the Star Trek quandary

Philosophy Forums Philosophy
1

What has always fascinated me ethically is the need to make a distinction between conflicting versions of “the facts”; and, then, given these conflicting versions, determining how we ought to act in the face of them.

Of all things, this just popped into my head because I was watching my favorite Star Trek movie, Star Trek IV: The Voyage Home.

One of the sub-plots in the film revolved around the perennial squabble between Kirk and Spock over the role of emotion in human interaction. I say human interaction because, as those who enjoy immersing themselves in the Star Trek universe know, Spock was half human and half Vulcan. The Vulcan half was basically bereft of emotional reactions. A Vulcan’s reaction to the world was always logical, supremely rational. Thus the human half of Spock was, apparently, something he kept buried deep down in his psyche.

In the course of the movie, the Kirk [emotional], Spock [rational] conflict ebbed and flowed. But in a climactic scene near the end, the crew of the Enterprise are in a jam. One of their comrades, Pavel Chekhov, is isolated from the rest of them. He is in a hospital sure to die if not rescued. But if the crew goes after him they risk the possibility of not completing their mission. And if they don’t complete their mission every man, woman and child on earth will die.

Spock’s initial reaction is purely calculated: It is clearly more important [more rational, more ethical] to save the lives of all planet earth’s inhabitants than to risk these lives in the effort to save just one man.

But Kirk intervenes emotionally and reminds everyone that Chekhov is one of them. So, naturally, this being a Hollywood movie, Spock ends up agreeing that saving Chekhov is now the #1 priority. And, naturally, this being a Hollywood film, they still have time to rescue planet earth from the whale-probe. Barely.

But think about the ethcial dilemma posed in the film. Is it more rational [ethical] to save Chekhov, if it means possibly the destruction of all human life on earth?

What are the limits of ethical inquiry here in deciding this? Can it even be decided ethically?

Consider it in two ways:

In the first, we can rescue our beloved friend knowing there might still be time to rescue everyone else.

In the second, we can rescue our beloved friend knowing that, if we do, there is no time left to rescue everyone else.

2

Everything hinges on your judgment of whether there is enough time to save everyone. If you know for a fact that rescuing Chekhov will not permit you to rescue everyone else, then Chekhov is expendable.

3

As a form of life, a Spock is incoherent.
There are no rational decisions except those that are put to the service of survival, needs and wants. So, the latter can’t be denied without denying the former! Did anyone out there notice that?

4

What the dilemma poses to me is the extent to which our emotional and psychological reaction to the world around us can marble any supposed “rational” discourse. If someone we know and love dearly is in danger it can easily prompt us to rationalize giving priority to her rescue.

It’s similar to the manner in which we can be rivited by a news story relating to a single child trapped in an abandoned mine shaft while a story relating to the thousands of children who starve to death every single day prompts little or no reaction from either the media or from the individuals all around us.

The single child has a name and a face and a narrative. The thousands starving children “out there somewhere” become basically abstractions to most of us.

The human mind is often anything but a font of reason.

If you recall, the plot of the original Star Trek TV series often revolved around Us versus Them. Us being the capitalist West with our emphasis on individual freedom and Them being the Communist Klingons with their emphasis on war and ever expanding “the good of the mnay”.

Thus, we are supposed to cheer on the crew of the Enterprise for going after Chekhov. Why? Because, unlike Them, We don’t abandon the individual in order to foster what is perceived [by the communist dictators] to be in the best interest of “the people”—synonymous of course with The State.

My point, however, is that—philosophically, ethically—there is no objective answer that can be derived through Reason.

Sure, I would like to believe that, if I were in charge and was certain that rescuing the one I loved would mean abandoning all of the others I don’t really know to death, I would do the “right thing” and rescue the many. But it always depends as much on how we perceive the circumstantial context and how we feel about it as it does some abstract philosophical invention like Kant’s categorical imperative. Kant’s deontological ethics [derived through Reason] requires that, first and foremeost, we must act in accordance with our Duty and always do the right thing.

