Good and well presented video and thoughts, thank you. One of the things that irks me about "The needs of many..." line though, is that is that it can easily be taken and reinterpreted to be the majority over the minority, and doing so can easily be seen as discriminating against the minority. Take your country of the USA as an example with the majority being CIS Caucasian, I don't think you'd support the needs of those taking priority of those who are not? In theory trek is beyond such racial, gender, and sexuality divides so it may be more appropriate to it, but personally I'm still somewhat torn on the saying.
To counter the "Majority over Minority" logic, there's the employ of "Socratic Discourse"...specifically to invoke the actual weight of the discriminator's perceived 'burden'. Let's take the matter of same-sex marriage. Marriage serves as a legal process, conferring benefits concerning medical and property rights (as well as associated tax law, etc). Marriage also serves, in a social and personal context, as a sign of mutual love and respect between the romantic/sexual partners. A heterosexual majority may claim that this means heterosexual marriage must be supported...but heterosexual marriage (and heterosexual relationships in general) are in no way impacted by also supporting homosexual marriage. The options, assuming we keep marriage as a socially-relevant and legally-relevant thing, are to support either: * Both same-sex and different-sex marriage, or * Only different-sex marriage, or * Only same-sex marriage. One option explicitly includes everyone, and the other options explicitly exclude a chunk of people. Therefore, there's only one option that actually covers "the needs of the many". ---- ---- This said, as an anti-Randian Aristotelian (my two moral center-points are "Do unto others//Do not do unto others" and "Good feels good"...) I would prefer people can form or understand a rough moral system before they act. But when it comes to praxis or "practical ethics", "The needs of the many" is a fair starting-point. (More-so when your response to any and every choice is "Why not both?")
@@onijester56 Your point about weighing of the burdens is true; a lot of the ideas of needs changes from person to person, and group think can be very damaging without some trained/knowledgeable/appropriate people to consider all the ramifications that decisions can have. Just because something (or someone) wins a popularity contest doesn’t always mean it is morally right. There are examples littered throughout history of most of a population being outwardly perfectly fine with the status quo, even if it causes harm to a minority, and that minority suffers so that the majority can live a better life; needs of the many. Even within Trek; As T’Rina said in Discovery S3E07 episode Unification III, “In its desire to serve the many, the Federation ignored the needs of the few." If an idea benefits 99% of a population leaving 1% behind, but doesn’t cause any actual harm to that 1%, then go for it. Just please don’t forget about that 1% and do try to make up that difference. We cannot forget the risks when making changes, even if it is a net positive for the many. -- May be slightly off topic but your marriage example reminds of a legal case in England; as you may be aware, same sex marriage has been legal in the UK since 2014 when the 2013 Act came into effect, while prior to this couples could only enter a Civil Partnership (since 2004) which grants all the same legal rights but without any of the religious aspects or being able to refer themselves as married/spouses. Then a few years ago an opposite-sex couple wanted a Civil Partnership rather than a marriage which was not legal but going to court they won on the grounds it wasn’t compatible with the European Convention on Human Rights for the restriction. At the time it did seem odd to me, and others, that a couple who have never had any restrictions put in place to prevent their marriage would be so adamant in this; that is until I understood their objections to be about the history of the institution of it, such as property rights, patriarchal control, sexism, discrimination, treating people as objects to be bartered with, and of course the religious connotations. So, from those you presented, the one that stands nowadays is the first option, thank fully. This is an example of a small number of people weighing the arguments involved by the various parties, protestors, and religious groups etc. to come to that conclusion. As the judgement on the case shows though, the Government chose not to remove or update Civil Partnerships when legalising same sex marriage, and in doing so knowingly introduced different inequalities based on the difference of sexual orientation creating the need for this case. (Note: If you have any interest in reading the judgment for this then it is UKSC 2017 0060 to search for).
I think it distinction needs to be drawn here between needs and desires. What constitutes which and at what point desires outweigh needs if at all is of course an entirely different debate.
Here's an old one I missed, but I really *don't* think the Kobayashi Maru test is a 'trolley problem.' In the case of your visual example the obvious answer is .. derail the trolley. Accellerate, trip the right turn, hit the brakes as soon as you jump the tracks up front. But the Kobayashi Maru isn't bout skill or binary moral choices, it's about *whatever you do* the simulation piles on more losing. It's a test of character, and more going wrong no matter how great you do. It's not about winning or choosing, it's about 'The Right Stuff.'
@@OllamhDrab you choosing to derail the trolley would mean that you failed the Trolley Delimma Test. Whether it's looking at it from an ethical point of view or the judgment of your character, the result of you choosing to run away and not taking responsibility, you saved yourself while killing everyone else. The trolley rolled off the track and landed right on top of both tracks, killing both groups. So, was it right for you to refuse to take responsibility, resulting in the death of several people just so that you can save your own life and ego? Me personally, I think selfishness and egoistic are two characteristics that one shouldn't be proud of having.
I think my favorite version of the Kobayashi Maru test is when Nog took the test in Strange New Worlds IV, when he caused the test to error out by asking the Romulans to name their price.
YES! I just went into the comics to say this. One thing I thought of would be to send a volunteer or two in a shuttlecraft to rescue the Kobayashi Maru crew. My crew might still be crewed by the Klingons, but it would at least show the Klingons a clear lack of aggressive intent in crossing the border.
My favourite “solutions” are the ones which don’t rely on the fact that it’s a simulation. Apparently in the novel “Sarek” Peter Kirk uses an obscure Romulun rule which prohibits hostilities while an enemy captain is on board the ship. He beams himself over to the Romulan ship and tells his crew to beam up the Maru crew and won. Sure he sacrifices himself (much like Spock did) but he didn’t have to hack the computer to do it.
That's Kinda similar to Kirk's original solution when he Hacked the Simulation. He Exploited Klingon Culture by Simply adding to the Program a Tag that Noted himself as being some kind of War Hero, someone the Klingons would have to Respect and be Willing to Negotiate with, Giving himself a Win Condition in the process.
There's an entire novel of various characters telling their Kobayashi Maru stories. IIRC Sulu decided the distress call was a trap and ignored it. Scotty used some obscure engineering theory that was physically impossible but mathematically plausible enough for the simulator computer to accept it and got himself kicked out of command school.
