Star Trek's morality

[Tenebrae]

I don't know about everyone else but I'm getting a little bored of these other threads so, here's one that I hope will be a bit more than "X WILL BEAT Y!"

 

Now, the morality of Kirk and Picard I think is probably beyond reproach... I've not seen as much of Kirk but he seems to do the right thing... and we surely all know that Picard spent a lot of time agonising over things and sometimes he'd rather do the morally right thing.

 

DS9, VOY and ENT were all a marked break from this strong moral heritage in fact, it seems to have been something of a slippery slope.

 

Sisko was generally for doing the right thing but he clearly sees things in shades of grey and acts that Picard would instantly dismiss are things that Sisko considers. Naturally, these are all justified but In The Pale Moonlight shows a streak in Sisko that can only be called "ruthless".

 

Janeway is - for reasons that we shouldn't trouble ourselves with - erratic. You get the impression that had she been faced with some situations a week later, she might have done something completely the opposite. So... I think she's probably distinct in having no real consistent moral stance.

 

Archer... well, I think that he's the real black sheep. Janeway might have been bipolar and Sisko might have done some naughty things but as soon as things got tough, the moral high horse gets tossed out the window.

 

So, what are everyone's thoughts on the state of Star Trek morality through the ages?

[dizzyg]

im not 100% sure on the time line of Star Trek, did it go : enteprise; TNG; DS9; VOY ?

[dabrood]

Well, for one thing Archer is supposed to be morally inferior to Kirk. Otherwise they would kill the whole idea of a slowly developed "prime directive". They overdid it though, as Archer often acts needlessly stupid and naive.

 

[Arktis]

ENT, TOS, TNG, DS9, VOY. There's also some overlap between TNG and DS9 as well as between DS9 and VOY. Also, I am not sure where TAS fits but IMHO it doesn't really count.

 

Anyways, as anyone who is a regular on this board might guess, I totally agree with Tenebrae's assesment. After all, I've been saying basicly the same thing ever since I started posting here...

[Tenebrae]

I don't think Archer's moral on/off switch had ANYTHING to do with the prime directive. He was just a bad captain who was actually punished for his mistakes but never really held to accountable in a greater sense - saving the world does seem to get you SOME leeway.

 

Unlike the cautionary tale of Captain Ransom and Captain Janeway. Personally, I think Ransom and the Equinox were an infinitely more believable crew and scenario than Voyager. He made one mistake and a lot of people died and when a chance came along to get his crew home, he took it.

 

Whereas Janeway, who repeatedly got away with murder - although, to be honest I think that's true of all the Captains we see... because if they couldn't, shows might be cut short by lengthy terms in penal colonies - turned down a free ticket home from Q, TWICE.

[Commander Data]

........

Whereas Janeway, who repeatedly got away with murder - although, to be honest I think that's true of all the Captains we see... because if they couldn't, shows might be cut short by lengthy terms in penal colonies - turned down a free ticket home from Q, TWICE.

 

Yeah what can be so bad as having sex with Q if she gets her crew back? everything for the better good as Spock would say :P

[dabrood]

I don't think Archer's moral on/off switch had ANYTHING to do with the prime directive. He was just a bad captain who was actually punished for his mistakes but never really held to accountable in a greater sense - saving the world does seem to get you SOME leeway.

 

My point is: Archer had absolutely no frame of reference, while Kirk had one, namely Archers mistakes. Which means, Archer had to make them in the first place.

[Tenebrae]

Someone, I doubt that had their positions been reversed, that Kirk would have willfully attacked a neutral vessel - stranding it years from home.

 

Or tossed a suspect into an airlock for that matter.

[slug]

They all had someone to turn to, for Janeway it was her coffee mug, for Sisko it was his ball, for Picard his fish, and on occasion, his flute, for Kirk it was the nearest beehive bint who needed his signature and let us not forget that Archer could always turn to Al and Ziggy.

[Tenebrae]

I think that to unwind, Archer would lock himself in his cabin and shout "REPORT!" until his voice was hoarse.

