• 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

...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)

Picard wasn't a bigot; he was going through PTSD. A bigot just hates because he feels better than. And he doesn't change his mind when it's pointed out to him.

What I find interesting is how much people seek out bigotry as some badge of humanity when they're utterly disgusted by it directed at them.

Picard and those folks are better than we are, as we're better than the America that used slave labor and committed genocide. Not physically -- socially. And we can always go back.

For me, the challenge is to get there, forward, rather than feed my own prejudices. Which I have like anyone, and find are easy to indulge the older you get.
 
Picard wasn't a bigot; he was going through PTSD. A bigot just hates because he feels better than. And he doesn't change his mind when it's pointed out to him.

What I find interesting is how much people seek out bigotry as some badge of humanity when they're utterly disgusted by it directed at them.

Picard and those folks are better than we are, as we're better than the America that used slave labor and committed genocide. Not physically -- socially. And we can always go back.

For me, the challenge is to get there, forward, rather than feed my own prejudices. Which I have like anyone, and find are easy to indulge the older you get.
I agree that Picard didn't appear to be a bigot. You however go on to say "Picard and those folks are better than we are, as we're better than the America that used slave labor and committed genocide." Are we? You're sure about that? As I pointed out earlier, the America the committed genocide against the natives, and the America that enslaved other human beings, believed in what they were doing at the time. Custer, the hero of the Indian Wars, first gained notoriety by scouting native villages and when the men left to hunt or to patrol, Colonel Custer and his men would attack those villages, slaughtering the unarmed women, children and elderly that had been left behind, raping those women if they had time and allowing some of them to live so that they may spread their demoralizing stories among the other tribes. Then they burned the villages to the ground, and escaped before the native men could return. His soldiers thought this was great. Such brutal efficiency against the savages was something to cheer, they thought. The American public thought Custer and his men to be heroes.

These things are always a matter of hindsight. No nation ever goes into a war recognizing themselves to be "the bad guys." Nations time and again perform monstrous deeds, but the people always believe their "home team" to be just. If you were to travel a thousand years into the future today, are you quite certain that history will remember modern America as "better" than those times of slavery? America's biological warfare against the natives. The American government's nightmarish human experiments throughout the early and mid 21st Century. America's concentration camps during WW2. America's enslavement of its fighting age population via the conscription, or "The Draft," where men were forced to perform labor and hadn't the freedom to refuse - again, slavery. Just a few decades ago. Human beings are currently being locked in cages, for years, for smoking plants. So far this century, the United States has attacked (invaded, bombed or otherwise militarily assaulted) Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Yemen, Pakistan, Somalia, and Syria, to name a few. Of course, America doesn't think of it as "wars," "invasions" "aggression" or "attacks." American rhetoric would prefer you think of it more along the lines of "intervention." How sure are you, really, that a thousand years from now historians won't perceive the modern American population in precisely the same way as they perceived Americans during the times of slavery and the Indian Wars? Are you really so sure that America is "better" as you say?

The Germans didn't think of themselves as the "bad guys" during WW2, the British didn't think they were the bad guys when over the course of history, the British Empire invaded all but 22 countries. Only 22 countries of the current 196 countries in the world today never faced a British invasion. History repeats itself, over and over again. The world turned out to be a place filled with nothing but "good guys," and yet all of these "good guys" were doing very bad things, endlessly, over and over again. But the people of none of these nations recognized their evils at the time. I wouldn't be sure that America, or any country, is morally superior or "better" than it was at any other time in its history. Since the people have consistently shown time and again that they're incapable of recognizing their evils while they're committing them, only history can be the judge of the present.

The very same holds true with the Federation, which is a culture that's a reflection of our own. The Federation's citizens don't recognize the myriad warning signs that there's something very wrong with their way of doing things, nor do very many of Star Trek's viewers, because the problems of the Federation is too similar to the problems of our modern societies. The Federation citizens can't step back to analyze the big picture, because they're standing in the middle of that picture, and the viewers can't step back either for the very same reasons. Think about it, just for a moment: Archer saw a species writhing in pain and profound misery, because a genetic disorder for which they hadn't a cure was killing off their entire species. Their futures held nothing but misery and a slow extinction. Archer had the cure. Archer chose not to give it to them. He withheld it; kept it a secret. All because he didn't want to "play god." A species which had never been known to wrong anybody, was judged worthy of a painful death an extinction by Archer. By Starfleet's hero. If these are the people that're "better" than us, then what nightmarish form of monster are we?
 
You however go on to say "Picard and those folks are better than we are, as we're better than the America that used slave labor and committed genocide." Are we? You're sure about that?