@@scottbutler5 Thank you for the info. On an aside, the Kobayashi Maru test would probably be so well known that there would be simulations and For Dummies books where people could prep for (game) the test. Perhaps it shouldn't start in such a familiar fashion. I would mind seeing something like the Deanna story where the protagonist instantly realizing that they would have to sacrifice someone personally very important, like a Riker and have them agonizing about the choice to sacrifice that person during the various iterations of the test. I've been a fan of Trek since the TOS, (from the salt monster episode in Hawaii) but all of you are many levels above my pay grade. Thanks again.
It arguably made him unsuitable for command of a starship, but Spock is the moral heart of Star Trek because he understood that the "needs of the many" axiom can only truly be executed upon the self.
Little consequence for rescuing Spock? He definitely still faced an imperfect win there, he sacrificed his ship and lost his own son. Sarek says as much. That’s what makes Search for Spock so powerful; we are promised a second chance, a way to bring back someone Kirk lost, but he still pays a price for it, and it’s much harsher than his rank.
SAREK: ...Kirk. I thank you. What you have done is... KIRK: What I have done, ...I had to do. SAREK: But at what cost? Your ship. Your son. KIRK: If I hadn't tried, ...the cost would have been my soul.
The "retreat" option being the correct one, according to Tuvok, sounds like a lot of first aid training concerning drowning. It is best to toss the drowning person a rope or extend them a pole, never touch them directly. A drowning person is in extreme escape mode, and will use their rescuer's body to escape the liquid. Sometimes, you must allow them to drown, to keep 2 drownings to happen.
Now I know why years and years ago, when I had a discussion about the Kobyashi Maru with some fellow Trek fans they called me "Captain Calhoon" for months. They read all the canon literature, I did not, and they gave me that temporary nickname from one of those. I felt destroying the ship was both logical and compassionate.
When I was a teenager my dad bought me a year's membership to a Star Trek fanzine, this being the days when they were still physical! They ran a contest for Kobayasi Maru solutions and I came third in Australia with mine. I would send my engineers, doctors and any civilians to the Kobayashi Maru and then do everything I could to draw the Klingons/Romulans away from the ship to give them the best chance of escape. My rationale being 'Starfleet members signed up for this, Starfleet is a military organisation. The civilians did not and it's my duty to do anything in my and my crew's power to save them even at the expense of our lives.'
"It might not be the case in your country." I live in a fascist semi-dictatorship that's been going on for 11 years. I'm well aquainted with the idea of the state party showing a preference to its direct clients lol.
"You never faced death" "Yeah, except the two times I took it before I decided to cheat." Also notice Saviek was a LT. jg when she took the course. She was clearly taking graduate courses at the academy, yet when they present it again it is often done by undergraduates. Also it was the end to the 1994 Starfleet Academy video game.
Wu-wei in Taoism is about not thinking/acting inflexibly, doing so will limit your potential. Think of a block of wood, it can be anything, a spoon, a flute, comb, etc. The block of wood has infinite potential but once it's carved into said spoon it limits what the wood can be. Accepting a no win situation is like carving the wood. I wonder if Kirk studied Taoism.
Anything? Are you sure? Can a block of wood be a cup of water? One must be like water to experience effortlessness, or should I say become effortlessness words are so limited, in their scope would you not agree? LOL!!In the words of Nagilum The Point Is Well Taken!If the reference escapes you take a look at the words of wisdom from the alien who wanted to understand the concept of death, in the one and a half minute clip on RUclips Picard is giving a lesson in humanity, I think Alan Watts and you would agree with Nagilum on his critique of humanity. Can you see both sides of the faces facing each other and the vase at the same time?
My block of wood is a spknork (spoon/knife/fork). Which may not fit every single situation, but I can make it work for every situation I find myself needing that block-of-wood for.
Every once in a while I see people refer to a "Kobayashi Maru test" in popular culture, and it makes me happy. I'll update this comment when I see the video, but I'll be teaching when it comes out! Update: I enjoyed this video. I love how you leaned into the Star Trek II soundtrack, Jessie. :D I think it's mean to show Spock's death, it made my eyes water a little. I think it's interesting how the Kobayashi Maru isn't just a test in Star Trek II, it's one of the movie's main themes. I never thought of it as a trolley problem before, but that makes complete sense. I'm glad it wasn't as gory as the trolley problem on The Good Place!
Wesley's lesson was: "There will be times when you can't save everyone." Deanna's lesson (to become a bridge officer) was: "There are times when you have to sacrifice a life for the greater good." The Kobyashi Maru's lesson is: "There are times when you're f**ked anyway, so you might as well go out like a boss."
I wonder if the Kobyashi Maru got so well known that Cadets stopped taking it seriously. I mean whats the point of really caring if you know its simulation you can't win
I think Kobyashi Maru was just one manifestation of a test that's created around a principle. What would you do? If you think about it, the way the test presents is less relevant than the underlying principle. In theory, creating a scenario to test that principle is only limited by the imagination of the people creating the test.
We know that it changed in later years from seeing Troi's test. You have to assume that there's no way the same scenario could be used for that long without the specifics getting out. And once they allied with the Klingons, the situation wouldn't make sense. I could see them keeping it for tradition though. Have the kind of test Troi took which serves the same purpose, and then have the Kobayashi Maru test as the fun "anything goes" finale.
@@kdog3908 That would make sense a bunch of different scenarios that are all unwinnable. Even if cadets do know about them they'll never know which training sim is their Kobyashi Maru
The points I like to make about the Kobayashi Maru is: 1. It suggests that Starfleet expects a certain... flexibility with respect to following interstellar law. Things might not work out, but you are not disqualified from captaincy just because you willfully broke a treaty just because you thought you might get away with it. 2. How come negotiation is not an option? Most attempts at resolving the Maru are tactical or technological. Only Nog ever attempted to resolve the situation diplomatically - and he *broke* the simulation, showing his chosen option wasn't anticipated. In my view Nog is the only one to have really beaten the Maru scenario, by showing the limitations of the simulation as a blinkered depiction of the real situation and what a Starfleet Captain can do in that situation.
