Everyone loves a good movie with aliens. For years now, the Star Trek phenomenon has taken many different forms. The most recent (at the time of this writing) film in the franchise, Star Trek Into Darkness, hearkens back to much of the franchise’s roots as it remakes what may be one of the most famous sci-fi movies of all time, Star Trek II: The Wrath of Kahn. Star Trek as a series has always been famous for its politically correct mentality (the extraordinarily diverse crew on the bridge, calling women “Mister” to show equality, aliens that care about whales on Earth more than humans do, etc.). Along with these more liberal attitudes come a few philosophies that are just plain bad. What Star Trek Into Darkness does is add to all of that with the poor leadership traits in the main character. The end result is a movie with serious philosophical flaws about authority and emotion. To avoid missing the big picture, it is important to discuss some of the philosophical flaws prevalent in Star Trek as a whole before juxtaposing these strands with those problems specific to Star Trek Into Darkness.
Spock, the Vulcan character loved by so many fans, may be the classic example of a strand of philosophy that is vehemently anti-Catholic. The philosophy in question is Utilitariansim. Quickly let’s define a few terms:
Hedonsim: I am a hedonist if whatever I consider to be good is what is pleasurable to me. If it is not pleasurable to me, it is bad. Example: I like ice cream. Eating ice cream is morally good because it is pleasing to me. Working out is morally bad because I don’t enjoy working out.
Utilitarianism: Hedonism must sound pretty silly to you especially based on the example given. Utilitarianism is what happens when smart people get ahold of a stupid philosophy. Utilitarianism states that an action is morally right if it maximizes the most good for the most people and minimizes the most bad for the most people. On paper this sounds great. Example: Spock says to Kirk in Star Trek II: The Wrath of Kahn,
“The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few… or the one.”
– Spock to Kirk as Spock sacrifices his life to save the ship and crew.
At first glance, all seems to be as it should be. Self sacrifice for the greater good is praised. However, there are some really deep flaws with the definition of “greater good”. What does utilitarianism define as the greater good? It has a hedonistic sense of what is morally good or bad. Hence, the definition of the greater good is “what is most physically, emotionally and/or psychologically pleasurable for the greatest number of people”. This is a very quick and general summary glossing over some of the nuances but it captures the spirit of the utilitarian idea well. It is easy to see how Spock looks noble for sacrificing his life for the greater good. Utilitarianism has an dark side to it though.
A further example: A young boy has witnessed a head of state doing something immoral, say perhaps murdering a woman. Security grabs the child, realizes that they can never be certain that he won’t speak about what he saw and elects to murder him and declare that they never saw him. This avoids the greatest hedonistic evils for the greatest number of people. The populace will not be troubled emotionally or lose their faith in their leader. The leader needs to maintain a certain respectability in order to lead effectively. Meanwhile the boy has nothing to offer society so his removal from the equation is, as Spock might put it, logical. I strongly urge you to further your own studies on it by reading John Stuart Mill’s definition which is much more nuanced (keep in mind however that you are reading a man strongly in favor of utilitarianism). Bernard Williams writes a scathing dismantling of Utilitarianism in is writings, “A Critique of Utilitarianism”.
Consequentialism: This is the philosophy of Kirk in Star Trek Into Darkness. Consequentialism is a natural evolution from the errors of Utilitarianism. To put it as simply as I can, take the word “consequences” and stop and think about it for a second. What Consequentialism states is that an act is good or bad if the consequences of that act are good or bad. Today I threw a baseball. Nothing got broken. Therefore, I did a morally neutral act. If I threw the baseball and from pure accident, it went through the neighbor’s window, then I have done something morally bad. I have done something bad because the consequence of my actions is bad. If I throw the baseball, but it accidentally goes through the open window of the house next door and knocks the robber unconscious who was holding a gun to the head of the woman who lives there… I have done a good thing. Even though I was completely unaware I was doing it at the time I started my action, the consequence of my action is that I saved a life. Thus, I have done a good thing. This is what consequentialism states.
Kirk exhibits the symptoms of consequentialism literally from the first scene of Star Trek Into Darkness. He violates the Prime Directive by rescuing Spock from the inside of the volcano and exposing the Enterprise to the species living on the primitive planet. He lies in his report to his commanding officer about the goings-on throughout their mission. And yet although he has managed to break almost every rule that as captain of the Enterprise he has sworn to uphold, he fancies himself a hero for saving the dying planet. Arguments can be made here about Admiral Pike, Kirk’s superior, who thinks it more important to uphold the Prime Directive (not altering the destiny of a planet and not changing history) than to save the life of not only Spock but the… creatures… living on the planet. This argument goes outside the scope of this article though.
