Trip Wrong?

[Asso]

See? We don't have all of the data.
Too simple, my friend.
That's what is told all of us when a response is denied to us.
And I insist, Rigil. You should read The Betrothed and think about Azzeccagarbugli.

With regard to the difference about moral.
Once again, too simple, my friend. In this way, we go toward nothing.
We can't withdraw merely saying that there are different morals.

[Rigil Kent]

Too simple, my friend.
That's what is told all of us when a response is denied to us.

Uh, no. It's what I say when I don't have enough data. You're looking at a complicated issue and making a judgment based on human morals and ideals, which don't take into account extraterrestrial biology or mores. Should we also demand that Vulcans adapt their culture to more accurately reflect ours even though there is a reason they try to excise emotion?

With regard to the difference about moral.
Once again, too simple, my friend. In this way, we go toward nothing.
We can't withdraw merely saying that there are different morals.

Where did I say that? I've repeatedly stated that I believe Trip was morally correct in his stance. I simply disagree with how he handled it and how it was written. It's always easy to make a judgment when you know only one side of the equation - as the Vorlons say, "Understanding is a three-edged sword. Your side, my side, and the truth in between."

[WarpGirl]

Very true, while we're at it. All humans should have blond hair, blue eyes, men should be 6'3'' and women should be 5'8''. So no more aliens on TV. You see where this is going.

It all about who gets to decide what is right. And nobody has the right to do that. Not humans not vulcans nobody.

[Asso]

Rigil, By dint of collecting data, you can end up with a chest full of treasure without knowing which to choose.
However, Basically between us two there are some points of contact. For example, the fact that Trip behaved lightly. But this, of course, is the fault of the authors.
But now it's too late for me. If you feel like it, we will take again this interesting discussion tomorrow (ie, my tomorrow).

[Thot]

ohhhh... Cogenitor... my nearly most hated episode of the series (only slightly less worse than *the_abomination*)

I have so many problems with this botch of an episode, but to clear one thing up: Trip didn't disobeyed any orders given to him, since T'Pol only adivsed him to refrain from intervering, but there was no order.

The best thing you can find that T'Pol said to Trip in this episode is: "Captain Archer hopes to develop a productive relationship with this species. It might be best if you kept your opinions to yourself."
That's it! An advise, perhaps something she expects from him, but not an order, let alone a direct one!
And considering the fact, that Archer has never ever listen to T'Pol's advises to refrain from interfering into other cultures, why should Trip act differently?
I only point out T'Pol's question to Archer in the episode 'Detained':

T'POL: I thought you decided not to interfere with other cultures.
ARCHER: In this case, I'm making an exception.

What is this? A bad joke!?

This leads me to the whole pile of problems of this episode:
I simply can't understand Archer's attitude to judge Trip in any way in this episode. Well I can fathom about his fury, because of the missed friendship with the Vissian captain, but Archer hits on him, as if he could judge him from any higher moral ground: people who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones.

If you take the episode isolated for itself, then it's okay so far. But if you count in a few other stories before 'Cogenitor', you can't come around the conclusion, that Archer is acting like a hypocrite (I like Capt. Archer - that's why this episode makes me so furious)

You can pick quite some episodes, where Archer deliberately interferes in other cultures/affairs ('Fight or Flight', 'Marauders', 'Judgment') and put the lifes of his crew in jeopardy with his course of actions or provoked interstellar conflicts. But if you simply start to compare Trip's behavior in 'Cogenitor' with Archer's in 'Detained', you have to see the similarities:

Archer's case:

Did the Suliban asked for his help? No, not until he convinced them otherwise.

Did he acted openly towards the Tandarans or diplomaticly? Well, you could point out, that after being taken captive Archer and Travis weren't very amused, but after receiving the news, that they were picked up in a military zone, as a species unknown to the Tandarans, during a war against an enemy, who can disguise himself very good, they should have been a little bit more open to Colonel Grant considering the circumstances. But NO: Archer evades Grant's question about meeting the Cabal at first and later keeps silent for no reason, although he could simply give them the information.

