Unethical Behavior of the Federation

[Navarro]

Your argument isn't, the overall picture here is, it wasn't a criticism, more an neutral observation.

My case is that the Federation has never been meant to be perfect, it's a backdrop for ethical dilemnas, which requires people to be trying to do the right thing but not always sure what that is. Those dilemnas are intended to make us think.

Clearly in your case it has worked, as you are looking very closely at the moral implications and drawing some well thought out conclusions. Where this becomes circular (perhaps wrong choice of words) is that the very fact of you posting this thread is indicative of the show having done it's job. You are stating the Federation is far from perfect, and I completely agree, but in doing so you are effectively standing as an example of exactly what the show is trying to achieve, intelligent people asking questions that reflect the world we live in without the emotional baggage of being directly about that world.

Oh I see. I thought you meant a circular argument, as in "The bible is the word of god because it says so." What you say about Trek though, is a very big part of why I love it so much. I think there's a lot of Star Trek in me. It had an enormous impact on who I became, largely shaping me. Many have said that, and I agree that seemed to be what Roddenberry was after. He didn't just want to show us men going boldly where no man had gone before. He wanted to take us there with them, in more ways than one.

It's a shame these new reboot films don't have someone like Roddenberry behind them. They're not exactly very inspirational or educational.

 

[The Old Mixer]

I agree with you. It's my opinion that the Federation was always meant to appear superior to our own society however, but not necessarily perfect. Had it been perfect, there wouldn't have been a bigoted Stiles to direct his hate at Spock. Nor would Kirk have had the opportunity to stand up for Spock, being the excellent role-model for those who grew up watching him, and those older who were wise enough to learn from him. Simultaneously, I think there've been many imperfections within the Federation which weren't consciously planned.

Yet, placing a black woman in an officers uniform and setting her down on the bridge, making an entirely different species the executive officer of thousands of human men and women alike, the first interracial kiss, Kirk's homosexual nephew - Star Trek seemed to absolutely be trying to show us an example of a society superior to our own, kinder and gentler than our own, but in my opinion, Star Trek sometimes dropped the ball, but more often it was the Federation which dropped the ball. Often, we find the Federation standing for something which is wrong, at least in that instance, or our heroes doing something very controversial, like the Tuvix situation. Kirk often disregarded the Prime Directive, as you know, and I think often there was an intended lesson - that we shouldn't just unthinkingly accept authority, rules and laws. We should think about what we're required to do, and make sure it's the right thing to do before doing it. You know, the old adage about how the Nazis "were just following orders too." Meanwhile, DS9's episode "Tuvix" didn't seem to suggest whether or not what Janeway did, and what the crew supported, was right. It seems to leave it up to the viewer to think about and decide on. For that reason, I found "Tuvix" to be a great episode.

Yet, the topic of the thread wasn't whether or not the Star Trek is entertaining, which I think it is. It's whether or not the Federation is ethical, which I think it isn't. Where's my argument been circular by the way?

You're right, and I understand that. Star Trek has always made it a priority to educate its viewers, especially when it comes to its attempt to eradicate any racism or xenophobia we might have. My posts however aren't a criticism of that, nor a criticism of Star Trek's writers and producers. My message has simply been that the Federation did stand for and do bad things at times. Sure, I've no doubt that those writers and producers may have meant to make us think when they created Section 31, born from the Federation Charter, so that the Federation could have an organization doing the dirty work, like genocide, while the Federation's image remains untarnished. Never the less, those things are true about the Federation, and thus the Federation is arguably unethical.

Correct. I made a mistake there.

When innocent people are suffering, dying and being oppressed as a result of the state, now matter how much superior it might be to another state, it's never "good enough." A state which commits genocide, forced relocation, and so forth, is not "good enough."

Please use the multi-quote feature (the "+ Quote" option you'll find on the bottom right of the posts you're responding to) to respond to multiple parties in a single post. We generally discourage posting more than twice in a row in the same thread.

Also...

I'm beginning to think the true reason you believe this question of Federation ethics is "irrelevant" is because you're secretly a Borg, as Borg often find things "irrelevant." But the Borg are also often wrong. Every time the Borg say "resistance is futile," they're proven wrong. You Borg should really be more careful about your predictions, because it's beginning to harm your empire's credibility.

I think this was meant humorously, but let's be careful not to cross the line into flaming other posters. One of the golden rules around here is "the post, not the poster".

Thanks.

