Was Spock wrong to abandon the Rigel colonies?

[Timo]

Another interesting question to ask is whether the heroes really had a duty to help the Rigel colony.

It might be strategically wise to feed Rigel to the DDM so that Starfleet could get the time to work out some sort of a response. This would be callous in any case, and would probably be illegal if the Rigel colony were a UFP system our heroes had sworn to protect. But there's no indication that the Rigel colony would be a Fed location; the L systems appear to be distant from the UFP, which doesn't work if they are proximal to a major Federation colony of millions (as opposed to a random outlying settlement of a hundred luddite isolationists or grumpy miners or whatnot).

Do our heroes have the duty to protect random foreign life? Even if doing so means going against the interests of other random foreign life? In this case, things are simplified because stopping the DDM doesn't require directly killing any life as they know it, Jim. But one can't realistically expect Kirk to be tasked with gunning down Death wherever He appears. People die, planets die, civilizations die. Sometimes there's a Starfleet starship there to witness it happen, but usually there isn't.

Enter "Paradise Syndrome" where our heroes make exceptional effort to save a random planet from an asteroid, even though the next one will probably catch them anyway, and "they" are a tiny bunch of transplants in the first place. Is this what Starfleet requires of our heroes? Or does Spock go beyond the call of duty in crippling his ship, and would Starfleet have been satisfied with Spock flying back to the planet, searching for Kirk (and perhaps finding and rescuing him), and then leaving the planet to be destroyed? (Would it have been destroyed? Or would the Obelisk have protected it, quite regardless of whether there was a trained Medicine Man there, and the only reason it didn't was because Kirk had pressed some sort of a snooze button - or even because it was in any case only going to do the deflecting at the very last minute?)

Many if not most of the planets in jeopardy in TOS are either unidentified in their affiliation, or established not to be Federation worlds. Kirk helps them nevertheless - but almost invariably only because the threat of the week makes the mistake of also threatening Kirk or his crew directly. Kirk's first duty might still be for the Federation, and that might very well call for feeding the Rigel colonists to the interstellar wolves.

Timo Saloniemi

 

[YARN]

Another interesting question to ask is whether the heroes really had a duty to help the Rigel colony.

It might be strategically wise to feed Rigel to the DDM so that Starfleet could get the time to work out some sort of a response. This would be callous in any case, and would probably be illegal if the Rigel colony were a UFP system our heroes had sworn to protect.

"The Redeker Plan" for Rigel eh?

If we are simply Act Utilitarians, perhaps yes, but if we ARE Act Utilitarians, our ONLY duty is to maximize Utility, we have no other particular duties (to tell the truth, or to save Rigelians, or to keep promises).

If we are hard deontologists, on the other hand, and have a duty to protect Federation planets regardless of personal risk or injury, then practical considerations such as these do not even enter into our thinking.

Example: Someone breaks into your house at 3 AM. He's got a scary gun of some sort and you've got nothing. Some of your children are down the hall and that is right where he is heading.

Most of us would not "feed" the children at the end the hall to the bad guy to save the rest of the family in the basement or in another wing of the house. Most would feel a duty to act, even if this means death. This is how Decker appears to be looking at it.

But there's no indication that the Rigel colony would be a Fed location; the L systems appear to be distant from the UFP, which doesn't work if they are proximal to a major Federation colony of millions (as opposed to a random outlying settlement of a hundred luddite isolationists or grumpy miners or whatnot).

Do our heroes have the duty to protect random foreign life? Even if doing so means going against the interests of other random foreign life? In this case, things are simplified because stopping the DDM doesn't require directly killing any life as they know it, Jim. But one can't realistically expect Kirk to be tasked with gunning down Death wherever He appears. People die, planets die, civilizations die. Sometimes there's a Starfleet starship there to witness it happen, but usually there isn't.

I don't think that we, the audience, are supposed to be hip to the in's and out's of colonial alpha-numeric ID's.

What we do know is that Decker identifies Rigel as a Federation Planet and that millions will die if they let it reach Rigel. Spock accepts the latter statement as a fact. Decker also states that their primary duty is to maintain the life and safety of Federation Planets.

Narrative argument: If Rigel is not a Federation world and they have no such duty, you significantly diminish the tension (the moral dilemma).

