Logic, Emotion, and Morality

"The Butcher's Knife Cares Not for the Lambs Cry" is another fascinating episode from Star Trek: Discovery. Admittedly, Discovery is not the shiny, lighthearted world we usually see within Trek. It’s darker, gritter, similar to the later three series than the earlier Original Series and Next Generation. As such, it’s not a series for every Trek fan. If you watch to escape to a perfect, better world … Discovery isn’t for you. If you need a deep, unsettling exploration of conflict … buckle up, it looks like a fun ride.

While I’m not fond of the death that occurred, I don’t entirely see another way for events to have unfolded. Unless the death was turned into a permanent injury, a consequence for the character, leading to learning from the incident, character development, then there is no point to that scene. Sadly, it is a problem faced a lot in movies and televisions. In this particular case, the death was meant for Michael. To motivate her to achieve her assigned mission. It is, truthfully, something I intend to one day dig into. Especially given the episodes focus.

In this episode, we explore more of what drives Michael. That hint of curiosity and Vulcan behaviorism from the first episode is back. It’s a curiosity that drives her to complete her mission. Derailing the process to what Lorca ordered to charge forth on another path. By the time she gets her answer, it’s too late, and once more she must witness what her choices lead to.

This episode gives Michael an experience that impacts the Vulcan proverb: The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few. If this same proverb lead to her logical (though emotionally driven) choice to mutiny, then she would see no fault in Lorca’s orders. Her doubt shows a questioning of that logic and her response to the successful jump shows a conflict with it. 

Yet, when you look at the previous episodes it’s a conflict we have been seeing within Michael from the start. This need to be Vulcan while being Human. She made choices that were logical but not the human approach to something. Resulting in committing mutiny and attacking her Captain. Only for her to later use logic to dissuade that very individual from an action she, Michael, later commits. The fast-paced series premiere was a story of inner conflict for Michael. And this episode seems to echo that.

Michael is an individual who uses all her resources to satisfy her curiosity. It leads to a compelling character that is easy to identify with yet easily makes one uncomfortable. While watching, I couldn’t help but wonder … have I ever used someone the way Michael used Saru? As the episode went on, Michael was forced to ask herself this as well. With Saru, she was clearly confused to his taking insult in her actions. She couldn’t understand his lack of understanding his actions but later .. as the tardigrade is crying out in pain from her doing something similar, using another being to confirm her hypothesis, she is visibly uncomfortable. And it leads to questioning that Vulcan proverb some more.

How can the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few if the few suffer for it? How does that fit into a world of equality and diversity? How does that logic effect one’s morality? How can one know when this is the best course of action – logically, morally, emotionally – if they do not know the outcome? How is it logical to act in such a manner when one does not know the impact the actions will have upon the few? 

These are questions we can never answer for another. Questions we see being explored on the Federation side. The Klingons … I’m not yet certain on them. However, they do seem to be delving into Klingon diversity, faith, political structure, and how each House is different. I’m curious to see more, and just what this sacrifice of everything is. 

I think, personally, there were two moments in this episode that stood out to me. Finding out what the Klingons did with Georgiou ( to quote James T Kirk ... Klingon bastards) and this quote from Michael Burnahm:

"You judge the creature by its appearance and one single incident in its past"

I found this so telling because it speaks to how the individual she was speaking to, Commander Landry, did similar with her upon her arrival to the ship. How, truthfully, the entire ship judged her based off one incident in her past (admittedly a large Starfleet infraction that had, up until this point, never been experienced before) and her current social standing (convicted mutineer). She was judged, as was everyone judging the tardigrade. 

With this and the questions raised in this episode, I find it to be a well done example of what Star Trek should look like today.

The Morality Issue

Having seen “Context is For Kings” three times now, I find myself further drawn into this new Star Trek series. Its compelling, different, and thought provoking. In three episodes, I have been forced to ask myself … is the right choice always the logical one? Always just? Always legal?

It gives me a feeling I get within other episodes throughout Star Trek. Episodes like “Equinox”, “Tuvix”, “In the Darkness and the Light”, “Necessary Evil”, “Balance of Terror”, “Remember”, “Chain of Command”, “Duet”, and so many more. The only difference is, instead of being left with vague answers or further questions we are left with a promise. A promise to continue that exploration. The answer isn’t just floating around to be grabbed for when one needs a little trouble for a character or something to play with. It’s constant. 

With “Star Trek: Discovery” being during a war, and our own modern-day conflicts, that constant exploration is needed. That need to figure out who we are, what we stand for, what different things mean to us … it’s not something we drop after an adventure only to turn too weeks later when we are bored and want a challenge. It’s daily. It’s every moment. The search for these answers never stop. And Discovery isn’t letting it. We see it. For that, I’m grateful Discovery is my first chance to watch a Trek series from start to finish as it airs. 

Outside of this joy I am having with Discovery, and what this latest episode seems to have promised us (or at least what I take from it) … I’m finding the characters and what is happening to be just as compelling. Let’s just touch on a few things (as I’m late in posting this and the new episode will air in just under a day). 

One of the things I really loved about the episode was Michael Burnham and the reception everyone, including herself, seem to be taking. No one seems at all eager to have her present. Even Tilly freezes up and gets nervous at first, landing on being optimistic and accepting as the episode passes. Lorca is the exception to all this as he deliberately brought her aboard. But no one else seems to want her there. Even she didn’t seem to want to be there at first. It’s intriguing to me, especially a Voyager fan who watched Tom go from being disliked to popular in a few short episodes, that we are getting this. Trek is, once more, exploring a Captain bringing a Federation prisoner aboard their ship as an asset. Only, this time, it seems like everyone is going to take some adjustment to it, including Michael herself.

The most interesting thing is the mutiny doesn’t seem to be the problem for anyone outside of Saru. It’s the war. Michael is being blamed for the war and its outcome and that brings many questions into play. Are people associating the mutiny with the cause of the war? Are they aware of what happened aboard the Klingon vessel and blame that as the start? What is the consensus within the Starfleet community, within the Federation society, on the start of the war. Civilians even seem to blame her, and they wouldn’t have all the information that various people on Discovery might have. So, what is it that she did that people think is the cause of the war? And, will that be touched upon or left up to the viewers to explore? Will Michael continue to blame herself or will she find forgiveness? 

I love that we aren’t seeing a Michael that is forgotten. She committed mutiny, attacked her captain, watched people die because her actions caused delays in plans and sanctioned actions, and then went along on a mission only to blunder the whole thing by killing the person they were supposed to capture. She gave the Klingons a martyr to rally around and stay united for. As a result, whatever potential early talks for peace just got demolished. She is, in ways, responsible for what is happening …. But she isn’t alone in the blame. I think that this series is going to explore that on top of what we are already seeing. What do you think?

___________________________________

This ended up a lot shorter than I originally plan. I'm hoping that I can work this out as the show goes and build my posts up. Eventually I'll have other posts coming more often for Star Trek, Discovery, and other fandoms I enjoy. Thank you for reading!