The flaw with Consequentialism lies in the reliance on the end result of an action being the sole arbiter in determining if that action was morally praiseworthy or not. That’s a mouthful so let’s break it down. On the surface, this seems like a “ends justifies the means” philosophy. This is absolutely correct. But Consequentialism is broader than simply “ends justifies the means”. There is a classic Consequentialist example of a truck full of soldiers that falls under attack. The men in the truck are driving along when a grenade is thrown into the vehicle. In a rush to save his comrades’ lives, one soldier picks up the grenade and hurls it out of the truck. If the grenade lands at the side of the road and detonates without anyone being injured, then the soldier has been virtuous. He saved lives. If the soldier, in the heat of the moment throws the grenade out of the truck and it happens to go into a house filled with civilians and kills them all, then Consequentialism would state that the soldier, through no fault of his own, has done something horrific. The reasoning being that it would be better for soldiers to die than non-combatants. Catholic theology would state that so long as the soldier truly had no intention of swapping their lives for the soldiers’ lives and the act itself was done in complete ignorance and their deaths were truly accidental, that the soldier would not be blamed for the deaths of the civilians. For Consequentialism, it is possible for a person to sin through no fault of his own.
Catholicism states clearly that a mortal sin must be done knowingly. It is necessary for the person to give consent to it. It also just seems logically “unfair” that one could be blamed for an outcome that was completely and totally unforeseeable.
What about Utilitarianism and Hedonism from a Catholic perspective? Hedonism is just silly, pure and simple. Utilitarianism focuses on the utility of a person as judged by society (and it relies on hedonism at some level) and society can be wrong. Suppose the young boy that is to be murdered by the security team has the ability in his future to discover a cure for cancer. Now he is more valuable (of greater utility ) to society. But society could not have known that before. Therefore, placing the utility of a person or action before all else is folly since society is incapable of seeing how far reaching a single action or small person can be throughout the course of history. Examples in cinema that prove this point:
George Bailey – It’s a Wonderful Life – “I wish I’d never been born…”
Frodo Baggins – Lord of the Rings – “Even the smallest person can change the course of the future.” – Galadriel
Rocky Balboa – Rocky Series – “You had the talent to become a good fighter! And instead of that you became a leg-breaker for some cheap, second-rate loan shark!… It’s a waste of life!” – Mickey who later becomes Rocky’s manager when Rocky turns his life around.
A greater example is the life of Christ. Christ did not come into the world as the prince of some king destined to be the heir to His father’s throne. He came into the world as a carpenter. He was teaching the rabbis and high priests in the temple at a young age. And yet from these humble beginnings and even, as some might say, a humble life, comes the redemption of the human race. Spock’s utilitarian attitude is fundamentally flawed then and despite what the Star Trek universe hails as a heroic character, one has to begin to ask if Spock is actually capable of heroism.
So far, we’ve seen that Kirk’s Consequentialism is not a desirable philosophy to hold and Spock’s emphasis on utility leaves much to be desired as well. Neither philosophy can be held by a Catholic. Star Trek Into Darkness adds yet another problem into the mix. Captain Kirk is utterly clueless throughout the course of the film.
Kirk is penalized for his actions in the volcano incident by having his command stripped from him. After Pike’s death, Kirk proceeds to fight to get his command back. When he succeeds in convincing the higher ups, he leads his crew on a downward spiral towards almost certain death. At every turn Kirk seems helpless finally claiming, “I have no idea what I’m supposed to do. I only know what I can do.” This is leadership stupidity 101 and it validates every complaint that Pike voiced earlier in the film when berating Kirk for his lack of a sense of honor while sitting in the captain’s chair. “You’re not ready,” says Pike to Kirk. And by all that is observable over the course of the film, Pike is absolutely right. Since Kirk is the main character, the captain, the figure of authority, the audience is going to sympathize with him to some extent. What is in effect being communicated by the movie is that it is ok to sympathize with a person who desires something so thoroughly that they will have what they want whether it is good for them (and those around them) or not. This is what can be classified as an improper attachment to the honor and rank of a position without regard to the responsibilities that go along with that position.
