Stargate: Atlantis (thoughts on ethics and stupidity)

[butterfly]

This is a thing that I've noticed, something of a dividing line in how SGA is viewed -- there are people who see the show as darker than SG-1 and people who see the show as lighter (there are also people who don't watch SG-1, but they're in a different, non-comparison section).

I see SGA not as lighter or darker but as... more confused and less ethical/moral than SG-1.

I mentioned, in my post about the episodes, that both Morpheus and Misbegotten made me think about how much I love Daniel. And that, to me, is the place where I'm not quite in the same place with Atlantis as I am with SG-1. They don't have a Daniel. Not even that they don't have Daniel, but they don't have a Daniel-figure, a non-military, strongly ethical advisor who refuses to back down in the face of military certainty. Daniel Jackson can be pig-headed and self-righteous, but after watching Atlantis for two seasons and change, I am so happy that he is. His stubborness and his conviction in himself are the tools that he's used to stand up against his military commander (who was his friend).

On Atlantis, we appear have a civilian leader. We're told that Elizabeth Weir is a diplomat and a negotiator, that she's used to getting warring factions to agree with each other. On the basis of this, I thought that there was a chance that Atlantis would be more ethically run than the military SGC.

For me, it comes down to this -- both Michael and Misbegotten are the results of unethical stupidity on the parts of the Atlantis crew. Daniel Jackson would have protested (not just looked uncomfortable and stopped complaining when his military commander was unhappy with him).

I agree that the only choice in the end of Misbegotten was to fire on the colony. In fact, it was the first smart thing that the Atlantis people had done the entire episode! They never should have come to that choice.

The retrovirus is a failure. At this moment in time, it is a failure. It doesn't work. You can't rely on prisoners to give themselves daily injections and you can't devote all your resources to making sure that it gets done. As long as the retrovirus is temporary, it is a failure.

In addition to that, it is unethical to perform medical experiments on prisoners. Massively shortening a prisoner's lifespan, making them vulnerable to all kinds of sickness that they weren't prey to before, making them total amnesics and pretty much dependent upon you for survival is all hideously unethical.

More than that, it was the height of stupidity to change Michael on Atlantis itself. How much of their current strife could have been avoided if they'd been intelligent enough to use the Alpha site from the start? Also, and I cannot emphasize this enough, they should not have had Ronon there. No. You do not put 'hunted for years' guy in with someone who is of the type that hunted him. And if you do, then you should remove him the second that he shows himself incapable of rational thought when it comes to your prisoner.

Finally, if they really had to stab Michael in the back, it was criminally stupid of them to do so using a method that Michael had already once overcome. And that's not even touching the ethical issues involved with fucking over someone who has been playing straight with you.

All in all, very badly played by the Atlantis crew.

Comments

[katie-m.livejournal.com]

The interesting comparison to make, I think, is Summit/Last Stand, and the Tok'ra's development of the anti-symbiote poison. Not only did Daniel bring up the question of what would happen to the hosts, Jack brought up the question of what would happen to the Jaffa. So when the poison does get used, the viewer knows that the characters are aware of the weight of what they're doing.

I mean, I'll grant you the Atlantis folks are kind of screwed, since there is no path to co-existence with the Wraith available to them. I've got no objection to the deployment of biological warfare in their situation, and if they could do a one-time gene therapy that would turn Wraith into humans I wouldn't object to that either, since the other option is Kill Them All. It's just the lack of awareness on their part that bugs me.

[butterfly.livejournal.com]

The interesting comparison to make, I think, is Summit/Last Stand, and the Tok'ra's development of the anti-symbiote poison.

That is a spectacularly good comparison. As you say, the characters bring up the ethical issues, whereas in Atlantis, it doesn't seem that they know where they're going, ethically-speaking.

[chase-acow.livejournal.com]

Wow.

