Was it really corruption in Sins of the Father?

[indolover]

I can see where K'mpec and the High Council were coming from. They probably thought that since Worf had grown up in the Federation, he was not fully Klingon and didn't expect a challenge. And as said in the episode, somebody had to be blamed.

Worf is one of my all time favourite Trek characters, so it surely sucked when he had to face dishonour just to keep the Empire from being divided.

 

[Mr. Laser Beam]

If anyone is blamed other than the person who was actually guilty, then by definition, there is corruption.

Worf was innocent. He did nothing wrong. Yet the Empire chose to discommendate him. Therefore the Empire must be corrupt. Corruption and truth cannot exist together.

 

[indolover]

He chose to be discommendation, and the High Council agreed. They did not force it on him. I just think it was an difficult situation, and not so black and white as to blame the High Council.

 

[Balrog]

^But the question is corruption. The council decided to blame Worf's father for the sake of protecting the family of a high-ranking family despite knowing the truth. They also worked out a back-room deal after the truth was learned and about to be made public. It doesn't matter that Worf's agreed to it. It's corruption.

 

[Worf'sParmach]

^But the question is corruption. The council decided to blame Worf's father for the sake of protecting the family of a high-ranking family despite knowing the truth. They also worked out a back-room deal after the truth was learned and about to be made public. It doesn't matter that Worf's agreed to it. It's corruption.

Agreed. K'mpec tells Worf that the reason they pinned it on his father was that because Worf lived outside the empire and they never expected him to challenge it and they never knew about Kurn. They knew it was Duras' father, but since he was powerful they figured they'd just stick it on the little guy who wouldn't say anything.

When Worf made the "back room deal" I think they presented it to him because with the new evidence they knew Worf was winning and they couldn't make this go away quietly. So Worf, being honorable to a fault sometimes, volunteered to take the hit to maintain the status quo. The initial corruption was the Council's, but Worf became a part of that corruption when he volunteered to accept discomendation (which he suggested, not them). He actually volunteered to let them kill him initially, but they would have had to kill Kurn also. So if your point is to say that Worf's dishonor was not entirely the Council's fault then I'd have to agree.

(Man, I love Netflix. Just went back and re-watched the ending to make sure I'm correct about how it happened. when I did, I noticed that K'mpec's forehead looks exactly like the Transformers logo. It's too much like it to be a coincidence.)

 

[TerragonSix]

He chose to be discommendation, and the High Council agreed. They did not force it on him. I just think it was an difficult situation, and not so black and white as to blame the High Council.

Something I've noticed in my lifetime - is that when people are faced with a difficult choice regarding the valid rights of an individual versus an establishment of any kind that has control and interests of a bigger group, I constantly hear the cries and arguments of 'The Greater Good'.

"The greater good must prevail, we must protect this group of people!"

But at what cost? At the cost of the individual? How ironic.

The main problems of the episode were, the Worf, approached by his Klingon brother about how his family name was dishonored, and as the elder brother, Worf was required to challenge the council, due to the fact that his father was not a traitor. However, it was found out that the council knew all along that Worf's father was not a traitor, and the person that brought the charges against him, his father was the traitor.

However, this persons family had high interest in the Klingon Council, and if the truth was told, the Klingon Empire could drop into Civil War. So, Worf would not be allowed to live. However, he accepted discommendation to live, as well as save the Klingon Empire.

So, I'm not certain what people are exactly protecting here; a government that was willing to kill an innocent man who was attempting to do an honorable thing, all, essestially, in the interests of protecting an institution all for the sake of keeping a race from falling into a civil war.

Now, some people say that's a worthy sacrifice, because in the end, it preserves the 'Greater Good'....

One man with morally justified actions, vs. a corrupt institution and billions of people that it serves under...

What if the number was 100?
Or, 1,000?
How about 10,000?

Hell, why not 100,000? Would killing 100,000 to protect an institution on the basis of 'Greater Good' ever be justifiable?

Where does the sacrifice for the 'Greater Good' end? When do we begin to say, 'No, we cannot commit this crime for the greater good, because it is not justified?'

I'm of the opinion, that an institution's rights and interests do not exceed the rights of an individual. In this case, I blame the accuser for dishonoring Worf's family, and I blame the Klingon Council for going along with it knowingly.

 

[Shatinator]

He chose to be discommendation, and the High Council agreed. They did not force it on him. I just think it was an difficult situation, and not so black and white as to blame the High Council.

