Customer Reviews

The Ethics of Star Trek

5 star:		(6)
4 star:		(2)
3 star:		(5)
2 star:		(1)
1 star:		(0)

 

 

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!

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.

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.

A number of books using popular TV shows, such as "The Simpsons" and "Seinfeld," have been used by philosophers in recent years to demonstrate philosophical and ethical principles. I'm biased, as I enjoy the "Star Trek" series more than these other shows, but nonetheless believe "The Ethics of Star Trek" is one of the best entries in this growing field.

Barad does an excellent job in demonstrating how well Star Trek can be used to illustrate ethics. Thus, Aristotle's "Golden Mean" was represented by the logical Mr. Spock, the emotional Dr. McCoy and the in-between Capt. Kirk who listened to both sides. Kant's unbending system of "categorical imperatives" is demonstrated by Capt. Picard's unwavering ... principles.

I didn't give this book five stars because Barad has biases, not based on Star Trek, but in philosophy. First, she rejects "cultural relativism" early on, even though a casual watcher of the series will recognize that this viewpoint is both important and necessary in all the shows. Second, she relies entirely on European philosophy. Although American pragmatist William James is mentioned in a TNG quote at the beginning, and pragmatism better describes Deep Space Nine than existentialism, she ignores this philosophy in her book.

Above all, I think Barad goes a little too far in suggesting that the ethics in all four of the series she examines (the original Star Trek, TNG, DS9 and Voyager) can be "synthesized" much as Thomas Aquinas synthesized Aristotle and Roman Catholicism. Each series had its own, individual characters with different motives and different situations. While Star Trek poses many ethical problems, there's no one ethos any more than there is only one writer. Barad can be commended for using Star Trek to teach ethics in an enjoyable fashion, but the shows themselves are not philosophy lessons.

This book is for everyone who loves Star Trek for more than just its cool special effects, its hot alien babes, or even its sparkling intergalactic political intrigue. In other words, this book is for the serious (or casual) Star Trek fan who loves the show first and foremost because it embodies the ideals of its creator, Gene Roddenberry. And what are those ideals? Well, as the title, "The Ethics of Star Trek," would suggest, for one thing they're highly ETHICAL! But what is meant by the word "ethical" exactly, what does this have to do with Star Trek, and how does it fit in with the major philosophical schools of thought? Interested? Well, then, you've got to read this book!

In my opinion, what makes "The Ethics of Star Trek" so effective, more so in many ways than a straight philosophy textbook, is that the authors are able to make philosophy come to life in a fun way without "dumbing it down." How do they do this? Mainly by taking particular episodes and characters from Star Trek over the years, and then subjecting them to a serious philosophical analysis. For instance, the authors examine the actions and thoughts of Commander Benjamin Sisko in the Deep Space Nine episode, "In the Pale Moonlight," to examine utilitarianism ("the greatest good for the greatest number") and existentialism (the "angst" of free choice). Two "Star Trek: The Next Generation" episodes - "Ethics" and "I, Borg" - are used to illustrate the difference between Kant's three kinds of actions (those inconsistent with duty, those in accordance with duty, and those "from" duty). From all this, and much more, we see strains of Aristotelian virtue, Kantian morality, existentialism, and Platonic virtue running throughout the Star Trek series. We also see some basic values expressed: the ends does not always justify the means; rational beings should always be treated as ends in and of themselves; it is important to follow duty over desire, and altruism over egoism; and one must consider both the intentions AND the consequences of an action in evaluating its morality.

In sum, "The Ethics of Star Trek" is an enthralling, engaging, entertaining, enlightening book which takes both philosophy and Star Trek seriously. This is a great book for those of us with some knowledge of philosophers like Aristotle, Plato, Immanuel Kant, Jeremy Bentham, John Stuart Mill, and Jean-Paul Sartre, but who could perhaps use a refresher course. "The Ethics of Star Trek" also would be a great primer for those of us who may not remember anything about Scottish philosopher W.D. Ross, and his six categories of prima facie duties, or Tom Regan and his "duty-based ethics," but are interested to learn! "The Ethics of Star Trek" covers the basics of all these philosophers, and more, and then applies them to Star Trek. As Mr. Spock might say, "fascinating!"