I agree with pretty much everything you've said here, and you've said it way better then I ever could. My brain has problems getting beyond why I don't like Elizabeth other than that she's a "stupid-head". I perhaps have regressed a little over the summer.

From the past couple of episodes, I think it's a wonder the Atlantis expedition survived through the first season at all. I'm still trying to watch all the eps though, so I might have missed them redeeming themselves... I'll hope so. : )

[butterfly.livejournal.com]

I agree with pretty much everything you've said here, and you've said it way better then I ever could. My brain has problems getting beyond why I don't like Elizabeth other than that she's a "stupid-head". I perhaps have regressed a little over the summer.

Heh, but you do sum up the problem well.

[sperrywink]

So much word on all of that. I could handle disagreeing with the characters actions/morality if I think it is in-character (say for Sheppard and Beckett), but the stupidity burns.

My other big disappointment is how they developed Weir's character. I feel like Kavanaugh half the time. Ignoring the rampant stupidity of how they achieve their goals, it has really been the complete breakdown of who Weir was set up to be that has been the greatest disappointment of the series for me (and I don't even like Higginson's Weir! I would kill to have Jessica Steen back in that role). She had so much potential and they just whitewashed it.

Without Weir as the moral/ethical center for Atlantis, the show is just a morass and the more they try to make her 'strong' the more I want to hit things. Throwing your weight around in the most nonsensical situations and emphatically agreeing with Sheppard is not being a strong leader. Weir and Sheppard *need* to be at odds for her to lead effectively since he is firmly in the 'go boom, think later' camp and Atlantis needs her to see the big picture (and I don't just man the Pegasus Galaxy picture, but also the 'Our actions not only have consequences on those we hurt, but on who we are' picture that Daniel saw, particularly in the early seasons). I really hate that they only allowed Sheppard and Weir conflict in Rising and Hot Zone during the First Season but then dropped it in order to make 'Weir and Sheppard get along.' They can have contrary views and promote different solutions without being enemies or one being right and the other wrong. They managed it for Jack and Daniel, what was so hard about doing it this time?

So disappointing.

[butterfly.livejournal.com]

So much word on all of that. I could handle disagreeing with the characters actions/morality if I think it is in-character (say for Sheppard and Beckett), but the stupidity burns.

Exactly, yes.

And I, too, feel a bit like Kavanaugh. He made a lot of sense, at times (he was certainly right about Weir's managing style).

They can have contrary views and promote different solutions without being enemies or one being right and the other wrong. They managed it for Jack and Daniel, what was so hard about doing it this time?

I know! You'd think that that they'd understand how to do that sort of thing by now.

[jic]

You rock. And you're right.

[butterfly.livejournal.com]

You're sweet. Also, I transferred the $90 to your account. So, next month, what should the rent be? It was $220, plus the $35(?) for the phone, plus $5 for the rent increase?

[jic]

Sounds right. *hugs*

[ivy03.livejournal.com]

I started out writing a comment back to you and then realized it was far too long so just turned it into a post. (http://ivy03.livejournal.com/176181.html) To sum up though, I don't know what Daniel would say if he were on Atlantis. I don't see any clearly ethical course of action that wouldn't ensure complete destruction. Of course, given Daniel's previous actions (in Scorched Earth, to name one example) Daniel might choose death over any of the unethical actions the Atlantis crew took. I agree that Weir fucked up royally, but I think that's because she balked about the ethics of killing prisoners and ended up making the situation infinitely worse through her squeamishness.

Sheesh. This is turning into another post. Clearly I'm thinking too much about this.

[butterfly.livejournal.com]

I don't see any clearly ethical course of action that wouldn't ensure complete destruction. Of course, given Daniel's previous actions (in Scorched Earth, to name one example) Daniel might choose death over any of the unethical actions the Atlantis crew took. I agree that Weir fucked up royally, but I think that's because she balked about the ethics of killing prisoners and ended up making the situation infinitely worse through her squeamishness.

