Spoilers Two steps forward, one step back? Thoughts on the world DSC presents

[ISS_Einstein]

Logic is a high ideal for Vulcans - but what evidence is there of Vulcan's being anti-individualists? Now were we not just discussing the danger of seeing them as a monoculture? We have Vulcans without logic who were merely stigmatised at the height of Vulcan's period of 22nd century Romulan-backed intolerance - how much more tolerant of dissent then must the Vulcan society be after the recovery of the Kir'Shara? Sybok might have faced censure privately, but he wasn't imprisoned or harmed as far as we know.

While we are on the topic of reductio ad absurdum:

The argument that the "needs of the many" could easily be perverted into a justification for collectivist violence is reminiscent of the extremist argument that a person without religion is "capable of anything". Aside from how a person with religion often seems capable of anything too, it seems to assume that just because a true world doctrine is no longer present, that the godless person is incapable of having any number of other replacement ideals - or that there is no further nuance of any kind to their beliefs. Likewise there is a reductive argument that the Vulcan philosophy has no other components than pure ultilitarianism (not even say, act utilitarianism). Roddenbury, whatever we may think of him, seems to have been fairly literate in philosophy, and probably didn't feel that such obvious nuances needed implicitly explaining, as it was too obvious to anyone who had read liberal thought since Hobbes or secular thought since the 1800s. Now we are generally less familiar with those ideas it would seem, and perhaps Star Trek is the ideal platform for exploring them anew.

 

[ISS_Einstein]

Oops, I meant to say "rule utilitarianism".

 

[cultcross]

As mentioned above, the Vulcan utilitarian doctrine was never shown to be anything other than a personal choice made individually. It would go without saying that the Vulcans are act utilitarians, and individualists, as an implicit part of that, or their society would be a bloodbath - lets not read such a statement reductively, and without nuance, without looking at the evidence of our eyes.

Ok, but I don't see how individual choice removes the possibility of applying logic and utilitarianism amorally. They don't all have to be doing it for a group to do so, and it was the group you originally objected to.

 

[Agony_Boothb]

Very much agreed. And in general, that's a good thing. It's much more interesting to see people challenged to live by their values in the face of opposition or sacrifice than to see them just being perfect because Gene's Vision.

Agreed. That's when Star Trek is at it's best for me when the characters own humanity is challenged and not when they're lecturing aliens about how to be more human *Looks in picards general direction, keep sipping that tea old man*

 

[cultcross]

Moral judgment. Early grey. Hot.

 

[ISS_Einstein]

Ok, but I don't see how individual choice removes the possibility of applying logic and utilitarianism amorally. They don't all have to be doing it for a group to do so, and it was the group you originally objected to.

I never claimed it did, I was responding to the idea that utilitarianism could justify things like slavery - I said that Vulcan society would be a bloodbath if merely mathematical notions of welfare were applied without any care for the right to life. I wasn't talking about individual violence, but the collective violence of the state or majority, which might reason that slave labour was an ethical act (you would be hard pressed to find any utilitarian that would). I also said that such distinctions as the constitutional right to life, are what make all the difference.

Say that a Vulcan leader said "the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few" and then instituted a preventable famine in one province to feed everyone else lavishly - the respect of individual rights under the law, means the choice of when and where they wish to make any potential self sacrifice, and for what reason - it can't be 'chosen for them'.

A rule utilitarian, if indeed that is even what Surak's Vulcans are, would say that this was an example of a generalised rule that prevents suffering in the long run - respect for individual choice preventing untold abuses, perhaps coupled with a strong warning that Vulcans should care for their lives - it is an example of what a rule utilitarian would say can rationally be held as an 'inviolable' principle. It protects against others from from choosing on their behalf. Now, we know that Surak was considered a great moral philosopher on Vulcan, to the point where he is venerated as the creator of Vulcan society, so it does seem likely that the summation of his philosophy was not just "place the needs of the many first, no matter the cost".

This is why I said the argument was reductive. It assumes an utter reductio ad absurdum in which Vulcan thought has no further nuance when human thought does. Ancient Vulcans would have formulated a complicated system of ethics; we saw that Surak believed negotiation was always preferable to violence in The Savage Curtain. It does not remove the possibility of an individual rejecting Surak's teachings, but that is another issue - the issue of whether a fictional symbol of a reasoned society, that was meant to explicitly inspire thought experiments, should be 'deconstructed' into a mirror of current human society at all - I would argue not.

