Trip Wrong?

[Silverbullet]

Was Trip wrong when he helped the Cogenitor?

The Cogentigor was as intelligent as the other two members of the species. Charles (the name the cogenitor chose) learned quickly to read, how to lay go. He was able to repeatedly win the go games he played with Trip although Trip was champion on board and had played go for years. charles was the equal of the other two.

Charles as a sentient being with certain rights:

The right to anidentiity (a name)
the right to learn, Togrow. He had the right to be an individualwho coud chose its own path.
He had other rights that any sentient being would have.

Charles was denied these right by the other two. Trip saw that he had th e empathy to do so.

all through Earths history slavery has been in many cultures. the slaves were denied basic rights.
Women throughout History have been denied their rights .
both slaves and women had to fight and die to attain rights that should have been theirs from the beginning.

Archer should have granted charles asylum rather than returning him to what he had been subjected to. Archer caused Charles to comit suicide. Charles had seen what he should have had and Archer returned him to a life of nothing because he was nothing in it. He chose to make a statement. He denied the other two a child and told them how important he was and that he should have been treated as an equal rather than a nonbeing.

SB

[Cogito]

I'm not sure whether he was morally justified in what he did, it's a dilemma. If the Cogenitor had been human, then in human terms what he did was right, but is it right for him to apply those human values to an alien species? Despite the hypocrisy Archer showed by doing the same thing on other occasions, Archer and T'Pol both seem sure that he was wrong.

Morally right or wrong, he clearly disobeyed his commanding officer in order to do it, so I can't see how he avoided being brought up on charges for that.

[Asso]

I'm not sure whether he was morally justified in what he did, it's a dilemma. If the Cogenitor had been human, then in human terms what he did was right, but is it right for him to apply those human values to an alien species? Despite the hypocrisy Archer showed by doing the same thing on other occasions, Archer and T'Pol both seem sure that he was wrong.

Morally right or wrong, he clearly disobeyed his commanding officer in order to do it, so I can't see how he avoided being brought up on charges for that.

Thankfully, sometimes this happens (I mean: "he clearly disobeyed his commanding officer").
I ask everyone to pay attention: rules and orders are important (trouble if they weren't there). The problem is: How do we do when they are clearly unjust and illogical, or just in order not to be too abrasive, unsuitable to the situation and the moment?

[Cogito]

Well, I suppose that sometimes one has to decide whether doing the right thing is worth sacrificing a career, or perhaps a life.

[Asso]

Well, I suppose that sometimes one has to decide whether doing the right thing is worth sacrificing a career, or perhaps a life.

That's the problem. So, about Trip?

[WarpGirl]

I said this before, that Trip was lucky that the Vissians didn't view his actions as an act of war. He was interfering in their reproductive practices. Was he wrong about the Cogenitor? No. Was he right to do what he did? From a HUMAN perspective yes. But how he went about it was all wrong. He should have presented his concerns calmly, rationally, and through proper channels. At some point, he had to realize that he might not be able to do anything about it. He put the ship and his crew at risk, and that was wrong.

In this case it isn't the what he was wrong about, it was the HOW he tried to fix it.

[Rigil Kent]

I said this before, that Trip was lucky that the Vissians didn't view his actions as an act of war. He was interfering in their reproductive practices. Was he wrong about the Cogenitor? No. Was he right to do what he did? From a HUMAN perspective yes. But how he went about it was all wrong. He should have presented his concerns calmly, rationally, and through proper channels. At some point, he had to realize that he might not be able to do anything about it. He put the ship and his crew at risk, and that was wrong.

In this case it isn't the what he was wrong about, it was the HOW he tried to fix it.

Agreed. Morally, I feel that he was in the right. That said, he was essentially given a direct order by a superior officer (T'Pol, and please don't start with the "she shouldn't have been XO" since the show explicitly establishes that she was) to cease and desist, but he ignored said direct order. Yes, he was following the example set by his commanding officer, but we've already established that Archer wasn't always the best example. At the very least, Trip should have been disciplined by Starfleet for his actions, no matter that they might have been (from human terms) morally correct; at worst, they should have court-martialed him and hung him out to dry to appease the furious Vissians (who were evidently more technically advanced than humanity.)

We also don't know all of the actual specifics behind the cogenitor's situation and that's another one of the reasons why making assumptions about Archer's decision to deny asylum is destined to fail. What happens to a cogenitor if its cut off from the other Vissians? Can s/he survive intact or is the relationship with the other genders a symbiotic one? We don't know. And neither did Trip.

Truthfully, the placement in the timeline of this episode bothers me. If "Cogenitor" had taken place midway through season 1, back before Trip started talking non-interference (as he did in the latter part of season 1, in eps like "Desert Crossing"), it would have made more sense to me.

[WarpGirl]

Agreed.

I see it, but I can't believe it!!!! I told you that we agree on some things!

[Silverbullet]

Trip moraly right or wrog it is the right of the cogengtor to be viewed as a sentient being, a person. He was the equal to the other two in the species in intellect in importance to the process of impregnation. In all aspects. He shoulld have been an equal to the others. Why not?