That seems to be the difference between Daniel and Weir. Daniel has more... resolve. More certainty, which means that while he can royally screw up, he doesn't do it because he doesn't have the stomach to make the hard decisions.

Because I do think that killing the prisoners off the bat would have been far more ethical than the medical experiment/permanent imprisonment route.

[ivy03.livejournal.com]

Because I do think that killing the prisoners off the bat would have been far more ethical than the medical experiment/permanent imprisonment route.

I agree. It also really bothers me that they decide to try to rehabilitate a group of prisoners with long-distance telepathic capabilities who have knowledge they cannot allow into the general Wraith population, lest Earth be destroyed. They've fucked up so much so far that they're at a point where they need to be swift and decisive if they want to prevent xenocide on Earth. This to me doesn't say "ethical," it says "incompetent." As in this woman is in a position to affect the future of humanity and she does not have the balls to do what must be done. If she were the president on BSG instead of Roslin, the Cylons would have wiped them out in the second episode.

I can't decide though if this is because the character is conflicted or because the writers haven't decided what kind of show this is. I'm leaning towards the latter.

[jgracio.livejournal.com]

Hum, I don't really see that unethical behavior by the part of the SGA crew, but rather being in a different place than SG1.

Because from what we've seen there's no possibility to co-exist with the Wraith. Their foot soldiers can't be convinced to join the good fight. There's no Teal'c to remind the humans that the other side isn't uber evil, instead there's a genetic experiment descendant and a hunt for sport survivor, both with reasons to hate the Wraith more than the Earth born crew.

The retro virus was their honest attempt at trying to beat the Wraith without killing them. The smart thing to do once they saw how the retro virus works, would be to dump the soon-to-be Wraith in a backwater, barely able to sustain life planet. Or pretty much execute them all while they were unable to defend themselves. Instead, they again attempted to keep them alive.

This isn't to say that they're the white, crispy clean, hats. No. They're not. And some of the decisions are stupid beyond belief, understandable only within the context of needing a big finale for the season.

But while it might be unethical to do some of the things they've done, the only alternative was to kill what were at the time human beings. Discussing ethics with regards to the Wraith is like discussing ethics with regards to vampires in BtVS.

Is it ethical to kill a newly risen? No, but it's efficient.

Is it ethical to turn Wraiths into amnesiac, can't defend themselves temporary humans? No, but it's efficient.

[butterfly.livejournal.com]

Is it ethical to turn Wraiths into amnesiac, can't defend themselves temporary humans? No, but it's efficient.

But it isn't efficient. If their solution worked, I would have far fewer issues with it. If they used the Wraiths' weakened states to kill them, as Buffy does with the newly risen, I wouldn't have issues with it. It's the medical experimenting and the imprisoning that I have issues with.

[jgracio.livejournal.com]

But it isn't efficient.

It is if you're trying to capture their technology. :)

The medical experimentating and imprisoning is actually what you'd to sick people with an unknown disease that could be fatal to other people. Which is what the Wraith post retro virus are. Humans with a degenerative disease that will turn them into Wraith.

You lock them up so they won't endanger other people and you try to cure them.

Of course this only works if that's how the SgA people see the ex-Wraith, which is not true for everyone.

[trepkos.livejournal.com]

I have seen season 1 of SGA and 1 and 2 of SG1, and so far I think SGA is more interesting, has better - more interesting/less cardboard - characters, and is less slavishly gung-ho-pro-US-military.
But having read the spoilers (didn't mean to, but got sucked in) maybe I'm wrong.

[butterfly.livejournal.com]

Hmm. I don't know. SG-1 does, to be honest, make me think better of the Air Force than they perhaps deserve. Though I've always liked the AF best out of the military branches. It has the cool factor of flying planes.

