Unethical Behavior of the Federation

[Navarro]

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.

I agree. I didn't mean for a discussion on that subject. I had originally meant only to cite it as an example in order to establish a pattern. I can't imagine how an in-depth exploration of Hiroshima and Nagasaki could contribute to the actual subject, the assumed morality of the Federation.

 

[Navarro]

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.

Choosing the lesser of two evils is still choosing evil. If an organization's version of "imperfection" is something which molests others in any form, especially by oppression, harm or death, then the "faults" of that organization could certainly be construed as evidence of "evil," and there are no doubt many organizations which could be defined in such a way. The Federation included. There will be many who will disagree with me, especially on this forum, Star Trek has spent far more time portraying the Federation in a positive light than a negative, and has spent the entirety of its time making us attached its Starfleet officers. Making us love those officers. Evil can be insidious in that way. As I said in the beginning, the Federation is an "empire, expanding by dagger and deception." As Picard once said, "villains who twirl their moustaches are easy to spot. Those who clothe themselves in good deeds are well camouflaged."

 

[Navarro]

All of this, and no mention of Starfleet's high rate of insanity and corruption among flag officers...?

I can only think of Captain Maxwell during DS9's The Wounded and Captain Kirk during TOS's The Enterprise Incident. Where, Kirk was only pretending to be insane. I suppose also, Captain Kirk, TOS's The Enemy Within, where a transporter accident separated Kirk into two psychologically half-Kirks. Maybe also Sisko, in every episode, because I always suspected he was insane. Who else is there?

 

[The Old Mixer]

There's a ton, it's a well-joked about Trek trope. Captain Tracey in "The Omega Glory" and the admiral in Insurrection come immediately to mind.

 

[Navarro]

There's a ton, it's a well-joked about Trek trope. Captain Tracey in "The Omega Glory" and the admiral in Insurrection come immediately to mind.

Great point. I suppose I'd forgotten about them. I could argue that the whole of Insurrection is forgettable, but The Omega Glory is a great episode. Forgetting Tracey is unforgiveable. I have to admit, I'm ashamed.

 

[The Old Mixer]

As a general rule, a lot of guest Starfleet types tend to be antagonists for story reasons, so put together they don't tend to paint a very pretty picture of the organization. The TOS films were particularly guilty starting with The Search for Spock of making it look like everyone else in Starfleet was an incompetent jerk to make our heroes look good.

 

[Paradise City]

The recurrence of delinquent Admirals is almost by accident. I think of it much like the red shirt mortality thing in TOS. It's just a device near at hand that the writers use in order to pin down a given plot on an episode by episode basis. The writers generally aren't intending to ask questions of the audience when they insert a bad/unwise Admiral into a story. That said, questions do arise of the remote bureaucratic mentality or of a demobbed captain that might become restless and frustrated and unwise behind a desk, so much so that they act up in the various ways.

But they do deliberately pose "the big question" when they ask us whether the Federation needs an unscrupulous security apparatus, such as Section 34, to sustain the Federation way of life. That's something that raises significant questions of the Federation and how Federation values are tested according to realpolitik that it may need a cloak & dagger outfit like Section 34 to step in and stand guard so that the Federation 'way of life' can be sustained against ruthless enemies that have little morality but possess equal power. Of course one might conclude that Section 34 is a peculiar outfit and an absolutely unnecessary obstruction within Federation life but I think that dismisses Sloan's points too easily.

 

[The Old Mixer]

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.

Never fear, Jerry and Elaine have a plan for getting him out.

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

 

[Vandervecken]

It's what is called a lose/lose situation.

Or in some precincts called Kobayashi Maru. No-win, lose/lose, sorta same.

Navarro, re Drumhead: Admiral Satee was completely discredited. You could say the system worked as far as destroying a monster like her; the society of the Federation, in the persons of Picard and Admiral Henry, brought her down, because Picard and then Henry saw she was an out-of-control mad dog in their midst. I think we can reasonably conclude that all her findings were re-examined, and that Tarses' situation was given a second look by those in control, especially Admiral Henry, who was clearly at his limit with Satee. Hah, Tarses probably got offered a plum intern spot in Section 31.

