Most Helpful Customer Reviews
51 of 53 people found the following review helpful:
5.0 out of 5 stars
Star Trek Stories as Moral Fables Exemplifying a Philosphy, January 11, 2001
As someone who has watched a lot of Star Trek, I find myself constantly noticing that the "normal" rules often don't quite apply in the various shows. Captain Kirk was always violating the Prime Directive. Starfleet Academy gave Kirk a commendation for breaking into the computer to change the programming of an "impossible" assignment (looks like cheating to me). Spock was always sacrificing himself for the good of the many (or the one, in the case of Captain Pike). Captain Janeway often risked the whole ship to try to help one crew member. On Deep Space Nine, the Federation is involved in maintaining an alien religion. Other cultures get a lot of respect, but the ones that are like the Nazis are opposed. If you are like me, you often feel upside-down, inside-out, and topsy-turvey all at the same time in these stories. What is the right thing to do in the 24th century? Professor Barad teaches Ethics at Indiana State and has a course on the philosophy of Star Trek. That attracted me to the book right there. I never took a philosophy course when I was in college that sounded nearly that interesting. We studied Plato, Aristotle, Kant, Kierkegaard, and symbolic logic. Well, you'll be pleased to know that this volume has plenty of Star Trek, Plato, Aristotle, Kant, and Kierkegaard. But you'll also be relieved to know that at least the symbolic logic is missing! The purpose of this book (its Prime Directive) is to "stimulate greater awareness of the many ethical issues and concerns in daily life." Using famous Star Trek episodes from all four series (The original series, Next Generation, Deep Space 9, and Voyager) as the foundation, classic ethical issues are first examined in terms of the leading sources of ethical thought: such as cultural relativism, religion, Greek and Roman philosophies, the social contract, Kant's notion of duty, utilitarianism, and existentialism. If you are not familiar with all of these, Professor Barad provides just what you need to know. So its meaty, but not heavy. Then Professor Barad considers whether or not all four series are consistent with any of these ideas. Her conclusion seems right when she says that Star Trek has created a new synthesis of Aristotle's idea of the golden mean (too much or too little of any character quality is a vice while the balance in between is a virtue), Kant's idea of operating "from duty," and Kierkegaard's concept of individual freedom and responsibility. The classic Aristotelean virtues are all present: courage; temperance; friendliness; gentleness; cooperation; justice; open-mindedness; compassion; mindfulness; respect for others; honesty; and loyalty. She leaves us with the idea that perhaps we as a society can evolve in this direction and leaves us with a thought from Captain Pickard: "Make it so." What makes these thoughts interesting is that Professor Barad points out that "noble as they are, none of the Star Trek characters are saints." Gene Roddenberry himself seems to have set out to establish a new world that "strives to be free of racist, sexist, and xenophobic attitudes." In developing the challenging philosophy described here, obviously he succeeded mightily. It's also fun to revisit all of these old epsiodes and to squarely focus on their ethical content. That element was always there, but it was a bit submerged. After you finish reading and thinking about the book, I suggest that you take some issues of contemporary society such as the right way to deal with world hunger, establish peace, and protect the environment appropriately and consider what actions would be most consistent with the Star Trek philosophy as you now understand it. Live long and prosper!
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews
Was this review helpful to you? Yes
No
28 of 30 people found the following review helpful:
5.0 out of 5 stars
Lively, fun introduction to heavy-duty ethical concepts, December 11, 2000
I used to watch Star Trek, which I believe is an asset when reading this book. But you don't have to be a true aficionado of Star Trek in all its permutations to benefit from -- and enjoy -- this unusual approach to the fascinating subject of ethics. That's because, at the start of each chapter, authors Barad and Robertson describe various individual shows in enough (but never too much) detail so that you can picture the scenes and participate fully in the lively conversation. What's right and what's not? Whose view of ethics was applied by the makers of the show, and which SHOULD be applied in each convoluted instance, Aristotle's or Kant's, Sartre's or the Christians? The tone of the writing is always fresh and conversational, without oversimplifying the topic. Is Spock sometimes "too logical," or is Kirk sometimes too swayed by emotion? How can we tell? By the final results -- the universe is saved yet again -- or by what they hoped would happen? I found myself drawn in again and again, able to follow the thread of what is, after all, a high level discussion. Highly recommended for the casual reader interested in how we determine what to do in living a "good" life. I'd love to see this used in high schools and colleges to introduce people to these age-old but always fresh ideas in a compelling way.
