Home  Info  Starships  Fleet Yards  Treknology  Episodes  Database  Fandom  Community	New York Streets Set   FAQ   Site Map

Bad Ethics in Star Trek

Star Trek is renowned for discussing ethical subjects more profoundly and its main characters for acting with more deliberation and less preconception than in most other TV shows. On the downside, occasional ethical flaws in the overall tone or the conclusion crop up in a couple of episodes, although these may have been made with high ambitions and with only the best intentions in the tradition of Trek.

Whenever Starfleet officers are facing a moral dilemma, they are expected to act according to the laws of the Federation, the regulations of Starfleet and their humanist education. Certainly the world of Star Trek is not perfect, and neither are the characters, so more than once their efforts fail, or they make controversial or downright wrong decisions. This deficiency may suit the show as a mirror of the real world. For instance, Archer's order to destroy the defenseless Xindi outpost in ENT: "Azati Prime" bears a lot of potential for controversies. But in the episode itself it was shown as problematic and the command was executed not without a certain resistance, and if only in the faces of Reed and T'Pol. The problem was neither denied nor was the deed played down or even praised, so "Azati Prime" wouldn't belong into the category of bad ethics. But sometimes clear mistakes are denied, obscured or subject to be re-evaluated through plot twists. A prime example is Phlox's and Archer's decision not to help the dying Valakians in ENT: "Dear Doctor". Here not only the laws of science are bent, but also a parallel to the not yet existing Prime Directive is pulled out of thin air to justify what is actually a possibly criminal misdemeanor.

The number of episodes with really bad ethics is comparatively small, and they rather re-affirm than bring down the otherwise high standard of discussing ethical problems in Star Trek. 

Important notice The following is just a selection of occurrences and is not supposed to be objective or complete. I am open to corrections and supplements. But please save me and yourself the nuisance of a debate if you should find your favorite episode listed here.

Recklessness

Here are several examples where delicate problems especially of alien worlds are overly simplified and rashly solved or even new interstellar conflicts are raised without a sufficient reason. As if the galaxy had only been waiting for them, Starfleet officers overstep their authority by far and fail to recognize the other side of the medal. Clearly this is basically the case in numerous TOS and some TNG and Voyager episodes. Often meant as allegories and therefore intentionally kept simplistic, they sometimes fail in this respect.

TOS: Metamorphosis Everything is fine in the end. The Companion turns out to be female, and in order to stay with Cochrane she takes over the body of the ill Federation official Nancy Hedford. But wait. If I understand it correctly, it was Hedford's body and not her consciousness that died and the Companion allegedly couldn't help her. So why was the Companion able to take over the dead body? This should have made McCoy suspicious because in essence the Companion killed Hedford even if the doctor couldn't help her anyway (which was in part the Companion's fault too). But he, Kirk and Spock were quite content with the outcome, and they didn't seem to be bothered although they would have to lie about what happened to Nancy Hedford. With a bit more carefulness, the script may have been changed in a way that Nancy Hedford was suffering from something like cumulative brain damage which would have made plausible that her body was still intact. Still, the dilemma of not revealing Cochrane's whereabouts and the Companion's existence remains.

TOS: The Apple This episode is representative of the countless times that Kirk and his crew interfered with (usually primitive) alien cultures. Clearly Vaal, as a machine and the planet's "false god", was holding back the native population. Yet, Starfleet's intrusion in this case is particularly severe because the culture of the Vaal people was completely and ultimately ruined when Vaal was destroyed. It is not really an excuse that, thanks to a plot twist, the ship was in danger because of the machine's powers. We have to wonder how the crew would have acted if Vaal had not posed a danger, considering how big a deal Kirk made of the people's free will, of the joy of sex and of having children. There was definitely no remorse from the part of the crew that they had destroyed an innocent paradise.

TNG: Up the Long Ladder The stupid resolution in this episode is that Picard brings together the snobbish, prude and technology-obsessed Mariposans with the proletarian, hedonistic and backward Bringloidi. As if t would be better to force them to merge than to integrate either group into a much larger and much more diverse human society. Only the fact that both settler groups originate from the same ship, the Mariposa, is cited as a weak justification for this stupid plan. Moreover, the two groups are expected to practice polygamy or at least promiscuity to achieve a new stable DNA pool, which is an additional moral issue. I doubt that the Federation would officially endorse that policy even if it is not against any laws. But I wonder still more how this idea could ever pass Hollywood's self-censorship.