We frankly don't know what Vulcans believe. They seem to resemble ancient stoics, and stoics believed in 'virtue ethics', rather than 'utilitarian ethics', for starters. Spock, and perhaps one or two others that I can't recall, made the "needs of the many" statement, but we don't know how central it was to Surakian philosophy, or where it lay in the order of importance - i.e. it's entire context. Yet without any context, or nuance, we say things like 'it could justify slavery', when every ethical philosopher I know of would have made such statements in a larger context.

Also, on a side note, logic - actually a method of analysing propositional statements, is not a philosophy - so the name logic extremist sounds a little silly. Probably Surak made logic a central practice, but his ethics have never been fully elucidated.

 

[ISS_Einstein]

I would also like to point out that there is a way of looking at this from a sociological point of view. Irrelevent of what weight one places on philosophy, we have empirical evidence that societies with certain social factors produce less violence. An entrenched tendency to solve things through the ballot, tends to reduce civil unrest, as does a strong impartial rule of law. There is that famous claim that "no two functional democracies have ever fought a war", which some have disputed, but which is so close to true, as to very significant. There are societies on Earth that have not produced a suicide bomber, period. This is because not all cultural paradigms are alike, and this is where making futuristic alien societies too close of a mirror for our own Earth falls down for me. Vulcan has been described as a society in which institutions like these have probably been functioning, not for 200 years as in the United States, but more like 2000 years. There have been arguments by scholars suggesting that is the trend of civilization; toward the extinction of violence in the long term.

 

[Xerxes82]

@Xerxes82 - I'm right there with you. But rather than just challenging our heroes, don't you feel that Section 31 goes further and implies that a society can't exist without a cynical extra-judicial watchman?

No, I don't. I think it implies that there will always be people who care only for expediency of action. Which I think will always be true. And I think it implies that there will always be people who look for an excuse to do violence, or manipulate, or control. Plenty of evil has been done in the name of things that are ostensibly good.

I feel like I should take a moment to add that I don't agree with you that Section 31 is being portrayed in a positive light here. That their existence is somehow being claimed to be necessary. They are presented as a perversion. As a blight, undermining what the Federation stands for. That they do so while claiming to be it's defenders should not be taken at face value. When last we saw Georgiou in season 1, she had just attempted to manipulate the Federation in an atrocity to win a war. This was couched in terms of her helping the Federation win, but it can more accurately be described as an attempt to pull them down to her level. Georgiou is the Joker from Nolan's The Dark Knight. She is attempting to corrupt innocence, for her own pleasure and advantage.

The existence of Section 31, or a group like it, may be inevitable. But that doesn't make it necessary. And in every instance so far, Section 31 has been presented as an organization that is a cancer. It is literally the worst of us made manifest, as the Federation is the best of us. It is the Federation's shadow.

That it can be tempting, that it can lure even those we believe should know better is precisely why it must be confronted. We must understand, and ask ourselves why people are attracted to it's ideas, and how good people can be brought low in it's service as easily as evil people can flourish in it.

 

[ISS_Einstein]

@Xerxes82 - Your interpretation of what is happening to Star Trek is very charitable; that the writers deliberately intend Section 31 as Starfleet's shadow self - I'm not sure the evidence of what we have seen on screen leans that way. A less charitable interpretation might be that they have taken over an intellectual property and want to remake it in their image. I hope you are right, because the end of the last episode almost sounded like a lecture to fans; Pike representing principled/hopeful-Trek, and Section 31 guy representing imperial-Trek, with Cornwell basically playing the part of disgruntled producer, saying "real life is messy, so idealistic fans need to put away their principles, and accept the dark side of politics is necessary".

I wouldn't be comfortable making such a pronouncement; none of us know for sure that life is like that. The thing is, I can accept different franchises on different merits. I don't need to change Star Wars into Star Trek to enjoy it for example, nor Farscape into Star Trek, nor Warhammer 40K into Star Trek. If given a franchise, I am capable of putting myself into the mindset of the show, and accepting it's ideation. So, I don't see why Trek needed this fundamental philosophical change (again, if it actually is that). Can't the writers turn off their views and accept the themes of the property they are temporarily working on, building a story within that framework? At times, it can feel like we have a group who don't believe in Star Trek's central philosophy, and thus don't want anyone else to either.