Negotiation isn't an option because the Klingons aren't interested in negotiating and that's not what the test is designed for. Too many people (in-universe and in-audience) get too hung up on trying to find ways "beat" or "win" the no-win scenario. Winning is not the point, and Starfleet shouldn't program any simulation where that outcome is possible or acceptable. It is a test to see how you handle difficult choices with no good safe answer. This is essentially like entering a trolley problem simulator and then asking, "Well, why can't someone just try to MacGyver a pair of new brakes so that the trolley can be stopped." First off, you only have seconds to make the choice, so the trolley will smash the victims to death before you even pick up enough loose rubber bands to fashion a makeshift brake pad. But second, and more critically, that's not the point of the trolley problem. If you put a cadet into a trolley problem simulator for the intended purpose of understanding how they psychologically respond to options where SOMEONE is going to die.....you don't program the trolley to have brakes that can be repaired on the go, because it's not supposed to be a test of the cadet's brake repair skills
Apologies, apparently the Kobayashi Maru By Julia Ecklar is book 47 however when I read it originally it was 26 and my copy is 30 so no idea what going on. My favorite Star Trek book.
Has nobody tried broadcasting on all channels that the Maru is in active danger, your ship is entering foreign territory to give them aid, and requesting that any nearby ships of the correct jurisdiction give aid as well?? It seems like just being honest in what’s happening is a pretty obvious solution....once the ships arrive actively start trying to communicate/coordinate rescue with them
I had the same inclination to broadcast intent before crossing into enemy taritory. But it didn't occur to me to ask the enemy for assistance. That's a good idea!
My presumption would be that some cadets did try that approach......and that the Klingons (being the kind-hearted understanding altruists that they are) take those communiques as a sign of some kind of deception or trap and destroy the Kobayashi Maru and all aboard it any way, as well as any other ships that cross the border. And as I recall, in Wrath of Khan, Saavik tries to send out a hail that they are on a rescue mission.....and the Klingons respond by jamming their transmissions and opening fire.
Love this discussion. I like to think of the Maru test as starfleet looking at their command candidates and trying to figure out “how does this person make the best of a bad situation?” To me it doesn’t even have to be about life death and sacrifice, though the fact that Kirk finally couldn’t cheat death is an important dramatic point in WoK. I think of, um. The thing that makes me love Captain Picard so much. When Data is getting command for a fake battle and second guessing himself, and Picard’s words of wisdom are basically “you can do everything right and still fail.” And when Wesley takes tests to enter the academy and doesn’t make the cut, “Did you do your best? Will you learn from this and do better next time?” When I think of the test in this light, I can understand why Kirk would get a commendation instead of a punishment - if what we’re really looking for is can you make the best of a bad situation (rather than “the purpose of the test is to make you feel fear”), then changing the conditions of the test is sort of the best answer to the test.
I loved this video so much I watches twice already. One with my boyfriend and one with my mom. And Jesse thank you for the way you talk my mom is not fluent in English, but you say the worlds so well that she could understand most of it.
The answer to the kobayashi Maru test fire Photon torpedoes past the ship, detonate them creating a shockwave which will cause the ship to drift back towards federation space engage tractor beams and drag it out
I love the depth of character explored in The Wrath of Khan. I've always felt the line uttered by Spock "I never took the Kobyashi Maru test until now, What do you think of my solution?" is the most emotional line int he whole of Trek. I literally choked up the first time I heard it back in the 1980s and similarly several times since. It says so much about the respective attitudes of both Kirk and Spock, not just in this particular film but throughout the entire three seasons of the original tv series as well.
This wasn't exactly the purview of your video, but The situation with commander Troi needing to order Geordi to his death reminded me of when Tilly had to potentially order Owo to her death. I remember watching that and thinking Tilly faced her Kobyashi Maru.
Congrats again on the video, Jessie! One of the things I've come to appreciate about "Star Trek" is the show's willingness to interrogate its own philosophy as it evolves. I'd call that damn refreshing.
Jesse, I think this is one of your best videos. I think it's really important in the current sociopolitical climate. Nobody today recognizes the ramifications of our behavior and policy, but only the ramifications of which opposing pole we choose to align ourselves with. We need to be better than that.
I’m not sure I entirely agree with your analysis, specifically in regard to the Search for Spock. Specifically, saving Spock costs Kirk both his ship and the life of his son (although we can ponder how the former is presented as a bigger tragedy than the latter), and the message of the film is that you have to move beyond the simple utilitarianism of “the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few” in favour of a more nuanced approach that values individual life. Which isn’t to disagree with your overall argument; just that it doesn’t always come down to an equation.
The greatest lesson I learned from my Kobayashi Maru test is how to effectively side eye my instructor for not appreciating my creative ways at failure. 😎 Also “wonderful” may not be what I use to describe Kirstie Alley these days 😅
She joins the illustrious ranks of such actors as Kevin Sorbo, Dean Cain, Scot Baio, James Woods, Jon Voight, Rosanne Barr, Adam Baldwin, and of course, Donald Trump. ☄️🚽🧻💩
It would be interesting to see the 32nd century Kobyashi Maru test. If we look at Troi's command test as an evolution of the concept where she is sending simulations of her actual crew to their deaths perhaps the 32nd century version would take the next step and use some futuristic means to temporarily make those taking the test believe it is real like a temporary memory overlay that starts with the simulation and ends once you shut it off. Starfleet already was doing something like this with its new cadet selection test in TNG where they tricked Welsley into thinking the test was real.
I think there is a valid discussion to be had regarding the value of the test in predicting real-world behavior. In order to make the test unwinnable, it may have to have events that border on absurd to ensure a skilled tactician will lose. The test wouldn’t be as revealing if the trainee is convinced the conditions are so unrealistic as to be not worth considering.
To me the Kobayashi Maru, is what life is its the no-win situation. I cannot remember which particular zombie movie I was watching but they basically had the people back into a corner and there was no Escape and one of the trapped people said no matter what we do we're all going to die,of course she meant right then and there but that exact same sentiment can be stated by anybody at any point in time, whether you're young and in perfect health and the richest most famous person on the planet, it applies to any life-form which is temporal like all things we just happen to be consciously aware of this.So life is the ultimate test how we Face the inevitable no-win situation. And they're clearly as many different ways to deal with it as there have been or will be conscious living organisms!
Despite its pop culture status, I have to assume that the KM test was just one of hundreds that a candidate might be presented with. To have one, unchanging test for everyone would guarantee that word would soon get out!
One thing I’d like to bring up is the Trek EU New Frontier novels and one Captain Calhoun when he took the test. His solution? BLOW UP THE KOBAYASHI MARU.