Did others had to suffer negative effects because of Archer's act of interfering? Oh, yes: Look how Zobral in 'Desert Crossing' lured Archer and Trip down to the desert planet, because the 'famous ship Enterprise' is known for interfering in other cultures' business for a good cause and Trip gets nearly killed in the process.

Concerning Archer's accusation of Trip having 'Charles' blood at his hands: How many Tandaran guards got killed during the attack of the detention camp in 'Detained'? Did the Klingons in 'Marauder' simply stay away or isn't it far more likely, that they returned out of revenge and killed at least some of the workers, since the following time the workers don't have the back-up of Enterprise? Did Archer ever apologize for creating the scenario in 'Desert Crossing', which nearly killed Trip, in the first place?

And isn't Archer's refusal of asylum just as much cause of the cogenitor's death as Trip's part?

There is a very good phrase in 'Cogenitor', where Trip says to Archer: "I did exactly what you'd do. It's not like I had much choice." but Archer answers simply in disbelieve: "You did exactly what I'd do? If that's true, then I've done a pretty lousy job setting an example around here."

And that's the point where a good story concerning this episode should concentrate around: Archer's course of action inspired Trip's way. But the writers of the story simply turned it into a 'Trip hasn't listen clearly enough to Archer, because Archer has so much more thought about it and these cases are totally different ones, because the Vissian are nice people' thing ... I hope you can hear the sarcasm out of my words. :/

Any doubt about Archer is only adressed in a simple sentence and shrugged of as a disbelieved notion. In addition Archer accusation towards Trip like "We're out here to meet new species not tell them what to do" or towards the cogenitor like "It's not our place to tell you what rights you have." or Archer statement to Trip: "It's time you learn to weigh the possible repercussion of your actions." appear plainly ridiculous considering Archer course of actions in similar cases.

Once again: I like Archer and I don't like people who bash on Archer, but I simply can't blame them, if they "dislike" him (to use an understatement!).

Personally, I could live very good with this Archer in the season one and two, if the writers would simply acknowledge the ambivalence of Archer! But no, it doesn't happen: Are there any moments of reflection about negative consequences of his actions? Does he ever show regret for the negative effects of his actions like prompting Zobal indirectly to lure him down to the desert planet and get himself and Trip nearly killed, or like in the later episode 'Rajiin', where his interfering in a culture by 'stealing' a slave provided the Reptilians with all the necessary data to create a bio-weapon? Is there ever a scene, where Archer states something like 'I see how this has caused problems and in the next situation I will be more careful'?

The answer is always NO!

I said this before, that Trip was lucky that the Vissians didn't view his actions as an act of war.

If you consider an interference in the reproduction process as an possible attack, than as what does somebody has to consider Archer's move in 'Detained'?

I mean: Archer attacked, I repeat ATTACKED (with phasers, orbital bombardment and local explosives), the Tandaran detention camp! This could be easily seen as an act of war!
Or the fact that Archer has a bounty on his head from the Klingon Empire and at the same time still commands the flagship of Earth! If this isn't a constant provocation towards the Klingons and in addition a security risk, I don't know what else could be regarded as this (the episode 'Bounty')

To make myself clear: Some interferences by Archer were right from my point of view, but he simply can't start to judge other people, who take him as an example, and act as if his course of action would be different.

Concerning the 'Trip's actions got a sentient being killed'-point: How many Tandaran guards got killed during the attack of the detention camp in 'Detained'? To believe that that with all these firefights not a single person was killed, seams quite ridiculous to me...

But the problem stays, how inconsistent the Trek Universe can be (or to be more precise the authors; B&B in the case of this episode); let's just rape up the whole behaviour of the Enterprise concering other peoples' culture until this episode:

Ow the Torothons believe us to be supporters of terrorist. And we committed an act of war against the Tandarens when we attacked the detention center. And the Klingons took the captain with them, sentensed him to stay in Rura Pente for the rest of his life, the rest of the crew had to rescue him from there and since then the Klingon want to shot him to kingdom come and a bounty is on his head. And we possibly contaminated a pre-warp culture by our exposure but we don't know the consequences yet since we ran fast enough out of the system to ignore any of it.