He choose discommendation, as a substitute for execution.

 

[Timo]

The interesting thing is, would Mogh Senior willingly have accepted blame for the doings of Lorgh, Dad of Duras? We can't know because Mogh Senior supposedly was killed as the result of Lorgh's machinations (probably by Romulans, but possibly by Klingons as certain novels suggest) before getting the chance to tell, or possibly even decide. But Klingon honor rules are complex. Perhaps there would have been personal or family incentives for Mogh to protect Lorgh no matter what he did. Or perhaps Mogh's crown shines all the brighter in Klingon afterlife because he took the blame for another man's crimes, and didn't (have the chance to) boast on the fact?

In those cases, what the Council strongmen did could be perfectly positive and noble - or then devious and vile, depending more on their intentions than on what they actually did.

Where does the sacrifice for the 'Greater Good' end?

That's a valid question, and one that needs to be asked case by case. Sometimes the right number is zero. Sometimes it might be six billion. We have seen our heroes engage in supposed slaughter of trillions at times, as is fitting of a galaxy-spanning scifi realm.

Timo Saloniemi

 

[Worf'sParmach]

Great points! I don't know if you guys watch DS9 at all, but there is a great scene in season 7 where Ezri Dax addresses this issue of the Klingon Council and their corrupt form of honor. She forces Worf to take off the rose-colored glasses that he views the Empire through and see it for what it really is.

 

[BillJ]

She forces Worf to take off the rose-colored glasses that he views the Empire through and see it for what it really is.

If only we could get Trek fans to do the same.

 

[sonak]

um, of course it's corruption. They're forcing an innocent person to be blamed to cover the truth and protect their reputation and power. This is pretty much textbook corruption.


(judging by Klingon cultural standards, and leaving aside the nonsense of someone being "guilty" for something another family member did.

 

[Mojochi]

They supported the treason & treachery of the dishonorable house. By all definitions, that is corrupt, especially Klingon

 

[Ultramann]

When you say they are you referring to the Council or the Empire as a whole? Who exactly is it that is being accused and who is it that is being protected? These questions must be taken into account here.

 

[indolover]

He chose to be discommendation, and the High Council agreed. They did not force it on him. I just think it was an difficult situation, and not so black and white as to blame the High Council.

Something I've noticed in my lifetime - is that when people are faced with a difficult choice regarding the valid rights of an individual versus an establishment of any kind that has control and interests of a bigger group, I constantly hear the cries and arguments of 'The Greater Good'.

"The greater good must prevail, we must protect this group of people!"

But at what cost? At the cost of the individual? How ironic.

The main problems of the episode were, the Worf, approached by his Klingon brother about how his family name was dishonored, and as the elder brother, Worf was required to challenge the council, due to the fact that his father was not a traitor. However, it was found out that the council knew all along that Worf's father was not a traitor, and the person that brought the charges against him, his father was the traitor.

However, this persons family had high interest in the Klingon Council, and if the truth was told, the Klingon Empire could drop into Civil War. So, Worf would not be allowed to live. However, he accepted discommendation to live, as well as save the Klingon Empire.

So, I'm not certain what people are exactly protecting here; a government that was willing to kill an innocent man who was attempting to do an honorable thing, all, essestially, in the interests of protecting an institution all for the sake of keeping a race from falling into a civil war.

Now, some people say that's a worthy sacrifice, because in the end, it preserves the 'Greater Good'....

One man with morally justified actions, vs. a corrupt institution and billions of people that it serves under...

What if the number was 100?
Or, 1,000?
How about 10,000?

Hell, why not 100,000? Would killing 100,000 to protect an institution on the basis of 'Greater Good' ever be justifiable?

Where does the sacrifice for the 'Greater Good' end? When do we begin to say, 'No, we cannot commit this crime for the greater good, because it is not justified?'

I'm of the opinion, that an institution's rights and interests do not exceed the rights of an individual. In this case, I blame the accuser for dishonoring Worf's family, and I blame the Klingon Council for going along with it knowingly.

Whether Klingons would believe in, or care, about concepts of freedom is moot. I think at the outset, the High Council simply didn't know how "Klingon" Worf was, and in that sense were innocent. It is not really a black and white scenario.

 

[MacLeod]

Yes of course it was corruption. No matter how you slice or dice it, the Klingon High Council engaged in a cover-up. The only one that came out with their honour intact from the whole thing was Worf. (and I'm speaking metaphorically).

