• Welcome! The TrekBBS is the number one place to chat about Star Trek with like-minded fans.
    If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

Unethical Behavior of the Federation

Navarro

Lieutenant
Red Shirt
I grew up in the nineties, which I think was the golden era of Trek. Alongside cartoons, I could watch TOS, TNG, DS9 and Voyager regularly on the tube. Some of my first memories involved me sitting at the foot of my sisters bed watching Star Trek on her thirteen inch television while my father snored away to the sound of a football game in the livingroom. I was still very young, and my ethical sensibilities hadn't yet been tainted by the horrors of the real world or the lifetime of rhetoric which leaves the many confused. Before I even knew another government existed aside from the United States of America, I found myself standing in stark opposition to another government and its "ethics," and that government didn't even exist. It was fictious. It was the United Federation of Planets.

I saw the deep prejudice and hate on the bridge of the Enterprise when, during TOS's Balance of Terror, Spock's crewmembers turned on him because the Romulan offshoot of his race happened to be their adversaries in combat. He wasn't them, but he looked like them, and that was enough to hate him in the Federation.

I saw something very similar during TNG's The Drumhead where a crewman was turned on by his shipmates after it was discovered that he's half Romulan, and thus may be sympathetic with or even in league with Romulans, which lead his crewmembers and representatives of the Federation justice system believe he was a Romulan agent. In that episode, it was also discussed that it had been necessary to lie about his Romulan heritage on his application to Starfleet, making the organization prejudice against Romulans generally.

In VOY's Tuvix, captain Janeway ordered her officer, Lieutenant Tuvix, to sacrifice his life in order to bring Tuvok and Nelix back to life. Tuvix pleaded, arguing that he is a conscious, sentient being just like every other member of the crew, and that he has the right to live. He said that to force him to sacrifice himself would be to execute him. His shipmates, who he'd developed so called "friendships" were stonefaced and apparently unsympathetic as he turned his pleas to them. He called them "good people" as they marched him to his execution, but it was only the doctor who would stand up for him, refusing to carry out the procedure which would leave Tuvix dead. Janeway didn't flinch however, and performed the procedure herself, killing Tuvix.

During TNG's The Measure of a Man, the Federation wants to dismantle and study Data, including if against his will, because Federation philosophy is such to allow a machine the rank and title of lieutenant commander, and yet the Federation doesn't percieve that machine to be equal to a Human. They gave him a uniform, trained him at Starfleet academy, gave him a position of leadership and prestige aboard the Federation's storied flagship, but now suddenly he not quite "real." He a thing, not a person. As the Klingon Chancellor's daughter said in Star Trek VI, " the whole Federation is a human club." That outsider's perspective seems to ring true here as well. They judge Data to be suddenly unworthy of the title of life and the self-determination or protection that other Federation citizens allowed, because it's now inconvenient for them. They want to strip him apart and learn from him. They had to be convinced that this was wrong, because the Federation is filled with bigoted opportunists that apply far too much value to the importance of their species.

In DS9's Dr Bashir I Presume it's revealed that the doctor was secretly given genetic enhancements as a child, in order to offset what sounded to be retardation. He was given the opportunity to live a rich, normal life, except that he was forced to keep his genetic enhancement a secret. Those who have their genes modified are looked down upon in the Federation, treated no only as outcasts and second-class citizens, but perhaps as criminals. Bashir says that had he revealed these enhancements on his Starfleet application, he wouldn't have been accepted into Starfleet. In fact, because his father took Bashir to the doctor as a child in order to cure his apparent retardation, his father was imprisoned for this crime against the state. As immoral as that is, what's perhaps equally immoral among the psyche of Federation citizens, and that Bashir apparently never even considered resigning from the government which imprisoned his father for healing him. Instead, he was content to go on about life in service to both his and his father's opressors, as DS9's token genetic, sometimes working with the other genetically enhanced individuals, who happen to be imprisoned by the Federation, presumably only for the fact of their enhancements.

In another DS9 episode, it's revealed that the Federation's Section 31 had infected Odo with a disease, which would lay dorminant in Odo, allowing him to transmit the disease to the other Founders once he linked with them. The intended goal was the genocide of the Founders.

