Star Trek: Discovery's ethics and morality?

[Awesome Possum]

I actually think the whole moral thing is a deliberate choice. Star Trek is about us, America and western civilization to be exact. Now they’re in a war and morals are starting to slip, just like with us. Some of the crew is actually questioning this because it is how Starfleet and the Federation traditionally behave. I think this is all going somewhere.

 

[Jackson_Roykirk]

To the limited extent DIS has actually looked at moral issues, it's basically been an expy of previous excellent Trek shows. For example, the Tardigrade deliberately calls back to Devil In the Dark, an episode which did a much better job conveying that what looks like a monster may in fact not be one...

The tardigrade as being seen as "monstrous" was a minor plot point that quickly became irrelevant.

As 'cultcross' mentioned on the first page of this thread, the tardigrade story more closely matches the story of the exocomps in TNG: The Quality of Life. The point being made about the tardigrade is NOT that such a monstrous creature might actually be sentient and intelligent (which was a rather simplistic TOS story -- i.e., Omigod!! Who knew something ugly and deadly could be intelligent!), but rather it explores the question of whether we have the right to use another living creature (possibly one with some intelligence) to help with the "Greater Good" of winning the war.

I thought the argument was presented interestingly, with Lorca being on the side of "I don't care if it's intelligent; we need it" and Burnham being on the other side of the argument, advocating for the tardigrade, with Saru falling somewhere in the middle, torn between his duty to do what it takes to win the war and his feeling that Burnham has a valid point.

However, the difference with DSC compared to TNG or TOS is that the arguments are subtle. The characters do not spend a lot of time on their soapboxes pontificating about their arguments. They each presented their case and moved on. Maybe that subtly is the difference here, and that lack of subtly in TNG is what's missing here, for better or for worse (I say for the better).

 

[Feron]

The tardigrade as being seen as "monstrous" was a minor plot point that quickly became irrelevant.

As 'cultcross' mentioned on the first page of this thread, the tardigrade story more closely matches the story of the exocomps in TNG: The Quality of Life. The point being made about the tardigrade is NOT that such a monstrous creature might actually be sentient and intelligent (which was a rather simplistic TOS story -- i.e., Omigod!! Who knew something ugly and deadly could be intelligent!), but rather it explores the question of whether we have the right to use another living creature (possibly one with some intelligence) to help with the "Greater Good" of winning the war.

I thought the argument was presented interestingly, with Lorca being on the side of "I don't care if it's intelligent; we need it" and Burnham being on the other side of the argument, advocating for the tardigrade, with Saru falling somewhere in the middle, torn between his duty to do what it takes to win the war and his feeling that Burnham has a valid point.

However, the difference with DSC compared to TNG or TOS is that the arguments are subtle. The characters do not spend a lot of time on their soapboxes pontificating about their arguments. They each presented their case and moved on. Maybe that subtly is the difference here, and that lack of subtly in TNG is what's missing here, for better or for worse (I say for the better).

I agree and would add a bit more. With the tartigrade, the debate was about a creature with whom we were not sure of its' level of sentience, and the debate centered around "is it OK to hurt such a being to save thousands of lives?".

They then took the issue to another level with Stamets. "Is it OK to harm someone for 'the greater good' if they openly volunteer to do this?"

Also to those complaining that the show supposedly isn't exploring "relevant issues" I would put this forward:

We have a story arc where an Arab character is brought onto the ship with a dangerous, bigoted, and violent ideology embedded into his consciousness. He is given a security position by Lorca (much like Omar Mateen was given a federal security position by the Obama administration, giving him access to weapons) and he then murders a completely innocent gay man in cold blood, much like Mateen killed 50 gays in Orlando.

This is obviously an ongoing story arc, but I for one am interested to see how the writers resolve it. How do you deal with such threats? It is an extremely relevant social issue, IMHO.

To me, the parallels are striking.

 

[Refuge]

Thinking back to the first two episodes of Discovery the absence of either an obvious mission statement or command orders allowed us to see Starfleet reacting 'live' to pressure using whatever morals and ethics that surfaced and regulated them. War being the biggest test.