[Antipodean]

My point is: Archer had absolutely no frame of reference

 

 

Ummmm... yes he did. He had the ordinary standards of morality and ethics that our own society wrestles with. Ethics wern't born with the Federation buddy. We've had them for a while now. I do believe that Confucius and Plato both had thoughts on that matter. ;)

 

 

Anyhow, I'd argue that Janeway and Sisco both at least struggle with those decisions of theirs which might be described as ethically questionable. In the DS9 episode "In the Pale Moonlight" for example Sisko is profoundly aware of the immoral nature of what he has engaged in with Garak, in order to bring the Romulans into the Dominion War. To quote Garak in that episode, the price was simple: "the life of one Romulan senator, one criminal, and the self-respect of a Starfleet officer", namely Sisko himself. So yeah... Sisko and Janeway are both aware that there IS a price to be paid for crossing that ethical line in the sand. There is a penalty.

 

 

Archer however seems to have swallowed the simplistic morality thrust upon the the world by Bush and his cohorts, what with the whole bloody War on Terra... In order to protect life, liberty and freedom, even life, liberty and freedom may be violated.

[Arktis]

Your post shows that you're drawing a distinction between Archer and Sisko, when Sisko's actions are arguably the same as Archer's - a sacrifice of what is supposedly being protected in order to protect it.

[TetsuoShima]

I'd even say Archer was in a way 'better' than Sisko. Don't forget that the whole idea for Enterprise was to show the evolution between ethics as they are used now and how they should be better used (as in the Star Trek future from the Enterprise pov). Archers character was written especially like that, not the perfect captain, but rather one that will show how far Star Trek mankind has come (in for example TNG). Archer was the kind of captain he was supposed to be according to the timeperiod. Sisko does not have this excuse, applied morals have evolved by then and while Archer of course knows the morals as we know them, this in no way means that it is common to apply the highest morals at the time, we know them and we don't even nearly apply them at this time, no, we don't even come close to nearly applying them. While in Sisko's time they are known and actually applied all of the time, it is expected. (during Archers captaincy, the expectations were still much lower) So with that in mind, Sisko made more 'bad' decisions than Archer (when it comes to the war). And not only Sisko btw, a lot of the officers in DS9 also made such 'bad' decisions.

 

Of course, Sisko was in a more difficult position to have good ethics, but well, in theory at least that is no excuse to throw them out the window when they are becoming to much of a burden. Janeway seemed to have overall reasonable ethics, but as mentioned before, she seemed quite arbitrary on how and when she applied them... Sisko at least seemed to have some reason and cause behind his decisions.

 

Comparing TNG to DS9 and VOY, I'd say we can definately see the influence of Roddenberry's ideas in TNG. And when he was gone, the show transformed into something less 'ideal', sort of a de-evolution. It's quite clear that the moral standard in TNG is the highest. One more reason for me to like TNG better than the rest of the shows.

 

As for TOS, it's sort of comparable to TNG, if you keep in mind the times the show was produced. (again the influence of Roddenberry?)

 

Anyway, that's my take on it...

[dabrood]

Archer of course knows the morals as we know them' date=' this in no way means that it is common to apply the highest morals at the time, we know them and we don't even nearly apply them at this time[/quote']

 

Good point.

[Commander Data]

After reading all this it seems to me that after Gene died and Rick took over then Star Trek Turned more into a series with lots of wars, foults and other bad things. When Gene was the Chef then he made sure that before things got added on the episodes then they had to go through him and he would say yes or no. Looks like it Yes all the way with Rick Berman

[Antipodean]

So basically...

 

 

 

Rick Berman = THE ANTICHRIST!

[Arktis]

Something was missing, so I took the liberty of adding a couple things...

 

He's more like the angry stepchild of a lower demon that got kicked out for being too nerdy.

[Antipodean]

I dunno about you crazy gimpers... but in our works of visual satire, we photoshoppers do like to value photorealism, or you might as well just be using MS Paint :p (hah! Take that Tux lover)! Anyhow, do you really think that transplanting pubes to your face really makes you that evil (just a thought)?

 

You know, now that I think of it, the potential facial hair, or lack thereof, of the antichrist has been a neglected question in theology really.

 

 

Either way - Rick Berman = THE ANTICHRIST!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!