But the Cogenitor incident is far worse... :/ How ridiculous is this?

The more anybody reflects about this episode the more he can recognize how screwed up this episode in itself is:

Let's start with the total lack of any explanation about the 'reproduction cycle' of the Vissians: Either it is really like Phlox theorized in the episode and the cogenitor simply produces any encym to trigger the fertilization, which provokes automatically the question why this encym can't be reproduced artificially (I mean something like this is possible with 20th century Earth technology - why shouldn't the Vissians be able to avoid this inefficient, cruel procedure to take 3% of their population with them), OR the cogenitor has to participate directly in the act, which means if the cogenitor isn't willing RAPE - leaving out the debate if he/she has a choice at all. Still anybody clueless which prospect might have triggered the cogenitor to committ suicide?

This is basically what Rigil Kent described with his posts: lack of information.

But instead of getting any answer the authors of the episode have the nerve to compare this situation with a "cultural misunderstanding about the status of a steward on Enterprise", delievered by this Vissian engineer. I'm still bangging my head on the table in front of me about the stupidity of this allegory.

People are acting as if Trip has brain-washed the cogenitor, but he only gave incouraging words, showed Enterprise to him/her, watched a movie and played a game of Go. If that's enough to completely shake the fundaments of the Vissian culture in one day, you are bound to ask yourself how rotten this culture must be to stumble so easily.

Where is any sign of guild from Archer's side? What was he thinking? Did he really expect the cogenitor to just drop the idea because they became inconvinient with his first contact attempts? Oh no, he just rolls off all the blame to Trip.

I mean the Chinese Gouverment must have a field day if they watch this episode: 'Don't ask! Interference causes only problems! Don't project your values on other cultures! A closer analysis of the circumstances isn't necessary! "It's not our place to tell you what rights you have" ... Ow the last one is actually a quote from Archer to the cogenitor in the episode, which by the way is the only thing he says to him/her at all. The attitude Archer is showing in this episode transformed into reality would eliminate any human rights movement on Earth. Okay, you are right: From Archer's point of view it would have been something different if it had happen on Earth. So what attribute you have to look for: The species? The planet where something happens? The ethnical group or the religious group? The sex? The skin-colour?

I quite aware that I'm taking this to the extrem, but always be aware that absolute pluralism in regard of values also means two things:
1) You are giving a free pass for the behaviour of dictatores and regimes through the whole world (a.k.a. the Chinese Gouverment to pick up the example mentioned before), because
2) you can't complain about other people's value, since everybody (every group, culture, nation, take your pick) has its own, therefore can't be measured by anybodies other standards, and in the end making any judgement superflous.

The more I think about this whole mess the more I realize that this botch is due once more to the Super-Archer and Side-Kik-T'Pol insanity of the second season, which tries to underline "how much Archer can be the moral guide of the crew by carefully weighing the consequences of someone's actions". In other words: A pile of bullshit.

Do I support the way Trip acted? No. Can I blame or in any way make him responsible for the way he acted? The hell NO.

Did his captain act in similar situations any different? Did Archer acknowledge let alone discussed any regrets about his actions with Trip? I think all of you can guess that the answer is negative.

Therefore, I can only comment on this episode concerning the way Archer acts and the way Trip resigns himself into a simple "I'm so stupid" way of thinking: 'I can't gorge as much as I want to

Thot.

P.S.: I apologize for my choice of words, but this whole "thing! always rattles me up.

[Asso]

This is a really long post to read, but what Satisfactory!
Perfect in every respect.
Totally logical, T'Pol would say.
And I add: very lucid and heartfelt.

[Cogito]

I think the people on this thread have invested far more thought an effort into understanding the implications of this scenario, than the script writers did.

It's only light-hearted entertainment, and I'm sure that more thought went into deciding the colour of the Vissian ship than went into analysing the morality of Trip's actions.