Yet the main protagonist chose to ignore Starfleet protocol. Try and override her Captain and friend, so one would have to think Starfleet protocol was not valued. Discovery champions this. Of course booby trapping the dead and executing/shooting a would be hostage isn't exactly noble Federation examples either . Of course we have Lorca another rule breaker and cheat. Starfleet itself willing to turn a blind eye to get the job done. That is the one rule that is followed 'winning is everything'. As there is no consequence in (original) universe or by virtue of being in a different universe, I think the message is... the end justifies the means. And nothing really matters in the end because it can be replaced by another reality.

 

[INACTIVERedDwarf]

I actually think the whole moral thing is a deliberate choice. Star Trek is about us, America and western civilization to be exact. Now they’re in a war and morals are starting to slip, just like with us. Some of the crew is actually questioning this because it is how Starfleet and the Federation traditionally behave. I think this is all going somewhere.

That's what I'm hoping.

 

[INACTIVERedDwarf]

Picard is/was a GR idealised version of himself......without the medication and casting couch.

Ya know, I like a lot of your posts Nyota, but taking another look at this comment, I dunno what is going on here.

On the surface of it, snarky observation, witty retort about an idealistic man who wasn't as perfect as the society he imagined; but why exactly does Gene Roddenberry deserve such remarks from Trekkies all the time?

Half the population of the West has probably had mental illness at some point. Perhaps even you have. I've suffered anxiety and depression before. People are medicated up to their eyeballs due to the stresses of third-sector work and stats targets. Something like 1 in 4 British people are sufferers of a mental illness. Is his vision less valid just because he wasn't as strong as some Martin Luther King figure like Picard? He was entitled to write an idealised version of his hopes.

You can still find life hard and difficult but hold high hopes.

 

[Spot261]

Would it have been acceptable for Cpt Picard to have bedded admiral nechayev or Janeway to have had sex with Admiral Paris?. It goes against everything Star trek stands for but it seems many posters on these forums seem to think the last 50 years of star trek canon and ethics are old fashioned and dont matter.....

I can't help but feel there are people who have totally misunderstood that fifty years, internally applied consistency where none exists and selectively chose to see only that which fits their thesis.

 

[Refuge]

To be fair Janeway didn't fraternise with anything other than a hologram or some alien...

 

[Agony_Boothb]

Would it have been acceptable for Cpt Picard to have bedded admiral nechayev or Janeway to have had sex with Admiral Paris?. It goes against everything Star trek stands for but it seems many posters on these forums seem to think the last 50 years of star trek canon and ethics are old fashioned and dont matter.....

Two consenting adults having sex goes against everything Star Trek stands for? Seriously?

Star Trek has shown time and again that none of the Captains have had issues with crew members of differing ranks entering into relationships or entering into relationships with crew members themselves as long as it doesn't affect their command decisions. Kirk is famous for relations with subordinates and even Picard dated a member of his crew.

As long as a relationship between crew members whether of the same or different ranks doesn't affect crew morale, command decisions or the safety of the ship, i don't see why there would be an ethical and moral problem.

It's unrealistic and a bit puritanical to expect people stuck together on a starship which may be on a years long assignment, to ignore the very basic and universal needs for companionship, sex and love.

 

[Nyotarules]

Ya know, I like a lot of your posts Nyota, but taking another look at this comment, I dunno what is going on here.

On the surface of it, snarky observation, witty retort about an idealistic man who wasn't as perfect as the society he imagined; but why exactly does Gene Roddenberry deserve such remarks from Trekkies all the time?

Half the population of the West has probably had mental illness at some point. Perhaps even you have. I've suffered anxiety and depression before. People are medicated up to their eyeballs due to the stresses of third-sector work and stats targets. Something like 1 in 4 British people are sufferers of a mental illness. Is his vision less valid just because he wasn't as strong as some Martin Luther King figure like Picard? He was entitled to write an idealised version of his hopes.

You can still find life hard and difficult but hold high hopes.

The 'medication' aspect of my post does not refer to GR's mental illness of which I am totally unaware he suffered from it. He enjoyed recreational drug use, (not uncommon for his time). I note you ignored the element of his use of the casting couch (also not uncommon for his time, but still sleazy).
BTW not even Martin Luther King was as 'moralistic' as Picard. He (Dr King) was an imperfect man with a dream and a strong moral agenda regarding civil rights. I for one do not expect my leaders to be saints, never met one who was.

 

[INACTIVERedDwarf]

I didn't ignore it, I just didn't know what you meant.

 

[Nyotarules]

It's unrealistic and a bit puritanical to expect people stuck together on a starship which may be on a years long assignment, to ignore the very basic and universal needs for companionship, sex and love.