The closest I've come to a plausible solution was to send out some modified probes capable of slowly tractoring the craft back, and retreating if threatened. It shows good faith as far as respecting the border goes, and maintains the spirit and most of the letter of the law. The downside is that it could easily be eliminated as a possibility in the test.
I'm not a fan of the trolly problem though: it's basically an avenue for somebody to start off with a premise, and then modify it continually into an unwinnable one. If the KM was the trolly problem as it's typically used, you'd be confronted with it, come up with a solution, then be told that your child was actually the stationed on the KM, come up with an alternative that saves them, and then be told your other child was your engineering officer or something. If anything the pure KM is a better philosophical quandary than the trolly problem itself because it leaves room to think in the moment without confounding issues, and if you need to think, you have consequences to bear.
What I love about Star Trek III is that it *doesn't* reject the premise and answer of Star Trek II. Yes, Kirk gets his best friend back. He also loses the ship he loved above all others. And in Star Trek IV, sure, he gets a new Enterprise...but he still paid the original price.
In the game Starfleet Academy you take the test yourself and you can choose weather or not to cheat and how to cheat. Star Trek Online also has one but I think you can win it (been a while)
Kirk was praised for his ingenious solution to the Kobyashimaru - but what would have happened if, instead of Kirk, a female cadet had tried the same thing? I say “instead of” to clarify that she isn’t copying Kirk, but doing her thing in an alternate universe in which Kirk either didn’t exist or exists but never pulled that trick. That way, this question can focus solely on how the same actions are perceived and judged differently when a man does them than when a woman does them.
Awesome vid! But I always felt that Calhoun had the upper hand in the test due to his war chief past. It gave him the ability to think with a seasoned and battle proven mind than that of a green cadet intent on bravery and valor. Your analysis on him was still pretty solid for the most part.
One solution to the Kobyashi Maru that rarely seems to get mentioned is to just not respond to the distress signal. Certainly by doing so you doom the ship's crew, assuming that the Klingons haven't already killed them to set up the ambush, but in doing so you guarantee the survival of your own ship and crew and avoid starting a war which could potentially kill millions. Alternatively, if you really had to respond then you could send shuttles to attempt to evacuate the crew of the Maru without endangering your entire ship.
Now THIS is the peak intellectual nerd content I come here for! It’s been a REALLY long time since I’ve listened to the soundtrack. Forgot how hard the Klingon theme slaps
God bless you for bringing in the command test from TNG! A much better test for command than the Kobyashi Maru. No quasi-military commander could reasonably expect to escape a situation where someone's death is going to result from {his} decisions. How {he} reacts to the sacrifice of a life, and {his} personal survival coming as a consequence of that sacrifice is extremely telling. Unfortunately, it is easier to simulate the scenario than the subsequent emotional weight of the actual event
In Bridge Crew my solution was to put my ship in-between the firing ships and the Kobyashi Maru and transport over everyone I could and when the Kobyashi Maru drops below 30% hull integrity warp out even though there are still people on the Maru. I was so surprised when that actually worked. Not quite a save everyone situation but I think its the best solution you can get in that version of the scenario I don't think the test does what it is supposed to. Like its all well being willing to sacrifice people in a simulation but in a real life situation it would be insane having to deal with the emotion of it and having the weight of those deaths on your shoulders
Something to note is that the Battle of the Binary Stars and Kobyashi Maru test have many similarities to one another. similar location, no-win scenario, rapidly spiraled out of control, etc to the point where it seems the battle in Discovery's season 1 served as the inspiration for the infamous test of character.
Kirks nephew comes up with a great solution. He signals the Klingons for hand to hand combat with their commander, while he beams over he instructs the crew to rescue the ship and leave the neutral zone, outweighing the needs of the one - it's from one of the books
This brings a lot of memories of my intro to ethics class. The general philosophy here is very solidly utilitarian. I'm trying to imagine it from a deontological perspective... maybe it would turn out the same when dealing with lives. Utilitarianism though is more about maximum happiness. Which means that philosophy would say that something that makes the majority of people happy is the right, ethical choice, even if it harms the few. I think I have to give this a longer think. Thank you for this video!
Starfleet Academy (the game) inevitably featured the Kobyashi Maru and to its credit there were a few ways you could deal with it, although as a part CYOA game only one way could lead to the best ending: Change the scenario the same way Kirk did. Change the scenario so it’s possible to survive the ambush. No changes and lose by getting killed. No changes and lose by not trying to rescue the Maru. Inevitably following Kirk’s lead is the way to go but at least the game continues if you go a different way. The novel (yes this game got a novel somehow) went a bit further, the player character follows Kirk’s lead but Kirk and friends do some alterations of their own and the end result is a ‘win’ in that all ships end up disabled so they can’t be captured. Funny how some things stick with you, not played the game in literal decades, can see it is on Steam now though.
In the comics, Nog was able to "beat" the test by bargaining with the Romulans and crashing the system. Basically, nobody in the Federation ever thought of striking a deal with the enemy, so the simulation had not been programmed for it. And that is also a lesson for others: If you don't think of a solution, or think there is no solution, run it by someone with a completely different culture from your own. You might be surprised.
Jesse Gender, the Kobyashi Maru is certainly an interesting moral plot element in Star Trek and you brought up some important pointa about it. Yet there's an approach in that test, and much modern analysis that...honestly once troubled me and now is nearly rage inducing. With all the talk of consequences and challenges in terms of dealing with social justice problems? Would that not indicate that...everyone must accept that the best solution to these social injustices are a deeply punitive approach? Considering how counter intuitive the Kobyiashi Maru could be in the context of Star Trek? Perhaps the assumption of a no win scenario in general life might actually point more to cynicism than a deeper test of character. That's why I mentioned feeling rage induced at this point by that sort of education. If anything we do, even social protest, becomes based in the assumption there's a possibility of not winning? Than people will likely wind up metaphorically stepping on their own feet. That's a deeper issue with the perception of Star Trek I see so much today: desiring it to be more punitive in its intent. The Kobyashi Maru test is, in its variable solutions, at least a more well rounded depiction of human choices.
I think the most important part of the 'Needs of the many outhweigh the needs of the few' is that the few primarily refers to the self, not to others. But, what would be neat to see is more of the education systems used in the federation. In TNG, we don't really get a good enough look at it. In DS9, it seems to group all the kids together and give the assignments, which has different requirements based on age. Since Voyager only had one kid, it doesn't really count, but what does count, would probably be the 'Flutter' holodeck programs, which seems to be an edutainment game focused on basic science. It would really neat to actually have a star trek show more focused on civilians rather than star fleet, because seeing more of the society within the federation would be great.
