Has the End Justified the Means?

[Darrik 0]

SPOILER ALERT!!!

 

 

While searching ST.com, I ran across this article.

 

 

 

Desperate Measures: Archer's Conduct in the Expanse

 

 

 

After taking care of a pesky little situation involving the Temporal Cold War, the Enterprise NX-01 is finally returning home after a long, arduous year in the Delphic Expanse trying to save the Earth from annihilation. No doubt there will be countless debriefings and reviews by Starfleet of every incident that occurred, every decision made and every action taken by Captain Jonathan Archer and his crew during the vital, high-stakes mission.

In 2153, when the Xindi first attacked Earth, Starfleet had no Prime Directive (though Archer foreshadowed one in "Dear Doctor"). There were no guiding principles for how starship crews should conduct themselves during missions into deep space, other than a sense of common human decency and ethics. In a post-Xindi-attack world, however, such values were often forced to take a backseat to the purpose of saving the homeland from a furtive enemy.

 

In one of Enterprise's earliest contacts with another species ("Fight or Flight"), Archer made a very strong point to his Vulcan first officer that humans have a certain code of behavior that they observe. But by the time the NX-01 was dispatched to hunt down the perpetrators of the 2153 attack (who were presumably coming back to finish the job) he made it very clear what his code of conduct was at that point: "We'll do what we have to ... whatever it takes." ("The Expanse")

 

Throughout the long Delphic Expanse mission, Captain Archer made a number of moral and strategic choices that under normal circumstances would raise some serious eyebrows. Were these choices justified, given the stakes? Will Archer and his crew have to answer for these choices? Could they have still accomplished their mission while maintaining the ethical high ground, or is that question simply irrelevant? Below we examine some of Archer's actions and decisions during Enterprise's third year in space, and let history be the judge.

 

 

 

The Xindi

The first contact with a member of the Xindi race was fraught less with moral mistakes than with strategic ones. Six weeks into the Expanse, the crew had no data, no scent of any trail leading toward the Xindi, so Captain Archer was getting increasingly testy. He was willing to accept a tip from a freighter captain of questionable character that there was a Xindi person at a trellium mine run by a highly unethical foreman. By doing so, and throwing caution to the wind for any information whatsoever, Archer exposed his crew to potential enslavement. Aside from that recklessness, he and Commander Tucker were so harsh toward the poor victimized Xindi-Humanoid slave who had nothing to do with the attack on Earth (his finger was cut off for their sake), they were pretty darn lucky that he gave up the information they wanted in his dying breath. (However, the coordinates to his homeworld proved to be a false lead, since Xindus was destroyed over a century ago ... if only they had been a little nicer to the guy, he might have offered something a little more useful...)

Anomaly

Talk about testy, Archer really blew his top in this one. Did he cross the line by throwing an Osaarian prisoner into an airlock and nearly suffocating him to death, to get information about the Xindi out of him? Even Malcolm Reed observed the captain's extreme behavior and tried to call him on it. Of course, the Osaarian was one of the raiders who callously stole supplies from the ship and killed a crewman, and besides, he practically challenged Archer to see how far he would go in his interrogation. "I don't think you'd be very comfortable torturing another man," he dared. Did Archer act immorally under the circumstances? Even he admitted in his conversation with the prisoner, "There's too much at stake to let my 'morality' get in the way."

 

Impulse

Did Archer do everything possible to save the trellium-poisoned Vulcans aboard the Seleya? Phlox made a determination, based on preliminary scans of only one victim, that the Vulcans were beyond help. Was this enough information to go on, in deciding to allow the ship to go up in a reactor breach, killing all 140-plus people aboard? Of course, the zombie Vulcans were trying to kill the crewmen who boarded the ship in response to a distress call. And overloading the power grid was the only way for the boarding party to escape, as far as they could tell in the moment. Still, was the course of action taken appropriate, or impulsive? Would a more thoughtful approach have yielded a better result?

 

North Star

This is a case where a little Prime Directive guidance would have been nice. Did Archer have a right to interfere with the social order that had evolved over 300 years between the descendants of 19th-century humans and the Skagarans? Granted, this wasn't exactly a normal situation to begin with — the humans were abducted and enslaved, then they turned the tables on the Skagarans and made them second-class citizens. Archer came along to "enlighten" his fellow humans on the no-no's of discrimination, despite their history. You can debate whether this intervention was right or wrong, but there's actually a bigger question lingering from this episode: Will Archer fulfill his promise to those people and make sure someone goes out and brings them home?