The TNG Enterprise was a small city with officers and civilians, what do folks expect, a crew of thousands of sentient beings practicing celibacy for 10 years or however long the mission was? I truly doubt in universe intergalactic space navy copied all the traditions and hangups of humanity's old culture. In ENT Captain Shran had a relationship with one of his crew, it seemed like an Andorian cultural norm to me. Vulcans probably need their mates on the ship just in case the 7 year fever strikes. A Federation Starfleet would have to cater to non human cultural norms or not bother to have a Federation Starfleet at all.
It's not the US navy in space.

 

[Nyotarules]

I didn't ignore it, I just didn't know what you meant.

If GR was alive today he might be saying 'there but for the grace of God go I' regarding the Hollywood sex scandal.

 

[INACTIVERedDwarf]

So, is Gene Roddenberry a Harvey Weinstein?

Or is this hearsay? Because it's really hard to tell on this forum (where judgement is regularly flung around about cast and producers) whether a Trekkie has a legitimate moral objection, or just has an axe to grind, since there is such general hostility toward his legacy, and almost no mention of this very serious allegation.

If he was a sexual predator, why isn't this common knowledge here, and his legacy disavowed entirely?

My knowledge of the man boils down to this: him and Gene L Coon contributed a lot to Star Trek's aesthetic and philosophy, he may or may not have later exaggerated Star Trek's progressivism, during TNG he smoked weed, suffered mental ill health, and his ideals were not agreed upon by everyone involved, causing some friction. I have never heard anyone raise this allegation before, other than snide unflattering remarks about Majel Barret being cast as Number One, only because Roddenbeery was enamoured.

Does this come from some biography?

 

[Jackson_Roykirk]

Star Trek never had a 'you cannot sleep with your subordinates' rule....that's all in your head.

For Picard, there was Lt. Cmdr. Nella Daren. We don't specifically know if they slept together, but they were certainly a romantic couple.

[edited double quote]

 

[GeekUSACarl]

Federation morality ain't perfect but I gotta tell ya I'd probably pick it over modern america.

 

[Nyotarules]

We don't specifically know if they slept together, but they were certainly a romantic couple.

Based on the show, Picard slept with two ladies, Vash and Della. For a 7 year period the Frenchman was sexually starved, unless he used the holodeck lol

 

[KittyHAWK]

They enslaved the creature for as long as they needed it, and then released it when it was no longer of such immediate utility to them. Nobody was prosecuted under Federation law (maybe that is coming later). The incident seems to have been largely forgotten. So, yes, in a sense, it has been addressed, but it hasn't been resolved legally or ethically one way or another. In a future war, would the Federation again unofficially condone this on it's ships? How far would they go? To boil it down to an absurd reduction: It's possible to torture one person to save 10,000,000,000 lives so they build a torture machine and leave him/her in it? Is war, as Abraham Lincoln said, only possessed of one virtue: it's swift ending? Or is the message in the method?

It's not that I feel the show is deliberately asking these questions in it's omission of preaching - after all, quite a lot of the philosophy that advocates different morality is not going to be overturned like that, as it accepts the suffering - I miss the show presenting what it thinks, and why it thinks that.

You are making a molehill into a mountain about the tartigrade. it will never come up in later in the show becausee it was closure. They ultitize its abilities and found it was not suitable course to keep doing it as it was in severe distress. Hence, it was released as ordered by XO.

its a sci-fi drama show gunning for fresh appeal. Previous trek shows zig, STD zags.
I am certain there are just the undertones of ethics vs. sacrificing ethics that leaves it up to the audience to comprehend - the ability to adjust your judgment and do what is necessary - even if means breaking the code in time of war when the "Klingons want total domination."

Which would you rather have? a prim and prude show or a dynamic one? Ya think the Nazis gave a *smeep* what their "considered" enemies' ethics are? Did tyrant governments like communism care for niceties whether in pre-war or post-war? [hint hint] There will be a shady part of war, in any war. Niceties come dead last when both survival and preservation are at stake.

Bravo for Mach and Tzu, those tidbits are stratagems.

 

[KittyHAWK]

Based on the show, Picard slept with two ladies, Vash and Della. For a 7 year period the Frenchman was sexually starved, unless he used the holodeck lol

OH, waht a feast he must have had.

 

[ralfy]

Maybe it's one of those "black ops" ships.