That is just an intellectual contraption to me. There is no necessarily right or wrong behavior

5

if we accept the Star Trek premise that the universe is teeming with additional “intelligent life forms”, that is incoherent. We can’t possibly know their minds, their cultures, their mores, their ethical fonts.

Basically this sanctions any and all behaviors because any and all behaviors can be rationalized as reflecting the wants and the needs of human survival. Indeed, even a cursory glance at the travails that have marbled human history reveals just how draconian these rationalizations can be. Has anyone noticed that?

6

uh i thought it was more like: rescue friend knowing the chances of saving earth are substantially lowered vs rescuing earth knowing that the chances of saving the friend are substantially lowered/completely diminished

i, personally, think there should be there shouldn’t be such a difference between ethics and logic. it is both more ethical and more logical to save the earth

7

That was the only problem you noticed with the series and films? :stuck_out_tongue:

8

A Spock is incoherent because it uses rationality for a purpose that it denies - survival, needs and wants. That’s it. In a nutshell. It’s that simple.

9

Yeah, and if it was the person you loved most in the world left to die, that would not make the slightest difference.

10

Actually, I thought the Tribbles were rather tacky too.

11

A Spock, perhaps, but what about the Spock.

12

Ethics isn’t about what’s easy, that’s the point.

13

The point of ethics is whatever you come to think it is given the existential trajectory of your life. It is as easy and as hard as you make it. And excising your emotional and psychological reactions when confronting actual behaviors in conflict is always far more problematic down on the ground.

Merely consider the moral and political conflagration that is the abortion wars.

14

I have a very simple philosophy: kill all humans, it serves me well.

That said though is this really a quandary as such or is the answer fairly self evident and you are just pondering over different ethical view points to select the most morally equitable to the consensus here?

ETA: what I think people have to understand that what is morally right and ethically right may conflict, the needs of the many outweight the needs of the few or the one is very practical and logical but what if that one is your friend or a close family member. Given ten anonymous people die or your only son what would you chose? Ethics has to be realistic and accept that we have certain instincts that although not logical are evolutionary.

15

Teleportation, warp drive at least as they describe it, travel back in time? yeah Einstein inferred that travel faster than light might reverse his equation so time ran backwards (although he thought t impossible). So why does that only happen when you want it to? The list is endless.

Kirk: “Why don’t we fire the phasers into the energy cloud… to… try… and… destabilise it”

Bones (having another time of the month crisis): “It’s crazy Jim it can’t work!”

Smug Kirk: “Sure worked last week… mother fucker!”

Spock: “To use an analogy it is like putting too much air in a balloon captain.”

Smug But Eager KIrk: “…precisely… Spock”

Spock: thinking: this guy is so full of it, smug git. Which is portrayed on screen by raising an eyebrow.

Chekov: thinking: you were much better in TJ Hooker

Zulu: thinking: that security officer is fine

16

I remember wondering the same thing as the op when I watched the film. To me there was only one option; to rescue everyone else and let Chekhov die, or, if there is time then rescue him after the others.

I don’t really understand what the dilemma is. They are letting Chekhov’s [or friend ’x’] wife and children die along with their own and the rest of humanity.

17

I agree. At least I think do.

18

Not sure what the point is but imagine going back in time 100 years with a smart phone. Imagine the reaction you would get from the folks you showed it to. Would they be more amazed at the phone or at you going back in time to show it to them? And how many of us today really have a clue as to how something like this can even exist?

Even a microwave oven may as well be…magic.

I remember the scene from the classic western Shane where Marian Starrett is in the general store amazed at the invention of jars used for preserving food. “My, my, what will they think up next!”, she marvels.

As for what the world of technology will look like 100 years in the future, nothing seems beyond possible to me.

19

The problem is the laws of special relativity if they are untrue then Star Trek works if not then it doesn’t. You can’t conveniently say faster than light causes backwards in time motion if it’s “warp” factor whatever round the sun. It either works or it doesn’t it’s not conveniently sending people back in time to establish a plot. Laws are bit harder to get around than that.

20

Well on topic good. :smiley: