2. Let him die in the black hole
3. If he must be killed by the Enterprise and her crew there are much better ways of writing the scene so we don't even have this debate.

Is that simple enough?

 

[Franklin]

I'm not here to make myself "look" like anything...I yam what I yam and dat's all dat I yam....

I'm very "Popeye" today...

Explain to me how it would have been wise to spare Nero? What benefit or gain would there be from that? Do you dismiss the possibility of him coming back or escaping the penal colony to wreck more havoc and kill billions more?

What's the benefit? Just to feeeeeel good?

The feel good benefit is vengence. They got that.

Again, at least from my point of view, I'm not saying they could've taken Nero alive. They just didn't seem to care that much. The offer of rescue was perfunctory, and may even be required by regulations. I'm just saying they had no reason to fire on his ship as it was being destroyed.

Maybe if Spock had at least said he regretted that Nero couldn't have been taken alive and brought to justice and faced the people whose planet and people he wiped out, it would've tempered the scene of otherwise pure vengence.

Nero was no evil genius. He was a common man in an extraordinary circumstance. Without his ship, he would've been harmless.

 

[Jackson_Roykirk]

...Nobody said let him go. Nobody. The arguments that have been proposed break down like so.

1. Arrest him and try him for crimes against sentient lifeforms
2. Let him die in the black hole
3. If he must be killed by the Enterprise and her crew there are much better ways of writing the scene so we don't even have this debate.

Is that simple enough?

I would find it nearly impossible, for example, to criticize a Jewish person in WWII for allowing Hitler to die if faced with a similar circumstance to what the Enterprise's crew found themselves with Nero.

In fact I would be shocked if any of Jew with knowledge of the extent of Hitler's genocidal tendecies would show him any "ethical" mercy whatsoever similar to the Enterprise's offer of assistance to Nero.

 

[Franklin]

^
^^ I would find it very hard, for example, to criticize a Jewish person in WWII for allowing Hitler to die if faced with a similar circumstance that the Enterprise's crew found themselves with Nero.

In fact I would be shocked if any of Jew with knowledge of the extent of Hitler's genocidal tendecies would show him any "ethical" mercy whatsoever similar to the Enterprise's offer of assistance to Nero.

Agreed. That would be the feeling. It would be my feeling. But is it a logical feeling? No. When approached rationally, does the action serve any greater purpose? No. Is is it better than achieving true justice? No.

Also, in light of what you say, the interesting thing is all the Nazi hunters who made careers out of tracking down war criminals after the war to bring them back alive to face justice. Hey, if they had decided to put Nero to death after a trial, I wouldn't have cried for him.

Of course, like I've said, Nero wasn't coming out of that alive one way or another, so getting justice in the sense of trying him was moot.
So the question was why fire on him just because he refused rescue when he was disabled, stopped fighting, and doomed anyway? Give the crewmembers who want to escape as much time as possible to get out, and capture them as they do (without endangering the Enterprise).