Enter "Paradise Syndrome" where our heroes make exceptional effort to save a random planet from an asteroid, even though the next one will probably catch them anyway, and "they" are a tiny bunch of transplants in the first place. Is this what Starfleet requires of our heroes? Or does Spock go beyond the call of duty in crippling his ship, and would Starfleet have been satisfied with Spock flying back to the planet, searching for Kirk (and perhaps finding and rescuing him), and then leaving the planet to be destroyed? (Would it have been destroyed? Or would the Obelisk have protected it, quite regardless of whether there was a trained Medicine Man there, and the only reason it didn't was because Kirk had pressed some sort of a snooze button - or even because it was in any case only going to do the deflecting at the very last minute?)

LOL

Yeah, they'll break all the rules when it is one of their own (and by this I mean "officers"), but if your a stranger they might watch you die and offer philosophical epitaph before zipping off to the next episode.

Many if not most of the planets in jeopardy in TOS are either unidentified in their affiliation, or established not to be Federation worlds. Kirk helps them nevertheless - but almost invariably only because the threat of the week makes the mistake of also threatening Kirk or his crew directly. Kirk's first duty might still be for the Federation, and that might very well call for feeding the Rigel colonists to the interstellar wolves.

Timo Saloniemi

Interesting, but Rigel is clearly a UFP planet that they have specific duties to defend.

Spock's rational is not one that really denies this. He simply maintains that if it is impossible to perform a duty in an instance, you have no burden to perform that duty in that instance (i.e., "ought" implies "can)".

 

[Timo]

To be sure, the Rigel colony is not directly identified as a Federation planet. Decker simply says that their duty is to maintain life and safety of Federation planets. Theoretically, that might be best achieved by stopping the DDM during its attack on the Rigel colony, or then by feeding the colony to the DDM...

We don't know whether Decker is working from the concept of duty here, or defending his obsession by referring to duty. If the latter, the facts of the matter are probably bent a little to accommodate his goals. But Spock could well be swayed even by a dishonest argument: saving the colonists could become his goal thanks to Decker's argument, but for different reasons than those offered by Decker.

Timo Saloniemi

 

[YARN]

To be sure, the Rigel colony is not directly identified as a Federation planet. Decker simply says that their duty is to maintain life and safety of Federation planets. Theoretically, that might be best achieved by stopping the DDM during its attack on the Rigel colony, or then by feeding the colony to the DDM...

Seriously? We're going to argue this point?

Here's the transcript:

DECKER: You can't let that reach Rigel. Why, millions of innocent people would die.
SPOCK: I am aware of the Rigel system's population, Commodore, but we are only one ship. Our deflector shields are strained, our subspace transmitter is useless. Logically, our primary duty is to survive in order to warn Starfleet Command.
DECKER: Our primary duty is to maintain life and safety of Federation planets. Do you deny that?

Do we have to see a cut-scene of Rigel explicitly labeled

"Federation Planet Rigel
Population 7.8 Million Humans
Yes, the Doomsday Machine is coming HERE"
​

in order to accept what Decker has already plainly said? If we are to be so precious, then we really have no facts in evidence here.

Perhaps there are not millions of Rigelians? Perhaps (following your logic) Decker means that millions of people will die after Rigel is fed to the Doomsday Machine? Perhaps Rigel is a colony of 5 rather unfriendly badgers left as a wildlife experiment? They never say otherwise...

Perhaps Spock was exaggerating a bit when he said nothing can penetrate Neutronium?

Perhaps there are several Pink Unicorns following the Doomsday Machine at a distance of 2 miles? They never said that there were NOT several unicorns following the DDM -- we cannot rule this out as a possibility.

You have to read that dialogue uncharitably to the point of pretending that you are unfamiliar with the English language to suppose that Decker is not referring to Rigel as a Federation Planet.

We don't know whether Decker is working from the concept of duty here, or defending his obsession by referring to duty. If the latter, the facts of the matter are probably bent a little to accommodate his goals. But Spock could well be swayed even by a dishonest argument: saving the colonists could become his goal thanks to Decker's argument, but for different reasons than those offered by Decker.

Timo Saloniemi

True, Decker may be simply be justifying his blind obsession to destroy the machine.

