Guide to star trek
Download 0.85 Mb.
|
- Navigate this page:
- "Do we live in a culture that is sustainable in the long run"
- Is the prime directive deontological or utilitarian
| someone else's culture. The episode First Contact (TNG)156 clearly shows an awareness of the dangers of technological knowledge. Consider the following scenes:
Capt. Picard:Chancellor, we are here only to help guide you into a new era. I can assure you we will not interfere with the natural development of your planet. That is, in fact, our prime directive. Chan. Durken:I can infer from that directive that you do not intend to share all of this exceptional technology with us. Capt. Picard:That is not the whole meaning, but it is part of it. Chan. Durken:Is this your way of maintaining superiority? Capt. Picard:Chancellor, to instantly transform a society with new technology would be harmful and it would be destructive. Chan. Durken:You're right, of course. . . . Krola:Can you be so enraptured with space travel that you are blind to the threat they represent? . .
Krola:Chancellor, I mean no disrespect, but I have repeatedly warned you about your policies. Taking us too quickly where we have no business going in the first place. New philosophies. New economics. New technologies. There are still many people who value our traditional way of life and I for one am willing to die to defend it. Mirasta:Open your eyes, Krola. We are part of a greater community. We can't ignore it. But this caution and concern is clearly not present when it comes to our own culture. Consider this scene from the episode Return to Tomorrow (TOS). Spock:Once inside their mechanical bodies, engineer, they can leave this planet--travel back with us. With their knowledge, mankind can leap ahead ten thousand years. Capt. Kirk:Bones, they'll show us medical advances--miracles you've never dreamed possible. Scotty, engineering advances--vessels this size with engines the size of walnuts. Scotty:Ah, you're joking. Spock:No. He's not. Dr. McCoy:Now let's not kid ourselves that there's no potential danger in this. Capt. Kirk:They used to say that if man could fly he'd have wings. But he did fly. He discovered he had to. Do you wish that the first Apollo mission hadn't reached the moon or that we hadn't gone on to Mars and then to the nearest star? That's like saying you wish that you still operated with scalpels and sewed up your patients with catgut like your great-great-great-great-grandfather used to. I'm in command. I could order this. But I'm not, because Dr. McCoy is right in pointing out the enormous danger potential in any contact with life and intelligence as fantastically advanced as this. But I must point out that the possibilities, the potential for knowledge and advancement is equally great. Risk. Risk is our business. That's what this starship is all about. That's why we're aboard her. However, when it comes to introducing radical new technology and/or knowledge into our own culture there is an astonishing lack of concern. The Enterprise is out there trying to do to its own culture what it is expressly prohibited from doing to other cultures. This scene shows, members of the Federation are ready to instantly infuse any amount of knowledge into their own culture with little or no regard to its consequences. This cavalier attitude is also seen in the episode Nth Degree (TNG). The Enterprise is hijacked by a process that is working through Lt. Barclay. The Enterprise is taken a vast distance and the crew spends several weeks exchanging knowledge and technology with this vastly superior race. As far as I can tell, the Federation places no limits on what its representatives should try to learn. And unless there is some sophisticated censoring mechanism, it seems that the Federation is willing to suffer whatever consequences occur as a result of its investigations. Given that they clearly appreciate the cultural dangers of rapidly increasing a culture's technology, this liaise-faire attitude is both reckless and negligent. But whether for ill or good, the Federation's attitude is precisely the same attitude that our culture adopts. In the United States there are no limits whatsoever on the introduction of technology into our culture.157 In spite of all of the above evidence that, once again, tends to show that Roddenberry flip-flops on the central question, there is some evidence to support the claim that the conflict between man and machine might be something that we can eventually get beyond. There is, perhaps, some hope that the difficulties can be reconciled. Consider once again Star Trek: The Motion Picture. Initially, this movie continues the theme that advanced technology poses a significant threat to the Earth's survival. However, the conclusion of the movie offers another perspective. The entity formed as a result of the unification of V'ger/Ilia and Commander Decker is portrayed in a positive manner. Both technology and humanity are transcended by the creation of this new life form. After witnessing this transformation, Spock says, "We witnessed a birth--perhaps also a direction in which some of us may evolve."158 This comment not only suggests a positive attitude toward technology, it also indicates that technology and humanity are, under at least some circumstances, compatible with one another. What exactly is the point that we are supposed to derive from all of the above considerations. First, we need to recognize the value of human dignity and to broaden our appreciation for the many ways that it can be challenged. Second, it seems to me that we have always evaluated technology on its own terms. But this is too narrow. It is time that we develop and apply a human-value index that judges the overall costs and benefits of a new technology and that does so without the idealistic or utopian vision that is typically promoted by the inventor or the developer. Third, it is important that we not forget the non-technological values that we cherish. We need to remember that when we indulge in a particular technology, we are incurring a cost and that in many instances that cost is incurred with respect