If you look in enough detail at almost any episode, you will find illogical and inconsistent behaviour. If you believed this story was utterly true and real in all respects then I think you would have to conclude that the crew were deranged and Starfleet were mad for entrusting their flagship to this crew. Or, alternatively, that the script writers set up a crew of interesting characters and then systematically degraded and ridiculed them. Not because they wanted to, but because they didn't care enough to make them behave realistically.

[Asso]

I think the people on this thread have invested far more thought an effort into understanding the implications of this scenario, than the script writers did.

It's only light-hearted entertainment, and I'm sure that more thought went into deciding the colour of the Vissian ship than went into analysing the morality of Trip's actions.

If you look in enough detail at almost any episode, you will find illogical and inconsistent behaviour. If you believed this story was utterly true and real in all respects then I think you would have to conclude that the crew were deranged and Starfleet were mad for entrusting their flagship to this crew. Or, alternatively, that the script writers set up a crew of interesting characters and then systematically degraded and ridiculed them. Not because they wanted to, but because they didn't care enough to make them behave realistically.

Well, I can not say I do not share this analysis, however (the same) I can not say that the above mentioned analysis speaks much in favour of the writers (Moderate and gentle irony, mine. Nothing more than that).

[WarpGirl]

I don't disagree with any of your problems with this episode Thot. As a matter of fact I've made the same arguments in one of the Archer threads somewhere. My arguement was strictly given from the Vissians POV, and forgive me but if some stranger from a forign world came down here and started rasing a ruckus over how we reproduce I foresee a major incident. It would probably make the Terrorist watch lists explode!

The episode was badly thought up, (like many, many others) however I still say Trip was making a very risky decision acting the way he did. He had other recourses to try and help the Cogenitor, and the fact remains the Vissians still could have vaporized the ship at any time.

Now is Archer a hypocrite? YES! Did he treat Trip like crap? YES! In this situation was he a proper commanding officer at all? NO! Was anything about this situation fair to anyone? NOPE! But none of that made Trip's actions a good idea. What he wanted to do was right. HOW he did it, was wrong.

[Transwarp]

I'm coming late to the party and there's way too much for me to comment on, so I'll have to content myself with just hitting the high points:

Early in the thread, Asso argues that "The moral is the basis of law and the law has to be led by morals." I agree that law must have a basis in morality, but I would only take that so far. Not everything immoral is or should be illegal. As an example, I believe adultery and homosexual relations are both immoral, but I would NOT outlaw them. Ditto greed, selfishness, sloth and envy. As long as a person is only hurting themselves and/or other consenting adults, I would pretty much leave them alone.

I also agree that it is difficult making black and white pronouncements about this episode because (as Rigil so ably pointed out) there is so much we potentially don't know about their culture or the mechanics of their reproduction. Having said that, the little we DID know was damning for Vissian culture. Archer WAS acting like a fool and a world-class hypocrite when he reprimanded Trip.

Given the evidence they had of the Cogenitor's high intelligence, innate curiosity, desire for self-improvement, and drive for self-determination, why didn't Archer actively seek out the missing information? Why did he not sit down with the Vissian's and demand an accounting? Where were the tough questions: "How can you Vissians, an apparently advanced and enlightened species, treat sentient members of your own species in such a manner? If you were personally treated the same way you treat your cogenitors, wouldn't you consider that to be wrong? To be cruel and immoral? So what makes it different when you do it to them? Please, I want to understand. Explain it to me. I WANT to respect your culture, but right now it's looking a little shaky, like maybe the shining examples of peace, prosperity and tolerance that you project to outsiders are resting on a rotten foundation. Unless you can convince me otherwise, I WILL grant asylum to Charles."

One of two things would have come from that discussion. The Vissians would have been exposed as lying slave-owners, or the real and valid reasons that cogenitors could not be allowed self-determination would be revealed. That Archer never asked the Vissians these hard questions--never even seemed to consider it--is nothing short of astonishing.

