Into Gray: The Moral Murk of the New Star Trek Movie

So over the weekend I got a chance to see Star Trek Into Darkness. I don’t want to do a full-fledged review here, but I will say that I felt about this movie much the same as I did about the first rebooted Trek movie in 2009: It looks great, the writers and actors really seem to get the core of the original characters, and a lot of the dialogue and character interactions are sharp. But the plot and the ideas don’t hold together very well, and as soon as you start asking yourself why A happened, you’re very quickly questioning B, C, and D. Now, a movie isn’t a logical argument, so I had a good time watching each movie despite whatever holes I found in the plotting.

But one thing has been bugging me about the new movie. I can’t figure out the basis for the moral or ethical conflicts that underpin a lot of the character conflicts. So I’m going to talk some of them out here. Needless to say, spoilers ahead.

The movie opens with the Enterprise on a mission to survey a strange new world. Starfleet’s Prime Directive demands that the crew do nothing to interfere with the planet’s pre-spaceflight civilization, but Spock has figured out that a set of volcanic eruptions is about to wipe out said civilization. So he and Kirk put a complicated plan into motion to lure all of the natives away from the volcano while Spock sneaks in and detonates a device that will render the volcano inert. The plan mostly succeeds, but Spock winds up trapped in the volcano. Due to [insert technobabble here] the only way that the Enterprise can use the transporter to get Spock out of the volcano is to come out of their hiding spot and be seen by the natives. Spock tells Kirk to stay put and follow the Prime Directive, even at the cost of his life. Kirk refuses, saves Spock, and lies about it in his captain’s log. When Spock makes an honest report, Kirk gets demoted and Admiral Pike delivers a lecture about how Kirk is arrogant and unprepared for the captain’s chair.

What I can’t figure out is, where is the grave error in judgment? Was it in trying to save the people in the first place? Are we really supposed to accept the idea that it’s better to let an entire civilization be wiped out rather than take responsibility for interfering with it? Are we supposed to think that Kirk is a hothead because he cares about saving innocent lives?

OK, so maybe the initial interference is OK because they’re going to keep it a secret. But then things go wrong and Kirk has to choose: let his friend and crew member die, or let his ship be seen by people who aren’t yet aware that they’re alone in the universe. Now, Spock thinks he should go for the first option. He’s going to follow the rules, no matter the cost. But Kirk goes for the second option, and then lies about it. Now, he did break a rule, so I guess that’s the sign that he’s not ready to be a captain. And there’s a part of me that sympathizes with that to a point – society has rules for a reason, and if everyone decided to ignore them whenever they felt like it there would be trouble. But sometimes rules come into conflict, and you have to decide your priorities. I know that in the world of Star Trek, the idea of noninterference is called the Prime Directive for a reason. But it seems to me like saving everybody’s life deserves to be a higher priority.

Then again, other characters in the film don’t seem to share that view. The plot moves along with a Starfleet officer accepts an offer from Khan to cure his daughter of a fatal condition. In exchange, the officer mu knowingly set off an explosive that destroys a Starfleet facility. I say knowingly because the officer sends his superior a message right before he causes the explosion explaining his actions. I take it we’re supposed to feel bad for the officer and the impossible situation he was in, and at least understand what he did even if we don’t approve. But the guy knowingly killed dozens of people, if not more, to save his daughter. He did this even after he already had the cure. He did this without trying to find some way to tip people off, or give someone an opportunity to stop him, or even warn someone of what was happening. I just can’t get myself into the head of someone who would say, “Well, this guy just saved my daughter’s life. Guess I’ll go murder a bunch of my coworkers now because he asked me to!”

This attack, and a subsequent attack in which Khan is somehow able to get up close and personal to a meeting of Starfleet’s top officers, provide Kirk an opportunity to get back his command and bring Khan to justice. But through [insert technobabble here], Khan has hidden himself away on the Klingon homeworld. So gung-ho Admiral Marcus tells Kirk to go fire a bunch of super-duper proton torpedoes at the Klingon homeworld and kill Khan. Kirk is willing to do it, but Spock and others urge him not to. So he changes his mind and instead orders a landing party to go to the planet and get Khan themselves.

OK. There seem to be two main objections to firing the torpedoes. The first is that killing Khan without a trial violates his rights. I get that, and I can appreciate that the capture option eliminates that problem. But the other objection is that firing the torpedo is an aggressive action that might lead to war with the Klingons. So instead . . . Kirk violates the treaty with the Klingons, invades their territory, and kills many of them (with Khan’s help). How was that a better option? It seems like the only way that could work better is if Kirk’s team had captured Khan without being detected. And that’s not only a long shot, it implies that the ethical problem isn’t the action of violating the treaty, but instead is the action of getting caught. (Which would seem to justify Kirk’s attempt to hide his violation of the Prime Directive at the start of the film, by the way.)

I could handle some of my confusion here if I felt like it were part of a worthwhile character arc, but for the life of me I can’t figure out what Kirk has learned or what makes him a better captain at the end of the film than at the start. He’s still willing to break rules. He’s still willing to trust his gut instincts. He’s still fiercely loyal to his crew and friends. He’s humbled by circumstances when he meets some enemies he can’t outshoot or outthink, but I don’t see where his attitude changes. So the lack of a clear ethical position seems to contribute to the lack of a clear story, and that’s unfortunate.

Now, it’s entirely possible that I am overthinking this. It would not be the first time. So if you have a take on the movie, especially the ethical problems its characters face, I’d love to hear your thoughts.

About Dave Thomer

Born and raised in Philadelphia. Studied philosophy at Fordham University in the Bronx, where I made many great friends and met my wonderful wife. We moved back to Philadelphia, where I studied philosophy some more and became a teacher. Online and off, I'm looking for ways that we can be better citizens and build stronger communities.

May 22, 2013 @ 3:48 pm

Culture and Media