I think the greatest use of the accepting whats there, but not limit yourself was in undiscovered yountry where kirk, was in no win situation, fugitives and they knew the traty was sabotaged and they needed to do something, using himself as figure klingons rightfully hate as key figure, with his luck , and friends, zulu, to save the treaty. In admitting his faults and using his character developement to inspire making it work. And to see beyong his bias agains klingons he showed before. He grew with the impossible no win scenario and made it work by doing that , a lot of conflicts could be solves that way. By just growing beyong biases and strict plans and negotiate and adopting but not giving up ideals.
I just noticed, in ST2 when Savik was taking the test the other crew members had to fall on the floor when the fake ship was being attacked. That means Sulu and Uhuru had to fall. Normally in the show people like Nichols and Takai had to fall like Sulu et. al. were falling. In the exam Takai had to pretend he was Sulu pretending he was a bridge crew on Savik's ship. Like a meta-falling. I wonder if I spelled any of those names wrong.
In the Julia Ecklar novel, "Kobayashi Maru", it is explained that Kirk gave himself a reputation as a fierce and honorable warrior, which 'intimidated' the Klingons into negotiating.
did NOT watch the whole video yet, just scrolled through the channel and Im like BE MY BEST FRIEND!! Girl, u love startrek and I was talking about how superman and louis is a great show (surprisingly) and saw u have a video about it too!! omg!! kkk subscribed...IM A FAN!
I do have a problem with Tuvok's reasoning, but only because the simulated aggressors were Romulans. Tuvok advocated retreat, but Spock in Balance of Terror agreed with Stiles that retreat was showing weakness, and would embolden more Romulan aggression. In TNG, we saw the Romulans spike the Enterprise's warp core when LaForge and Ro Laren were phased out of sync, and seal the Enterprise in an asteroid when searching for the Pegasus. In DS9, the Romulans had a cloaked ship ready to destroy the station, stopped only when O'Brien kept time-jumping forward. And there was the joint Tal Shi'ar/Obsidian Order fleet to destroy the Founder homeworld. Xenopsychology must be a critical component in command schooling: Klingon fight for their interpretation of glory and honor, while Romulans fight to exert dominance via any method regardless of treaty, I.e. laws are meant to broken only when we say so.
(Deleted and reposted to correct a SUPER-embarrassing typo.) I presented to a friend once the proof of the need of the many outweighing the need of the few or the one once we have accepted the premise of all sapient life being equally sacred - and presented evidence that this was a premise that both Kirk and Spock would agree to. However, my friend pointed out that my proof required an additional premise- that being that the needs that we are talking about are of about the same magnitude. I had to concede that my friend was correct. This is relevant because my friend’s modification is necessary for you BLM comment to hold. You see - with my friend’s modification we can clearly place the physical safety of one Black person over the comfort levels of five racists - because even though it is fine against one, someone’s actual physical safety is still more important than the comfort levels of five, or even more people who can just as well restore their comfort by getting rid of their racist attitudes. The same applies when you or I (both of us trans-women) need to use the restroom and there are other people who are uncomfortable with us doing so. Even if those other people outnumber us, our need to pee safely is a basic needs while they’re discomfort from it is a self-inflicted wound brought on by their transphobia that they can just as well fix by getting rid of their transphobia.
Love the video! But (just personally!) I really liked how Kirk talked about the Kobyashi Maru in the Wrath of Khan. (I actually felt some of the dialogue was unfair to him) So much of TOS was Kirk facing death and unfair scenarios, and although he won quite a bit, so many of the episodes ended bittersweet and him having to deal with the choices he made. With the help of bones and Spock of course. You said this and I agree, (TOS/WoK) Kirk really respected the test (he failed multiple times), But Kirk also knew that starfleet was fucking with him on purpose. So I think its unfair to say that The Wrath of Khan (or TOS Kirk) didn't realize the weight of his actions or shouldn't have cheated. To me, The Wrath of Khan was more about using what you have at your disposal, even if its technically breaking the rules. (i.e. "Changing the conditions of the test" or Spock's choice to die).
How could you not use Picards line of "it is possible to commit no errors and still lose. That is not a weakness. That is life." It showcases the huge difference between the approach of the two captains. I would love to know how you would approach the test.
See I always had a problem the way Kelvin Spock describe the purpose of the test. "The purpose is to experience fear in the face of certain death" no simulated test can appropriately give us that real fear of death. The test will give a different fear which is fear of failure. Believe me those are very different types of fear
This is kind of the only thing i like in Generations.. And it wasn't even the intentions of the writers. When the Enterprise B reach a possible no win scenario or a catastrophic failure to rescue the two ships, Captain Harrison actually chooses to give control of the ship to Kirk and put himself in a risky situation. This time how ever, even though Kirk felt the urge to accept command of the ship, he actually learned from Spock and reject to take command to ultimate made his Kobiashi Maru sacrifice.
I watched Galileo 7 yesterday, which was (supposedly) Spock's first command duty. Given the no-win situation the seven Starfleet officers had faced, I'd consider this mission to be Spock's Kobayashi Maru test. Risking the himself and four other surviving officers (including Scotty and Bones) in a desperate bid to (hopefully) alert the departing Enterprise to their location. If it wasn't for Sulu's keen eye (ok, the HD version really up the visibility of the trail that Spock set off, so it doesn't seem like a big a deal with the bright green streak of light), the Galileo would have burnt up in re-entry as it plummeted back into the atmosphere of the planet(oid?) they tried to escape.
I have watched all the Star Trek episodes from TOS as well as all the movies. I enjoy the drama and action. One thing that has always bothered me about this "test" is at its heart a Starfleet Captain has to weigh the lives on that ship against all the lives that may be lost in a war with the Klingons. In one of the movies, Kirk says it was a no-win test of character. If I was a Starfleet Captain and I took a starship across the neutral zone to save a few hundred souls even if not a test if my actions started a war that cost millions their lives, would I be able to live with myself? I doubt it. With that said here is what I think is the most fascinating part, are you 100% positive your actions would start a war where lives on both sides would be lost? About 12 years ago I was attending a class reunion with about 50 classmates who graduated from Georgia Tech with me. We took a poll about what would we do. We split almost 50-50 on whether we would save the ship as opposed to I would stay on my side of that border and not causing a possible war. As a systems Engineer when I am designing a system I place lots of warnings that are triggered when certain things are not done correctly. In that movie, the ship's computer is issuing a warning about crossing that boundary. One thing I teach techs is to NEVER bypass a warning. If Starfleet cares enough to put such a warning in their ship's computers I am pretty sure they mean for it to be obeyed! This was my argument in that discussion.
