Best and Worst Treatment of Ethical Dilemmas
- Thread starter DonIago
- Start date
The "correct" version of Dear Doctor is to have Phlox figure out how to develop a cure, but not have the time to actually make it. Then they give that research and the necessary equipment to the local doctors to finish. Phlox has concerns about their ability to successfully develop the cure, but Archer overrules him saying how that gives agency to the Menk for their own survival. Then a year later we find out they screwed up the cure badly and unleashed a Virus that killed both races. And now you have a really good reason to enact the Prime Directive.
Your idea is excellent but I don't much like the idea of the humanoids on that planet suffering that fate.
Why develop a cure and not use it? It doesn't make any sense.
I liked the acting, story right up until that point.
More for people who might or might not evolve into a dominant species, but they need the other species out of the way to do so. In a society as secularized as the Federation, the notion of "leaving it to God" seems a bit hollow.
The idea would be to anesthetize Tuvix before duplicating him, then split one copy before he wakes up, so that he never gains awareness.
Which isn't always followed. In "Man of the People", Picard was ready to sacrifice thousands to save one. And in "Child's Play", Janeway did it.
Because they could not genetically engineer themselves retroactively.
Indeed. It should have been mentioned that they sent someone to help those people, even if they weren't successful.
Funny how copacetic most people seem to be about slavery just because it's part of someone's culture. It was part of ours too, for a long time; that didn't make it right.
That's an oversimplification of the situation presented in the episode...or more precisely, not presented in the episode, since we barely get to know the Vissians at all.
I posit three entries for this quaint little thesis of sorts:
Good:
"Star Trek III The Search for Spock" - Kirk is going well out of his way to prove that the Federation wasn't going to use Genesis as means of destruction, and going so far as to wantonly saving the life of the paranoid commander who'd killed his kid and Saavik and a whole Federation spaceship earlier in what might otherwise be acts of war. Only when Kruge remains so pig-headed, Kirk retaliates and even yells "I! have HAD! enOUGH of YOU!!!", in a movie that really shows Kirk facing an undiscovered country before "The Undiscovered Country". True, this now saunters into "Ambivalent" territory as Kruge was so certain of himself, and what was he thinking that Kirk was trying to save him for - to help prove the Federation wasn't as bad as he believed, or thinking Kirk was no better? Like the number of licks to get to the center of a tootsie pop or attention, we may never know.
Ambivalent:
"For the Unform"
Trek posits a situation, one that's fairly unique to 90s Trek, where the baddie isn't going to listen and has already committed numerous destructive acts. Sisko is lucky that attempting the same tactic worked as quickly as it had, with Eddington surrendering. What if Eddington hadn't surrendered? Would Sisko go to Traken II to continue the same antics and would eventually be in a far worse situation? This is the deepest Trek has ever gotten with a complex issue, not shying away as well as creating a nemesis worthy of depth and complexity.
Bad/Garbage:
"Ethics" is as two-dimensional as it is one-sided. The guest doc is written increasingly as an unbridled cartoon and for the sole sake of making Beverly's point look like the ONLY one, not to mention that Beverly's nose is up so high that it's amazing the rest of the crew didn't feel it. Yes, real research takes time. Never mind contrivances to Worf's physiognomy that's even more cartoonish. Sometimes, if a situation is dire, one has to weigh the odds to make an emergency decision what with the situation being a dire emergency and stuff.
Good:
"Star Trek III The Search for Spock" - Kirk is going well out of his way to prove that the Federation wasn't going to use Genesis as means of destruction, and going so far as to wantonly saving the life of the paranoid commander who'd killed his kid and Saavik and a whole Federation spaceship earlier in what might otherwise be acts of war. Only when Kruge remains so pig-headed, Kirk retaliates and even yells "I! have HAD! enOUGH of YOU!!!", in a movie that really shows Kirk facing an undiscovered country before "The Undiscovered Country". True, this now saunters into "Ambivalent" territory as Kruge was so certain of himself, and what was he thinking that Kirk was trying to save him for - to help prove the Federation wasn't as bad as he believed, or thinking Kirk was no better? Like the number of licks to get to the center of a tootsie pop or attention, we may never know.
Ambivalent:
"For the Unform"
Trek posits a situation, one that's fairly unique to 90s Trek, where the baddie isn't going to listen and has already committed numerous destructive acts. Sisko is lucky that attempting the same tactic worked as quickly as it had, with Eddington surrendering. What if Eddington hadn't surrendered? Would Sisko go to Traken II to continue the same antics and would eventually be in a far worse situation? This is the deepest Trek has ever gotten with a complex issue, not shying away as well as creating a nemesis worthy of depth and complexity.
Bad/Garbage:
"Ethics" is as two-dimensional as it is one-sided. The guest doc is written increasingly as an unbridled cartoon and for the sole sake of making Beverly's point look like the ONLY one, not to mention that Beverly's nose is up so high that it's amazing the rest of the crew didn't feel it. Yes, real research takes time. Never mind contrivances to Worf's physiognomy that's even more cartoonish. Sometimes, if a situation is dire, one has to weigh the odds to make an emergency decision what with the situation being a dire emergency and stuff.
