Archer as Captain

[panyasan]

Well first I was actively trying to avoid doing any "villifying," second, I in no way said that he did not do what he had to do, and that saving earth wasn't right. What I am saying is that there is a major difference between having to make these choices and looking for moral superiority. And no, if Archer does think doing the things he did were morally right I would say he has no moral compass at all.

That said, I acknowledge that he does admit those actions are wrong. The fact that psychologically he wants to try and make them right is a big turn off.

I have worked with leaders that had a moral compass (I am very sure they had), but never admitted they made a mistake. And they made huge ones. My take on Archer is this: he is a lonely kid with a famous father. He doesn't have many friends. When he meets Trip and become friends, he already established this mantra that is going to effect is his life "I am all alone in this universe. If I have to get something done, I will have to do, no else will help me."
So he has this burden of saving the world and Daniels en Future Guy's words that he is going to be this important man for the history of Earth, isn't helping. So he struggles to save Earth, makes decisions he knows are morally wrong, but he suppressed this. Because he can't face all his wrong doing, he comes up with a justification. Otherwise his burden would be too big.
It's not pretty, but it's simple human behaviour.
I do think he has some blind spots, things he had done which I think are morally wrong (he should have giving the Cogenitor asylum - just like he wanted to give asylum to Raijin).

[Rigil Kent]

How to put this...soldiers who see combat, it screws most of them up, sure, especially if they're personally responsible for killing or harming someone in the name of that war...

Wait ... I'm screwed up? Oh, wait. Yeah, I probably am.

but, it's like in order to cope and not go completely crazy, they have to shut it off.

Huh. That might explain why I've been told by a few women over the years that I'm emotionally crippled...

Ask any soldier who's seen combat. They'll tell you that they can't be judged/measured the same way the rest of us are. People in the psychiatric profession are likely to agree.

In some cases, yeah, I certainly agree. Until you've slogged in the mud (or sand, as the case may be), it's really hard to judge someone who has been there and done that, but by no means do I side with those who those who also argue that those who've slogged through the acres of hell don't have some measure of self-determination and responsibility for their actions. Sure, if their experiences were especially FUBARed, then I can give them a pass on some things, but at the same time, I'm not gonna just look the other way for everything, ya know?

Crap. No idea if that's coherent. Just got home from work and really tired (and sick, I think.)

Me, I just generally chalk up the issues with Archer's characterization as "bad writing" and try to ignore it as best as I can. Sure, he was far from my favorite commanding officer on a sci-fi show (truthfully, he ranks near the bottom, down there with Insaneway and that first SeaQuest captain), but I've long since given up on television shows (any television show) portraying their characters in a way that is totally consistent and/or believable in terms of evolution.

I blame the terrifying space monkeys.

[Thot]

Here my thoughts

1) That Archer doesn't show regret about the actions in 'Damage': Sorry, but what is this whole Archer arc in 'Home' all about?

2) I never had the feeling that Archer tries to persuade himself that his actions were the morally correct decisions to make. Perhaps I'm wrong, but I really can't think of a scene were he did this.

3)

...something along the lines of the captain isolated by his position who will do most anything to accomplish his goal. His goals are flexible (save Earth fromt he Xindi, explore, save various crewmen, etc) but the motivation of the ends justify the means seems to be consistant, and if rules need to be broken, aliens tortured, or orders ignored, so be it.

Well, it beats me. This actually fits, although the content makes it very sad. :/

[aadarshinah]

It is sad. And the fact that, even in "Home," he never seem seems to deal with it is sadder. While he may have felt isolated do to his father and all that, you'd have hoped by the third season he'd have at least realized the crew was there to help him, especially his senior officers...

But Pot and Kettle and all that.

[Brandyjane]

Me, I just generally chalk up the issues with Archer's characterization as "bad writing" and try to ignore it as best as I can.

I blame the terrifying space monkeys.

Were there monkeys, Rigil? Some terrifying space monkeys maybe got loose and tore up the scripts? (Sorry to all the non-Firefly fans if this makes no sense. I just can't pass up a chance to quote Firefly!)

Seriously, though, I think Archer is a normal guy who got put into a situation far greater than he was prepared to handle. He just wanted to be an explorer, not a warrior. I really think he only got the captaincy for the first Warp 5 ship just because he was Henry Archer's son and Starfleet knew the Vulcans wouldn't like it. Unfortunately, after Earth was attacked, he was the best choice available to lead the mission. I think he knows that he's not prepared, that he's made tons of mistakes in the past that could easily have killed people, and in the Expanse he takes his natural tendency to face things alone and goes to the extreme. The dark Archer we got in season three isn't someone I like, but he's a much more interesting character than he is in the other seasons.

I do think he has a moral compass. He knows the ends don't justify the means, but he has to do it anyway. Just because we don't see a specific nightmare about stealing the warp core doesn't mean he didn't regret it. There just wasn't time to show it all. They crammed a whole lot of stuff into just a few episodes there. It would have been a whole lot better if we hadn't had the Evil Nazis at the beginning of season four. Maybe then we could have seen more of the ramifications of what everyone went through in the Expanse.

[honeybee]

In Shockwave, its made clear that Archer has a bull in a china shop reputation - and the incident with the perrogan (sp) colony is a straw that broke the camel's back in terms of Starfleet being fed up with Archer. Simply from a dramatic perspective - since the ship is out in space and Starfleet hearings rarely make exciting television anyway (with a couple of exceptions like Measure of a Man) - we are basically told in a few lines of dialogue that Archer is becoming unpopular - that and the scene where they send a Vulcan shrink to examine him. I agree Brandyjane, I think that he was given the job because he's Henry Archer's son, his standing up to the Vulcans endeared him to a lot of humans including his crew and he's got the technical skills to be a Captain. He wasn't prepared for being a diplomat or/and navigating first contacts.

He certainly wasn't a military man or prepared to make the decisions he has to in The Expanse. He might have met WWIII vets as a child, but war and combat is a historical abstraction to him. I also think that in the first seasons, Archer has a definite moral high horse that the Expanse knocks him off. Also, his mission is to stop the genocide of humanity. It's not a political or religious squabble between groups of humans, and the consequences are beyond anything any human has ever dealt with. If it didn't mess with his moral compass, it wouldn't ring true. It does - he just doesn't have a lot of time to worry about it until Home.

I still question why humans weren't working on a plan B to stop a probe, and while I'm at it, why over a century later the whale probe managed to muck up Earth's systems so much. You'd think by then humans would have a "What to do when a doomsday probe shows up out of nowhere" manual somewhere.

[Aquarius]

How to put this...soldiers who see combat, it screws most of them up, sure, especially if they're personally responsible for killing or harming someone in the name of that war...

Wait ... I'm screwed up? Oh, wait. Yeah, I probably am.

but, it's like in order to cope and not go completely crazy, they have to shut it off.

Huh. That might explain why I've been told by a few women over the years that I'm emotionally crippled...

Ask any soldier who's seen combat. They'll tell you that they can't be judged/measured the same way the rest of us are. People in the psychiatric profession are likely to agree.

In some cases, yeah, I certainly agree. Until you've slogged in the mud (or sand, as the case may be), it's really hard to judge someone who has been there and done that, but by no means do I side with those who those who also argue that those who've slogged through the acres of hell don't have some measure of self-determination and responsibility for their actions. Sure, if their experiences were especially FUBARed, then I can give them a pass on some things, but at the same time, I'm not gonna just look the other way for everything, ya know?

Crap. No idea if that's coherent. Just got home from work and really tired (and sick, I think.)

Me, I just generally chalk up the issues with Archer's characterization as "bad writing" and try to ignore it as best as I can. Sure, he was far from my favorite commanding officer on a sci-fi show (truthfully, he ranks near the bottom, down there with Insaneway and that first SeaQuest captain), but I've long since given up on television shows (any television show) portraying their characters in a way that is totally consistent and/or believable in terms of evolution.

I blame the terrifying space monkeys.

I wasn't meaning to say they weren't responsible for their actions, Rigil. Only that the methods for coping with it and healing from it and how one behaves in the aftermath really can't often be judged by those who haven't been there or done that, or be held to the same standards of what's "right" or "normal" for the emotional/mental state afterward. So to the people who haven't been there or done that and are saying "Archer should've done/said this" or "Archer is wrong because he didn't express that," I'm saying, "Don't be so sure. By regular-people standards, yes, but Archer's in a whole 'nother place you might not quite understand where the same rules of coping and healing don't necessarily apply."

Fair enough?