TNG: Suddenly Human Picard decides to return the young Jeremiah Rossa, now called Jono, to the Talarian Captain Endar who abducted the boy years ago after killing his parents in an attack on a Federation outpost. This qualifies as a controversial issue, and it wouldn't be fair to condemn the ethical impact of the episode altogether, given that the necessary considerations take place. Only that Picard swiftly throws most of them overboard in the end, just because it is his personal impression that the human boy would be better off with the Talarians. Picard thinks that the boy would rather want to stay with the only family he ever knew. He even says that it was a "crime" to try to convince Jeremiah or Jono to stay with the Federation because that would have troubled the boy too much.

First of all, it is a positive aspect that the writer intended to let Picard act without a racial or even racist bias. There is nothing like a preferable home for the boy just because of his descent. On the other hand, several counter-indications are cited but completely neglected in the outcome. At any rate the legal situation in the Federation should be obvious: Jeremiah is still a Federation citizen and has always been, regardless of his whereabouts. The Federation has an obligation to care about their citizens, to keep away harm from them, and even to decide for them if the citizens are not capable of doing so themselves. It is just too obvious that the latter would apply to an adolescent who doesn't know the whole truth and who, as Picard has suspected, may have been brainwashed.

Concerning the brutality of the Talarian society, this is naturally the first reason that comes to mind for Picard not to leave the boy to Captain Endar. Clearly the youth welfare on Earth would intervene if they found out that parents mistreated their child. Not that this issue was ever tackled in Star Trek, but we wouldn't expect it to change so much from now. On the other hand, the Enterprise crew would not attempt to save a real Talarian boy like this, unless he applied for asylum. As dissatisfactory as it may seem, it would be neither diplomatically wise to interfere with alien empires by bribing or forcing their citizens to enter the peaceful and democratic Federation, nor could it really help the bulk of aliens who may or may not suffer under their political and social system. Anyway, the fact that Jeremiah lives in a warrior culture literally without many of his human rights is just a secondary aspect. If they were a benevolent society, yet for some reasons an enemy of the Federation, the situation wouldn't have been that different. So we have to concede that, as usual, the legal side of the matter is quite cold.

But speaking of legal issues, what about the rights of the contenders? Regarding Endar, the answer is as simple as it could be, once we confirm that Jeremiah is a Federation citizen. The Talarian's claim to be the boy's father or only his foster father has absolutely no ground. On the contrary. Didn't he or his soldiers kill Jeremiah's parents, in an act that clearly establishes a war crime? Even if bilateral treaties prevent Endar from being immediately arrested for his crime(s), there is no obligation from the Picard's part to even let him see his "son". But on an extremely cynical note, it almost seems that murdering Jeremiah's parents helped corroborate Endar's claim in the end, as Picard may have rather decided in favor of the boy's real parents had they still been alive. The way it is we have just Jeremiah's grandmother as the closest living relative who for some reason is an admiral and therefore Picard's superior. But we should leave out any considerations that Picard would feel obliged to fulfill the grandmother's wishes as if it were an order. Fortunately this manufactured coincidence has no further impact on the story. Anyway, she is undoubtedly the natural choice when it comes to decide about a new home for her grandson. Picard, however, ignores her wishes and her feelings and hands over the boy to Endar without even giving her the opportunity to see him.

Last but not least, Picard surely has to take into account Jeremiah's or Jono's own wishes and this is what ultimately leads him to give in. One thing that becomes blatantly obvious is that Jono is seeking a father figure, and that Picard is unwittingly entering in a direct competition with Endar, which is why the boy even attacks Picard with a knife. This is the actual incentive for Picard to let the boy go. Is it that Picard thinks that Jono needs a strict authority, and just one? It almost seems so. But Picard fails to take into account that the boy has been aboard the Enterprise for just a few days, so it is far from saying that he could have become accustomed to his new home. Ironically the ship isn't even supposed to be his actual home, neither is Picard supposed to ever become his father. Moreover, has Picard ever heard that human adolescents are obstinate and rebellious? That it may be actually Jeremiah's *human* nature that is protesting, and not his Talarian education? By any means, Picard's assessment to act in the boy's interest is at least very premature. Maybe we can excuse this part of the failure as Picard has no children. But he should have sought the advice of parents like Dr. Crusher, and not given so much credence to Endar and his literally violent love.