Late to the party, but.....one aspect of the Kobayashi Maru test that I don't feel gets its due is how it serves as not just a lesson for cadets, but also as a psychological profile for Starfleet. Obviously there are many different ways for a cadet captain to respond to that test--you can go out guns ablazing trying to take on as many Klingons as the computer will throw at you, trying one deft tactical maneuver after another; you can cross the border and try to retreat the moment the hostile Klingon ships come into range; you can adhere to the letter of interstellar treaties and avoid crossing the border even if that means sacrificing the KM. Do you agonize over the decision, explore all possible alternatives to crossing the border, and hail Starfleet Command for assistance and orders, or do you just rush in the instant lives are on the line? As Jessie notes, there is no one right answer to the test, and Starfleet clearly accepts people with different ways of handling. But Starfleet Command may absolutely assign Captains to different ships/tasks based on how they handle it. A captain who is willing to sacrifice anything to protect international boundaries/treaties may be the best choice for a touchy diplomatic situation. A captain who will risk themselves to save others may be the right choice for a rescue mission involving a foreign dignitary. A captain who is tactically gifted and able to fight off a half dozen Klingon Birds of Prey before losing may be the right choice for a dangerous wartime mission. So it's not just about the lesson for the cadet, it also helps Starfleet develop a personality profile on their commanders so they can select the right commanders for the right missions.
It's interesting that you mentioned the novels but did not mention the Kobayashi Maru novel set in the Romulan war that was purported to be the actual original scenario. Archer actually ran away because if he got too close his ship could be taken over by a Romulan virus but then some people resented him for a while.
11:20. Well this is relatively simple, and commanders usually do not have much trouble sending subordinates to certain death and deal with this (if it is really necessary). It is much more difficult to do it yourself. Or sacrifice yourself for your crew. Therefore, the solution of Kirk from Intro Darkness was so much better.
••No win situations, by definition fall into the binary of win or no win. •Lack of ability to face the music- someone who make choices without believing that those choices can cost anything is not *the* consequent result of not accepting a Kobyashi Maru. •test of character... a constructed test is not a true test of character, some things can be indicated but it is not the same as real life decisions. Discussing it, with all implications, more than occasionally, is preferable and more practical. Makes for more elasticity in problem solving. • If we are to consider the needs of the many over the few, we are then thinking of, or defining, an individual as an object. To know the importance of a single individual, is the only way to understand the importance of more than one individual. •I have a disdain for utilitarianism belief and action. Every individual, whether human or non human, is more than the sum of their parts, regardless of what capitalism, or religion, may dictate.
Of all of the versions of the test on screen and in novels I think Saavik is the only character that took it fairly. I give Shatner's Kirk a pass because it dealt with the themes of his character in that movie. Every other attempt seemed to run on the character knowing exactly what to expect from the test so they had the opportunity to metagame the test (especially Calhoun and Peter Kirk in the novel Sarek). Saavik came off in ST2 as if the test was completely new to her. I assume that the test would be widely discussed around campus unless everyone kept it quiet in the on screen depictions to preserve the mystery for everyone while the novel characters get the benefit of everyone that failed. Also - if you're going to discuss Troi's test from TNG it might be worth discussing the Psych Test that Wesley faced in Coming of Age.
Kirk in the first draft of the Kelvin timeline was a MONSTER in order to win. (kirk's logic was the same as discussed in en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Kobayashi_Maru_(Star_Trek_novel) ) the book covered some other ways that star fleet f*cked with their cadets.
This is similar to the game Life is Strange which has a choice similar to the KM test. Do you sacrifice the town or the woman you love. bae vs bay. In a command situation I can see the importance of the test. What do you value the most. Something you need to know as a commander.
in the novel for Wrath of Khan, kirk poked at Saavik for sacrificing her ship and crew to try and save people that may not be the best or brightest and should have just went on their way or not even have attempted a rescue. (yeah he was pretty classist ). This i like Calhoun's solution ultimately. but Saavik's counter argument is that if Starfleet officers started deciding for themselves what civilians were and weren't worth risking their lives for, then they were no longer subordinate to and supposed to serve a civilian government. ( I am not a big fan of the Calhoun decision ) (i think Sulu had a similar - retreat - solution.)
But that aside, I really like your analysis of the test, especially the difference between prime Kirk and alt Kirk’s responses. They both cheat, but for different reasons and it’s a great way to set up fascinating differences between versions of the same character. The test is a substantial element of Trek lore that is thematically relevant to all the series and in the best of Trek fashion gives us important ideas to consider deeply.
"The needs of the many outweighs the needs of the few..." If this is a moral maximum, then the Admiral in the TNG film, "Insurrection" is validated in his actions as the destruction of the regenerative rings of the Baku planet would lead to untold millions of theoretical saved lives.
Good and well presented video and thoughts, thank you. One of the things that irks me about "The needs of many..." line though, is that is that it can easily be taken and reinterpreted to be the majority over the minority, and doing so can easily be seen as discriminating against the minority. Take your country of the USA as an example with the majority being CIS Caucasian, I don't think you'd support the needs of those taking priority of those who are not?
In theory trek is beyond such racial, gender, and sexuality divides so it may be more appropriate to it, but personally I'm still somewhat torn on the saying.
To counter the "Majority over Minority" logic, there's the employ of "Socratic Discourse"...specifically to invoke the actual weight of the discriminator's perceived 'burden'.
Let's take the matter of same-sex marriage. Marriage serves as a legal process, conferring benefits concerning medical and property rights (as well as associated tax law, etc). Marriage also serves, in a social and personal context, as a sign of mutual love and respect between the romantic/sexual partners.
A heterosexual majority may claim that this means heterosexual marriage must be supported...but heterosexual marriage (and heterosexual relationships in general) are in no way impacted by also supporting homosexual marriage. The options, assuming we keep marriage as a socially-relevant and legally-relevant thing, are to support either:
* Both same-sex and different-sex marriage, or
* Only different-sex marriage, or
* Only same-sex marriage.