In DS9's Chimera, Odo catches a glimpse of the Federations bigotry and xenophobic behavior in observing the reactions to a fellow shapeshifter. With Odo naturally troubled by what he's observed, Quark tries to justify the behavior, saying "Don't you get it, Odo? We humanoids are a product of millions of years of evolution. Our ancestors learned the hard way that what you don't know might kill you. They wouldn't have survived if they hadn't jumped back when they encountered a snake coiled in the muck; and now, millions of years later, that instinct is still there. It's genetic. Our tolerance to other life forms doesn't extend beyond the two-arm, two-leg variety. I hate to break this to you; but when you're in your natural state, you're more than our poor old genes can handle."

I could go on and on, about the enslavement of holograms, the forced relocation of Native Americans or the many unethical incidents involving the Federation's "Prime Directive," but I'll only mention one such example - an episode which came many years later, in the form of ENT's Dear Doctor. The Federation wouldn't exist yet for another few years, but it's clear in this episode what drove the Federation's founding principles. In the episode, we see two sentient species coexisting on the same planet, both having evolved together on that same world. One of the species was far more advanced than the other, and that species was standing at the brink of extinction. Dr Phlox created a cure to what ails them, but decides to withold that cure because he doesn't wish to "choose one species over the other," despite that both species coexist happily together, and would most likely continue to do so. Archer goes on to make a statement that's an allusion to the coming Prime Directive, ending with "we didn't come out here to play god." The Federation doesn't cure this new species they've met. They condemn them to extinction. In the opening moments of this human club's Trek among the Stars, it's stepped onto the galactic stage with the act of shameless, needless genocide.

Hardly shocking, considering that throughout Enterprise, and especially in the opening episodes, we were shown more than a glimpse of humanities bigoted hatred of Vulcans. The humans were furious with the Vulcans for "holding them back" by not handing over their warp technology. Yet, one of the first things they did with that warp technology was deny another species the cure they need prevent extinction. What's perhaps worse than them letting those aliens die, is how comfortable they were with letting those aliens die. With letting every alien of that species die, and feeling that they "did the right thing." If the Federation is founded on beliefs which involve mass murder being "the right thing," then there's something very, very wrong with the Federation.

"The first duty of every Starfleet officer is to the truth, whether it's scientific truth or historical truth or personal truth. It is the guiding principle on which Starfleet is based. And if you can't find it within yourself to stand up and tell the truth about what happened, you don't deserve to wear that uniform." - Jean Luc Picard

These are the words of a man who is the result of generations of social conditioning, propaganda and outright brainwashing. There is nothing good and benevolent abotu Starfleet's "guiding principles." There is only an empire, expanding by dagger and deception, on its path to dominating the quadrant by hegemony, supported by the deluded galactic police that is Starfleet.

Yet, somehow I love Star Trek. Seen every movie, every episode of every series, played every game, watch the fanfilms. Go figure. I'd put on that uniform in a second if Starfleet was real, but Starfleet is the Evil Empire if there ever was one. I guess you could think of Star Trek as Federation propaganda, and we've all been brainwashed by it. I'm not sure I'd be very well accepted in Starfleet though. Kirk was racist against Klingons. Picard prejudice against Borg. Stiles against Romulans. O'Brien again Cardasians. Archer against Vulcans. I see a pattern here. You have to be filled with hate to wear the Starfleet uniform.
 
Erm, no.
All these episodes dealt with prejudice and sometimes hate,yes, but in the end were about individuals, not about the general stance of the Federation.
Every instance was criticism of such behavior and as such reflective of problems we face today.
The message is, be better than this. The Federation is better than this. Let's strive for this ideal world, even if not everyone has gotten the message yet or some never might.
It would have been naive to present the Federation as a world where bigoted individuals no longer exist, but it is a olace where such things get called out and other individuals, usually our heroes step up to defend the higher ideal.
 
Agreed on some points, not on others. I too have the idea that Picard and company are conditioned to believe they're evolved superior humanity when human nature hasn't changed one bit (something Picard finally realises in First Contact)

I think the flawed nature of the characters (sometimes intentional, often not) makes for a sometimes frustrating but more interesting universe.
 