As it turns out at best all it did was buy something like 1.5 years before a civil war errupted. 1.5years for the Duras family to plot, schme and strengthen their position even more.

Ezri summed up the Empire fairly well, in some respects because Worf was raised outside of the Empiure he had a more idealised view of Klingon Honour.

 

[MikeS]

...
Now, some people say that's a worthy sacrifice, because in the end, it preserves the 'Greater Good'....

One man with morally justified actions, vs. a corrupt institution and billions of people that it serves under...

What if the number was 100?
Or, 1,000?
How about 10,000?

Hell, why not 100,000? Would killing 100,000 to protect an institution on the basis of 'Greater Good' ever be justifiable?

Where does the sacrifice for the 'Greater Good' end? When do we begin to say, 'No, we cannot commit this crime for the greater good, because it is not justified?'...

:- Captain Picard - Star Trek Insurrection.

A movie often derided on these boards for being "boring", but this speech is exactly why it is Star Trek at it's best.

 

[BillJ]

A movie often derided on these boards for being "boring", but this speech is exactly why it is Star Trek at it's best.

No, what it did was leave the audience with the impression that Picard is a self-righteous blowhard. One who violated multiple orders before he even knew what was going on, interfered with another commander's mission and blatantly violated the orders of his government.

I always thought this line from Insurrection perfectly sums up the problems with Picard's stance in the film:

I have to go back, if only to ...slow things down at the Federation Council.

It isn't the job of a starship captain to slow things down at the Federation Council (they're a body representative of 150 worlds). It's his job to carry out Federation policy, no matter how distasteful he may personally find it (see Journey's End). It shows how self-important Stewart and the writers' made Picard and is one of the reasons the TNG movies lost their way. Hell, Picard didn't even know the entire story before he began interfering with Dougherty's mission.

If Picard wants to slow things down at the Federation Council, then he needs to give up Starfleet and get elected as his worlds representative. His actions are no different than Admiral Leyton, he decided that his moral compass should override that of a democratically elected body.

EDIT: Another thread sucked down the dark, dark hole that is Star Trek: Insurrection.

 

[MikeS]

It isn't the job of a starship captain to slow things down at the Federation Council (they're a body representative of 150 worlds). It's his job to carry out Federation policy, no matter how distasteful he may personally find it (see Journey's End). It shows how self-important Stewart and the writers' made Picard and is one of the reasons the TNG movies lost their way. Hell, Picard didn't even know the entire story before he began interfering with Dougherty's mission.

The Nuremburg trials tell us we cannot use "only following orders" as an excuse for uprooting people, or worse.

EDIT: Another thread sucked down the dark, dark hole that is Star Trek: Insurrection.

Agreed
(Sorry to the OP)

 

[BillJ]

The Nuremburg trials tell us we cannot use "only following orders" as an excuse for uprooting people, or worse.

I'm sorry but the actions of the Federation in regards to the Ba'ku are quite different than the systematic extermination of seven million people. Not even remotely in the same ballpark.

Unlike those Nazi soldiers from many years ago who had little choice to either carry out orders or join the condemned in the "showers". Picard had many choices from resigning his commission to joining the government and fight for what's right. None of his decisions were going to cost him his life.

It's not his job as captain of the Enterprise to overrule his government. You cannot exist as an independent military moral entity in a military that has 150 distinct cultures as its base, not including non-aligned worlds who have representatives like the Ferengi and Klingons.

The relocation of the Ba'ku probably was dissected at the highest levels of both Starfleet and the Federation government, with passionate arguments both 'for' and 'against'. And in a democratic institution that has members from 150 distinct cultures, the 'pro' faction won out.

Picard took the stance that his personal morality was superior to those 150 representatives that make-up the Federation Council.

 

[MacLeod]

Starfleet General Order 1 aka The Prime Directive

Part of which alludes to non-interferrence in the internal affairs of other worlds

The Sona and Ba'ku where members of the same race, and the Sona disliked the fact that they had been kicked out. It seemed as if certain information which might have altered the Federation/Starfleets decison was withheld. So whilst they debated the resettlement of the Ba'Ku they did so without all the information.

Had they known the full extend of the relationship between the Sona and Ba'ku it is possible that it would appear to violate General Order 1 they might have said no.

Now as for Picard saying he has to go back if only to slow things down.

That could simply mean speaking to Councillors to make sure the issue is rasied within the council, as captain of the Flagship his voice would carry some weight.