 

[Alan Roi]

@Xerxes82 - Your interpretation of what is happening to Star Trek is very charitable; that the writers deliberately intend Section 31 as Starfleet's shadow self - I'm not sure the evidence of what we have seen on screen leans that way. A less charitable interpretation might be that they have taken over an intellectual property and want to remake it in their image. I hope you are right, because the end of the last episode almost sounded like a lecture to fans; Pike representing principled/hopeful-Trek, and Section 31 guy representing imperial-Trek, with Cornwell basically playing the part of disgruntled producer, saying "real life is messy, so idealistic fans need to put away their principles, and accept the dark side of politics is necessary".

I wouldn't be comfortable making such a pronouncement; none of us know for sure that life is like that. The thing is, I can accept different franchises on different merits. I don't need to change Star Wars into Star Trek to enjoy it for example, nor Farscape into Star Trek, nor Warhammer 40K into Star Trek. If given a franchise, I am capable of putting myself into the mindset of the show, and accepting it's ideation. So, I don't see why Trek needed this fundamental philosophical change (again, if it actually is that). Can't the writers turn off their views and accept the themes of the property they are temporarily working on, building a story within that framework? At times, it can feel like we have a group who don't believe in Star Trek's central philosophy, and thus don't want anyone else to either.

This is all well and good. But Star Trek in general and Star Fleet in particular, as with the police and military we permit to defend our safety so we don't have to, has repeated engaged in morally ambiguous behavior when something explicit such as a Section 31 isn't at ready hand. Such examples are Errand of Mercy, The Enterprise Incident, Chain of Command, Unification, In the Pale Moonlight and plenty of other episodes where there has been a tug of war between Starfleet's principals and the need to solve a problem in a less than principled way, and yes, out of necessity as judged by Starfleet and therefore The Federation, unambiguously principled utopia it may seem to be superficially. As such, the tug of war we are getting this season in Disco is indeed pure Star Trek as it has always been across all series without exception.

 

[ISS_Einstein]

@Alan Roi - With respect, in Errand of Mercy for example, the Federaiton landed on a planet that they knew the Klingons would occupy, during a probable 'war of annihilation', and tried to win their support through verbal persuasion, destroying military targets.

It isn't quite the same thing as assassinating a newly-coup-installed Klingon Chancellor during peacetime, trying to destroy the Klingon homeworld, employing a probable war criminal, etc - we can guess exactly what Kirk or Picard would have thought of those actions - for a start they are probably illegal - Picard was a man who argued it was better for a society to fall entirely in fair struggle, than to become an acceptable place for such actions - Sisko wrestled with committing an illegal action of this kind, knowing it undermined the Federation's very moral reason for existing, and was never sure it wouldn't ultimately destroy them.

So, let's hope the moral message here isn't "we the writers, we know more than you about real life, and this is a more realistic vision, so lump it". Because I am not confident anyone can say that for sure, and it would worry me if someone thought in such absolute terms.

 

[Vger23]

The fact that we're even having this discussion as a fanbase is precisely why DSC is the best franchise element produced in the last 25 years, since DS9.

Fans who think the writers create plot points and storylines to reflect "what should be" or to "please the fans" haven't been paying attention.

 

[Alan Roi]

@Alan Roi - With respect, in Errand of Mercy for example, the Federaiton landed on a planet that they knew the Klingons would occupy, during a probable 'war of annihilation', and tried to win their support through verbal persuasion, destroying military targets.

It isn't quite the same thing as assassinating a newly-coup-installed Klingon Chancellor during peacetime, trying to destroy the Klingon homeworld, employing a probable war criminal, etc - we can guess exactly what Kirk or Picard would have thought of those actions - for a start they are probably illegal - Picard was a man who argued it was better for a society to fall entirely in fair struggle, than to become an acceptable place for such actions - Sisko wrestled with committing an illegal action of this kind, knowing it undermined the Federation's very moral reason for existing, and was never sure it wouldn't ultimately destroy them.