Remember the end of the episode? Picard pointed out to Worf that Satee's kind would always be with them, and that vigilance was their duty, always, to keep a watch for those like her. We're human Navarro, not Borg; there are always going to be aberrant individuals (and hell even the Borg got 'em), some not as obvious as others. That was part of what the episode was showing us. That doesn't indict us all. We are measured by how we deal with those aberrants. Satee is beaten, broken, and powerless by episode's end--would you have her executed? For abuse of agency? She's a defanged snake now, just a bitter old woman with zero influence and no even false-friends where she once held lives in her hands and sycophants fawned over her. Justice was done.



------


I will say that the whole few-good-men you-can't-handle-the-truth resolution to this ep felt weak to me--I just didn't believe she would break like that. But that's an argument about weak writing, not ethics.

 

[C.E. Evans]

Choosing the lesser of two evils is still choosing evil.

That's called life. Everything we touch has an evil side to it if you look at it close enough. Odds are, the clothes on your back--even the device you're using to connect to this message board--was made using a business practice that could be called evil by someone. So what do you do then?

 

[dswynne1]

With all these STAR TREK tributes out there, I found this latest deconstruction of the franchise interesting.

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P4KBPaS-1PU
I know that the franchise wanted to send a utopian message on tolerance and diversity, but I think the best way to see this piece from the perspective of non-Federation members.

 

[The Old Mixer]

Hmmm...since we have a fresh new thread about Unethical Behavior of the Federation, I think it would be best to fold this in with that one.

 

[Tenacity]

and the admiral in Insurrection come immediately to mind.

I don't think Admiral Dougherty was either insane or corrupt, nor do I think he was in collusion with the Sona. He was there as the representative of the Federation.

At some point he did lose control of the situation, Picard and crew, and the Sona, stopped listening to him. Shortly there after he was murdered.

 

[Navarro]

That's called life. Everything we touch has an evil side to it if you look at it close enough. Odds are, the clothes on your back--even the device you're using to connect to this message board--was made using a business practice that could be called evil by someone. So what do you do then?

That's true. If we were to write Kira into this argument against Federation morality, she might call us collaborators for supporting these "evil" organizations. "What do you do then" is an interesting question, because it's been asked repeatedly throughout history by people who've sought justice against some form of injustice, where those people weren't strong enough to easily overcome that injustice. They want to liberate themselves perhaps, as Kira's resistance did, but perceive themselves to be powerless to do so.

We observe negative aspects of the Federation, failures of its citizens and government to consistently uphold purely ethical values. Dukat will tell you how he meant for a much gentler, much more peaceful occupation, but was forced into performing his evils by the circumstances created by both the resistance and political leaders above him. Through rhetoric and deception, there's always a way to justify even the most horrific of deeds. We observe the same of the Federation, in ENT's Dear Doctor and elsewhere. Just because I couldn't provide a Federation resistance cell with the strategy they'd need to overcome the Federation's injustice, doesn't mean the Federation isn't unjust.

 

[Navarro]

The recurrence of delinquent Admirals is almost by accident. I think of it much like the red shirt mortality thing in TOS. It's just a device near at hand that the writers use in order to pin down a given plot on an episode by episode basis. The writers generally aren't intending to ask questions of the audience when they insert a bad/unwise Admiral into a story. That said, questions do arise of the remote bureaucratic mentality or of a demobbed captain that might become restless and frustrated and unwise behind a desk, so much so that they act up in the various ways.

But they do deliberately pose "the big question" when they ask us whether the Federation needs an unscrupulous security apparatus, such as Section 34, to sustain the Federation way of life. That's something that raises significant questions of the Federation and how Federation values are tested according to realpolitik that it may need a cloak & dagger outfit like Section 34 to step in and stand guard so that the Federation 'way of life' can be sustained against ruthless enemies that have little morality but possess equal power. Of course one might conclude that Section 34 is a peculiar outfit and an absolutely unnecessary obstruction within Federation life but I think that dismisses Sloan's points too easily.

You perceive the Federation's behavior to be a necessary evil. I disagree. I fail to see how the genocide of the Founders was necessary, let alone the genocide committed by Archer and Phlox. With the right rhetoric, you can justify anything. That however doesn't mean that what you've done is just. Things like genocide and oppression are never the acts of a benevolent people, and that's why the Federation is not the benevolent organization Star Trek suggests it to be.

 

[Navarro]

As a general rule, a lot of guest Starfleet types tend to be antagonists for story reasons, so put together they don't tend to paint a very pretty picture of the organization. The TOS films were particularly guilty starting with The Search for Spock of making it look like everyone else in Starfleet was an incompetent jerk to make our heroes look good.