[embitca.livejournal.com]

Total word! SGA is like the Lord of the Flies island. Everyone started out as civilized and quickly disintergrated due to the complete lack of a higher authority. Elizabeth is the crappiest leader in the history of leaders and should be brought up on charges instead of left in command of Atlantis. It's gotten to the point where virtually every decision they make is unethical, like some sort of horrible black snowball effect.

I think the big advantage that SG-1 has is not only Daniel, but the entire Air Force chain of command. There's a military code of behaviour in place and generals to back that up. There are rules to follow and hundreds of people to make sure that they are. Maybe what Atlantis really needs (besides replacing Elizabeth) is a general on-site. It also would have made much more sense to put Skinner in charge of the whole thing once he got there. I think the way they handled that whole thing by promoting Sheppard was insane. Having someone else in command does not need to make him any less of a main character. The SG1 team always had Hammond to answer to, but that didn't make him a more important character than they were.

[butterfly.livejournal.com]

The CoC does seem to provide a bigger benefit to the SGC than I used to give it credit for. Everyone has to answer to someone, while Elizabeth and the others at Atlantis seem to be developing a fairly big 'us against the universe' stance (with Earth not being part of 'us').

[sol-se.livejournal.com]

In addition to that, it is unethical to perform medical experiments on prisoners. Massively shortening a prisoner's lifespan, making them vulnerable to all kinds of sickness that they weren't prey to before, making them total amnesics and pretty much dependent upon you for survival is all hideously unethical.

Yes! Thank you for stating that. This has been bugging me about Atlantis ever since they introduced the whole "changing wraith's DNA" storyline. I could never seem to put into words what it was exactly that bothered me so much--because, yes, the wraith are evil & want to eat them, so eliminating them should be good, right? But that's what bugged me. There's a huge difference between killing someone because they want to kill you/invade your planet (self-defense), and changing someone's DNA so that they're a species you like better. It just leaves a bad taste in my mouth. I can understand the wanting to avoid killing them all, but I think it's worse to play god with their DNA until it suits your own purposes. Yet I get the feeling that as viewers, we're supposed to think this is a good thing. I hate to bring this up in a Stargate post, but it reminds me of the attitude of "we should be allowed to torture prisoners and be above any law because we're the Good Guys and are being threatened." The whole storyline & the fact that there's no real Daniel-like voice pointing out the unethical issues really has rubbed me the wrong way. Yes, it's war, but that's the time when it's most important to be aware of moral issues, so you don't end up just as bad as other side.

And that's not even touching the ethical issues involved with fucking over someone who has been playing straight with you.

No kidding. Now they've made an enemy out of Michael. He would have been a really interesting ally. *sigh*

But, despite all this, I do still love the show & will continue to watch.

[sol-se.livejournal.com]

True, very true. That could be an interesting dilemma, though. Maybe Beckett could try to work with Michael to develop some sort of serum, like an insulin shot, sort of like in Blade? *shrugs* I don't know.

[ivy03.livejournal.com]

Tretonin!

Oh. Er. Wait...

[sol-se.livejournal.com]

lol! Yep, that'd be...yeah...

[moojja.livejournal.com]

Sorry, repost due to stupid spelling mistake. But Michael can't be their ally. How will they feed him?

[jgracio.livejournal.com]

You realize that as presently stated that's the only way for the Wraith threat to end, either genetic manipulation into something that's "nicer" to us or extinction, since humans can't coexist with them, not unless they have another food source.

It's always self defense for humans in Atlantis, since it's been established that a Wraith can't not feed, he / she might not want to, but if the going gets rough enough, that's what's gonna happen, and at present we're it, we're their food source.

These are SGA's options :

a) Die fighting an hopeless war.
b) Run away like the Ancients did, and allow millions of humans to die.
c) Kill the Wraith down to the last one, since we can't coexist.
d) Change them or all humans so we can coexist.

Exactly were are SGA's ethical choices?

Oh, and of course, from a S1 episode, there's always another option, one that someone has already thought of before.

e) Remove the food source. Kill (since transporting them isn't viable) all humans in the Pegasus Galaxy.