 

Similitude

This was one of the most difficult moral choices Archer has had to make, as he readily admits. His Chief Engineer was dying, and there seemed to be only option left to save the life of this essential crewman: grow a "mimetic simbiot" in order to harvest its neural tissue for a transplant. Problem is, a simbiot is a living, conscious being. Sure, his lifespan is only 15 days, but there is an outside chance an experimental enzyme could extend it. The being that came to be known as "Sim" was his own person, with his own sense of entitlement, and his own unique relationships with the crew. But Archer refused to take his eye off the original goal of using this living being to save another. Was it ethical to create a clone — especially a sentient one — just to harvest its tissue? That may be one of great questions of science in the years to come.

 

Carpenter Street

One question: Did Archer and T'Pol ever repay the money they stole from that ATM? "We'll return what we don't use." Right.

 

Hatchery

This is a case where Archer was neurochemically coerced into making certain moral choices. But it still raises an interesting ethical question: Did the Enterprise crew have an obligation to do everything possible to save the offspring of the enemy? Even if it meant depleting resources and possibly jeopardizing the mission? Here, though, the onus is really upon the rest of crew and the choices they made regarding the captain's orders. Were the senior officers correct in staging a mutiny? Or were Major Hayes and the MACOs more in the right by sticking to the chain of command? Whose side would you have taken?

 

Azati Prime

Enterprise finally reached the location of the Xindi superweapon, and the stakes were accelerating. Just outside the Xindi detection grid, Enterprise was hiding behind a moon. They discovered they were being scanned by a small monitoring station on the moon, with three Xindi in residence. Before those Xindi would have a chance to send out a transmission, Archer ordered the station destroyed. In cold blood. Later, Archer insisted he be the one to fly a presumed suicide mission to destroy the weapon. Aside from being the least expendable member of the crew and not the most qualified pilot, he was made aware by Daniels yet again that for the sake of history, he shouldn't sacrifice himself. Archer had no reason to disbelieve him. So was it not a bit self-serving of him to insist on being the hero, under the excuse of, "I won't order anyone else to die"? Is "penance" for previous moral choices a defensible rationale? The point proved to be moot, though, because the weapon was moved. Turns out the Xindi themselves kept Archer from making what could have been a grave error.

 

Damage

Archer's actions under desperate circumstances grew even more shocking after the ship was crippled in a devastating Xindi attack. No warp capability — and no spare parts to rebuild the warp coil — is bad regardless, but then Archer learned that Degra, a potential ally among the Xindi Council, wished to meet with him at a certain place at a certain time. It was a rendezvous he couldn't afford to miss. He tried to negotiate with another ship, one damaged by spatial anomalies, for a working warp coil. But they understandably refused. So Archer decided he had no choice but to take it by force. Is this suitable behavior for a Starfleet officer? Isn't this more how you'd expect a Klingon to act? On the other hand, does the end — preventing the annihilation of a planet — justify the means — stranding a small crew three years from home? Yes, Captain Archer, you crossed a line. You violated your own professed code of ethics. But under careful scrutiny, you might be vindicated. Might. There's one remaining issue, though: Are you planning on going back and making good with that Illyrian crew who so unwillingly aided your mission? If you can recruit a Vulcan or Andorian ship, you can catch up with them in a few short months, give them their warp coil back and shave two years off their journey. It's a matter of human decency.

 

E²

We're listing this episode only because it's an interesting karmic payback for "Damage" and helps to illuminate the ethical issues from that incident. The Enterprise crew's very own descendants decided they had a better plan to make a rendezvous with Degra, but they needed the newer ship's plasma injectors, so they took them by force. This has to make you consider why it's so important to establish an ethical code of conduct and adhere to it. Lorian had the strength of his convictions, but his plan was dubious. How many times has this been true with Archer?