Agreed on some points, not on others. I too have the idea that Picard and company are conditioned to believe they're evolved superior humanity when human nature hasn't changed one bit (something Picard finally realises in First Contact)

I think the flawed nature of the characters (sometimes intentional, often not) makes for a sometimes frustrating but more interesting universe.
I agree. Drama isn't only entertaining, it's an entire genre of entertainment. Never the less, the stories told about the happenings of the Federation certainly reflect the nature of the Federation. We see a whole lot of bad things occurring in the Federation, and if these things are a reflection of the Federation, then this doesn't bode well for the Federation's image. When Janeway executed Tuvix, is this not a bad thing? Was Stiles intense racism and hatred direct at Spock not a bad thing? When Phlox and Archer got together and decided to doom an entire race to profound suffering followed by extinction, simply because that race happened to be born on the wrong planet - is that not a bad thing? We've been given a window into the Federation, and that window has shown us evil after evil.

They're stories, but they're stories about the Federation, which is fiction itself. If we are to judge a fictional empire, we then must judge it based on the stories surrounding it. That's fair, even if the Federation so very frequently turns out to be less than fair. After all, you have to keep in mind that the Federation is largely designed after the United States, a country which locks people in cages for smoking plants. So, we're superimposing a theoretical advanced culture over a comparatively primitive culture, and the problems which arise in that advanced culture are the problems the writers perceive in the more primitive, real culture. The evils we see within the Federation are then to be expected. Still, the Federation looks very bad.
 
You might be looking and expecting perfection where none can exists, the Federation is just a vast collection of individuals and groups, with all their strengths and weaknesses. Moving people a few centuries into the future isn't going to fundamentally change who we are.

Many of the examples you cite come down to people making individual choices based upon their life experiences and their personal judgement, you not agreeing with them is a difference of opinion on your part. I agree with Janeway's decision on Tuvix, you obviously do not.

Tuvok and Neevix (on screen) never demanded to be rejoined, so at least some people on Voyager agree with her decision.

While Data was granted a court decision to be able to decide not to be disassembled, that doesn't mean everyone in the Federation automatically had to change their minds on whether he is a person or not. His new legal right obviously didn't extend to his daughter, nor did it give him parental custody over her.

(That assumes that parental custody rights exist in the Federation)

The Federation Council isn't some utopian polly-anna body, it's repeatedly shown to be a pragmatic governing organization, it's actions in forced relocations, denying the Founders a cure, trading land for peace, and other actions show this.

"Kirk was racist against Klingons," Kirk made a accurate assessment of the Klingon based upon his observations over the course of decades of their actual behavior and society.

you have to keep in mind that the Federation is largely designed after the United States
I think Dorothy Fontana's intended design model for the Federation was the United Nations, Roddenberry's first concept was more a Earth Empire.
 
Still no.
You equate individual people within the Federation as representative.
They are not.
Just because Stiles was bigoted against Romulans which he projected on Spock just because of the pointed ears/appearance, due to his background as a descendant of people who fought in the war against Romulans, doesn't make the whole Federation racist.
Just because there are neo nazis today within practically every society today doesn't make every nation racist.
Jusge a society by how they deal with those individuals within. Do they largly condem them or do they elect them to be president? Well, bad example. Cause even if Trump becomes president next year, I would still be convinced that the majority of Americans is not racist assholes and the principles on which the USA is founded are still inclusive.

The example of Tuvix is poorly chosen. Janeway's decision was not out of hatred, and you can see the pain and remorse she felt in her eyes after she acted.
The whole Tuvix story is an eleborate version of the ethical dilemma with the train tracks. Where 5 people are bound on a train track. You are in the position to switch the oncoming train to another track in time, but on that track is a wandering child.
Do you switch the track to save the 5 people from certain death but condem the single child to death or do you do nothing?
Both decisions are horrible, there is no purely ethical solution.
It's what is called a lose/lose situation.
 
You might be looking and expecting perfection where none can exists, the Federation is just a vast collection of individuals and groups, with all their strengths and weaknesses. Moving people a few centuries into the future isn't going to fundamentally change who we are.

Many of the examples you cite come down to people making individual choices based upon their life experiences and their personal judgement, you not agreeing with them is a difference of opinion on your part. I agree with Janeway's decision on Tuvix, you obviously do not.

Tuvok and Neevix (on screen) never demanded to be rejoined, so at least some people on Voyager agree with her decision.