One option explicitly includes everyone, and the other options explicitly exclude a chunk of people. Therefore, there's only one option that actually covers "the needs of the many".
----
----
This said, as an anti-Randian Aristotelian (my two moral center-points are "Do unto others//Do not do unto others" and "Good feels good"...) I would prefer people can form or understand a rough moral system before they act. But when it comes to praxis or "practical ethics", "The needs of the many" is a fair starting-point. (More-so when your response to any and every choice is "Why not both?")
@@onijester56 Your point about weighing of the burdens is true; a lot of the ideas of needs changes from person to person, and group think can be very damaging without some trained/knowledgeable/appropriate people to consider all the ramifications that decisions can have. Just because something (or someone) wins a popularity contest doesn’t always mean it is morally right.
There are examples littered throughout history of most of a population being outwardly perfectly fine with the status quo, even if it causes harm to a minority, and that minority suffers so that the majority can live a better life; needs of the many.
Even within Trek; As T’Rina said in Discovery S3E07 episode Unification III, “In its desire to serve the many, the Federation ignored the needs of the few."
If an idea benefits 99% of a population leaving 1% behind, but doesn’t cause any actual harm to that 1%, then go for it. Just please don’t forget about that 1% and do try to make up that difference.
We cannot forget the risks when making changes, even if it is a net positive for the many.
--
May be slightly off topic but your marriage example reminds of a legal case in England; as you may be aware, same sex marriage has been legal in the UK since 2014 when the 2013 Act came into effect, while prior to this couples could only enter a Civil Partnership (since 2004) which grants all the same legal rights but without any of the religious aspects or being able to refer themselves as married/spouses.
Then a few years ago an opposite-sex couple wanted a Civil Partnership rather than a marriage which was not legal but going to court they won on the grounds it wasn’t compatible with the European Convention on Human Rights for the restriction.
At the time it did seem odd to me, and others, that a couple who have never had any restrictions put in place to prevent their marriage would be so adamant in this; that is until I understood their objections to be about the history of the institution of it, such as property rights, patriarchal control, sexism, discrimination, treating people as objects to be bartered with, and of course the religious connotations.
So, from those you presented, the one that stands nowadays is the first option, thank fully.
This is an example of a small number of people weighing the arguments involved by the various parties, protestors, and religious groups etc. to come to that conclusion.
As the judgement on the case shows though, the Government chose not to remove or update Civil Partnerships when legalising same sex marriage, and in doing so knowingly introduced different inequalities based on the difference of sexual orientation creating the need for this case.
(Note: If you have any interest in reading the judgment for this then it is UKSC 2017 0060 to search for).
I think it distinction needs to be drawn here between needs and desires. What constitutes which and at what point desires outweigh needs if at all is of course an entirely different debate.
Here's an old one I missed, but I really *don't* think the Kobayashi Maru test is a 'trolley problem.' In the case of your visual example the obvious answer is .. derail the trolley. Accellerate, trip the right turn, hit the brakes as soon as you jump the tracks up front. But the Kobayashi Maru isn't bout skill or binary moral choices, it's about *whatever you do* the simulation piles on more losing. It's a test of character, and more going wrong no matter how great you do. It's not about winning or choosing, it's about 'The Right Stuff.'
@@OllamhDrab you choosing to derail the trolley would mean that you failed the Trolley Delimma Test. Whether it's looking at it from an ethical point of view or the judgment of your character, the result of you choosing to run away and not taking responsibility, you saved yourself while killing everyone else. The trolley rolled off the track and landed right on top of both tracks, killing both groups.
So, was it right for you to refuse to take responsibility, resulting in the death of several people just so that you can save your own life and ego?
Me personally, I think selfishness and egoistic are two characteristics that one shouldn't be proud of having.
"It is possible to commit no mistakes and still lose. That is not a weakness; that is life."- Jean-Luc Picard, "Peak Performance"
I think my favorite version of the Kobayashi Maru test is when Nog took the test in Strange New Worlds IV, when he caused the test to error out by asking the Romulans to name their price.
That was brilliant! Nog was such an asset to Starfleet, he thought outside the box!
I like how Scotty almost found a technical way to win in the novel "The Kobayashi Maru."
YES! I just went into the comics to say this. One thing I thought of would be to send a volunteer or two in a shuttlecraft to rescue the Kobayashi Maru crew. My crew might still be crewed by the Klingons, but it would at least show the Klingons a clear lack of aggressive intent in crossing the border.
My favourite “solutions” are the ones which don’t rely on the fact that it’s a simulation.
Apparently in the novel “Sarek” Peter Kirk uses an obscure Romulun rule which prohibits hostilities while an enemy captain is on board the ship. He beams himself over to the Romulan ship and tells his crew to beam up the Maru crew and won. Sure he sacrifices himself (much like Spock did) but he didn’t have to hack the computer to do it.
That's Kinda similar to Kirk's original solution when he Hacked the Simulation. He Exploited Klingon Culture by Simply adding to the Program a Tag that Noted himself as being some kind of War Hero, someone the Klingons would have to Respect and be Willing to Negotiate with, Giving himself a Win Condition in the process.
It wasn't that he was on board their ship but he challenged the Romulan captain to honorable combat, which no Romulan could refuse.
There's an entire novel of various characters telling their Kobayashi Maru stories. IIRC Sulu decided the distress call was a trap and ignored it. Scotty used some obscure engineering theory that was physically impossible but mathematically plausible enough for the simulator computer to accept it and got himself kicked out of command school.
@@scottbutler5 Thank you for the info.
On an aside, the Kobayashi Maru test would probably be so well known that there would be simulations and For Dummies books where people could prep for (game) the test. Perhaps it shouldn't start in such a familiar fashion. I would mind seeing something like the Deanna story where the protagonist instantly realizing that they would have to sacrifice someone personally very important, like a Riker and have them agonizing about the choice to sacrifice that person during the various iterations of the test. I've been a fan of Trek since the TOS, (from the salt monster episode in Hawaii) but all of you are many levels above my pay grade. Thanks again.
Ingenious!
not to be a shallow b but you look SO sharp in that uniform! 🙌
It arguably made him unsuitable for command of a starship, but Spock is the moral heart of Star Trek because he understood that the "needs of the many" axiom can only truly be executed upon the self.