 

Zero Hour

There was a small ethical dilemma at the end of "Countdown" leading into this episode, surrounding Archer's decision to bring Hoshi into the thick of battle despite her mortal condition. But it should be safe to say that Hoshi knew what she was signing on for when she joined the mission, and any good soldier would have to agree. But another moral choice was repeated here. Yet again Daniels pulled Archer into the future and showed him why it's so important that he protect himself and put someone else in harm's way. Archer's conscience overrode the bigger picture, once again ... but think about it. Daniels has always been there as a deus ex machina when the need was dire enough. This had to be in the back of Archer's mind. If he's so crucial to history, Daniels had the power to yank him out of a sticky situation, whereas another crewman he might let die. Good thinking, Captain Archer, excellent logic indeed. And yanked out he was. Of course, Daniels made him pay, in a sense, by sending him off to fix the Temporal Cold War — strange timing, perhaps, but at least Archer got a free trip to New York and got to kick some Nazi butt. Who doesn't want a chance to do that?

 

The human foray into space has always been bumpy, and the Expanse experience was not any different. Mistakes were made, no question. But a careful examination of all these issues will no doubt form a foundation of ethical conduct for all future Starfleet officers based on the realities of interstellar affairs. Archer has always been described as the prototype starship captain, and that remains true. We have to give him credit for making the hard decisions, even if we don't always agree with them.

 

So, what are your opinions. Do you think Archer should have been more humane, or should he have killed every damn thing that breathed, and then some more? Was Machiavelli right, or should we have followed Castiglione? (and don't panic, I'll stop refering to the Renassance soon enough :D )

[Webmaster 20]

I don't think there is ever a "clear cut" solution to a question of this magnitude.

 

I think in this particular case, what was done was correct. Archer had a responsibility to protect not only his ship and crew, but also protect the future of his entire species. When dealing with such a massive scale, it sometimes comes down to a point where you have to make decisions you normally would not make in order to protect "the greater good".

 

Even later in Trek's history, during times of war or major conflict, your normal day-to-day rules change a bit. Things we may normally not do and find to be wrong become not "accepted", but instead "tolerated".

 

It's always easy to play the "Monday Morning Quarterback" and say someone should have acted differently. But at the same time, when YOU are actually standing in that situation facing all of the challenges around at the moment... there are many times we would have done the same thing.

[Vex Xiang 0]

I dont think any kind of human morality was violated at all. We've shown in the past that humans will do just about whatever it takes to survive. Whether its atomic bombs or kamikaze pilots, when survival is at stake morality is thrown out the window.

 

But I do think that the mistakes the crew made the first few years of their mission should be leading up to the formation of a set of guidelines to prevent such things from happening again.

 

Still, as we see from our previous series, who bothers to follow the prime directive anyway?

[Nemesis 0]

Morality is the aspect of survival, we cannot survive as a society unless we have some level of some type of morality. Morality is differant to each person for a reason you know.

[Brian Graham 0]

Perhaps these issues will be addressed in further Enterprise episodes in the coming weeks. Maybe Admiral Forrest and the others will have debriefings and possibly investigations, then we'll know for sure.

[Ki'rok 0]

You only find "black and white" in old movies and photographs...You rarely, if ever, find solutions that are clear cut and without complication.

 

Shades of Grey...all of our lives are shades of grey...and Hind-sight has the clearest vision of all...

 

Was he right or wrong??

 

Doesnt matter...he got the job done...anyone can second guess decisions in a game or life..but when the clock runs out...all that matters is the score.

[NDak 0]

You only find "black and white" in old movies and photographs...You rarely, if ever, find solutions that are clear cut and without complication.

 

Shades of Grey...all of our lives are shades of grey...and Hind-sight has the clearest vision of all...

 

Was he right or wrong??

 

Doesnt matter...he got the job done...anyone can second guess decisions in a game or life..but when the clock runs out...all that matters is the score.

Excalty.

 

Ethical decisions are always shades of grey.

 

Morality is black and white.

[Travis Kroells 0]

Unless you invert the colors on your paint shop pro. Then things get funky.

[Vex Xiang 0]

Morality is the aspect of survival, we cannot survive as a society unless we have some level of some type of morality. Morality is differant to each person for a reason you know

 

I disagree. Certainly morality is necessary for 'cultural' survivability...but even then as we all know moral codes shift within cultures on a regular basis.

 

But just for survival of a species, or indivudal survival, morality is a wholly useless concept. IMO.