While Data was granted a court decision to be able to decide not to be disassembled, that doesn't mean everyone in the Federation automatically had to change their minds on whether he is a person or not. His new legal right obviously didn't extend to his daughter, nor did it give him parental custody over her.

(That assumes that parental custody rights exist in the Federation)

The Federation Council isn't some utopian polly-anna body, it's repeatedly shown to be a pragmatic governing organization, it's actions in forced relocations, denying the Founders a cure, trading land for peace, and other actions show this.

"Kirk was racist against Klingons," Kirk made a accurate assessment of the Klingon based upon his observations over the course of decades of their actual behavior and society.

I think Dorothy Fontana's intended design model for the Federation was the United Nations, Roddenberry's first concept was more a Earth Empire.
When I was a child experiencing Star Trek for the first time, it's hard for me to say what I may have expected of the Federation. All I know is that I found the Federation to be immoral, especially in those moments where they did something terrible then hid behind rules such as the Prime Directive, deflecting the blame for their actions. Today, I neither expect perfection from the Federation nor from the future eras which Star Trek is set in. Our past is profoundly dark, just as is our present, just as our future will no doubt be. We're not the benevolent residents of a utopia now, now do I expect our descendants to be. The human condition, both its character and situation, is the opposite of benevolence existing in a utopia.

I'm pointing out the myriad immoral elements of the Federation as portrayed by Star Trek, nothing more. Pragmatism, by the way, is a means of doing something ultimately unethical, justified by such things as "the greater good." Yes, I agree the Federation is pragmatic, and most certainly is the Prime Directive. When Phlox and Archer joined together to commit genocide in Dear Doctor, that was certainly a very pragmatic way of avoiding "playing god." I think it's a very interesting collection of stories though. Everything I pointed out in the original post, the writers obvious thought was reasonable, aside from Dear Doctor, where the script originally involved Phlox and Archer curing them, but as I understand it a producer wanted something more "edgy." What's also interesting is something you pointed out - not everyone agrees that the bad things in Star Trek are necessary bad. You for instance feel comfortable with murdering Tuvix for the purpose of bringing Tuvok and Neelix back to life.

You and I can't even agree one what's right or wrong; when it's okay and not okay to kill another person. I find that as fascinating as I do troubling. If there's any hope for a benevolent humanity in the future, it will be found through dialogue as this. Though moral debate and modern philosophers. I recall a few years ago watching an interview of an astronaut. Someone asked him what he did for entertainment while assigned to ISS, and he replied that, among other things, he watched Star Trek. Imagine that. Watching Picard making one of his speeches with the backdrop of the stars out the window, and looking out a window into space yourself. Now imagine the opposite, the closest thing to Picard in the real 24th century, watching his fictitious counterpart on Star Trek. I wonder what he would think of our depiction of his universe and culture. Just as you agree with the execution of Tuvix, there's many people who agree with America dropping nuclear weapons on Japan's population centers during World War 2. Going further back in time, begin to find things which people tended to agree with, which today they do not. Slavery isn't a popular concept these days, nor is the torture and murder of people for their religious beliefs, as during the Spanish Inquisition. At the time though, they were popular. I can only hope that many of the things wrong in the Star Trek universe will be right when we reach those eras in time.

Yes, Star Trek began with United Earth and quickly came to take on much of the persona (and flag) of the UN. Never the less, the Federation was modeled after American culture, American naval tradition, and American philosophy. Picard hasn't been promised marriage to a twelve year old girl (Middle East, Asia), no ones cutting off segments of their fingers when they're grieving (Indonesia), nobody seems to practice cannibalism (Africa, South America), Picard was never abandoned on an iceberg for being old (Eskimo) or any of the other "strange" things found outside of modern American culture. Instead, we have the United States Ship (USS) Enterprise, or as Kirk called it, the United Space Ship Enterprise, but we all know Star Trek's USS prefix realistically came from the prefix used by the US Navy. We have a lot of American culture, not shocking considering Star Trek was made in America, by Americans, primarily for the American viewer. If we're completed honest with ourselves, the Federation isn't born of the United Nations. It appears born of the United States.
 
Still no.
You equate individual people within the Federation as representative.
They are not.
You misunderstood, I am saying that what we all see in Star Trek is individuals (like Stiles) or groups making decisions (Stiles his words and attitude), and not "the Federation." It wasn't a matter of either Starfleet or Federation Council policy that Stines was required to act the way he did.