The diplomatic aspect is discussed in the episode too. After all, the peace between the Federation and the Talarians is fragile. On the other hand, it is obvious that the Talarians don't really pose a threat but to weakly armed outposts. And with even Endar being cautious we may doubt that the Talarians would turn a diplomatic incident into a war. After all, even if it is their tradition, they must recognize that abducting their enemies' children is even worse than "only" killing their parents in the battle. Picard ought to have demonstrated them that Starfleet officers love their children too.

On a more positive note, TNG: "Suddenly Human" is just one bad example among many good ones where the Federation or Starfleet gives in to alien threats rather than defending their interests with violence. Particularly in early TNG we find many episodes along these lines, with "Home Soil", "Evolution" and "The Ensigns of Command" being other obvious examples.

VOY: Unimatrix Zero What can I say? Recklessness is taken to an insane level here. Full rant coming soon.

Intolerance

These are incidents where Starfleet officers take arrogant or dogmatic positions and vehemently defend them against alien civilizations or individuals, although they are supposed to represent neutrality or pluralism. Particularly Roddenberry's anti-religious attitude, as well as other aspects of the utopian society of the Federation are occasionally used to cast doubt on or humble other ways of life.

TNG: Who Watches the Watchers This is the almost classic episode which is governed by Roddenberry's atheism like no other. When the native population begin to worship him because they coincidentally witness the miracles of his technology, Picard rejects any kind of religion and even compares it to superstition, as if both were the same. This is a misconception because faith arises from a deep, somehow scientific desire to understand the meaning of life, death and afterlife, whereas superstition is a more or less conscious self-delusion without any further significance. Picard obviously doesn't want to allow the people to believe in something supernatural, not only because he is the subject of their religion and he knows that he is not supernatural, but because it is against his preconception that any form of religion must be backward. I was upset about this opinion which, in my view, violates the Prime Directive at least as much as causing the whole trouble on Mintaka in the first place. Picard's attitude was consistent with "Justice" though, where he tried to secularize the Edo culture likewise.

ENT: Chosen Realm The episode does a solid job in condemning bigotry like already the classic TOS: "Let That Be Your Last Battlefield". But this is taken one step too far. In two or maybe more remarks throughout the episode, Archer explicitly blames faith for D'Jamat's misdeeds. Not inflexibility or fanaticism, but the very basic idea of their religion. We are supposed to believe him, witnessing how Archer is right about everything else and how D'Jamat is evil all over (he even claims to be merciful when he says he would kill only one crew member for the crime of desecration). The outcome of the episode is that, instead of keeping a bit of a controversy, we are readily served a preconception that any religion will ultimately end up in conceit and in persecution of "heretics". While there is some truth in that stance regarding the history of Christianity and Islam, neither religion is based on intolerance or hatred. It is actually quite the contrary, and only ruthless leaders have misused faith for their own purposes. Millions or even billions of religious but peaceful human beings prove that there is nothing intrinsically wrong about their religion. D'Jamat repeatedly makes silly claims that his "truth" should be the only one, but Archer's stance that there must not be anything besides science is not really better. Only that it is easy to show that you are morally right when a bad guy is pointing a phase pistol at your head.

Hypocrisy

In addition to the above motives of rashness and intolerance, a couple of episodes are written in a way that intrinsically makes the heroes look morally superior although they are anything but acting like that. Unrealistic plot twists are used to distract from a main character's failings, or a scapegoat is blamed for an ethical failure.

