If you see a society suffering and you have the means to help it, do you have a moral obligation to intervene?
This is the intersection of Utility and the Prime Directive, and it gets to the heart of the idea of eudaimonia, the ancient Greek notion of happiness. Eudaimonia is the underpinning for all Aristotelian ethics, but what does it mean to flourish? What moral mandates do we have to interve when someone is not flourishing? When a system is failing? When a society is acting in ways that we percieve as impeding the florishing of its citizens?
When I watched this clip, I cheered out loud (much to the chagrin of my friends and fellow students in the common room that evening). We see the solidarity of self-determination from within the collective, compassion for an outsider, and defiance of authority (in the form of the chillingly assimilated Picard, who has difficulty with the pronoun I). Also, the choice of "Hugh" is excellent. We are Hugh becomes heard as We are you.
Seminar topic: even if resistance comes to nothing immediately, is it futile? Is resistance its own valuable act? What solidarity do we owe to those who are disadvantaged/oppressed even (especially) if we are not?
In this episode, Picard admits that in the end, torture prevailed. He would have been willing to say anything, but, even worse, he had come to see five lights, despite knowing the truth that there were only four. Oppression warps reality and our own ability to perceive the truth. It is the presence of the rescue team that allows him to issue the iconic line.
What is being offered to Picard is particularly appealing to me: a life of comfort, with time to pursue philosophy. This offer -- and the ability to withhold it-- is what corrupts the lizard brain to comply with the oppressor.
While survival may, in fact, be insufficient, it must also be safeguarded at all costs. What does this mean for the creation of a just society?
The Kobyashi Maru is an exercise in Starfleet’s training program, designed as a no-win situation that tests ethical decision-making and leadership. During the exercise, a cadet encounters a civilian ship in distress. To save the civilians, the cadet needs to enter the Neutral Zone, violating a treaty. If the cadet honors the treaty, the civilians will be left stranded and at the mercy of the hostile Klingons. If the treaty is broken, the Klingon armies will likely attack and board the ship being commanded by the cadet.
What would you do faced with the original Kobyashi Maru?
What do you think of Kirk’s “success” through cheating?
What sorts of ethical decisions are in play as the Kobyashi Maru opens? How do ethical decisions who went before us influence, limit, and shape the (perceived) possibilities of our decisions and leadership today?
Do you believe in the existence of no-win situations? (Kirk didn’t.)
When faced with a no-win situation, what is the most ethical place from which to proceed? What role does self-interest play in a no-win situation? Is it the only thing that one has any power over at that point?
It matters quite a bit how we go about making decisions when it seems as though there are no good options. Kirk famously said “I don’t like to lose” when faced with the Kobyashi Maru (and then cheated to change the rules so that he could “win”). No one likes to lose, and that’s why this exercise exists, especially at the point that a cadet is being considered for leadership. The point of the no-win situation presented (which Kirk cheats his way out of) is to see what kind of character a cadet has. Clearly Kirk’s character is one that finds personal victory important enough to cheat.
This, as you might imagine, bothers me, not just because cheating is wrong (so so so wrong!!!) but because real life isn’t about winning, it’s often about losing with integrity, or at least as much integrity as you can salvage.
"Friendship is unnecessary, like philosophy, like art. It has no survival value. Rather, it is one of the things which give value to survival." C. S. Lewis
"Survival is insufficient." Star Trek Voyager, ep. 122
May your 2022 be filled with things which give value to survival.
Okay, so I was wrong. Well, more in the wrong time zone, but that’s nothing new for me. Anyway, the eclipse tonight for the eastern shore will start at ten. I’m still looking forward to the living room picnic, of course.
And it finally happened; I was asked the question by a coworker yesterday: "Star Wars or Star Trek?” I responded without missing a beat, "Even if you take A New Hope versus Next Gen it’s still a pretty harsh question, but if you’re talking about Little Ms. "I am a senator" (in fetish clothing), well, that’s just a waste of good celluloid. Frankly, Star Trek is philosophy and Star Wars is a spaghetti western, so it’s really a question of what you’re in the mood for."
I looked around at my colleagues, who were either silent or shaking with laughter, which I suspected was more at me than with me. I looked at Ray, the systems Librarian (one of those overcome with mirth and said) "No fair. That was a trap, and now I have a big NERD sign on my forehead and now no one will talk to me." It was a lighthearted moment at my own expense, and really wasn’t all that painful – nor wholly unexpected. I like the folks I work with. And they accept that I am a true-trekkie-blue NERD.
N.B. No, I do not and have not ever owned a pair of Spock ears. This just had to be stated up front.