Janeway's choice concerning the Tuvok/Neelix composite entity was similar, My impression is there was no guiding policy for Janeway to follow, she made a decision based on the information in front of her and her own wisdom. Owing to her position as a commanding officer of a starship, Starfleet and the greater Federation might be seen as responsible for her decision, but neither group made or compelled the decision.

The Federation is a assemblage of hundreds of billions of people, strictly speaking it can't made decisions (referring to the Federation as a whole, not the Council),
Do you switch the track to save the 5 people from certain death but condem the single child to death or do you do nothing?
Are the five people on the train also children? I've heard this one before and quite honestly I don't see a difficulty with the correct course of action. Based solely on the information provided, I would maximize the number of survivors.

In the medical field I believe this is called triage.
 
And nothing else is what Janeway did. Granted she had a longer history of friendship with Tuvok... and Neelix, well, was there, too, so she was undoubtedly biased. But in the end she decided that it was worth saving two people over one.
The problem with this example and the train track decision is, that you haave to act and influence the outcome of the situation to get more survivors and become directly responsible for the death of the other. I believe anyone in a situation like this can't be condemned for making this decision, but it certainly is one that might forever lay on your conscience thus making it an ethical dilemma.
A similar situation threw the Doctor into the holographic equivalent of a nervous breakdown that nearly destroyed his matrix, because his program couldn't cope with the decision to save one of two equally valuable lifes.
Neither decision was the right or wrong one. The only wrong decision would have been to make no decision and let both people die.
That's what I really like about Tuvix, that the story didn't provide a magical solution to save all 3, Tuvix, Tuvok and Neelix, which would have rendered the entire story pointless.

Back to the Stiles example. Yes he was bigoted, but he was also critized for his behaviir and even disciplined If I remember correctly. And Spock proved to be the better man by not taking it personally. Duh! :)
 
Most of these examples are from characters shown to be wrong by the narrative. In The Drumhead, Picard reveals how wrong it is that Tarses' career has been damaged. Section 31 are bad guys. As for Data and holograms, can you honestly say that if there was an AI program claiming to have a soul and asking for full rights, YOU would instantly accept it to be true? Of course it's difficult for a culture to adapt to accept machines as sentient. We only find it so easy to take Data's side because the narrative places us on Data's side. The Federation did a whole lot better than we would in real life.

I agree about the treatment of genetic augments, I hate that storyline and I find it very un-Federation like.

Of course the Federation isn't perfect, and it has its Joe McCarthys and Donald Trumps who want to turn on its citizens who remind them of their enemy. That doesn't make the Federation unethical, it makes some of its citizens that way. As DS9 points out it's not as perfect as it thinks, but what the heck are your standards?
 
Our past is profoundly dark, just as is our present
I once read that Human history is like a wide valley with a small raging river running down it's middle, history books focus on the raging river and ignore the peaceful grasslands to either side (how boring).

Most of our ancestors lived quiet lives without being directly involve in warfare or having to live in a slum, admittedly life usually was labor intensive. However darkness was the exception, not the rule.
When Phlox and Archer joined together to commit genocide
The events in that episode don't met the definition of "genocide." Or were you employing genocide as a just a symbolic vague euphemism?
If we're completed honest with ourselves, the Federation isn't born of the United Nations. It appears born of the United States.
Starfleet does bear a number of similarities to the American military, and many of the main characters are American's by birth and by culture, however the Federation and the Federation Council are not the United States.
Picard hasn't been promised marriage to a twelve year old girl (Middle East, Asia)
And if he had married Kes? Spock was promised into a arranged marriage at age seven. At one point Chief O'Brien found himself married to a (physical) child.
there's many people who agree with America dropping nuclear weapons on Japan's population centers during World War 2
Both cities were military targets. Hiroshima a major command and control center, military storage facilities, communications and transportation hub.

Nagasaki possessed a large number of munitions factories.
I recall a few years ago watching an interview of an astronaut. Someone asked him what he did for entertainment while assigned to ISS, and he replied that, among other things, he watched Star Trek
Years ago, one of the astronauts brought a complete TNG costume up to the ISS, there are pictures of her wearing it on the station.
Section 31 are bad guys
Whose actions brought a early end to a war. they did the right thing for the right reason and are condemned by some for not following some rule book in the process.
Of course the Federation isn't perfect, and it has its ... Donald Trumps who want to turn on its citizens who remind them of their enemy
Apparently there are Donald Trumps who want the Federation to have and maintain strong borders. We frequently see the Federation protecting it's borders.