TNG: Silicon Avatar It may not be immediately evident, but this episode bears one of the worst examples of hypocrisy in Star Trek. The crew of the Enterprise-D have just witnessed how the Crystalline Entity has devastated a whole planet, killing all life (including some human settlers) and leaving it uninhabitable. While the Starfleet crew attempt to communicate with it, Dr. Marr who lost her son in a previous attack seeks to destroy the Crystalline Entity, and she succeeds when she finds its resonance frequency. I have to concede that there is no rash decision whether the Crystalline Entity is intelligent and/or sentient or not and would thus have deserved to live or not. This is one of the few positive aspects of the episode because limited understanding could have prevented the crew from recognizing it (cf. TNG: "Home Soil", "The Quality of Life"). Maybe the communication would have even been fruitful. But essentially, no matter if it was evil or just acted instinctively, the Crystalline Entity posed a lethal threat to the Federation, not unlike the Borg. But while the Borg were quickly labeled as mortal enemies and fought ardently, the outlandish Entity gained the status of something that is precious and would need to be preserved at all cost. Realistically, what could Picard have told the Entity? "Please go away and eat Romulan planets?"

To avoid misunderstandings, I agree that there may have been other options to solve the dilemma, and least of all Star Trek should resort to unnecessary violence. The particular problem I have with the ethics of "Silicon Avatar" is rather with the plot development. Essentially the crew was alienated by Marr's behavior because she pulled the trigger just a few moments earlier than Picard may have been forced to do anyway. Putting the whole blame on a scapegoat is a cheap quirk to let the Starfleet crew appear in a bright light. Moreover, Marr is shown as mentally unstable and therefore capable of acting erratically and immorally, in the worst habit of some TOS and TNG episodes where especially dignitaries and scientists (most obviously Garth and Daystrom) were prone to break down or go insane. The bottom line of the episode, at least the consequential antithesis to Marr's actions, is that any righteous and sane human being would need to act like the gallant Starfleet crew. Maybe even as far as a Starfleet captain would rather have to sacrifice his ship with all hands and perhaps a couple of inhabited planets along with it, than ever harm an alien lifeform -- the more exotic the lifeform the better for it.

TNG: Homeward I still can't believe they ever made this episode with its incredible outbursts of hypocrisy. The first one is when the bridge crew raise from their seats to "honor" the people whom they have just condemned to death when the atmosphere of their planet dissolves. Agreed, the Enterprise could have rescued only a rather small fraction of the population. But Picard gives the actual reason for saving rather none at all than at least a few hundred of them. It is because their civilization falls under the Prime Directive, and the non-interference with "primitive" cultures obviously implies that they should better be killed than be spoiled through a contact with the advanced Federation. In even more drastic words, it is a question of technological progress if people have a right to live or have to die. By any standard, this part of the directive is highly unethical. Picard may have taken the comfortable position that he is just following orders, but in the course of the episode it seems he agrees with the "spirit" of the law that it would be better for the natives to die. Ironically, in "Star Trek Insurrection" he will passionately fight for the rights of the Ba'ku who (albeit they once had the technology) are in a similar situation.

Only Nikolai Rozhenko doesn't care about the inflexible and inhumane paragraphs of the Prime Directive. We may say he is in part acting out of personal interests as he is married to one of the native women, still he is the only one to respect the natives' wish to breathe and live. He saves one tribe by secretly beaming them up. Secretly because quite obviously Picard would never have agreed. It is one of the few pleasant aspects of "Homeward" that Nikolai appears as an overall positive character and that in the end nearly everyone can be content with what he has achieved for his new-found people. Yet, his demeanor is being criticized as reckless. Considering that he may have even been punished for saving a civilization, he ends up as an pariah -- he is let down even though it is his intention to stay with his people anyway. The hypocrisy is obvious when Picard and virtually everyone else blames Nikolai for the inconvenience he has caused. They behave like monarchs who complain that a servant has opened the window and they can't avoid hearing the cries of their starving subjects.

But the worst part of the episode is still to come. One member of the tribe finds the exit of the holodeck where Nikolai has created a natural environment for them. The confrontation with the miracles of the starship comes like a shock to him. When he has the choice to stay or to return to his people and reveal nothing about the world outside, he commits suicide. What does this insidious twist tell us? That the Prime Directive is there for a good reason. To save "primitive" people from civilization, as the shock would destroy them anyway. So better let them die the natural way than make them unnecessarily suffer. Which is used to confirm Picard's stance and ultimately disprove Nikolai.

