In the Star Trek pilot episode The Cage, Captain Christopher Pike has been kidnapped by the Talosians. They have forced him to relive the fight on Rigel 7. This time, they substituted Vena for his crew. After he kills the Kaylar warrior, Pike is returned to his cell, where Vena asks him to pick another dream and let her live it with him. Is she an illusion, created by the Talosians to help them explore Pike’s thoughts and memories? Or is she a fellow captive? When Pike repeatedly declines her request, Vena collapses, and screams “Don’t punish me!” Then she vanishes.
Later, Pike is studying one wall of his cave, when he sees an access panel close. Set on the floor is a goblet. A Talosian in the corridor tells him that it contains a nourishing protein complex. If he wishes, they can make it resemble any food he cares to visualize. But, the alien warns, if Pike attempts a hunger strike, they can punish him. Suddenly, Pike finds himself in a pool of acid, while fires burn all around. He screams in agony. When the illusion vanishes, he is back in his cell. The Talosian orders: From a childhood fable, Pike will now consume the nourishment.
Pike drains the goblet.
The Talosian then informs him that an Earth vessel did crash on their world. They found one survivor, and repaired her injuries. When they found the species interesting, it became necessary to attract a mate for Vena. That is why they captured him. But Pike knows there’s more to the situation than this. Why should they probe his mind if all they need is reproductive material? Why make him fight the Kaylar warrior to protect her? To him, the Talosians are going out of their way to make him feel protective of Vena, and to forge between them a cozy husband/wife relationship. If he cannot believe their explanation, how can he even believe that Vena is real? Yet he plows ahead with his questioning. He was the one who refused to cooperate by picking a dream to live out. Why didn’t they punish him instead of Vena? The Talosian smiles. He suggests that Pike’s question denotes not only emotional protectiveness, but sympathy for Vena. Then the alien leave Pike to reflect upon their conversation.
Parents punish children, not only for their disobedience, but to instill desired values in their successors. In The Cage, the mentally-superior Talosian punishes Pike for not consuming his nourishment. Pike acquiesces. When Vena is punished for Pike’s disobedience, we realize the Talosians’ punitive measures are achieving the desired effect. We may have left childhood behind, we may not be parents. We may not claim to have been abducted by aliens. But does this mean that questions concerning the ethical use of punishment are not applicable in our daily decision-making?
In business, if a client regularly delays payment, won’t the seller punish the client with extra fees or reduced buying opportunities? In friendships, a friend who repeatedly lies may gradually be excluded from the formerly-close relationship. A family member who always expects another to spend significant calendar dates with him or her, yet never reciprocates, may find that the latter grows reluctant to continue sacrificing interests and valuable time merely to please him or her.
Clearly, it is not impossible that, if applied in the correct way, punishment can achieve the desired effect. Yet questions remain. Where do we draw the line between tolerance of undesired behavior and attempting punitive measures? Or should we always ignore actions that annoy or displease us, and forever treat others as we wished they would treat us, regardless of whether they actually do?
Such questions leap readily to mind. Sadly, satisfying answers are less easy of grasp.
Later, Pike is studying one wall of his cave, when he sees an access panel close. Set on the floor is a goblet. A Talosian in the corridor tells him that it contains a nourishing protein complex. If he wishes, they can make it resemble any food he cares to visualize. But, the alien warns, if Pike attempts a hunger strike, they can punish him. Suddenly, Pike finds himself in a pool of acid, while fires burn all around. He screams in agony. When the illusion vanishes, he is back in his cell. The Talosian orders: From a childhood fable, Pike will now consume the nourishment.
Pike drains the goblet.
The Talosian then informs him that an Earth vessel did crash on their world. They found one survivor, and repaired her injuries. When they found the species interesting, it became necessary to attract a mate for Vena. That is why they captured him. But Pike knows there’s more to the situation than this. Why should they probe his mind if all they need is reproductive material? Why make him fight the Kaylar warrior to protect her? To him, the Talosians are going out of their way to make him feel protective of Vena, and to forge between them a cozy husband/wife relationship. If he cannot believe their explanation, how can he even believe that Vena is real? Yet he plows ahead with his questioning. He was the one who refused to cooperate by picking a dream to live out. Why didn’t they punish him instead of Vena? The Talosian smiles. He suggests that Pike’s question denotes not only emotional protectiveness, but sympathy for Vena. Then the alien leave Pike to reflect upon their conversation.
Parents punish children, not only for their disobedience, but to instill desired values in their successors. In The Cage, the mentally-superior Talosian punishes Pike for not consuming his nourishment. Pike acquiesces. When Vena is punished for Pike’s disobedience, we realize the Talosians’ punitive measures are achieving the desired effect. We may have left childhood behind, we may not be parents. We may not claim to have been abducted by aliens. But does this mean that questions concerning the ethical use of punishment are not applicable in our daily decision-making?
In business, if a client regularly delays payment, won’t the seller punish the client with extra fees or reduced buying opportunities? In friendships, a friend who repeatedly lies may gradually be excluded from the formerly-close relationship. A family member who always expects another to spend significant calendar dates with him or her, yet never reciprocates, may find that the latter grows reluctant to continue sacrificing interests and valuable time merely to please him or her.
Clearly, it is not impossible that, if applied in the correct way, punishment can achieve the desired effect. Yet questions remain. Where do we draw the line between tolerance of undesired behavior and attempting punitive measures? Or should we always ignore actions that annoy or displease us, and forever treat others as we wished they would treat us, regardless of whether they actually do?
Such questions leap readily to mind. Sadly, satisfying answers are less easy of grasp.
No comments:
Post a Comment