Star Trek
r/startrek: The Next Generation
Star Trek news and discussion. No slash fic...
Maybe a little slash fic.
New to Star Trek and wondering where to start?
Rules
1 Be constructive
All posts/comments must be thoughtful and balanced.
2 Be welcoming
It is important that everyone from newbies to OG Trekkers feel welcome, no matter their gender, sexual orientation, religion or race.
3 Be truthful
All posts/comments must be factually accurate and verifiable. We are not a place for gossip, rumors, or manipulative or misleading content.
4 Be nice
If a polite way cannot be found to phrase what it is you want to say, don't say anything at all. Insulting or disparaging remarks about any human being are expressly not allowed.
5 Spoilers
Utilize the spoiler system for any and all spoilers relating to the most recently-aired episodes, as well as previews for upcoming episodes. There is no formal spoiler protection for episodes/films after they have been available for approximately one week.
6 Keep on-topic
All submissions must be directly about the Star Trek franchise (the shows, movies, books etc.). Off-topic discussions are welcome at c/quarks.
7 Meta
Questions and concerns about moderator actions should be brought forward via DM.
Upcoming Episodes
| Date | Episode | Title |
|---|---|---|
| 11-07 | LD 5x04 | "A Farewell to Farms" |
| 11-14 | LD 5x05 | "Starbase 80?!" |
| 11-21 | LD 5x06 | "Of Gods and Angels" |
| 11-28 | LD 5x07 | "Fully Dilated" |
| 12-05 | LD 5x08 | "Upper Decks" |
In Production
Strange New Worlds (2025)
Section 31 (2025-01-24)
Starfleet Academy (TBA)
In Development
Untitled comedy series
Wondering where to stream a series? Check here.
view the rest of the comments
It certainly didn't live up to Federation ideals.
But then again Sisko should be a war criminal for using Biogenic weapons.
If you want to see someone do the ethically correct thing 10/10, even in the face of Starfleet failing to, Jean Luc is your captain.
I'll bet Janeway and Sisko's music playlists are a lot more fun though.
The whole theme of the show is the battle of the ideals which work great in the alpha quadrant vs the reality of their situation
That actually makes Sisko sound so much worse.
Yeah, he was largely operating in safe space and still made some unethical decisions.
Janeway was willing to make the hard calls that would best serve her ship and it's future, having your cook and your third in command get fused isn't exactly going to result in a functioning chain of command.
Plus since the operation could be reversed, you could argue that Tuvok and Neelix aren't actually dead, merely suspended animation like storing people in a transporter buffer. You're still killing Tuvix, but sacrificing one to save two is "the needs of the many" in it's most simplistic form even without the added weight of hundreds of lives depending on Tuvok's leadership and tactical skills.
I never once considered Janeway to be out of line given her circumstances. The crew always comes first even at the cost of her own humanity and ethics. She's a good captain, willing to make the call that ends lives and live with it so that others may not have to endure those decisions and consequences. She didn't ask anyone else to do that for her.
I mean, DS9 was almost as much in the boonies as Voyager. Assistance was limited, and there were limitations on what he could do, as he was only running the station at the behest of the Bajoran government, not as a true representative of the Federation.
It also introduced facets of war, even before it became a full blown thing in the later seasons. He wasn't always on the side of the angels... because there are no angels in war. War only ever makes demons.
It doesn't excuse his actions, but it doesn't make them truly inexcusable either. They both operated in much more of a grey area than either of the two previous series.
Bajoran space was far away but not impossibly so from Federation resources, I'm not trying to say he's a bad Captain, merely that the comparison to Janeway is a complete farce. If we are being fair they both fail to uphold the federation's ideals.
If we are being reasonable, they both did what they had to do in order to save lives and get the job done.
My issue is the constant Trekky tendency to pretend Janeway is a shit bag and Sisko is somehow better, it's just bias.
Yeah fuck Tuvix, and the Philosophy 101 bullshit. Two people were the victim of an orchid-related technology malfunction. Plus, I don't hear people making the same argument about Jeff Goldblum in The Fly.
Exactly, had they not reversed the malfunction Janeway could be considered to have killed two of her crew. That somehow never gets brought up in the philosophy discussions surrounding the episode. Refusal to act when a solution exists makes her complicit in dual homicide.
Plus! After that one episode in TNG where they de-age replacement Crusher, we have no reason to believe transporters can't solve literally all of these issues including death. For those not in the know, since the transporter has the last time someone energized stored in their memory banks it can simply reconstruct them as they were. A literal backup snapshot of the person.