DS9: Children of Time The Defiant crew members are surprised when they discover a planet that is inhabited by their own descendants from an altered past. Sisko eventually decides to let the time travel happen, willing to leave the crew trapped in the past of the planet. Only through sabotage by Odo (the one from the planet) the crew and most importantly Kira's life are saved (she would have died without medical aid), whilst the population of the planet disappears. Regardless of this actual outcome, Sisko's decision is highly doubtful in three respects. Firstly, from an ethical viewpoint it is equivalent to abandoning his duty and family purposely and condemn his first officer to death. Moreover, he orders his crewmates to do the same. Secondly, the fact that the crew have learned about their future in the past will almost certainly change the course of history of the planet, considering various possibilities of female/male relationships that cannot be controlled and will almost definitely develop in a completely different fashion. In this case the known descendants would never come to existence, so what could be the point in a desperate attempt to save these very people? Maybe the population of the planet would even become extinct only a few decades later. Thirdly, even if we accept that the timeline with the Defiant crashed on the planet is the original one, it is created through a temporal anomaly, and this is not possible in the natural course of time. In this respect it should be generally the right decision to alter history in a way that the time travel and its effects are avoided or compensated for.

There is one more thing that disturbs me in the episode. When the crew have unanimously arrived at their earlier decision to escape from the planet without traveling to the past, the natives are accordingly sad that they would cease to exist soon. I do not contest that it would have been a loss. But then the idyllic farm work and the cute faces of the children cause a weird kind of a collective emotional unrest that encompasses everyone of the crew without exception. Within just a few minutes the will to return to their families and their duties dies away just as unanimously as it previously governed their thoughts and actions. The herd instinct that prevails over a sound self-preservation and rationality irritates me.

ENT: Dear Doctor This episode could have become a classic of its kind, but with many plot twists it fabricates a dilemma that realistically wouldn't exist and lets a plain wrong decision appear as the only possible option. My first problem is with the obvious allusion that the Valakian dilemma should be the origin of the Prime Directive. The Prime Directive was always meant to protect civilizations that were little advanced and would have been impaired if they had learned of "gods" who were able to travel at warp speed and other miraculous things (just like the Mintakans in TNG: "Who Watches the Watchers"). In a broader sense, the non-interference would apply to all alien civilizations that didn't seek contact or ask for help, be they warp-capable or not (just like the Malcorians in TNG: "First Contact" and even the Klingons in TNG: "Redemption"). Neither reason to "protect" the inhabitants from Starfleet's interference applies here. On the contrary, the Valakians have gone into space for the only purpose to contact aliens and ultimately obtain exactly the help that Archer and Phlox deny them. Of all people who have received or will receive help from Starfleet, the Valakians should not be worthy of it only because they are a few decades behind an arbitrary standard? The attitude that Starfleet shouldn't determine the destiny of the planet is extremely hypocritical, and it doesn't even apply here. As the incentive for the familiar Prime Directive the situation of the Valakians just doesn't work out.

In "Dear Doctor", the fact that there are two intelligent humanoid races on the same planet obviously serves only as an excuse of Archer's and Phlox' attitude. If they wouldn't let one half of the population die, they would deny the other half, namely the Menk, their so-called "natural evolution". The Valakians are simply said to have "bad genes". The Valakians have not tampered with them or unconsciously or obtained them through a war with nuclear weapons. However, the question must be allowed if Archer might have helped if the Valakians had been responsible for their misery themselves, because then he wouldn't have interfered with a "natural" process - how paradoxical and cynical! There is also no point in stating that it was predestined that another species, namely the Menk, was to become dominant. Actually, no one could have predicted whether the Neandertaler or the Cro Magnon human would survive, even if one had known of the climate changes to come. Ironically, it is stated in the episode itself that the development on the planet and therefore ultimately the evolution would be a matter of coincidences, but even this doesn't change anything about Phlox' belief that the Menk are designed to survive while the Valakians are not. Overall, the twisted ethics along with bad science ruins this episode.