I didn't say the whole Vissian culture was inherently bad, just that one element of it was: a character asked for asylum to escape the treatment she was receiving, and killed herself rather than continue to endure it. But, most of the people here blame the man who made her realize she was being exploited, rather than the people exploiting her.
Remember that the episode was circa 1990 or so. Beverly's views on suicide were far more mainstream then.
True, in an emergency you sometimes have to go for a medical Hail Mary, which is what the surgery on Worf was. But Beverly's overall position was the right one. A physician's chief duty is primum non nocere, or first do no harm. Dr. Russell's use of an experimental drug for research purposes and her surgery that could have killed a patient whose life was in no imminent danger could be considered violations of this.
Based on our lack of knowledge of the Vissian civilization and what led to the circumstances presented to us, I would say "unfortunate" rather than "bad".
And yes, I think it is Trip's fault for screwing up the Cogenitor's perception of the society in which she was living in the first place, and I think it's very, very harsh to accuse the Vissians of 'exploiting' the Cogenitor given how little information we have, including what they themselves may have every reason to legitimately believe. "Exploit" implies some sort of evil motivations that I don't feel are in evidence. Because we know so little of the Vissian civilization, it is impossible for us to objectively assess the damage that might ensue from granting this Cogenitor asylum (granted things might have gone otherwise if they'd explicitly indicated they would kill themselves if it was denied).
Trip didn't at all exercise due diligence, and it's impossible to believe that it wasn't in part because he didn't want to. And it tracks quite well with his racism toward Vulcans earlier in the series.
Last edited:
I'm sure that every culturally condoned abomination in our history, from Greco-Roman boy-love to American atrocities like slavery and manifest destiny, were carried out by people who saw no wrong in themselves. I am sure that the engineer and his wife felt perfectly justified when they got Charles back and tried to her to "know her place", and felt like they were the victims when she escaped from her hellish existence by the only way remaining.
While what was happening with the Cogenitor is unfortunate, as has been stated, we know next to nothing about their culture.
Trip should not have interfered and he knew it. He was completely wrong for a simple reason: he did all of this behind everyone's backs, including Trip's own crew.
This is a case where the Prime Directive would have been correct. Too bad they didn't have it yet.
Trip's heart was in the right place, but it was not his place to be doing that. Remember that saying about the road to hell and good intentions...
And Archer was absolutely correct to not only deny the Cogenitor asylum but to be pissed at Trip. He went behind his back and nearly caused an interstellar incident in a first contact situation.
They were supremely lucky the Vissians didn't take it to a point of armed conflict... one that, given how advanced they appeared to be, the Enterprise and Earth would not win.
Trip should not have interfered and he knew it. He was completely wrong for a simple reason: he did all of this behind everyone's backs, including Trip's own crew.
This is a case where the Prime Directive would have been correct. Too bad they didn't have it yet.
Trip's heart was in the right place, but it was not his place to be doing that. Remember that saying about the road to hell and good intentions...
And Archer was absolutely correct to not only deny the Cogenitor asylum but to be pissed at Trip. He went behind his back and nearly caused an interstellar incident in a first contact situation.
They were supremely lucky the Vissians didn't take it to a point of armed conflict... one that, given how advanced they appeared to be, the Enterprise and Earth would not win.
If there had been a fight, it wouldn't have ended with the Enterprise's destruction, just her being disabled and boarded. The Vissians needed Charles alive. Which means they were fighting a losing battle no matter what happened.
The Vissians might have blamed Our Heroes for Charles's suicide, and to some degree they would have been correct to do so. It would be so much worse if there was any indication that Trip had played any direct role in Charles's suicide, and I wonder how that might have changed opinions regarding the matter.
How would humans feel if aliens arrived on Earth and started to tell us how we should be conducting ourselves?
That said, getting back to the larger question of this thread, I think we can all agree that the episode itself is one of the better portrayals of an ethical dilemma?
How would humans feel if aliens arrived on Earth and started to tell us how we should be conducting ourselves?
That said, getting back to the larger question of this thread, I think we can all agree that the episode itself is one of the better portrayals of an ethical dilemma?
It was. And as is the case with most ethical dilemma episodes, it is almost expected that people will disagree on whether the captain did the right thing.
Congenitor - is a difficult one but I side with Trip. If he was on their planet trying to change things and disrupt the society that is one thing, but this all happened on the Enterprise, on his turf. Using FGM as an example, a long held cultural practise, should opponents keep quiet about it, just because one is not part of the culture?
Last edited:
Except Trip wasn't doing these things on his home turf. He was on the Vissian ship, which is their territory. He brought the Cogenitor to the Enterprise after he had already been going behind everyone's backs.
Similar threads