Or, taking SG1 into account...

f) Show the Ori that there's another Galaxy filled with humans.

Without some changes to canon, to the Wraith as we know them, there are no ethical choices.

[sol-se.livejournal.com]

I'm responding to this since it was posted as a response to my post, but I get the feeling maybe you meant to respond to butterfly's original post up top. If not, then ignore that last bit.

Anyway. Yes, I agree there's no chance of coexistence with the Wraith. That's why I said I thought the better choice was to fight & kill them, rather than genetic experimentation, which answers your multiple choice list of options. But I agree that the Atlantis crew is definitely stuck with few options. Even though my post above was pretty much to one side of the debate, I have to say after talking with some people, I'm much more ambivalent about whether I think the DNA therapy is right or wrong. Azarsuerte made an interesting comment:
"I don't think we're supposed to not notice the moral ambiguity[...]I think what we're supposed to see is that the *characters* haven't really realized the ethical implications yet because, as Woolsey pointed out to Sheppard, they don't see the Wraith as people, most of them even after the treatment. They've convinced themselves it's more humane than fighting a war of attrition"

So, I'm not hundred percent sure what I think about it one way or another. It's an interesting dilemma though.

Show the Ori that there's another Galaxy filled with humans.

I know you're joking, but on both shows, letting the Ori & Wraith know there was another galaxy of humans was accidental. Which now that I think about it, is an interesting parallel. Or did you mean, show the Ori that the Pegasus galaxy exists? Because that would just be bad for everyone involved! (I know you were joking. Nevermind.)

Without some changes to canon, to the Wraith as we know them, there are no ethical choices.

Well, there is. That's what this whole post is about. Whether medical experimentation (or in this case, genetic) on your enemy is ethical & justified. Obviously, you agree that it is. Like I said, despite my last post, I'm now on the fence. And you make some good points.

But I love moral ambiguity in my shows. :)

[ivy03.livejournal.com]

What I find interesting is that they structured "Misbegotten" so that if the Atlanteans had decided that the only ethical action was to fight the Wraith without the retrovirus, they were guarunteed to fail. They can't take on the Wraith in a straightforward fight; they have to fight dirty.

So their choices really are:
1)Use the retrovirus to make the Wraith vulnerable and then kill them.
2)Use the retrovirus to make the Wraith vulnerable and treat them as prisoners of war.
3)Use the retrovirus to make the Wraith vulnerable and attempt to treat them as prisoners of war but only if it doesn't take too many resources (what they ended up doing).
4)Die.

As I pointed out in a post in my lj, what is most bothersome to me about this is not the way the Atlanteans acted but that they continue to insist that they are doing what's best for the Wraith by "curing" them, even when a Wraith they have "cured" tells them in no uncertain terms that that is not what he wanted.

Before "Michael" Beckett had enough wiggle room to believe that administering the retrovirus was really curing the Wraith of their disease; after "Michael," Beckett's continued insistence that that's what he's doing is pure denial.

[butterfly.livejournal.com]

There's a huge difference between killing someone because they want to kill you/invade your planet (self-defense), and changing someone's DNA so that they're a species you like better. It just leaves a bad taste in my mouth.

God, yes. It really does. And someone actually said, 'permanent solution' last episode in regards to the Wraith, which is too close to 'final solution' not to give me the creeps.

[destina.livejournal.com]

Interesting post, and I think you have good points. What bothers me a little about the SGA thing is how they go about making some of these choices without much of a sense of the gravity of them. And that doesn't suit the characters; they *should* know; they are not stupid, unaware people. Also, the hypocrisy from those who are a part of it, who then show shock over the natural conclusion. (Beckett.)

[butterfly.livejournal.com]

Yes! A little more self-awareness, please. Especially from Beckett, who created the retrovirus and really has very little space to talk about empathy.