"Their culture is different. It's their way." That is how he still defends the Valakians when Hoshi criticizes their treatment of the apparently less intelligent Menk. It seems he is impartial about the situation on the planet. But then he finds out that the Menk have the "better genes", and he decides that he should let the Valakians be extinguished in their favor. His stance is totally misunderstood Darwinism and almost racism. The Prime Directive is on the way, but as good as it may prove later, I think it has the worst possible start if it is based on one doctor's personal ethics.

Criminal Demeanor

These are some examples where Starfleet officers cross the line to becoming criminal, but without legal consequences and without their deeds being sufficiently condemned by others in the course of the story. Sometimes the offense or crime isn't even mentioned as such, let alone criticized.

TNG: Up the Long Ladder Riker and Dr. Pulaski discover that the Mariposans (who need new DNA for their colony of clones) have made clones of the two officers against their explicit wishes. Riker pulls a phaser and kills the clone modeled after him. When Pulaski nods in agreement, he shoots her clone likewise. The laws applicable in the Federation do not become clear in the episode. Still, we may bring forth in favor of Riker and Pulaski that cloning them was definitely a theft and a misuse of genetic material. The Federation may also have laws that grant the individuality of every person, as a supplement to the (sometimes insufficiently monitored) ban on genetic manipulation and cloning. Still, if a court had been to decide about the future of the two illegal clones, would the verdict have been that they must be killed? Most likely not. In an obvious comparison, the illegal clones are not unlike children that were conceived using sperms or an ovum against the will of the man or woman, respectively. And even a bit like Thomas Riker, the result of a transporter accident who will be discovered in TNG: "Second Chances" and who is a perfectly legitimate second Riker. I don't want to incite a discussion about abortion, so I just concede that it may be or may be not a matter of the stage of the development of clones whether it is allowed to let them die or actively kill them. But by any means, Riker's deed and Pulaski's support for it was wrong, and it is sad that it remained without consequences and wasn't brought up again in the further course of the episode.

TNG: Time Squared When Picard 2 (the one from the future) climbs into the shuttlepod, about to repeat the error that led to the destruction of the ship, Picard 1 (the present version) takes a phaser and kills the doppelganger, saying that "the cycle must end". Was this necessary? Wouldn't it have sufficed to just hold him back with a minimum of violence? Does it matter that once the timeline is fixed Picard 2 would vanish anyway? Or would Picard 1's action even qualify as a weird form of suicide? We can see in a couple of later episodes how sensitively the moral issues of time travel are dealt with, but just like the flawed logic of the plot that isn't limited to just the inexplicable predestination paradox everything is crude here. It's most likely rash writing that makes Picard 1 appear criminal here.

DS9: For the Uniform Movie clichés correspond with real-world experience when it comes to the persecution of traitors who are commonly hunted more fervently and more relentlessly than intrinsic enemies. Here Sisko is going after Eddington who used to be his security officer and who is now with the Maquis. Sisko is blinded by his personal struggle with Eddington, which may explain but never excuse the unspeakable crime that the Starfleet captain commits when he orders a Maquis planet to be poisoned, thereby rendering it uninhabitable for humans. Three plot twists are obviously meant to ease his guilt, but they must strike us as manufactured. The first one is the allegedly precisely limited effect of the bioweapon. The Maquis has developed an agent that would only inflict Cardassians but not humans to drive the Cardassians off their planet. Now we are supposed to believe that Benjamin Sisko knows that trilithium resin (which is an explosive on other occasions) has exactly the opposite effect, and can be "successfully" released in an atmosphere using quantum torpedoes? Without running any tests? Secondly, what a relief, all the Maquis manage to escape from the planet. What did Sisko expect, that they were waiting in shuttles with their engines already warmed up? Did it never occur to him that even if the effect was just as restricted as desired he would kill more or less innocent people? Thirdly, speaking of innocent people, we know that the Maquis is not just a military organization, but that it includes families. He is destroying their home. Sisko is a father himself, but he mercilessly fires a bioweapon on an inhabited planet. There may have been no children on the planet, but he couldn't be sure about that.