 

[Bad Thoughts]

I understand where you're coming from. The only character which truly seemed to behave as a platform for ethical debate and contemplation, known for consistently and frequently standing up for what's right, and also for making some very compelling speeches in doing so, was TNG's Picard. Never the less, I think ethics is always "relevant." You don't have to intend to prompt consideration of a thing, for such things to be considered.

I am not claiming that ethics is not important, but only one series portrayed, or attempted to portray, humanity's future with an unimpeachable morality. The others would be content, and arguably, be better for using the characters to explore ethics. IMO, a character who is perfect, without moral missteps, leaves no meaningful examples of what it takes to be a moral human being. We got more out of the exploration of Kirk's "Obsession" than we did out of Data (and Picard's) approach to Kila Marr.

I'm beginning to think the true reason you believe this question of Federation ethics is "irrelevant" is because you're secretly a Borg, as Borg often find things "irrelevant." But the Borg are also often wrong. Every time the Borg say "resistance is futile," they're proven wrong. You Borg should really be more careful about your predictions, because it's beginning to harm your empire's credibility.

Yeah, sure, ok, whatever.

 

[Doom Shepherd]

I'm beginning to think the true reason you believe this question of Federation ethics is "irrelevant" is because you're secretly a Borg

Says the guy who's demanding Perfection.
{Insert parable about paying attention to the interplexing beacon in one's own eye before worrying about the nanoprobes in someone else's here)

 

[Tracy Trek]

She said, "Space must have seemed a whole lot bigger back then. It's not surprising they had to bend the rules a little. They were a little slower to invoke the Prime Directive, and a little quicker to pull their phasers. Of course, the whole bunch of them would be booted out of Starfleet today.

I find that ironic coming from Janeway. She bent and broke the PD many times. And then punished others for doing the same.

 

[fireproof78]

Oh I see. I thought you meant a circular argument, as in "The bible is the word of god because it says so." What you say about Trek though, is a very big part of why I love it so much. I think there's a lot of Star Trek in me. It had an enormous impact on who I became, largely shaping me. Many have said that, and I agree that seemed to be what Roddenberry was after. He didn't just want to show us men going boldly where no man had gone before. He wanted to take us there with them, in more ways than one.

It's a shame these new reboot films don't have someone like Roddenberry behind them. They're not exactly very inspirational or educational.

I think that they have more to say than they are given credit for, and have as much to add to the commentary as any other Star Trek incarnation.

Maybe GR would have done it differently (I doubt it, but that's my opinion) but I think that the optimism that he wanted is very much present, and is the cornerstone of the Kelvin-universe.

I love the comment on Kirk that I heard once that states something like Kirk is a flawed man and those flaws can blind him to qualities in others. But, Kirk is not blind to the flaw itself.

The reason why I struggle with Picard's point of view is the fact that his claim that he is "evolved" which means that his POV should be considered better than my own, the humble viewer. But, as this thread has illustrated, their are numerous instances of poor decision making or unethical behavior. So, it makes me skeptical, to say the least, of the Federation's POV.

 

[JasonJ]

I just finished rewatching the "Dear,Doctor" episode of Enterprise.

Definitely a conundrum of ethics. I am reminded however of Phlox's hypothetical about an ancient alien species giving an evolutionary advantage to Neanderthals... I think it's a good point. The central issue, I think, in that example is whether or not we should intervene in the "natural evolutionary process" of a planet, just because we can, whether or not they asked for it.

On one hand, the fact that they are pre-warp but still capable of asking for help, seems to suggest that we should. But, what if Enterprise never encountered the scout ship? What if they changed course 2 degrees a few light years back to avoid some space turbulance.... that ship would have drifted through space with a few corpses inside, we never would have gotten pulled into the Valakian/Menk scenario... nature would have played out and the Valakians would have either gone extinct while the Menk rose up evolutionarily, or the two species would have balanced out as equals (not likely, they at best would have diverged like the Vulcans and Romulans).

Definitely Star Trek presents some ethical dilemmas at times.. and often enough StarFleet/The Federation or the crew of the episode makes the wrong decision. What bothers me more than those failed decisions is that, mainly in TOS and TNG, Kirk and Picard make humanity out to be so perfect, so evolved, and so superior to the way we were, and often to other species... and that hubris feels awkward and wrong.

 

[Tenacity]

Janeway: " Of course, the whole bunch of them would be booted out of Starfleet today."

Which has more to say in the negative of the 24th century Starfleet, than it does the 23rd. It kind of ties into the 24th century's interpetation of the PD too, Starfleet evolved into a organization that's aim point is somekind of philosophically pure group. With Picard as it's (supposed) poster boy. Pure and shiney clean, but in truth more than a little ethically dead inside.