Yes. I don't have an exaggerated opinion of American exceptionalism. But I also don't think it's wise to nihilistically disregard progress achieved. Look at the rest of my paragraph.

If these are the people that're "better" than us, then what nightmarish form of monster are we?

All in all, still not as good as they. At least, depending on which episode you're watching. The interpretation of the Prime Directive in the case of natural disasters is probably the most troubling philosophy in Trek. It's basically religion overruling sense, and if any of Trek's old ideas need reimagining, it's that one. But that aside, go ahead and compare the Federation to us.
 
To me the OP here is indicative of the very point being raised in a curiously circular way. I'm not sure we've ever really been expected to see the federation as being in any way superior or perfect. Picard and his crew have a tendency to see it that way but that doesn't mean we have to, nor should we. The fact the OP has clearly put so much thought into this is in fact EXACTLY the intended result. Discussions like this are what the show should provoke.

Trek at its best has us asking questions, thinking about issues, not simply showing us some model of perfection or preaching a certain viewpoint. In universe the federation has its prime directive, but it doesn't follow that the take home message for the viewer is a blanket endorsement of non intervention. As several here have pointed out, many episodes seem to cast the PD in a rather poor light (see "Homeward"), with characters periodically coming to the same conclusion (see TOS - every other episode).

Other episodes have tended to divide viewers with regards to the decisions captains make, "Tuvix" and "I Borg" being commonly discussed examples. This is good, an intelligent morality play needn't be direct or categorical, what matters is that people come away thinking about things in a way they wouldn't have otherwise. If those moral questions were easy to answer, they would not be worth asking, nor would they make a TV show that enters the public consciousness the way Trek has done.

I don't want to see a flawless utopian society that is never open to criticism, I want a society based on flawed people trying to make sense of life and the problems it throws at them.
 
The question about the ethics of Trek as portrayed is really only relevant to one of its series: TNG. The view of perfected humanity that had resolved its inner turmoil and, as a result, had achieved an ethical dominance in interspecies relations was something GR loaded on during the mid- to late 1980s. It was not relevant to TOS, despite the ethical considerations. It was either rejected or complicated by DS9. VOY was not really positioned to explore it. And ENT was set in such a way that the 24th century GR imagined was not relevant.
 
"The human adventure is just beginning"

One of the overriding concepts that was continuously explored in every single series and in most of the films is that human beings, particularly by the time of the original series are well-meaning, but flawed, illogical creatures. Star Trek has always been about giving something to aspire to while still being relatable to the modern day, otherwise it would be sterile, relentlessly pontificating and completely detached from the modern world we live in now.
You highlight events in Star Trek as depictions of "evil" and then using a broad brush loaded with hyperbole declare that the Federation is an evil empire. Instead I would contend that, much as old GR intended, those examples were meant as warnings and reminders.
In looking for perfection, you're overlooking greatness.
 
I find it amusing that present day folks have to feel guilty for the stuff that happened in the past, and that present day folks have to seek redemption for the sins of the past. BULL. Bad things happened, and EVERYONE engage in conquest of EVERYONE ELSE. If you want to wallow in guilt, then shut the door to your room, crawl under the bed and stay there. The rest of us will learn from the past in order to build a BETTER future. THAT is the STAR TREK way.
 
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.

And this is why I am a TOS fan first and foremost, and have never finished Voyager or Enterprise..... you knew that the TOS crew was going to do what was RIGHT, rules be damned. You know for damned sure that Kirk would have cured those aliens *and* made sure the other species had a bright future. Kirk wasn't racist; he had personal issues that began with the death of his son; issues that he dealt with and *got over.* He could have had war with the Klingons, but still did *what was right.*
 
To me the OP here is indicative of the very point being raised in a curiously circular way. I'm not sure we've ever really been expected to see the federation as being in any way superior or perfect. Picard and his crew have a tendency to see it that way but that doesn't mean we have to, nor should we. The fact the OP has clearly put so much thought into this is in fact EXACTLY the intended result. Discussions like this are what the show should provoke.

Trek at its best has us asking questions, thinking about issues, not simply showing us some model of perfection or preaching a certain viewpoint. In universe the federation has its prime directive, but it doesn't follow that the take home message for the viewer is a blanket endorsement of non intervention. As several here have pointed out, many episodes seem to cast the PD in a rather poor light (see "Homeward"), with characters periodically coming to the same conclusion (see TOS - every other episode).

Other episodes have tended to divide viewers with regards to the decisions captains make, "Tuvix" and "I Borg" being commonly discussed examples. This is good, an intelligent morality play needn't be direct or categorical, what matters is that people come away thinking about things in a way they wouldn't have otherwise. If those moral questions were easy to answer, they would not be worth asking, nor would they make a TV show that enters the public consciousness the way Trek has done.