What is Sisko's motivation? To preserve the peace treaty with the Cardassians? Superficially, yes. At least that is what he could have pretended if he had been on a court-martial. Yet, we know that when he conceived his nearly insane plan he gave a damn on the Cardassians. Sisko had been hurt and humbled by Eddington more than once, and it was just too convenient an opportunity to pay him back. Eddington was all correct in his estimation that Sisko had become just like him, only that even Eddington didn't anticipate that Sisko would go all the way and become a true criminal. One who is driven by lower instincts of personal satisfaction and vengeance. Sisko: "You betrayed your uniform!" - Eddington: "And you're betraying yours, right now! The sad part is, you don't even realize it." By any means, not Eddington but Sisko is the traitor here. To say the least, Sisko vastly oversteps his authority and probably violates a large number of regulations, Starfleet and interstellar. Sisko betrays his superiors by weakening Starfleet's position in the Neutral Zone, he betrays the principles of peace and justice that the Federation and Starfleet stand for and he betrays the human settlers of the Neutral Zone who would have deserved neutrality from his part at the very least, and not help for the Cardassian oppressors. I doubt that the Cardassians cherish this favor.

There was no controversial discussion about Sisko's crime, and it obviously didn't entail any serious consequences for him. If there was ever an investigation about the case, he must have come out largely unscathed. But even if all of his crew made morally supportive testimonials and played down the incident, they could hardly have denied the pure facts. Sisko ordered a bioweapon to be fired, he consciously poisoned a planet and may have killed hundreds. Under no circumstances and in no situation of a war there would have been a necessity that would have permitted to do that. There is simply no way for Starfleet Justice to overlook or ignore that, unless they were bending the laws and protecting Sisko. And his crew likewise, for in any modern military there must be regulations for the crew that they have to disobey illegal orders.

VOY: Equinox Janeway tortures a member of a renegade Starfleet crew, and she may have let him die if Chakotay hadn't stepped in. Full rant coming soon.

ENT: Anomaly Much like Janeway in "Equinox", Archer plays the madman, and he would almost have killed a more or less innocent alien. Full rant coming soon.

ENT: Damage Well, the most obvious crime is that a so-called "warp coil" is supposed to be a small and universally applicable component here. But sarcastic remarks aside, Archer steals the "warp coil" from an alien ship that might never reach a safe planet without it. Full rant coming soon.

Bad Attitude

Here are miscellaneous examples of obsessive behavior, stupid herd instinct or hero worship, illogical decisions or plain silliness of characters from whom we should least expect it.

TNG: Descent Data has been kidnapped by the renegade Borg. When the Enterprise traces him to a planet that the sensors can't search, Picard orders most of the crew to beam down and search for him. For one crew member. He leaves Crusher in charge of the ship with an inexperienced skeleton crew that doesn't even trust her. While a Borg ship is around and could attack any time! I don't think I need to say more. Only Crusher's reckless maneuver of protecting the ship with the (untested!) metaphasic shield inside the star's corona saves everyone's life on board and on the planet.

VOY: 11:59 This almost completely pointless episode mainly takes place in present-day Indiana without any relevance for what is happening in the Delta Quadrant. Still, what little is shown about the crew of Voyager is that they exchange knowledge so trivial as if they would rehearse for "Jeopardy" and that they are all suddenly fascinated by genealogy. In this episode I have the impression that we're not dealing with a Starfleet ship but with an elementary school.

DS9: Take Me Out to the Holosuite Come on, Ben. It's only a game. By accepting the baseball challenge the good captain proves nothing but that he is just as arrogant and infantile as the evil Vulcan captain. If Sisko's motley crew had won the match, it would have meant nothing except that their egos would have been bolstered to the extreme. But surprisingly and ironically just the same happens although they actually lose. Sorry, but I don't share the feelings that the would-be champions have about their "moral victory". It would have been a moral victory to forego the whole thing. I was glad when this stupid team spirit episode was over.

Back to Inconsistencies index

Home   Top
	Last modified: 20.04.08
http://www.ex-astris-scientia.org/inconsistencies/bad_ethics.htm