• 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!

Why did the writers characterise Picard as being highly ethical?

indolover

Fleet Captain
Picard is my joint favourite captain (along with Sisko) but one thing I found is that he was always a very moral person, in that he would always weigh up the rightness or wrongness of an action before acting. Was this deliberate by the writers?

To me it's not a criticism, i'm just wondering why the writers decided to do this.

Kind of like Picard would never trick the Romulans into war like Sisko did.
 
Picard is my joint favourite captain (along with Sisko) but one thing I found is that he was always a very moral person, in that he would always weigh up the rightness or wrongness of an action before acting. Was this deliberate by the writers?

To me it's not a criticism, i'm just wondering why the writers decided to do this.

Kind of like Picard would never trick the Romulans into war like Sisko did.

Because Gene said so.
 
I tend to think it's because the intention was to put as much difference between Kirk and Picard as possible; having a Captain with a different style of command and authority. Maybe...
 
I tend to think it's because the intention was to put as much difference between Kirk and Picard as possible; having a Captain with a different style of command and authority. Maybe...

It was partly that - but Kirk was a highly moral man, so this does not answer the OPs question as such.

The real difference was that Picard was a contemplative man who left the action to his XO (well for a few seasons) and Kirk was very rough and tumble.

Both rule. :techman:
 
Didn't he once say the moral thing wasn't the same as the right thing to do? I can't figure out the difference.
 
Didn't he once say the moral thing wasn't the same as the right thing to do? I can't figure out the difference.

Depends how you look at "right" - the OP mentions Sisko (and Garak) tricking the Romulans into the Dominion War. On a lot of levels, that saved not only the Federation & Klingons, but the Romulans too - if they hadn't joined, the Fed and KE would probably have fallen, and the RSE would have been surrounded by a huge, hostile power. It probably saved the Quadrant, and so was the right thing to do.

However, Sisko does it by deception, which is immoral. Moreover, he does it by brining in Garak - a man who attempted genocide against the Founders not so very long before, who doesn't know phasers have "stun" settings, who certainly caused a lot of "disappearances" in his time in the Obsidian Order, and who is a congenital liar. And who proceeds to act in line with that character, and who just drags Sisko along in his wake, giving the okay to various excesses without really questioning the Cardassian until the deeds were done. Essentially none of Sisko's individual actions in the ep are the moral thing to do at any given moment.

In other words, the right thing to do is utilitarian - doing the greatest amount of good for the minimum amount of pain. The moral thing is to do nothing "bad", ever - if letting one person die saves a hundred, you save that one person now, and try to (or, at least, hope you can) save that hundred later.
 
Not everyone can be like Jack Bauer... (and that's more intended as a criticism of Bauer).

You just get the impression with Jack Bauer that failure to answer any question, even as simple as "Did you lock the gate?" or "Have you seen my keys?" will result in vicious brutal torture.

They have toned it down since, well, Obama got in, but 24 REALLY pushed it with the torture stuff at one point.
 
Because Roddenberry wanted all the characters on TNG, not just Picard, to be perfect.

Because he believed that life imitated art and wanted our culture to aspire to something better.

I don't think there's anything wrong with that.
 
Because Roddenberry wanted all the characters on TNG, not just Picard, to be perfect.

Because he believed that life imitated art and wanted our culture to aspire to something better.

I don't think there's anything wrong with that.

Lord knows, we need to aspire to something better. Picard's morality is part of why I love Star Trek.

Here's something, too: on those rare times when Picard got heated and riled up but would later on be proven wrong and apologize for it, it taught me that it was okay to apologize, too.

I always thought it was silly for the TNG cast to not have any personal conflicts, but I also thought if the most ethical man on the Enterprise would be strong enough to swallow his pride at the right times, then so could I.
 
I thought it was because the political correctness and tolerance movements were reaching their heights in the early to mid 90's and they marketed the characters of TNG to that audience, but I'm probably wrong.
 
I thought it was because the political correctness and tolerance movements were reaching their heights in the early to mid 90's and they marketed the characters of TNG to that audience, but I'm probably wrong.

I wouldn't say the tolerance movement hit their heights back then, as we've still got a long way to go; with that said, rewatching some TNG in the 21st century, I cringed at some of the jokes the crew made at the expense of other races/cultures, or when Commander Hobson argued that just as androids couldn't be captains, Klingons couldn't be counselors.
 
Because Roddenberry wanted all the characters on TNG, not just Picard, to be perfect.

Because he believed that life imitated art and wanted our culture to aspire to something better.

I don't think there's anything wrong with that.
Well, it depends. It's true that life does imitate art to some extent, and that it's good for television to give us positive role models. I think Picard is an extremely good role model, for example.

But, OTOH, if you truly have "perfect" characters, then you have eliminated most of your possibilities for drama. Drama thrives on conflict. And, in the end, this is a dramatic television show, not a motivational speech. Which is why Roddenberry's concept of "perfect humans" was very quickly pushed aside.

Star Trek should be, and most often has been, a view of what humanity can achieve. But that doesn't mean that the characters have to be free of flaws or have no conflict.
 
Because Roddenberry wanted all the characters on TNG, not just Picard, to be perfect.

To be highly ethical doesn't equate to being perfect. It merely means that a person believes in certain principles of right and wrong and tries to give effect to those principles through his conduct. I don't see anything particularly controversial about that per se.

Insofar as Picard is concerned, what made him really interesting as a character (as developed through the years by Patrick Stewart) were the instances when he failed to meet those high ideals and the ways he dealt with those failures.
 
I think he was made highly ethical to show that its "OKAY" to be highly ethical. That just because he sits in the center seat of the most powerful starship in the Federation, it doesn't mean he gets to shoot first and ask questions later.

Captain Picard... my TNG hero!
 
Star Trek should be, and most often has been, a view of what humanity can achieve. But that doesn't mean that the characters have to be free of flaws or have no conflict.

Star Trek's even better when humanity achieves in spite of those flaws, too. Name the best Trek episodes/films out there and it more than likely has a strong element of our heroes overcoming their own personal or immoral obstacles, as opposed to solving things through technological or cultural superiority.

The fact that racist, intolerant, and paranoid humans (nevermind non-humans) still exist in the TNG/DS9/VOY era is proof that humanity's still far from perfect, but not from lack of trying, either.
 
If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

Sign up / Register


Back
Top