And as all things psychological, individual mileage varies. Since a mind can only be directly observed by the person housing it, it's a hard thing to gauge. You can only go by what's directly observable from the outside (behavior), and start from what "most people" report from the inside, and go from there. Now, being that Archer is a fictional character and not a real person, yes, the "individual mileage varies" thing still applies, but only to a point. You can't riddle a character with so many exceptions or exceptions that are so unfamiliar that the audience is alienated because they can't relate to anything familiar there...but it *does* have to be unique enough to show us why his particular situation should be interesting enough to us that they're devoting about 47 minutes worth of screen time to telling us about it.

And as panyasan so astutely pointed out, some people just have a hard time admitting they're wrong. They know what they did wasn't cool, but they have a hard time saying it, especially to someone else.

Furthermore, to some people, "It had to be done" = "I did the right thing by doing it." I have no problem with Archer believing he was right, because a real person in his situation may very well believe he was right, too. Do I necessarily *like* what the person did? No. But once again, I probably haven't faced the same thing personally, and any soldier I've talked to has said that wartime and combat changes you, and not always for the better. Not always for the worse, either, but you come back different, and people who haven't been there just don't have the same frame of reference.

I did the "right thing" when I put Mr. Boo down last December, considering his advanced age and how much his health had deteriorated. Do I feel good about it? No. But it was "right." And I stand by that.

It's the person who does the wrong thing, knowing it's wrong, and feels good about *that*, that you should worry about.

Archer's justification is clear: save Earth. He didn't do what he did for the hell of it, for laughs. I personally don't fault him for believing it was right. I don't know if I personally could be responsible for screwing over a ship full of aliens by stranding them, but then I've never had to weigh that against saving the entire human race, so...

[WarpGirl]

I have worked with leaders that had a moral compass (I am very sure they had), but never admitted they made a mistake.

I also think Archer has a moral compass, not one I find particularly outstanding but I don't believe he is immoral or amoral. I do think he would be that way if he found a way to believe he was morally superior to the Xindi. He certainly was searching for a way, but in the end he couldn't find it.

No idea if that's coherent. Just got home from work and really tired (and sick, I think.)

Feel better! Yes that was very coherent and I completely agree with what you said.

Sure, he was far from my favorite commanding officer on a sci-fi show (truthfully, he ranks near the bottom, down there with Insaneway and that first SeaQuest captain)

That sound you here is a little girl mourning two of her favorite Sci-Fi captains other than Picard, because they were awesome! However I agree with absolutely everything else, so please forgive me.

1) That Archer doesn't show regret about the actions in 'Damage': Sorry, but what is this whole Archer arc in 'Home' all about?

Exactly! And I'm sorry necessary or not attacking and robbing innocent non-combatants especially those who have nothing to do with the conflict cannot be morally right ever. And out of all the things they called him to task on in Home it was not dealt with in any way that underscored the seriousness of it.

I actually think Home was a decent start into dealing with all of these issues. But like usual TPTB probably couldn't spend anymore time exploring them. It's unfortunate, because then we got an almost teflon captain that could do no wrong and never had any other consequences for his actions in season 4. They took that depth out of him again.

He certainly wasn't a military man or prepared to make the decisions he has to in The Expanse.

Which adds up because in The Expanse and in Home it seems like Starfleet is coming to grips with the fact that it is now an actively combatant part of earth's military. But that makes me question the idea that he was assigned the Mission and didn't have to share it with a more experienced man. Here's a part of Home I found interesting...

ARCHER: I had an argument once with Captain Jefferies. He was one of the designers of the NX-Class.
ARCHER: I told him I didn't want to be in command of a warship trying to make first contact with new species. Jefferies was right. We needed those weapons, and a hell of a lot more.

It seems to me that at least one SF Captain was thinking they might have to be more combat ready. Also here...

ARCHER: You may want to find someone with more field experience, a MACO.
ERIKA: I'm not sure how I feel about a military officer on the Bridge.
ARCHER: If I were you, I'd talk to General Casey about assigning an entire squad.

Which brings me to another point, as much as I love Hayes (and by god I do love him) why didn't they send a MACO command officer with them, and set up a joint command??????????? It's obvious from the transcript that SF does not think of their officers as military officers.

I agree Brandyjane, I think that he was given the job because he's Henry Archer's son, his standing up to the Vulcans endeared him to a lot of humans including his crew and he's got the technical skills to be a Captain. He wasn't prepared for being a diplomat or/and navigating first contacts.