Yes, these Federation has time and again sacrificed its morality for the purpose of telling a good story. Never the less, if we are to judge a fictitious organization, we can only do so by evaluating the stories that have been written about it.

 

[DonIago]

Of course, we're given a biased perspective, much as on forums people tend to be more quick to post negative comments than to say "Good job, I agree!"

 

[C.E. Evans]

That's true. If we were to write Kira into this argument against Federation morality, she might call us collaborators for supporting these "evil" organizations. "What do you do then" is an interesting question, because it's been asked repeatedly throughout history by people who've sought justice against some form of injustice, where those people weren't strong enough to easily overcome that injustice. They want to liberate themselves perhaps, as Kira's resistance did, but perceive themselves to be powerless to do so.

We observe negative aspects of the Federation, failures of its citizens and government to consistently uphold purely ethical values. Dukat will tell you how he meant for a much gentler, much more peaceful occupation, but was forced into performing his evils by the circumstances created by both the resistance and political leaders above him. Through rhetoric and deception, there's always a way to justify even the most horrific of deeds. We observe the same of the Federation, in ENT's Dear Doctor and elsewhere. Just because I couldn't provide a Federation resistance cell with the strategy they'd need to overcome the Federation's injustice, doesn't mean the Federation isn't unjust.

By that token, there's no such thing as a just nation--never has been, never will be. Even a nation that declares itself neutral in a conflict can be condemned by some as evil for turning a blind eye to injustices.

 

[mos6507]

On the other side, those who are evil never think of themselves as evil. Not to evoke Godwin's law, but read the last will and testament of Hitler some time. He absolves himself of any and all guilt for the entire war.

http://www.auschwitz.dk/Will.htm

It's kind of an internet parlor trick to argue that good guys are evil or evil guys are good in order to trigger a pro/con argument (usually devolving into flamewars).

The bottom line is that good and evil are really an artificial construct of human psychology. It's an extremely important one, but you'll never ever get everyone to agree on where to draw the line.

 

[Navarro]

By that token, there's no such thing as a just nation--never has been, never will be. Even a nation that declares itself neutral in a conflict can be condemned by some as evil for turning a blind eye to injustices.

Very true. Interpretation of such things are a matter of opinion and personal philosophy, as I've pointed out earlier. For instance, there remarks on such things as slavery once being a popular circumstance. Where, I compared such matters to events occurring today, such as where people are being locked in cages for smoking plants. Absolutely barbaric. If you ask me, so too is killing in any form unless it's necessary to prevent the harm or oppression of others. If someone points a pistol at me today and announces their intention to kill me, I absolutely welcome any policeman to shoot that person. However, if you're going to kill other people, If you're going to kill another human being, I think you better have a real good reason for doing so, and that you should be absolutely certain about the authenticity of the information and the accuracy of the analysis of that information which you've used to justify killing. As such, remaining neutral isn't necessary unethical. If you're not certain which option is the ethical choice, or if you're not strong enough to overcome your unethical foe, it may be wise to not commit yourself.

But yes, a neutral nation could be argued to be "evil" for its neutrality. Anything could be argued to be "evil" for any reason, but at the end of the day what's "good" and "evil" isn't universally agreed upon. Ethics is a matter of opinion. It's also a matter of perspective, including whether or not the individual has placed any thought into the subject in order to have a well developed perspective. Consider conscription for instance. Many nations, including the United States until very recently, would compel its citizens to serve in its military. Many nations still practice this, and the United States reserves the right to resume the Draft if the government deems it necessary. However, conscription is the act of forcing people to perform labor, which is slavery. I can't be sure, but I don't think conscripts/draftees typically regarded themselves to be slaves. They just never considered it, or maybe they would disagree, arguing that they're were/are still free, despite that they lack the freedom to stop performing the labor demanded of them. The world is filled with these things. Things that people don't put much thought in, and other things where people can't agree on the interpretation.

Is spanking a child ethical? That is, a large adult physically striking a small, helpless child, or as it could otherwise be perceived, a parent disciplining their child in order to correct their behavior to the end of education and forming a more decent future adult. A matter of opinion. Is contraception evil? Also a matter of opinion. Is the Federation ethical in this instances I've cited in this thread? I don't believe it is, but as you can see from the responses in this thread, not everyone agrees with that judgement. It's fitting, I think, considering the TNG series so often concerned itself with ethical dilemma and debate.