Further, Kirk is completely and totally governed by his emotions. The audience giggles when Kirk orders Scottie to stop using analogies because he doesn’t feel like hearing them anymore. Isn’t this an abuse of power though? Kirk is using an order, a direction as a superior officer that must be obeyed. It seems like an awfully serious step to take for so small an offense as using analogies. Earlier in the film, he orders Scottie to sign a form allowing special photon torpedoes to be transported. Scottie’s duty is to say no because he cannot guarantee the safety of the ship by taking on strange weaponry that he is unable to study. Scottie is motivated by duty. Kirk is motivated by emotion. Due to his immense desire for revenge, he orders Scottie to sign for the weapons and relieves him when he refuses to do so. Kirk is supposed to be the character the audience roots for. Are we really satisfied rooting for a man who orders people around by his emotions instead of out of duty? A true ruler understands that the responsibility of ruling means using one’s authority to do what is best for his subjects. Authority is the ultimate form of servitude. What Star Trek shows us is authority being used solely for one’s own gratification.
Plato writes in the Republic about what is called a Philosopher King. The Philosopher King represents a joining of two very important kinds of people. The first is the king, the person with the authority to rule. The second is the philosopher (assuming he is a good philosopher) who has a keen understanding of the responsibility that goes along with ruling. Plato remarks that it is extraordinarily difficult to find a Philosopher King because no true philosopher would want to accept the tremendous responsibility that is placed on their shoulders when the crown is placed on their head. What Kirk represents in Star Trek Into Darkness is about the furthest thing from this ideal monarchy. He certainly does not understand the responsibility on his shoulders. But the audience would somewhat excuse this deficiency if he were at least a capable captain. But he represents a truly terrible commander as he is not only incapable of saving himself but equally incapable of keeping his crew safe. In Star Trek Into Darkness, the audience is forced to watch the total destruction of authority.
Authority has been the favorite whipping post of Hollywood for ages starting with the destruction of Father-hood. How many movies, books, songs, games, etc. do you know of with bad dads in them? I’ll rattle off a few just to get the ball rolling:
Star Wars – Darth Vader (Vader is pretty darn close to the German word for ‘Father’)
L.A. Confidential – Bud White’s father
Iron Man 2 – Tony Stark’s father
The Dark Knight – The Joker’s father
The Dark Knight Rises – Bane’s girlfriend’s father/Talia Al Ghul’s Father
Inception – Dom Cobb responsible (arguably) for killing his wife and not being around for his kids
The Prestige – Christian Bale’s character
Scrooged – Frank Cross’ father
Rocky 5 – Tommy Gunn’s father
Gunpowder and Lead (song) – Miranda Lambert’s husband
Heavy Rain (video game) – Every dad in the game
…the list can literally go on and on. Next time you are listening to the radio, take note of how many commercials you hear that show the father as inept, stupid, ignorant, useless, helpless. This corrosion of authority strikes at the very heart of the Catholic Church.
The Catholic Church is built on a hierarchical patriarchy. God the Father (and of course the rest of the Trinity although I emphasize “Father” here intentionally) sits at the top as the Supreme Being, the Supreme Patriarch that created all things. Next down is the pope, the highest earthly patriarch that all Catholics owe allegiance to. Then come the bishops, all of who are also men. Then priests. And finally down to the family itself of which the man is the head and the woman is the heart. The supreme authority of the family lies in the husband (although this is by no means claiming that the mother/wife is not absolutely essential to the equation. She of course is not only necessary but incredibly important. In the interests of staying on topic, I’m merely keeping focus on the father/husband.). By corroding respect for the father of the house, the ultimate source of authority, the father begins to disappear as a figure of importance. Since there is nothing to fill that vacuum, chaos ensues.
Splitting up the family, indirectly takes stabs at the hierarchy of the Catholic Church. If a person has no respect for their own father, the man directly responsible for giving life to them, then certainly will have no respect for their priests, bishops, and pope who are so far removed from them (let alone the Holy Trinity). All of this stems directly from the destruction of fatherhood and by extension, the destruction of lawful authority. Star Trek is clearly not solely responsible for it all. And in fact, the newest first Star Trek film (not the old franchise, nor the Next Generation franchise but instead the newest franchise, first film simply titled Star Trek) shows Kirk’s father to be a man of character. He sacrifices himself to save his wife and newborn son. Into Darkness proceeds to try and tear down all shreds of responsibility from a character and his legacy. It has become an unholy trend in Hollywood and all forms of entertainment these days. But it is certainly important to mention in an analysis of Star Trek Into Darkness that it goes along with the mainstream conception of authority; that it is a plaything more than a responsibility, and that respect for an office is a quaint idea of the past.
Ridiculosophy 