I don't want to see a flawless utopian society that is never open to criticism, I want a society based on flawed people trying to make sense of life and the problems it throws at them.
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?
 
"The human adventure is just beginning"

One of the overriding concepts that was continuously explored in every single series and in most of the films is that human beings, particularly by the time of the original series are well-meaning, but flawed, illogical creatures. Star Trek has always been about giving something to aspire to while still being relatable to the modern day, otherwise it would be sterile, relentlessly pontificating and completely detached from the modern world we live in now.
You highlight events in Star Trek as depictions of "evil" and then using a broad brush loaded with hyperbole declare that the Federation is an evil empire. Instead I would contend that, much as old GR intended, those examples were meant as warnings and reminders.
In looking for perfection, you're overlooking greatness.
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.
 
This thread is a great example of letting perfection be the enemy of good enough.
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."
 
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.

That was never in any Star Trek canon - just New Voyages odd take on things. Kirk's nephew was a child in Operation Annihilate.
 
Last edited:
The question about the ethics of Trek as portrayed is really only relevant to one of its series: TNG. The view of perfected humanity that had resolved its inner turmoil and, as a result, had achieved an ethical dominance in interspecies relations was something GR loaded on during the mid- to late 1980s. It was not relevant to TOS, despite the ethical considerations. It was either rejected or complicated by DS9. VOY was not really positioned to explore it. And ENT was set in such a way that the 24th century GR imagined was not relevant.
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.

The Chinese are known for their diet which sometimes includes cats and dogs, especially with regard to some of China's "Food Festivals." There are those who will argue that it's atrocious that they should these creatures which we in the west perceive as our fury friends. There are also those who will argue that our dining on cows and chickens in the west is little or no different from their dining on cats and dogs. "Why should being 'cute a fury' make it inexcusable to eat them?" Then there's those who'd present the counter-argument that cats and dogs are more intelligent than cows and chickens, and thus are rightly thought of differently in western culture. Are all these arguments invalid, simply because the Chinese don't intend to inspire a debate through their preferences in cuisine? I don't think so.

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.

"Resistance...is not futile?" -Hugh
 
[QUOTE="Navarro, post: 11752106, member: 73117"

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.

That was never in any Star Trek canon - just New Voyages odd take on things. Kirk's nephew was a child in Operation Annihilate.[/QUOTE]
Oh, you're right. My apologies. I suppose that love making scene would've after all been a little much for sixties network television.
 
I find it amusing that present day folks have to feel guilty for the stuff that happened in the past, and that present day folks have to seek redemption for the sins of the past. BULL. Bad things happened, and EVERYONE engage in conquest of EVERYONE ELSE. If you want to wallow in guilt, then shut the door to your room, crawl under the bed and stay there. The rest of us will learn from the past in order to build a BETTER future. THAT is the STAR TREK way.
What makes you so certain that they're feeling remorse as opposed to imitating remorse to the end projecting an appearance which is a reflection of the "ideal" character who they'd like for you to believe them to be? In other words, what makes you think they're not pretending, because the soap box of political correctness can be a "cool" place to be?
 
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?

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.
 
And this is why I am a TOS fan first and foremost, and have never finished Voyager or Enterprise..... you knew that the TOS crew was going to do what was RIGHT, rules be damned. You know for damned sure that Kirk would have cured those aliens *and* made sure the other species had a bright future. Kirk wasn't racist; he had personal issues that began with the death of his son; issues that he dealt with and *got over.* He could have had war with the Klingons, but still did *what was right.*
I'm reminded of the Voyager episode "Flashback," where Janeway spoke of the different breed of officers that Starfleet had in the TOS era. 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. But I have to admit, I would have loved to ride shotgun at least once with a group of officers like that." Janeway seemed to think of Kirk, McCoy and the bunch as "cowboys." So does Starfleet in her era. They don't appreciate Kirks. They'd be "booted out" in her era.

I disagree that Kirk wasn't racist though. If you don't trust an entire ethnicity of people, then that prejudice, also known as racism. He may not have been racist before the death of his son, and he may have overcome that racism, but at least for a time, Kirk was racist. That was the movie era though, not the TOS era. We saw a very different Kirk in the movie era. Think about Star Trek: The Motion Picture. A main theme of the movie was that Kirk's a petty jerk. He was a complete douche to Captain Decker, stealing his command and so forth. I've wondered what Shatner's fellow cast members thought about that - whether or not they thought it was ironic, since they tell similar stories about Shatner being a jerk to them, stealing the show from them.

Ever hear the story Wil Wheaton tells about the time he met Shatner?
To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.
 
If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

Sign up / Register


Back
Top