And this right here is why I get so flustered about this character. Is it possible he got to the rank of Captain with no training at all in SF's purpose? The whole point to being a SF Captian is to diplomatically navigate first contacts! And deal with the issues he dealt with. So is SF incompitent, or is the man not the right person for the job?

It's not a political or religious squabble between groups of humans, and the consequences are beyond anything any human has ever dealt with. If it didn't mess with his moral compass, it wouldn't ring true. It does - he just doesn't have a lot of time to worry about it until Home.

I respectfully disagree, the scale might be different but humanity is dealing with the same issues this very second. The Xindi attacked earth because they were manipulated into believing Humanity commited the genocide of one of their races. So they felt they had the moral justification to attack. Just like some societies in earths history have attacked others fearing the destruction of their way of life. And while no human has had to deal with the destruction of the entire human race, we have had to deal with ethnic cleansings and genocides throughout our long and bloody history. None of that makes the actions taken by people that go to stop it any less horrible. And the truly great leaders accept it.

PS. By quoting so much I was just trying to keep track of who said what.

[Silverbullet]

Erika said she did not want a Military Man (MAACO) on the Bridge. She didn't say not wanted on her ship. That doesn't mean Starfleet wasn't military. Just a different type of military than the MAACO's. An anology is the Air force and the Marines. Both Miitary but vastly different. So the Starfleeet cvan be militaary and thier Combat would be in space ships defending Earth from attack out of space. Using PHase Cannons, torpedos but not hand to hand combat. that would be the MAACo's job.

Not sure if I am clear on that.

Can blood, Terror and Horror change one? Believe so. Men in combat attest to that.

But one need not be in combat to see things like that. Aid workers in Dafur, Rwanda, the Congo see it almost on a daily basis. I suspect it has changed them too.

[WarpGirl]

Well, we'll get nowhere with that debate, I only brought it up in reference to Archer's actions as a Captian based on what was said in the show.

[aadarshinah]

Archer's justification is clear: save Earth. He didn't do what he did for the hell of it, for laughs. I personally don't fault him for believing it was right. I don't know if I personally could be responsible for screwing over a ship full of aliens by stranding them, but then I've never had to weigh that against saving the entire human race, so...

Ack, you're right. Walk a mile in your shoes and all that. But still, nearly everyone disagreed with his choice to strand the alien ship.... So maybe we should add "strong-willed to the point of stubborness" to Archer's sentance?

[WarpGirl]

He often made these choices in anger. I think that anger can be used constructively after you make a choice, but ideally you should never make a choice like this when you are angry or desperate.

I think a big thing about my disagreeing with that decision is that he refused to let his people look for any other options. He arbitrarily said "This is our only choice now obey."

Granted for the story of the episode it was the only option, however... Archer had a tactical officer at his disposal, and an engineer, and a 2IC with decades of different experiences to pull from. If he had let these people run through the options perhaps they could have found something he missed. Perhaps not. The point is he never tried. And that I find unacceptable for the situation.

Archer's justification is clear: save Earth. He didn't do what he did for the hell of it, for laughs. I personally don't fault him for believing it was right

I'm going to admit a slight case of confusion here. Are you saying that in order to save earth, that any actions Archer make take to accomplish the goal are automatically morally right? Because if you are doesn't that mean that anything is justifiable?

[Alelou]

Yes, you could argue that it was the moral decision. I believe the appropriate phrase is "The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few."

It's debatable, obviously. I think I'd probably have a harder time liking Archer if he made a decision that bloody in calm deliberation instead of sheer desperation. But he was desperate, and I would have been also, in that situation.

[Aquarius]

Exactly.

[WarpGirl]

You're correct. The needs of the many does apply. And If it was the only option then it was the correct choice. However, the fact remains he didn't do everything he could have to make a different choice. And call me cold blooded but I don't want a leader to be so enraged and desperate that he decides the only choice is to harm non-combatants to accomplish his mission. I want him to calmly, objectively, and methodically come to the conclusion that this is the only choice left.

I think the main point of disagreement here is some people consider doing something otherwise immoral to be moral if there is a lot at stake. And some people believe that even though a choice must be made because of those high stakes it is still an immoral choice.

Humans have been debating this for as long as we've been killing each other. I don't think you'll find the answer here.