From: kyle@uunet.uu.net (Kyle Jones)
Subject: Re: Lacarno = Kirk (Spoilers "1st Duty)
Organization: UUNET Technologies, Inc
Date: Fri, 10 Apr 1992 04:23:19 GMT

 > > ...  Tbe benefits of keeping silent should have been weighed
 > > against the the benefits of coming forward with the truth.
 > 
 > Are you sure that they weren't?

Pretty sure.  Wesley spilled his guts expecting to be expelled
along with the rest of the team.  He'd have made Picard happy but
he'd still be out of a career.  He'd have clared his own guilty
conscience at the expense of three others.  If anyone suffered
from delusions of godhood, it was Wesley, for deciding the fate
of others.  Since he thought he deserved expulsion, then he
should have resigned, and left the others to their own
consciences.

 > > Despite Picard's sanctimonious speech, there is nothing
 > > special about the truth.  There are only actions and
 > > consequences.
 > 
 > Of course, I disagree, but this is one philosophy.  It does not appear
 > to be the philosophy taught by Starfleet, though.  Is there something
 > special about the truth?  Well, apparently, that's an issue that we
 > could debate for hours.  However, the teaching of Starfleet was that
 > there *is* something special about the truth, hence violating Starfleet
 > training could cause serious problems for the team members later on.

Starfleet apparently teaches that it is good to tell the truth to
folks who're on your side.  It's OK to deceive and lie to the
enemy to protect the yourelf and your comrades.

 > > He goofed and he died as a result.  The other members pinned the
 > > blame on him because it was his fault.
 > 
 > Actually, there isn't any proof of this.  It is just as likely that one
 > of the other pilots `goofed', and Josh tried to correct the situation.
 > We can't be sure that the squad leaders words in the inquiry represented
 > a reality (Josh may have been having no problems at all dealing with
 > normal maneuvers).

There did not seem to be any conflict between Nick and Wesley
about the story as it related to Josh, so we can accept that part
as not being in dispute.  The dispute was over whether they
should reveal the bit about the Culvort maneuver.

 > {As a side note just to continue a debate, this is one of the
 > reasons `truth' is interesting... it tends to lead to `trust'}

Right, Starfleet espouses a behavioral system that it believes
produces a workable community for its members.  It's designed to
give guidelines of behavior.  It is not designed to replace
common sense.  The system is flawed.  You can let it run over
you, or you can protect yourself.  You must always weigh your
actions against what it's going to cost you colleagues and others
as well as what it's going to cost you.

 > > Picard never respected Wesley.  He only saw Wesley for what he
 > > could be, and never for what he was.  It was always Picard's
 > > expectations, Picard's approval, Picard's respect. ...
 > 
 > This is an interesting perspective, and one I certainly don't agree with.
 > Picard had expectations, certainly, and often Wesley exceeded them when
 > Wes was upon the Enterprise.  Picard was certainly proud of Wes, and I
 > believe he even said so on occassion.

Certainly, when Wesley did what Picard wanted.  Show me a case
where Wesley went against Picard's wishes, but Picard told him
that he disagreed still respected Wesley's decision, then I'll
believe Picard truly respected him.

 > > > If Locarno was unwilling to come forth and admit his mistake, was willing
 > > > to let someone he commanded take the blame just because he's dead and
 > > > won't care, then he's unfit for command.
 > >
 > > ...  It is foolish to expect commanders to take the blame for
 > > the actions of their subordinates.  
 > 
 > Perhaps.  However, various episodes have indicated that commanders *are*
 > held responsible for the actions of their subordinates, and, indeed,
 > the commanders *expect* to be held responsible.  It seems to be one of
 > the key points of command within Starfleet, hence the squad leader was
 > unfit for command by Starfleet definition (at least, in as far as I can
 > determine that definition based on actions and words from several
 > Star Trek episodes).  Whether it is foolish or not is probably a debate
 > best left elsewhere.

I agree that Starfleet does think this way.  Consider this
though: The fact that commander's must take responsbility for any
and every action may beget the very delusions of godhood that
some would ascribe to Kirk and for which Locarno took the long
fall.  You should not give a man the responsibilities of a god
and then not expect him to behave like one.

Flawed policy begets flawed behavior.  People ought to be
responsible for themselves.

 > > > If you don't believe you should be held accountable for
 > > > your actions then there's no need to go any farther.
 > >
 > > No, I do believe people should be held accountable for their
 > > actions.  But I also believe that justice is never absolute, ...
 > > ...  I don't agree with the
 > > military's dogmatic attitudes regarding what they consider truth
 > > and honor and justice.
 > 
 > Which makes debating whether Locarno is responsible or not an unending
 > one, doesn't it?  We'd have to debate the base rules for what's `right',
 > and, then, should we agree on that, debate whether Locarno and/or Wes
 > did what was right by that definition (or some stretching of the defn).

I agree that an ethical discussion of whether what Wesley did and
what Locarno wanted him to do woould take a while, but we don't
need to have that to determine if Locarno was responsible.  We
only have to decide whether he put the other teammates in a
untenable position if they refused to try the maneuver.  It's not
clear that this was the case.

 > Fun, perhaps, for deep, philosphical discussions around a warm fire with
 > glass of grape juice and some guitar strummings for dead-end meanderings,
 > but it makes for long notes strings, eh?

Yah, but that's never stopped us before. :-)

 > > Locarno obviously had a lot of potential.  You don't think
 > > he could learn from this latest experience and become a
 > > better officer?  If you threw people out every time they
 > > made bad decisions, there wouldn't be anyone left in
 > > Starfleet.
 > 
 > Well, it was the fact that he didn't behold `The First Duty' as the
 > first duty that made him less than good material, right?  They kept
 > Wes, though he is just as responsible.  Its just that the first duty
 > training kept.

Why didn't they expel the rest of the team, then?

 > If you threw people out every time they made bad decisons,
 > yes, there would be a problem.  Hence, they only throw them
 > when the decision is bad and isn't corrected (yeah, yeah --
 > definition of corrected depends on those ground rules we
 > haven't yet debated.  So?)

So, I think Starfleet is a bunch of hypocrites, making examples
of those who break the rules and fail, and lauding those who
break the rules and succeed.  I think Locarno showed good sense
not to kowtow to them as the ultimate arbiter of justice.