But ultimately, I was most surprised by what this episode reveals about the attitude of the show's writers and creators. Well, maybe not surprised, I've sort of come to expect it: the attitude prevalent these days that other cultures cannot be judged or criticized, that all cultures are equal, and there are no absolute measures of good or evil. I reject that notion, but I sometimes feel like I'm swimming against the tides.

[panyasan]

My country used to be a free state - that meant a state were people who thought differently or were differently could asked for asylum and be free. We're also slave traders and it took a long time before the country accepted a law against slavery.

There is good and bad in any culture and to speak up against injustice and mistreatment of our fellow men is what every good leader would do. If people hadn't speak up to this, slavery would probably be around in the Americas.

For me, Trip did nothing wrong. He acted in kindness, showing a person some friendship. He may have kept this from his crew mates, but since when is being kind wrong? Since when is giving some one some joy in their lives wrong? Since when is giving some one education wrong?

Yes, Charles did end his/her life, because he/she didn't get asylum. That's a tragedy. But it didn't make Trip the guilty party and he sure had no blood on his hands.

Just my humble opinion.

[Alelou]

Trip may have been morally right, but I can't watch that episode without feeling squirmy about his behavior. If he's sneaking around the Vissians AND around his own CO to do something he's been warned against by a superior officer, that strikes me as conduct unbecoming. It doesn't strike me as much like Trip (although his curiosity/sympathy for Charles is very much in character).

Archer ends up looking like an ass, and T'Pol looks heartlessly officious. This episode did not serve our characters well.

[Asso]

Early in the thread, Asso argues that "The moral is the basis of law and the law has to be led by morals." I agree that law must have a basis in morality, but I would only take that so far. Not everything immoral is or should be illegal. As an example, I believe adultery and homosexual relations are both immoral, but I would NOT outlaw them. Ditto greed, selfishness, sloth and envy. As long as a person is only hurting themselves and/or other consenting adults, I would pretty much leave them alone.

Although it may seem in contrast with what I previously stated, I agree. But perhaps it is not so in contrast: I believe that there are some - how to say? - moral elements that can not be breached or even simply disregarded, because, if it were so, I believe we would be not merely immoral, but amoral.

But ultimately, I was most surprised by what this episode reveals about the attitude of the show's writers and creators. Well, maybe not surprised, I've sort of come to expect it: the attitude prevalent these days that other cultures cannot be judged or criticized, that all cultures are equal, and there are no absolute measures of good or evil. I reject that notion, but I sometimes feel like I'm swimming against the tides.

We are two, my friend.

[lfvoy]

But ultimately, I was most surprised by what this episode reveals about the attitude of the show's writers and creators. Well, maybe not surprised, I've sort of come to expect it: the attitude prevalent these days that other cultures cannot be judged or criticized, that all cultures are equal, and there are no absolute measures of good or evil. I reject that notion, but I sometimes feel like I'm swimming against the tides.

We are two, my friend.

Make that three, which is why I generally stay out of debates like this.

But to get back to the question posed in this thread's title, I do think Trip was wrong. Not necessarily in his intent, but in his execution -- and the fact that he intentionally sneaked around (lying about his whereabouts, etc.) indicates that on some level he also knew he was out of line. Does that mean Archer wasn't wrong? No, absolutely not. In fact, I don't really think there was a "right" in this situation -- just a "good enough."

And that right there leads to a moral statement that can be pulled from this episode: sometimes there simply can't be any winners, and the best solution is simply to leave well enough alone.

[Cogito]

sometimes there simply can't be any winners, and the best solution is simply to leave well enough alone.

And sometimes, all that's necessary for the triumph of evil, ...

I can sympathise with Trip feeling compelled to act, and to act despite knowing that both of his senior officers wanted him to leave well alone. Really, to ignore something that seems morally wrong just because you want to maintain good relations with the perpetrator is the most appalling cowardice, and Archer and T'Pol were both guilty of that here. Because I believe that at the end they both knew that the cogenitors were being repressed, and they both pretended otherwise.