But he does seem sensitive to human suffering. He seemed to care very deeply when he recollected his crew crying out for his help. He seems to care about human life. He does seem to care about the duties of Starfleet personnel.

Moreover, everyone might have a hidden motive. Scotty may only be pretending to love the Enterprise in the hopes that this sort of devotion will make him look good. Bones may have a deep romantic crush on Mr. Sulu - this might be his motivation for his many visits to the bridge. It is not enough that a person "could" have a hidden motive. The hypothesis must be more than possible; it must be probable, and more probable than any other competing hypothesis.

Yes, Spinrad intended Decker to be an Ahab-type obsessive, but William Windom put a wounded humanity into his performance that is much less Ahab or Capt. Queeg and much more that of a distraught, broken, and ultimately tragic (even pathetic) man. He does not seem macho and driven and self-sure, but rather sad self-doubting, and desperate.

Decker is certainly suffering from target fixation. He is taking huge risks to wound the DDM. He is, at least, varying his attack tactics while following the same strategy of decreasing proximity.

Narrative Argument: If Decker simply is just bat-$#!t crazy and is only motivated by obsession, this weakens the episodes moral tension/dilemma. Thus, charitable reading requires that we accept that Decker has some valid motives.

We don't have to read this as either/or. He might be obsessed and partially justifying his obsession, but he might also be genuinely concerned with Rigel and his duties toward them.

And keep in mind, I wrote "This is how Decker appears to be looking at it" to accommodate the possibility that his motives are not pure.

And even if we suppose that Decker has no virtuous motive in this circumstance and is only justifying his blind obsession, even this does not delegitimize his arguments. What matters is if, in fact, the primary duty of Starfleet Personnel is to act to maintain the life and safety of Federation Planets.

To attack the arguments on the grounds of the person offering it is to commit the genetic fallacy.

 

[Wingsley]

I posted a response on this thread last night and it was apparently deleted. What's up?

 

[Timo]

Didn't notice it coming up, and I tend to be online during your night. Weird.

Seriously? We're going to argue this point?

Only to spur the hobby-horse of whether Kirk or Starfleet has a responsibility to protect planets from calamities in the first place.

It's a story inconsistency if the Rigel colony is a large UFP colony, because there should be no such presence near the L systems. But we could sidestep this by saying that it's colonies, plural - and just like with Rigel of TOS and Rigel of ENT, there's something multicultural and anti-establishment going on, and Feds only represent a tiny minority of the colonial endeavor. There might be a few space hippies from Earth there, and that would already provide Decker with his sworn duty, and Spock with his millions, while not providing Starfleet with a reliable information channel to the neighborhood.

With that out of the way, there could be reasons for Starfleet to help foreign and even hostile worlds - brownie points are important for what's essentially the primary tool of UFP foreign policy. But Starfleet in TOS is always stretched thin. Spock might well be of the school of thought that recognizes the futility of keeping everybody alive forever, and the need to keep one's priorities straight. And a military organization such as Starfleet might agree with him.

Of course, the sympathies of the audience would be with Decker there, but the drama might be intensified if there was another layer to it: Decker is compassionate but wrong, Spock is right but will get millions killed, and both of them are logically yet tragically steering the events away from the one solution that both works and saves lives in doing so.

Timo Saloniemi

 

[YARN]

Only to spur the hobby-horse of whether Kirk or Starfleet has a responsibility to protect planets from calamities in the first place.

Well, we don't need to misread the text to raise this question. We can spur the hobby horse without changing direction.

Still, such a move potentially threatens to confuse matters. If we are only speaking of responsibility to planets in the most general of terms, specific duties are obscured by the level of abstraction. Moreover, it is apparent that a Starship crew has a greater duty to a planet it is sworn to protect than one which it is anthropologically surveying. This subtly tilts the playing field in favor of Spock if we get stuck in this frame.

With regard to a non-UFP planet, it is plausible that so long as they follow the prime directive (which is a debate unto itself), they have a duty to do what they can to assist, but not to significantly jeopardize their own lives in so doing. Thus, it would seem to be easier to cut-and-run on a random planet.

This is because a UFP planet falls under the jurisdiction and protection of Starfleet. If it is your sworn duty, then it is plausible that your duty might require "that last full measure of devotion."