In their past starting in the most primitive times the cogenitor would have had vast importance. One would be an honored captive. given the best cuts of meat, etc to keep it happy so it owould not want to leave the group. The group probably would be attacked by a group without a cogentirot. Cogenitors are not that populus so many groups would not have one and probably would steal one from a group which did.

Then as time progressed the cogenitor woud still be imortant enough tobe taken care of so it would not want to leave whatever group it was with. How did things evolve from the cogentitor being so sovaluable that it was treated fafirly to the point where it is being treated like an animal?

SB

[Rigil Kent]

You're missing my point. We don't know. We weren't given enough information to make an informed decision. We saw only snippets and slices of data, not the whole. Biology could have hardwired the cogenitor so s/he is only super-intelligent for short spurts of time and Trip encountered that cogenitor in that short span. There may be some sort of symbiosis going on between the three genders that we never saw.

And pretty much all of us agree that Tucker was morally correct in his stance based on the info we have at hand. That said, it isn't relevant that he was right in the eyes of Starfleet law. He ignored a direct order from a superior officer and it resulted (ultimately) in the death of Vissian. That's where he was wrong.

If an American soldier sees an Afghani woman being abused by her husband and he (the soldier) intervenes, morally, he's in the right (and I would defend him unto death because of that action), but legally, he likely isn't (since our laws do not apply there.) That's my point.

[Asso]

Rigil, by chance you've read The Betrothed by Alessandro Manzoni? If you did not, I advise you to do so. A very interesting figure is that of Dr. Azzeccagarbugli (Quibbleweaver).
Please, do not take this as an offense to you, because in fact you are substantially right. That term - substantially - is though the real problem, in my opinion. And actually, my words are directed against those who believe that law and moral can be contrasting against each other.
The moral is the basis of law and the law has to be led by moral.

[Silverbullet]

Rigel, I amnot speaking of Trip being right or wrong or our laws and Vissen law. I am speakigng of the rights of a being.

the Cogenitor was and is a sentient being. He/She has the right to have a name, the right to an education, the right to choose its own path,the right to be viewed as a being. Other rights too . this is universal.

Trip may or ot have seen this but he had empathy for the cogenitor which leads me to believe he sensed it at least.

The cogenitor was being denied those rigths by the other two. I wonder how it came about from a past where hte cogenitor would have been treated fairly to what the vissens did.

SB

[WarpGirl]

Rigil is right. Trip did not have enough information on all the variables to make a proper decision. And even if he did, he still went about it the wrong way.

[Rigil Kent]

Rigil, by chance you've read The Betrothed by Alessandro Manzoni? If you did not, I advise you to do so. A very interesting figure is that of Dr. Azzeccagarbugli (Quibbleweaver).
Please, do not take this as an offense to you, because in fact you are substantially right. That term - substantially - is though the real problem, in my opinion. And actually, my words are directed against those who believe that law and moral can be contrasting against each other.
The moral is the basis of law and the law has to be led by moral.

If I understand you correctly, you're saying that the law needs to be moral, correct? Okay, fine. Define morality. Whose morality? Western? Islamic Jihadist? Vulcan? Romulan?

Yes, I agree that certain morality needs to be at the very heart of laws, but when you start factoring in extraterrestrial aliens, issues start cropping up. Here in the States, we have that whole freedom of speech, individual choice thing at the heart of our law ... but such a thing is frankly foreign when you look at Vulcan law (hence the whole arranged marriage thing T'Pol was blackmailed int). We simply do not know enough about the Vissian culture to really make an educated decision.

And truthfully, I'm leery of anyone telling me my law needs to be moral for those various reasons. Morality, as we've discovered over the centuries, had a tendency to transform over time. What you and I may consider moral isn't the same as what the citizens of the Roman Republic considered moral.

Rigel, I amnot speaking of Trip being right or wrong or our laws and Vissen law. I am speakigng of the rights of a being.

the Cogenitor was and is a sentient being. He/She has the right to have a name, the right to an education, the right to choose its own path,the right to be viewed as a being. Other rights too . this is universal.

Is it? Is it really? Do some research into shariah law and some of the more extreme applications of it. It isn't even "universal" here.

And as I pointed out, we don't have all the information. They are an alien species, which means, some things are different. You say the cogenitor deserved freedom - I don't disagree, but I'll add the caveat that I would like to know more about the situation before making a snap judgment. Using your thoughts, let's go ahead and give the cogenitor asylum ... but since we don't actually know anything about them, what happens if:

• Cogenitors are only "sentient" if exposed to certain biochemicals excreted by the other Vissian genders. Without those chemicals, they turn into mindless psychotics or listless vegetables.
• The Cogenitors only display "sentience" in sporadic bursts and in certain stages of their maturity. Otherwise, they're on par with your average poodle in terms of IQ.
• The Cogenitor and the family we met in the episode are not in the mainstream; rather, they're the equivalent of the hillbilly redneck stereotype. Most Vissians are awesome.

See? We don't have all of the data.

[WarpGirl]

Yes yes yes! Another example here... The Ancient Athenians were the founders of Democracy, however women were only allowed two places outside of their homes Unescorted by a male relative. The theater, and the water well. Now in modern times they are considered one of the paragon societies of their age. Guess what, I wouldn't want to live there. But I'd hardly say they were savages for their time!