I will make this short and sweet. I was one of Dr. Barad's students when this first came out. It was a required text for her course "The Philosophy of Star Trek" at Indiana State University. While I am not trekkie by any stretch of the imagination, I found the book to be very good at what it was supposed to do...it tied the various ethical dilemmas faced in the Star Trek realm to their appropriate philosophical theory. By doing so it helped to make a subject that some consider boring much more interesting.

The 1995 book, The Physics of Star Trek, started the trend of using the four Star Trek series as a springboard for discussing an academic topic. Indiana State Philosophy professor Judith Barad analyzes ethical dilemmas from the four series in terms of various philosophical concepts.

While Star Trek characters faced many moral issues, the show's analysis of them rarely proceeded beyond the obvious. Thus the curious situation that imaginary physics provided a more detailed canvas for discussing real physics than does Star Trek's stories about the real human drama. Barad uses an episode or two to introduce a topic, but has go beyond the show to make her discussion interesting. Nonetheless, she finds episodes that can be usefully analyzed by ideas from Socrates, the Stoics, Aristotle, Kant, Hobbes' social contract, Utilitarianism and Existentialism.

She looks at the major characters and tries to fit a philosophical system to each. It won't be a surprise that Spock is a Stoic and that Kirk mixes systems. Barad is gentle with the character's contradictions and gives us interesting insights to their reasoning.

She also tries to determine the principal ethical system of each show. All use a range of philosophies, but she sees Deep Space 9 as dominated by Existentialism and Voyager ruled by a platonic philosopher-queen, Captain Janeway.

Barad's non-technical, accessible writing and choice of popular topic might make this a useful textbook for an introductory course on philosophy.

I enjoyed this book because I didn't take it too seriously. It provides a fun way to pass a few hours while reading about the ethical nature of decisions made by a variety of Star Trek persona. As any Star Trek fan would admit, many episodes contradict one another to the point where it's difficult to pin ethical standards upon the various groups, Klingons, etc. As a result, no matter how enamored with Star Trek you may be, this should not act as a manual for living your life in an ethical fashion. However, it handily explains a variety of ethical principles as outlined by many famous philosophers of human-kind.

This book is an excellent intro to ethics. It's written to be easy to read. It seems to cover all the major theories and philosophers from Socrates to Sartre. It's examples are very clear and easy to understand, mostly because it takes it's examples from Star Trek. If we haven't seen the episode, we can find it in syndication somewhere and see the example for ourselves. Again, an excellent starting point for anyone wanting to learn more about ethics.

Why didn't I give it a 5. Well, the last part of the book especially ch 12, they seem to indicate that their personal choice of vegetarianism is the most ethical way to live. Is it morally wrong for a lion to eat a gazelle? How about the Klingons? I don't remeber ever hearing of a Klingon farmer. They seem to be carniverous by nature. What about homosapiens? Agriculture was unknown to us for 95% of our existence on the planet. We are meat eaters by nature. Everywhere else in the book they look at Star Trek life through the eyes of several philosophers, seeing whose philosophy most resembles what is going on in Star Trek. In chapter 12 they just look at Regans ideas. They don't take any other philosophies into account and they totally ignore the Klingons obvious carnivourism.

I took exception to this because up to that point it was just a comparison of philosopies. No particualar phiosophy was pushed as being better. In chapter 12 I now felt preached at. If that chapter was rewritten to give a more balanced view, it would be a 5 star book.

This book takes various ethical theories, and then discusses Trek episodes which seem to support that theory. Of course, the recurring question, do the needs of the many outweight the needs of the one? is discussed, as are other ethical theories, from the ancient Greeks forward. Ultimately, the author comes up with a "central ethical theory" for each Star Trek series, based on the characters and what the majority of the stories seem to pivot around. This book is an overview, and didn't keep me wholly interested, but it's a decent read. Warning, it is about ethical theory, and not about modern issues (ie. abortion, religion, homosexuality, etc.) If this is what you are looking for, then you will be pleased, but if you're looking for a book about ethics and modern problems (which I probably was) then you may be a bit disappointed.