Thank you Donald Trumps.
In The Drumhead, Picard reveals how wrong it is that Tarses' career has been damaged
Tarses lied and deceived to achieve his personal goal of joining Starfleet, how noble of him.
 
Last edited:
Most of these examples are from characters shown to be wrong by the narrative. In The Drumhead, Picard reveals how wrong it is that Tarses' career has been damaged. Section 31 are bad guys. As for Data and holograms, can you honestly say that if there was an AI program claiming to have a soul and asking for full rights, YOU would instantly accept it to be true? Of course it's difficult for a culture to adapt to accept machines as sentient. We only find it so easy to take Data's side because the narrative places us on Data's side. The Federation did a whole lot better than we would in real life.

I agree about the treatment of genetic augments, I hate that storyline and I find it very un-Federation like.

Of course the Federation isn't perfect, and it has its Joe McCarthys and Donald Trumps who want to turn on its citizens who remind them of their enemy. That doesn't make the Federation unethical, it makes some of its citizens that way. As DS9 points out it's not as perfect as it thinks, but what the heck are your standards?
You ask if I would instantly accept Data's claim to have a "soul," and the fact of the matter is I don't know if you have a "soul," or if even I do. I know that I'm personally a self-aware being, but I have no way of knowing whether or not you or anyone else is also self-aware. It's an age-old philosophical argument. Even if I had some reason to believe that dissecting you could prove immensely beneficial to science, or to myself personally, I wouldn't. You might just be a thing, a programmed zombie going through the motions of life, giving the appearance of self-awareness, and you might not. I wouldn't kill and dissect you just because I don't know you to be self-aware. At one time, there was a philosophical debate about whether or not animals feel pain, resulting from whether or not animals may be self-aware. Back then, one could justify hurting animals needlessly or more so than necessary because, as it was popularly believed, animals are neither self-aware nor do they feel pain. Their pain response is simply programmed and vaguely resembles human pain response. My point is, we don't know what Data is, whether or not he's self-aware, and for that reason in particular it would be obviously unethical to kill and dissect him. Yes, I would instantly accept Data's claims of being self-aware to be true, because I would be a foolish, arrogant monster if I claimed otherwise and was in fact wrong, especially if my determination lead to Data's death.

Yes, the characters could be argued to be "shown to be wrong by the narrative," though not everyone would agree that each of those characters were wrong. Star Trek was telling a story, but never the less those stories showed Federation citizens behaving in terrible ways, which is a reflection on the Federation. The amount of racism/bigotry alone is tremendous. Even everyone's favorite James T Kirk was racist against Klingons. As he said, "I never trusted Klingons, and I never will. I can never forgive them for the death of my boy." That's prejudice against an entire species, blaming "them" all for "the death of my boy." This isn't just one or two characters, there's a lot of them, including prominent characters. The Federation clearly frequently involves a prejudiced attitude among its citizens. As I pointed out earlier, even other species have remarked on this fact. Given that there's very many planets and species among the Federation, and given that we've known Starfleet to ban entry of augments and individuals of certain heritage, it would appear likely that the Federation is rather aristocratic. The reason we see few aliens among Starfleet, despite so many alien worlds among the Federation, is because humans receive preferential treatment in recruiting. Pure-blooded, non-augmented, non-half-breed Humans are the first-class citizens of Starfleet. Everyone else is riding at the back of the bus. Think about it. What did McCoy often call Spock? A "half-breed." In fact, McCoy frequently insulted Spock over his race, his "green blood," his "pointy ears." Kirk heard it all the time, but never intervened. Nobody did. There was even a TOS episode where someone pointed out to Spock that he was the most intelligent individual aboard ship, and so naturally he should be in command. But he's not.