Once that episode airs, all bets are completely off. I mean seriously, you could fix someone getting their head blown off by just transporting them but altering the image to correct for their last time leaving the ship. Death? Fixed. Wounds? Fixed. You can literally pull their backups and reconstruct at any time you want.
It's foolish to think this is even a conundrum given that slip up, just duplicate and separate, keep all three. If transporters are really making matter out of energy it shouldn't matter if there's three people's worth of matter, just use more energy.
Yeah it’s basically just a Trolley Problem scenario. Two people were laying on the trolley’s current track and would have been killed if she refused to pull the lever. She pulled the lever, diverted the trolley, and killed one person laying on the second track to save the two laying on the primary track.
Sure, the philosophy people could argue that she was murdering the one by acting. But if she has the opportunity to act and refuses to do so, many more would argue that she was complicit in murdering the two. She made a choice and knew she’d have to live with it.
Neither side is more “right” than the other. That’s kind of the whole point of the trolley problem.
If you abandon your principles when things get hard then they're not principles; they're hobbies.
True. Then you are removed and replaced by someone who does what you won't.
It's tricky. I think its also important to weigh in that a lot of these captains and folks in executive position spent their entire working life to get to X position. It must be hard to walk away from a life goal, which I assume is what pushes them to, "do what needs to be done." The lingering question remaining, "Did it really need to he done?"
There are a lot of instances where the Enterprise crew wanted to do the ethical thing, and Picard stops it or tries to. For example, when Dr. Crusher wanted to help when that planet population was addicted to drugs, and Picard wouldn't let her do that or communicate anything to them.
Also, Data once found humans frozen in space, and when he helped them, Picard was annoyed; it wasn't even a Prime Directive issue!
The biogenic stuff is so funny for some reason... The absolute absurdity of Sisko bio nuking a planet to get one terrorist
Jean Luc IS my captain
I believe the only reason nothing happened to him was because of Bajor, with him being seen as an Emissary to the Bajoran people, punishing Sisko would Punishing the Prophets chosen one, they wanted Bajor in the federation no matter what, that was the end goal, so leaving Sisko essentially unpunished was right for the greater goal of bringing in Bajor.
Even Picard broke the PD multiple times. If we are basing ethics on that then he's no better.
Every captain in starfleet seems to treat it more like the Prime Suggestion.
"I only bend the Prime Directive"
In fairness, Picard is extremely upfront and honest that he has broken the Prime Directive in situations where he's felt it would be callous not to.
Separately, he also said that while rules are a good thing, rules cannot be universally absolute.
Another thing he's said is that Starfleet doesn't want officers that will blindly follow orders, but rather to think about them seriously and weigh them in their minds.
Janeway straight up said to another captain that she's never broken the Prime Directive in her life, despite clearly doing it a bunch of times. She's in denial.
That's my only real issue with her is her comment to the Nova class captain about it.
However, I give her the benefit of the doubt here because she's clearly trying to encourage him that they don't need to abandon their morality. If she tells him that she's done it half a dozen times or so then he might be more likely to assume that's the standard.
Now we all know in hindsight that he'd already committed an atrocity and wanted assurance from Janeway that he wasn't alone in his decisions to prioritize crew over other sapient beings, but she was simply seeing the younger version of herself in him and attempting to assure him that he doesn't have to give up hope and sink to those depths.
Voyager has more of a problem with character writing consistency than it does an issue with Janeway specifically, IMO.
And he's generally careful about trying to make sure that there is justification for breaking the Prime Directive before doing so.
He was particularly put out about being involved in Klingon political successsion because it would be a violation of the Prime Directive, and he'd be wading into Klingon business, with no justification for his being so, other than that he was appointed.
Needs of the many (2 people live) over needs of the few/one (cya tuvix)
I mean, that logic was only ever applied by the Vulcans as a personal choice/sacrifice, not something to be enforced by the barrel of a.. er.. phaser.
Spock sacrificed himself, it wasn't done forcibly against his will. Kirk didn't order the execution of one man so that others could live.
I don't think we should take a slogan as an absolute moral lesson, you can justify all kinds of evil with it.
E.g. your organs could save dozens of lives. Would it be right to pin you down, kill you, and remove them, so that others can live? Surely one life lost is a worthy price to pay? The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few, after all.
Ethics are a lot more complex than a catchy slogan.
Yeah but it wasn't a random uninvolved person, it was essentially an industrial accident that needed unwinding and it just so happened the involved people were trapped in the gears of the machine. Somebody was getting smushed