So, let's hope the moral message here isn't "we the writers, we know more than you about real life, and this is a more realistic vision, so lump it". Because I am not confident anyone can say that for sure, and it would worry me if someone thought in such absolute terms.

You seem to have forgotten Worf killing Chancellor Gowron under Sisko's direction as well. Is not Captain Janeaway is considered a war criminal by many, for numerous dubious decistions, but she got promoted to Admiral. Quote from James T. Kirk regarding Klingon extinction "Let them die." (yes I know he later recinded that idea) Kirk knew Kor would execute hundreds of Organians, and he committed his likely pointless acts of terror anyways which would have solved nothing in the long run. Picard certainly seriously considered committing genocide on the Borg, then ultimately Using Hugh to disrupt its inner workings in another way, in secret, and had no problem illegally violating the Cardassian treat to destroy a weapons facility. And I'm certain there are many other quite ambiguous acts I can't immediately recall. The moral message is that the struggle to be better is more compelling drama and has always been more compelling drama because it is demonstrative of how we get better, than a lecture to obvious audience stand ins how moral superiority is an end unto itself from people who are living in the post-struggle period who we can't really identify with and who can't identify with us.

 

[ISS_Einstein]

You are equating things like the private opinions of a man, who has no power to enforce them, with actual policy. How does Kirk saying "let them die" privately to a colleague in a moment of anger in any way equate to an actual attempted genocide?

 

[Alan Roi]

You are equating things like the private opinions of a man, who has no power to enforce them, with actual policy. How does Kirk saying "let them die" privately to a colleague in a moment of anger in any way equate to an actual attempted genocide?

Where do you think policy originates? And so what if Kirk and Picard back off in the end? I might remind you, Picard was called out on the carpet by his superior for not going through with the Borg genocide scheme, and the Federation Council withheld the cure for the Founders virus, showing that even the 'enlightened' Federation is willing to go so far as commit genocide when faced with a threat to its existence, just as no one argued against destroying the Space Amoeba. That is just as reflective if not more so of the Federation than they are. Yes, you can go on and say "the show" maybe be trying to telling us this is right and that is wrong" but its also telling us what the Federation is and is not. Any people can deny this till they are a fine shade of Andorian, but it doesn't change what has been presented to us.

And since we have been told what the Federation is, why not explore it, to offer us how it got from where is has been to where it will be. How is that somehow a violation compared with only showing us the "After" picture while pretending that the "Before" picture never even existed?

 

[STR]

@Xerxes82 - I'm right there with you. But rather than just challenging our heroes, don't you feel that Section 31 goes further and implies that a society can't exist without a cynical extra-judicial watchman? I'm a realist too, but I wouldn't be comfortable saying that history must unfold that way, because I don't know how true it is. Here is what the New York Times felt about the CIA coup against Allende, comparing it to the Soviet invasion of Czechlovakia:

BOSTON, Feb. 26—When the Soviet Union crushed Dubcek's Czechoslovakia in 1968, it claimed an inherent right of intervention to keep any “sister socialist state” from slipping out of the Soviet orbit. That was the Brezhnev Doctrine.

Americans were sickened by the brutal cynicism of the Soviet rationalization. But if we open our eyes, we cannot avoid seeing that we now have a doctrine to match. It must be called the Kissinger Doctrine.

It appeared first in relation to the Allende Government of Chile. In that context the doctrine could be stated as follows: The United States is entitled to conspire against another country's constitutional government if we fear it might slip that country out of our orbit.

Henry Kissinger put the matter succinctly to the Forty Committee, the secret operations group that he heads, on June 27, 1970. Speaking of Chile, he said: “I don't see why we need to stand by and watch a country go Communist due to the irresponsibility of its own people.”

The torment of Cambodia shows that the doctrine also takes a second form: If a government comes to power by a coup and takes its country into the U. S. orbit, Washington will do anything to prevent a change of that government‐no matter how little support it has from its own people, no matter how terrible the cost to them.
​

How much did actions like this undermine the moral authority of the west? We may never know. Maybe some of the fallout is still felt today, in apathy or disillusion. I saw the Federation as a Bradbury-like thought experiment in a future society, but implying it can't exist without some branch of it garotting foreign generals or whatever, puts a permanent end to that mode of sci-fi, the genre of imagining a future different to our own - as a realist, I do understand it happens right now.

I don't think a society NEEDS a Section 31. However, I do think societies tend to develop them anyway because they are an instrument of power projection. Any time there's a possibility of gaining power, someone will organize a way to gather and exploit it.

Even TNG, with all its evangelism, still had ambitious individuals. Power is just ambition extended.

 

[plynch]

Star Trek was only utopian for the GR reign of TNG, yes?

TOS was, "We're workin' on it." I want to kill the Gorn, Finnegan, etc., but I won't kill today. Kirk in fact loves destroying utopias! It's like his THING! Something Freudian goin' on: No happiness for you. Struggle! Pain! If I have to, you have to!

The recent Klingon war now being canonical via DSC, it makes sense when in S1 Kirk calls himself a warrior. That's really a good set-up, like Hornblower in space, a Royal Navy man, but who also has other kinds of adventures. Had they known about the 50 years of mythos they were spawning, it would have been cool to play that up more in Kirk, explicitly putting the warrior within him at bay. Which he kind of did. Kills the salt monster. Then reasons with the horta.

With DSC, look, I am of another era, I get that. But there are so many plot lines in this serial novel called S2. What are the red lights/angel? Whazzup w/ Spock? Whazzup w/ Spock and sis and family? Whazzup with Stamets and Culber? Whazzup with the spores and Tilly? OH no, and whazzup w/ the Empress? (At least I hope to ignore her soon, once she gets her own show.) I just don't like ongoing mystery/puzzle boxes. How I roll.

You do you, and be well.

 

[mos6507]

At times, it can feel like we have a group who don't believe in Star Trek's central philosophy, and thus don't want anyone else to either.

I think originally CBS hoped to merely build upon the Trek fanbase by placing Discovery within canon, but for various reasons they weren't able to have their cake and eat it too. Hence this phenomenon you're describing is what fanbase turnover looks like. Fans who are alienated complain at first, then eventually stop engaging and leave. New fans take their place who, by definition, support the new vision 100%. They wouldn't be "fans" otherwise. We'll learn soon enough whether, post-turnover, that's economically sustainable for CBS. But it's a risky move to alienate a fanbase that took a half-century to accumulate.

 

[Alan Roi]

I think originally CBS hoped to merely build upon the Trek fanbase by placing Discovery within canon, but for various reasons they weren't able to have their cake and eat it too. Hence this phenomenon you're describing is what fanbase turnover looks like. Fans who are alienated complain at first, then eventually stop engaging and leave. New fans take their place who, by definition, support the new vision 100%. They wouldn't be "fans" otherwise. We'll learn soon enough whether, post-turnover, that's economically sustainable for CBS. But it's a risky move to alienate a fanbase that took a half-century to accumulate.

CBS hoped to build the number of subscribers to their streaming network starting with a show that would appeal to the less militant people across all generations of fandom, not just small sets of particular, if loud factions who demand their desires be met absolutely. FYI, fandom spread across three generations can hardly be called a monolith. Some people are going to dislike a show at this stage in the franchise no matter what you do.

And, according to their own prior and clearly conservative projections, CBS has gotten to eat said cake 2 whole years before they expected it to be finished baking. Next cake please! .

 

[Greg Cox]

I think originally CBS hoped to merely build upon the Trek fanbase by placing Discovery within canon, but for various reasons they weren't able to have their cake and eat it too. Hence this phenomenon you're describing is what fanbase turnover looks like. Fans who are alienated complain at first, then eventually stop engaging and leave. New fans take their place who, by definition, support the new vision 100%. They wouldn't be "fans" otherwise. We'll learn soon enough whether, post-turnover, that's economically sustainable for CBS. But it's a risky move to alienate a fanbase that took a half-century to accumulate.

But let's not assume that it's only new fans who are capable of enjoying a new take on an old property or that every older fan will automatically be "alienated" by a new and different approach to an old favorite.

It's not strictly a generational thing, or a binary choice between old and new fans. And, yes, I tend to protest when folks assume that older fans will inevitably be "alienated" by reboots, retcons, revisionism, and "canon violations." Some of us old coots like that DISCO doesn't look or feel exactly like the stuff we've seen before . .....

Keeps us on our toes.