You point out "Section 31 are bad guys." Yet, Section 31 is an agency created by the Federation Charter. They are the Federation. That's why Federation Intelligence does nothing about them, they're the guys that do the dirty work that "needs" to be done but can't officially be done. That's why the Federation turned a blind eye to Section 31's genocide against the Founders, and obstructed Bashir's attempts to undue the damage done by Section 31. How can they be "the bad guys" if they're an agency of the Federation and if the Federation isn't bad? Section 31 is in fact an example of the Federation being bad, but doing so covertly in order to preserve the image of the Federation, preventing others from recognizing the true nature of the Federation.

I realize of course that this is all incidental, necessary to tell the story the writers dreamt up, but these are the stories, and this is the face of the Federation.
 
Giving credit to Section 31 for the end of the war is ridiculous and just a flat out poor interpretation of the story. Poisoning the Founders gave Odo the opportunity to talk them down from purging Cardassia and fighting to the last man but it contributed in no way to the tactical victory. They won before the virus killed them.

America already has strong borders, the Trumps just want to put a melanin filter on the border, but I digress.

Tarses was punished for lying about his race, Picard pointed out it was wrong to destroy his career and assume he was colluding with the enemy because of it. It was not in anyway noble, but it was understandable fear of racism. If you think The Drumhead painted Tarses as noble, again, a very poor interpretation of the episode.
 
You ask if I would instantly accept Data's claim to have a "soul," and the fact of the matter is I don't know if you have a "soul," or if even I do. I know that I'm personally a self-aware being, but I have no way of knowing whether or not you or anyone else is also self-aware. It's an age-old philosophical argument. Even if I had some reason to believe that dissecting you could prove immensely beneficial to science, or to myself personally, I wouldn't. You might just be a thing, a programmed zombie going through the motions of life, giving the appearance of self-awareness, and you might not. I wouldn't kill and dissect you just because I don't know you to be self-aware. At one time, there was a philosophical debate about whether or not animals feel pain, resulting from whether or not animals may be self-aware. Back then, one could justify hurting animals needlessly or more so than necessary because, as it was popularly believed, animals are neither self-aware nor do they feel pain. Their pain response is simply programmed and vaguely resembles human pain response. My point is, we don't know what Data is, whether or not he's self-aware, and for that reason in particular it would be obviously unethical to kill and dissect him. Yes, I would instantly accept Data's claims of being self-aware to be true, because I would be a foolish, arrogant monster if I claimed otherwise and was in fact wrong, especially if my determination lead to Data's death.

Exactly, it is a philosophically complex issue. I could write a program to make a computer say: "Hello, I am Data. I am self aware". It wouldn't be sentient. If Watson claimed to be sentient, I doubt either one of us would accept its claim, even though it has gotten very good in some cases in making the kinds of human judgments machines are traditionally bad at. Whether it's possible for machines to experience the same sentience as people, and at what level we can say they do, is a difficult issue that when it first comes up will take a very long time to win anyone over.
 
:shrug:
Nothing's perfect, and that includes the Federation. All anyone can do is favor the side that's better for them in the long run than another, but it has always been traditionally easy to pick out faults than positives, so every organization is inherently evil if you look at it closely enough or from a certain point of view.*


*apologies to Obi-Wan Kenobi.
 
I once read that Human history is like a wide valley with a small raging river running down it's middle, history books focus on the raging river and ignore the peaceful grasslands to either side (how boring).

Most of our ancestors lived quiet lives without being directly involve in warfare or having to live in a slum, admittedly life usually was labor intensive. However darkness was the exception, not the rule.
If by that you mean most people didn't spend a lifetime murdering, raping and pillaging, then yes that's obviously true. You however can't judge a society by what its members have spent the majority of its time doing, because if you did, then the Nazis spent most of their time sleeping and working, just like the members of every other society, so how could one judge the Nazis as any worse than any other society? Obviously, its those "exceptions" which count the most. Most people sitting on death row at this moment, believe it or not, didn't spend the majority of their waking hours murdering people with axes. A person could live fifty years living an unremarkable life, never bothering anybody or otherwise getting noticed, and then one day murder their neighbor for letting their lawn grow too long. That homicide was an exception, but there's something seriously wrong with people have exceptions as those. Humanity has many, many such "exceptions" on its record. You'd like to believe the human is a good, noble creature? Fine. But I very much disagree, and there's a lot of brutally oppressed, gruesomely slain, profoundly tormented, starved and broken people who would disagree as well.
The events in that episode don't met the definition of "genocide." Or were you employing genocide as a just a symbolic vague euphemism?
You're arguing semantics. The definition of "genocide" is "the deliberate killing of a large group of people, especially those of a particular ethnic group or nation." Archer and Phlox killed off an entire species (ethnic group, large group of people), knowingly (deliberately) because they didn't want to "play god." They had the cure. They knew they would all die without that cure. They chose to let them die instead of giving them that cure. They deliberately killed of a large group of people, an entire ethnic group. A clear example of genocide.