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews
Was this review helpful to you? Yes
No
17 of 19 people found the following review helpful:
3.0 out of 5 stars
Allegory vs. Example, October 29, 2002
This review is from: The Ethics of Star Trek (Paperback)
The purpose of this book is not to examine the treatment of ethical dilemmas in the Star Trek oeuvre, nor indeed to use various Trek episodes to exemplify ethical theories. Instead, it's to determine the ethical framework upon which Trek is based, and even to apply that framework as the basis for an ideal human society. This is troubling, because to emulate Star Trek is not to emulate the United Federation of Planets, an admittedly noble institution, but a group of Hollywood writers and producers. The Federation was created as an ideal society - by definition - by Gene Roddenberry, therefore to conclude that its ethical foundations are optimal is kind of like discovering that circles are round. The episodes of Trek cannot provide adequate real-world examples of ethical theories precisely because they're fictitious: The writers decide whether they want the characters to behave ethically or not. Since the writers (and the times) keep changing, the ethical basis of the various series and episodes is not consistent. For example, in one TNG episode the Klingon society is portrayed as valuing actions and results over motives, but in a later DS9 episode exactly the opposite is stated. That said, the book nevertheless provides an interesting discussion of all the major ethics philosophies, throughout human history, and uses specific situations from the first four Trek series and the first nine movies to illustrate the critical issues involved. Unfortunately, the discussions are somewhat simplistic, as if Barad felt she had to "talk down" to her audience. The Trek audience, however, is possibly the pop-cultural segment least in need of patronage, and I wish Paramount would realize that. In a few areas, Barad presents the basic principles of an ethical theory or the issues involved in a particular episode, but neglects to take the extra step or to examine more complex theoretical nuances raised by some of the situations. A few examples: Cultural Relativism: The conclusion here is that cultural relativism is logically inconsistent because of its basic principle that there are no universal cultural precepts, which is itself a universal cultural precept, and that it therefore cancels itself out. It is also pragmatically unworkable because a strict adherence to its tenets would prevent Starfleet from interceding in cultures that practice clearly reprehensible programs like genocide, slavery and repression. But what's not addressed is the possibility that cultural relativism is itself relative, meaning that one culture cannot even impose its interpretation of cultural relativism upon another. By this premise, Starfleet can intercede in the case of genocide because one culture is preventing another from adhering to its own cultural imperative; i.e. the concept of cultural relativism in general (as opposed to a strictly Federation perspective) is not being respected. Starfleet does in fact believe in cultural relativism, in fact the Prime Directive is based upon it, and will act to prevent gross violations of that credo in other cultures. A culture must be allowed to pursue its own tenets within its own boundaries, but it must be prevented from forcibly imposing those tenets upon other cultures. Duty vs. Motive: During the discussion of whether morals proceed solely from religion or exist independently, Barad concludes that Starfleet captains act not for their own benefit but for that of their crews. In this way she likens them to political leaders throughout history (and the fictional Star Trek future). Someone needs to explain to her the difference between civic leadership and military leadership. As every Trekkie knows, a starship captain acts not for the benefit of his crew but for that of the mission - which, in most cases, is exploration, discovery, and/or diplomacy. The crew of a starship is a team with a unified goal, the successful completion of the mission. The captain's job as mission leader is to decide how best to accomplish that goal, while simultaneously protecting the rights and safety of the ship's crew, equipment, and civilians. Picard and other captains often stated that their primary responsibility was to the safety of their crew, but it is not their only responsibility, nor is it the reason they act. If it were, they would leave the crew at home and go out on the mission alone, thus protecting the crew from any possible harm. A starship is not a society: It exists not for the benefit and welfare of its members but to fulfill a specific mission. Starfleet officers accept the potential hazards of that mission when they enlist. Still, this book is a good addition to the literature and a fun read for any Trekkie. Since Star Trek exists in large part to examine and/or challege ethical principles through sci-fi allegories and technology-enabled "gray area" situations, a thorough investigation of its relationship to established ethical theories was clearly in order.
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews
Was this review helpful to you? Yes
No
|
|
Most Recent Customer Reviews
|
