The most confused morals in Star Trek (and other scifi)

[Madner Kami]

Not to mention that line about going to Talos IV being the only death penalty left on the books. What twisted sense of priorities came up with that one?

What's the punishment for:

Murder? New Zealand.

Rape? New Zealand.

Genocide? New Zealand.

Blowing up star systems? New Zealand.

Trying to destroy the entire universe with antimatter? New Zealand.

Assisting the Borg so they can destroy countless entire civilizations? Become an Admiral.

Trying to go to this one planet with aliens on it that probably won't let you leave but will largely leave the rest of the galaxy alone? GET OUT THE FIRING SQUAD!

Those and the treatment of Mudd and his shift of personality always gets my actually-a-hidden-dystopia-headcanon-creator into gear.

[AllanO]

Not to mention that line about going to Talos IV being the only death penalty left on the books. What twisted sense of priorities came up with that one?

There are two things to consider: first they never actually execute or in anyway punish anyone for contact with Talos IV, it was all a bit of a paper tiger, hard to say if the moral is that the death penalty or any punishment is understood as needed; second the Talosian mental powers constitute a version of the last invention ever made, ie an experience or pleasure machine that renders all other machines and the productive power of civilization redundant because now people can just bliss out in the artificially produced fantasy. Potentially the Talosian mind power could be more devastating than the h-bomb etc. which I suspect may be why they were forbidden, not so much because of their hostility etc.

Of course the fact that the Federation invented the Holodeck which offers similar temptations and dangers without apparently destroying themselves perhaps illustrate the emptiness of the fear of the experience machine type situation. Or perhaps all TNG and later series are only elaborate holodeck simulations and the real Federation is a desolate wasteland where all anyone does is try to score more holodeck time.

[Mickey_Rat15]

Not to mention that line about going to Talos IV being the only death penalty left on the books. What twisted sense of priorities came up with that one?

It is stated at the end of "The Cage" sequences by the lead Talosian. They blame their mental abilities for destroying their civilization. The Talosian also suggests humans can learn how to project mental fantasies as the Talosians do and fear we would destroy ourselves in turn if we learned the skill. Starfleet seems to see those abilities as a potential plague and is instituting a harsh quarantine.

[Durandal_1707]

^ The whole thing about the planet is that it's a Cage, though. How can you spread a "plague" from a planet you can't even leave?

[SuccubusYuri]

Well, presumably, you wouldn't be executing anyone until they returned to your custody, erego, they must have left in the first place in order to be prosecuted.

[Independent George]

It's been years since I've seen it, so please excuse me if I get some of the particulars wrong, but the BSG episode, "Blue Collar", was all over the place.

The idea of the episode was that the grunts that the fleet depended on were more or less being mistreated - which is a very believable and logical outcome. But to put a face on it, they had that kid assigned to a work crew because his summer experience on a farm gave him more actual experience with heavy machinery than anyone else in the fleet. And we were supposed to sympathize with him because this clearly upper class kid who dreamed of being an architect was being forced to work with his hands.

So, the show would basically have you believe simultaneously that (1) the nameless laborers which the fleet depends on are vital and should be treated with respect, and (2) an educated youth of an upper class background shouldn't have to sully himself in such a disreputable trade.

[Admiral X]

I didn't get that out of it so much as that they basically took the chief's recommendation a little too straightforward and it resulted in a kid who was very out of his element ending up in a job that saw him get injured very soon after starting.

[Artabax]

One confused moral is one which Star Trek acknowledged but it acknowledged it while also not really having an answer then ignoring the implications. The Marquis in Deep Space Nine were often given the idea they were not WRONG in their actions but stll inspired a lot of moral outrage in the protagonists.

I'm still not particularly sure why. Still, it only becomes weird in the larger canon because Deep Space Nine is the show which was soldly on the side of the Bajoran Resistance. Major Kira never particularly showed any sympathy to the Marquis though and their situation is almost identical.

Maquis in DS9 was sorta kinda morally ambiguous. Yes, they were preaching the Word, Maquis have betrayed the Uniform and the PD. Maquis must be destroyed, bugger the Borg, defecate the Dominion, Fed must destroy Maquis. But on the other hand, Sisko = Javert on his quest for vengeance, genociding whole planets, did give hints that other POV are available.

It wasn't so much confused moral message as the writers sneaking tiny squillets of pro-Maquis propaganda under the noses of TPTB.

[Nealithi]

I think the problem with some of the morals shown is we look at them from different lenses.
The addicted and supplier worlds. There had been a legitimate disease a long while ago. Now the narcotic lets one world control the other. The dealers slapped Picard with the Prime Directive so he could not interfere. So he also kept the offered assistance to maintain the transport ships. They set him up but failed to see where it could lead. It was just going to be painful for the people there. But they asked the Federation to stay away by invoking the prime directive.
The Maquis were born because some deranged admirals, cough Nechayev cough, thought thetreaty was more important than lives. As Chuck pointed out, not the peace, the treaty itself. So they had to fight to keep from being exterminated. Why not just nuke/torpedo the colonists? Deniability. Let them die quietly and you take their stuff without disturbing the Federation. Sisko does not have a massive beef with the maquis. He understands their point. But is duty bound to stop them and their supporters. Hence when Cassidy was being a good federation citizen and trying to give medicine to the sick. He had to arrest her and send her to a penal colony. Sisko was after Eddington for his personal betrayal.

[CharlesPhipps]

In a more cynical series, I actually think the Marquis treatment makes perfect sense. However, Star Trek is so idealistic that presenting the treaty from an idealistic perspective makes no damn sense while it makes perfect sense from a practical perspective.

STAR TREK could have used a designated "practical admiral" versus Nechayev the mean one. Maybe Jellico to say:

"The Marquis have a good cause to want to protect their homes and fight for them. However, the Federation cannot feed them weapons and personnel or that will result in another war with the Cardassians that could end up threatening millions of lives. The only reason we got Bajor free from the Cardassians was because we ceded those colonies for billions of lives. The next peace treaty may not have that. Yes, their situation stinks but they gave up the Federation's protection there and are acting surprised the Cardassians are bad neighbors."