to our relationships--our family, community, and traditions. Fourth, we need to concern ourselves with the long-term picture. The following poem fragment was written by Edna St. Vincent Millay: My candle burns at both ends; It will not last the night; But, ah, my foes, and oh, my friends-- It gives a lovely light! This poem represents the short-term focus that is so typical of our culture. The James Dean syndrome. But we must ask ourselves: "Do we live in a culture that is sustainable in the long run?" I think that the answer to this question is: Clearly, No! If we do not change our course we are destined to exhaust both our natural and our cultural resources. Finally, we need to recognize that our autonomy can be limited without our being fully aware of it. When technology circumscribes and limits your set of options, your autonomy has been attacked. One's integrity can be preserved only if one retains control over one's choices. Thus, if we are oblivious to the ways in which technological changes circumscribe our life choices, the ways in which it alters our culture, our conceptual categories, then we will be unable to control our circumstances and ultimately we will be unable to direct our own lives. Ethics The morality that you learned at your mother's knee is typically a rather narrow morality. It usually involves judgments of actions that involve other people. If your action bring about more pain and suffering than it does happiness, then it is likely that your mother condemned it. If the action requires you to violate some duty or responsibility, or if it involved the violation of some well grounded principle, then, here again, she would likely have morally criticized you. But science fiction, like philosophy, asks us to consider whether our culture-bound beliefs are too narrow. There are some philosophers who argue that our common sense morality is too narrow because it irrationally excludes animals, trees, and ecosystems from the domain of moral concern. For years philosophers have relied on exotic examples to help them to clarify their intuitions on a particular subject. When you ask someone how they would behave under certain circumstances, you can find out a lot about what considerations that person thinks are fundamental. Sometimes when we read works of science fiction, it functions as a mirror that we can turn onto ourselves. Good works of science fiction allow us to see things that we could not otherwise have seen. On the other hand, sometimes a good work of science fiction will function to expand or alter our way of thinking. I believe that Star Trek functions in both ways. In what follows I will describe some episodes that shed insightful light onto our conception of what morality is and of the role that it plays in our lives. I will begin by exploring some of the standard theories of morality. Utilitarianism is one of the most prominent ethical theories. Utilitarianism states that a person should act in such a way as to maximize the good. That is, when you are choosing from a set of alternative actions that you might take, the moral thing to do is that act which maximizes the good in that circumstance. It is important to notice that the good must be maximized for everyone effected by the action. Utilitarianism should not be confused with egoism which says that each person should act so as to maximize the good for themselves. Rather utilitarianism requires that everyone's well being be counted equally. It is also important to notice that there can be different accounts of what the good is. For example, Jeremy Bentham argued that the good was equivalent to pleasure. Thus, according to his version of utilitarianism, each agent should do that act which would maximize the overall amount of pleasure in the world. Other theorists offer different accounts of what is good. Utilitarianism is usually contrasted with deontology. Deontology is an ethical theory that focuses primarily on the notion of duty. Because of this, it is also closely associated with rights, principles, and respect for the autonomy and dignity of persons. The most famous deontologist was Immanuel Kant. According to Kant, reason dictated that we morally ought to treat other persons with dignity and respect. At one point he explained this by saying that the moral action is the one that conforms to a rule that we could consistently will that everyone follow. Kant called this the categorical imperative. This claim contains a universalization condition, i.e., in order for your action to be morally correct it must be the case that it would be morally correct for anyone else who is similarly situated to do that act. Kant also expressed the categorical imperative by saying that we should never treat a person as though they were merely an object. This is essentially the idea that we should never "use" anyone. We should always act toward other persons in such a way that we respect their autonomy and dignity. Otherwise what we are doing is immoral. The two moral theories that I have just described are ideally contrasted with one another in the episode Man of the People (TNG). In this episode, Ambassador Alcar sheds his negative energy onto young women including Deanna Troi. This process ages the young women quite quickly, ultimately leading to their death. Ambassador Alcar justifies doing this to the young women because it allows him to be extraordinarily effective as a mediator. In his purified state, he has a very good chance of preventing a civil war and thus to prevent the deaths of thousands. Arguing from the utilitarian point of view, he maintains that it is morally permissible to sacrifice a few lives in order to save the lives of thousands of others. Picard does not agree. He is outraged by Ambassador Alcar's actions. Taking a deontological perspective, Picard argues that it is immoral to use a person in this way. He argues that since Deanna did not consent to being used in this way, it violates her autonomy and thus is immoral. It violates Kant's categorical imperative in that it treats a person merely as an object. According to this kind of deontological perspective, rational persons must be treated with dignity and respect. Their rights and autonomy must not be violated. Ambassador Alcar is violating Deanna Troi's autonomy and he has a moral duty not to do that. Philosophers continue to argue over which of these approaches to ethics is the correct account. This episode provides a clear test case for this debate. The utilitarian point of view is also a theme in Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan. At the end of this movie Spock sacrifices his life in order to save the ship. He points out that the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few or the one. This is an expression of something like a utilitarian point of view. It acknowledges the equal value of each person and it suggests that people can be traded off against one another and that when the needs of the many call for it, it is morally permissible to sacrifice an individual. The deontological perspective is well illustrated in the episode I, Borg (TNG). In this episode, the Enterprise comes across the crash sight of a Borg scout ship. They find one crew member still alive. They bring the Borg on board and during its recovery it acquires the perspective of an autonomous individual. It is given a name, Hugh, and he speaks of himself using the term "I". Picard initially approves a plan to use Hugh to carry a destructive program back to the Borg collective in hopes that it will destroy the Borg. But Picard's deontological sensitivities will not allow him to carry through with this plan. He comes to realize that it is impermissible to "use" this person in this way.159 Nor can Picard erase Hugh's memories, for that would be to eliminate his autonomy and individuality. Once Picard comes to see Hugh as an autonomous person, he must treat him with the same respect and dignity that he would grant to any other person. Another aspect of deontological thought is revealed in the episode Where Silence Has Lease (TNG). In this episode, Nagilum has trapped the Enterprise and he says that he is going to experiment on them in order to learn about death. He projects that the experiments will bring about the death of a third to a half of the crew. At the conference Picard decides that they will destroy the ship, killing themselves, rather than submit to the humiliation of the experiment.160 This demonstrates that we value our autonomy, our dignity, and our personal integrity more than we value our life. Under these conditions, a utilitarian perspective could not generate Picard's decision. The only explanation is a deep commitment to the kind of things that are central to the deontological perspective. There is another episode that (I think) contains a situation that supports the deontological perspective. The episode is Conundrum (TNG). In this episode, the crew of the Enterprise is exposed to the scan of an alien probe. This scan erases selected memories from each member of the crew. In particular it erased each person's knowledge of who they are and what their mission is.161 It also erases this crucial information from the computer. They eventually discover that they are at war and that they have orders to destroy the main space station of their enemy. Picard has moral qualms about whether he should follow this order. He analogizes the situation to being ordered to go into a room of strangers and to murder one of them. How can one do that if one does not know why this is being done? Should we simply follow an order just because it is an order? or must we at least be able to appreciate the nature of our act given that it is going to be our action? Kant claimed that reason alone could lead you to moral truths. This seems to be a case where Picard has little other than his reason to rely on and eventually he discovers the morally correct course of action.162 On the other hand, there is an episode where Picard does seem to diverge from his usual deontological perspective. In the episode Justice (TNG) Picard argues with the God-like entity that is protecting the people of Rubicun III. He points out that, "when laws are absolute there can be no real justice." Under a Kantian conception of deontology, rules are absolute. Thus, there is some indication that Picard's deontological perspective is not purely Kantian. The prime directive is an interesting moral commitment. In one of the Star Trek role playing games the prime directive is specified as follows: As the right of each sentient species to live in accordance with its normal cultural evolution is considered sacred, no Starfleet personnel may interfere with the healthy development of alien life and culture. Such interference includes the introduction of superior knowledge, strength, or technology to a world whose society is incapable of handling such advantages wisely. Starfleet personnel may not violate this Prime Directive, even to save their lives and/or their ship, unless they are acting to right an earlier violation or an accidental contamination of said culture. This directive takes precedence over any and all other considerations, and carries with it the highest moral obligation. Roddenberry states that he developed this prime directive because he knew that in our own history exploration invariably turned into exploitation. He did not want explorers in his Star Trek universe to be exploiters. Thus he put them under the restraint of the prime directive. But consider this question, Is the prime directive deontological or utilitarian? That is, if you had to justify the prime directive would you say, "It is just right" or would you say that it was justified because "Following it is the best way to maximize the long-term good of everyone considered." Initially it seems to be deontological in that it talks about the rights of other cultures and it seems to be based on a fundamental respect for the autonomy and integrity of other peoples. However, if you think about it you might be persuaded that the prime directive is morally correct because it is the rule, conformance to which, maximizes the good.163 There are a number of episodes in which the prime directive plays a pivotal role in the story line. Let me just mention a few of the more interesting ones. In the episode Pen Pals (TNG) Data makes radio contact with a little girl named Sarjenka. Drema IV, Sarjenka's planet, is breaking up due to volcanic stresses and, of course, this places her life in danger. There is an interesting moral discussion in this episode regarding whether the prime directive permits the Enterprise to interfere with the natural processes on the planet. They eventually decide to intercede based on the fact that Sarjenka asks for help.164 But everyone recognizes that this is a quite tenuous justification. At the end of the episode, they decide to erase Sarjenka's memory of Data and the Enterprise. This intrusion into a person's thoughts is in itself quite problematic morally speaking.165 In this case it seems justified because it restores the status quo ante, but it is nevertheless a quite problematic practice.166 Putting aside utilitarianism and deontology for the moment, I would like to discuss some episodes that raise especially interesting moral issues. In the episode The Host (TNG) Dr. Crusher falls in love with Odan. What she does not know is that Odan is a Trill. The consciousness that is Odan, is actually a life form that is living inside a host body. Odan is transplanted inside the body of Commander Riker until a replacement Trill host can be sent. Dr. Crusher has to struggle bring herself to love Odan in Riker's body. But she manages. When the Trill host eventually arrives it turns out to be a female host. When Odan is safely inside, he/she comes to "Dr. Beverly" but she painfully admits that she cannot love Odan in the body of a female. This episode is interesting in that it challenges the claim that many people make which is that when we love someone it is their mind or spirit that we are loving and not their bodies. This is why no one would accept making love to the identical twin of their spouse. But if this is the case, then why couldn't Dr. Crusher love Odan where ever he/she was? Dr. Crusher seems to acknowledge this contradiction. Indeed she is apologetic about her inability to overcome her limited view. She explains by saying that humans are not used to such rapid changes. But she also seems to be saying that humans have not yet become comfortable with homosexuality.167 Thus, in addition to questioning our claim to love the soul of our mate and not their body, this episode is also questioning our inability to accept the idea that the person that we love might just happen to be of the same sex that we are. As I suggested above, science fiction can guide us as we attempt to extrapolate our moral intuitions into domains where they are less well grounded. The above episode hints in this direction when it implicitly criticizes our intolerance of homosexuality. But this theme explicitly and directly tackled in the episode The Outcast (TNG). In this episode, we meet the J'naii who are an androgynous race. That is, they are a race that has only one gender. They are neither he nor she--they just are. This culture is extraordinarily uniform in this respect, but there are a few "sick" individuals who for one reason or another grow up to have a preference for either the feminine or masculine gender. These people are severely ostracized in their culture and they are treated with mind altering chemicals to eliminate this sickness. Riker has been working closely with one of the J'naii, a person named Soren. At one point Soren "comes out of the closet" and tells Riker that she is a J'naii who has a preference for the feminine gender. Their friendship is discovered and Soren is arrested and at her hearing Soren makes the following passionate speech. She says: I am tired of lies. I am female. I was born that way. I have had those feelings--those longings all of my life. It is NOT unnatural. I am not sick because I feel this way. I do not need to be helped. I do not need to be cured. What I need. . . and what all of those who are like me need is your understanding and your compassion. We have not injured you in any way, and yet we are scorned and attacked. . . and all because we are different. What we do is no different from what you do. We talk and laugh, we complain about work and we wonder about growing old. We talk about our families and we worry about the future. And we cry with each other when things seem hopeless. All of the loving things that you do with each other--that is what we do. And for that we are called misfits and deviants and criminals. What right do you have to punish us? What right do you have to change us? What makes you think that you can dictate how people love one another? Although Soren is defending the right to be heterosexual, it is clear from the context that we are to see the parallels to the fate of homosexuals in our culture. Soren's female tendencies are deviant relative to her society and homosexuals are deviant relative to the sexual preference of the current majority in our culture. The parallel is pretty obvious and thus Soren's questions are essentially addressed to the heterosexual majority in our country. Is what homosexuals do really all that different from what heterosexuals do? Does that difference really give the majority the right to dictate who can love one another? I sometimes ask my students if they have ever been propositioned by a homosexual. If they have been, I ask them how they reacted to that overture. Most say that they got angry, yelled at the "homo", called them some name, and then stormed away. If you ask me, I find such a reaction to be more immoral than anything that homosexuals do. What happened to simple human kindness? It would be so easy to simply say, "Although, I can respect your sexual preference, I'm not interested. Thanks, but no." And then carry on with this other human being who obviously likes you and want to be your friend. I am still somewhat amazed when I hear people defend the moral propriety of the angry response. Even if you find homosexuality offensive and repugnant, does that give you the right to be cruel, callous, and insensitive? I don't think so.168 Download 0.85 Mb. Share with your friends:
|