And if he had married Kes? Spock was promised into a arranged marriage at age seven. At one point Chief O'Brien found himself married to a (physical) child.
Yes, you're absolutely right on that point. I don't know how I managed to overlook all those examples.
Both cities were military targets. Hiroshima a major command and control center, military storage facilities, communications and transportation hub.
Nagasaki possessed a large number of munitions factories.Years ago, one of the astronauts brought a complete TNG costume up to the ISS, there are pictures of her wearing it on the station.
Whose actions brought a early end to a war. they did the right thing for the right reason and are condemned by some for following some rule book in the process
As I said earlier, there's still a whole lot of people who still believe murdering hundreds of thousands of defenseless civilians in Hiroshima and Nagasaki is reasonable. Not to mention all the people who died later, slowly and ineffably painfully due to radiation poisoning. Those people were no threat to the United States, nor were those factories - factories that could be found in any major city at the time. The war was already over. The Japanese Navy was destroyed, the Home Islands were surrounded, and the Japanese army and air force was broken and shattered. But America wanted complete domination, to test its new weapon in battle, and to show the world the immense power of America's military. As was said and repeated at the time, the rest of the world wouldn't respect and fear America's nuclear weapons until their immense destructive power was demonstrated for all to see.

Nuking Hiroshima and Nagasaki wasn't any more necessary than slaughtering the majority of the Native Americans was. I'd go on, but I realize that if you're beginning from the position of "it's okay to kill hundreds of thousands of unarmed people," there's really nothing I can say to convince you otherwise. I have to say I'm disappointed though. I would've expected my fellow Trekkie to recognize that mass murder is wrong.
Tarses lied and deceived to achieve his personal goal of joining Starfleet, how noble of him.
Incredible. Tarses lied about his heritage because he knew Starfleet is bigoted and wouldn't let him join otherwise, and you think the problem here is Tarses? Astounding. Absolutely incredible. I suppose if, in the 1940s, a black man had fooled a bus driver into believing he was white, thus being allowed to sit at the front of the bus, the only problem you would have perceived would've been that black man's lie? Both Bashir and Tarses were Star Trek's versions of Rosa Parks.
 
Alrighty, been keeping an eye on this. Real-world examples are fine in context as examples, but for the purposes of this forum, let's keep the discussion focused on Trek. If you guys want to debate controversial real-world subjects (e.g., the morality of the atomic bomb), Miscellaneous or TNZ would be the appropriate forum.
 
Giving credit to Section 31 for the end of the war is ridiculous and just a flat out poor interpretation of the story. Poisoning the Founders gave Odo the opportunity to talk them down from purging Cardassia and fighting to the last man but it contributed in no way to the tactical victory. They won before the virus killed them.

America already has strong borders, the Trumps just want to put a melanin filter on the border, but I digress.

Tarses was punished for lying about his race, Picard pointed out it was wrong to destroy his career and assume he was colluding with the enemy because of it. It was not in anyway noble, but it was understandable fear of racism. If you think The Drumhead painted Tarses as noble, again, a very poor interpretation of the episode.
While I don't recall what reasons, if any, Tarses specified as his motivation for joining Starfleet, if his reasons were anything external to himself, such as "to serve the Federation," "to protect my home," or "to show the Federation that half-Romulans can serve with equal honor and distinction as full-blooded Humans," then Tarses reasons were selfless, and thus noble. Aside from that, I'll point out that Tarses went out of his way to join an organization of people who are prejudiced toward him, disguising his true heritage in order to prevent that prejudice, and he did so at great risk to himself, as we observed him being publically tried as an accused agent of Romulus, without anything but the most circumstantial evidence. He was nearly destroyed, even imprisoned, simply for the fact of his race. He knew that might happen. If you ask me, there's a certain degree of courage and thus nobility in doing something which you know may result in that.
 
If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

Sign up / Register


Back
Top