Exactly!
Little consequence for rescuing Spock? He definitely still faced an imperfect win there, he sacrificed his ship and lost his own son. Sarek says as much. That’s what makes Search for Spock so powerful; we are promised a second chance, a way to bring back someone Kirk lost, but he still pays a price for it, and it’s much harsher than his rank.
In a roundabout way, he ended up in Klingon prison because of the choices he made rescuing Spock.
SAREK: ...Kirk. I thank you. What you have done is...
KIRK: What I have done, ...I had to do.
SAREK: But at what cost? Your ship. Your son.
KIRK: If I hadn't tried, ...the cost would have been my soul.
As the Enterprise itself told us in TAS “Kirk is a jerk”
The "retreat" option being the correct one, according to Tuvok, sounds like a lot of first aid training concerning drowning. It is best to toss the drowning person a rope or extend them a pole, never touch them directly. A drowning person is in extreme escape mode, and will use their rescuer's body to escape the liquid. Sometimes, you must allow them to drown, to keep 2 drownings to happen.
Now I know why years and years ago, when I had a discussion about the Kobyashi Maru with some fellow Trek fans they called me "Captain Calhoon" for months. They read all the canon literature, I did not, and they gave me that temporary nickname from one of those. I felt destroying the ship was both logical and compassionate.
When I was a teenager my dad bought me a year's membership to a Star Trek fanzine, this being the days when they were still physical! They ran a contest for Kobayasi Maru solutions and I came third in Australia with mine.
I would send my engineers, doctors and any civilians to the Kobayashi Maru and then do everything I could to draw the Klingons/Romulans away from the ship to give them the best chance of escape. My rationale being 'Starfleet members signed up for this, Starfleet is a military organisation. The civilians did not and it's my duty to do anything in my and my crew's power to save them even at the expense of our lives.'
"It might not be the case in your country."
I live in a fascist semi-dictatorship that's been going on for 11 years. I'm well aquainted with the idea of the state party showing a preference to its direct clients lol.
Ah, a Fellow Bolivian I see
@@rommdan2716 [Hispanic with purported surname of notorious Nazi German officer] Smells like chili.
@@UnrealPerson Rommel was a German soldier, not a Nazi.
The Kobayashi Maru is really just like Life -- it's not about whether you win or lose or even can -- but that you engaged and made your choices.
So profound!
"You never faced death" "Yeah, except the two times I took it before I decided to cheat." Also notice Saviek was a LT. jg when she took the course. She was clearly taking graduate courses at the academy, yet when they present it again it is often done by undergraduates. Also it was the end to the 1994 Starfleet Academy video game.
Yeah, Saavik is clearly command track.
Sometimes the only choices we're given are bad. We still have to choose.
You wouldn't be by any chance talking about the most recent election here in America would you? LOL
And to remember that the amount of choices we actually have, are far more numerous than the ones we only think we do.
Wu-wei in Taoism is about not thinking/acting inflexibly, doing so will limit your potential. Think of a block of wood, it can be anything, a spoon, a flute, comb, etc. The block of wood has infinite potential but once it's carved into said spoon it limits what the wood can be. Accepting a no win situation is like carving the wood. I wonder if Kirk studied Taoism.
Anything? Are you sure? Can a block of wood be a cup of water? One must be like water to experience effortlessness, or should I say become effortlessness words are so limited, in their scope would you not agree? LOL!!In the words of Nagilum The Point Is Well Taken!If the reference escapes you take a look at the words of wisdom from the alien who wanted to understand the concept of death, in the one and a half minute clip on RUclips Picard is giving a lesson in humanity, I think Alan Watts and you would agree with Nagilum on his critique of humanity. Can you see both sides of the faces facing each other and the vase at the same time?
My block of wood is a spknork (spoon/knife/fork). Which may not fit every single situation, but I can make it work for every situation I find myself needing that block-of-wood for.
Every once in a while I see people refer to a "Kobayashi Maru test" in popular culture, and it makes me happy. I'll update this comment when I see the video, but I'll be teaching when it comes out!
Update: I enjoyed this video. I love how you leaned into the Star Trek II soundtrack, Jessie. :D I think it's mean to show Spock's death, it made my eyes water a little.
I think it's interesting how the Kobayashi Maru isn't just a test in Star Trek II, it's one of the movie's main themes. I never thought of it as a trolley problem before, but that makes complete sense. I'm glad it wasn't as gory as the trolley problem on The Good Place!
Excellent
I never lose .
Either win , or learn something new from the experience . Take something away from the Test .
Wesley went through something similar in his Starfleet Academy entrance exam in the TNG S1 episode "Coming Of Age".
Wesley's lesson was: "There will be times when you can't save everyone."
Deanna's lesson (to become a bridge officer) was: "There are times when you have to sacrifice a life for the greater good."
The Kobyashi Maru's lesson is: "There are times when you're f**ked anyway, so you might as well go out like a boss."
Love that scene and the insult one
I wonder if the Kobyashi Maru got so well known that Cadets stopped taking it seriously. I mean whats the point of really caring if you know its simulation you can't win
I agree. The only way it could ever have worked is if the cadets were ordered to keep confidence. And eventually, someone's going to talk...
I think Kobyashi Maru was just one manifestation of a test that's created around a principle. What would you do? If you think about it, the way the test presents is less relevant than the underlying principle. In theory, creating a scenario to test that principle is only limited by the imagination of the people creating the test.
We know that it changed in later years from seeing Troi's test. You have to assume that there's no way the same scenario could be used for that long without the specifics getting out. And once they allied with the Klingons, the situation wouldn't make sense. I could see them keeping it for tradition though. Have the kind of test Troi took which serves the same purpose, and then have the Kobayashi Maru test as the fun "anything goes" finale.
@@kdog3908 That would make sense a bunch of different scenarios that are all unwinnable. Even if cadets do know about them they'll never know which training sim is their Kobyashi Maru
The points I like to make about the Kobayashi Maru is:
1. It suggests that Starfleet expects a certain... flexibility with respect to following interstellar law. Things might not work out, but you are not disqualified from captaincy just because you willfully broke a treaty just because you thought you might get away with it.
2. How come negotiation is not an option? Most attempts at resolving the Maru are tactical or technological. Only Nog ever attempted to resolve the situation diplomatically - and he *broke* the simulation, showing his chosen option wasn't anticipated.
In my view Nog is the only one to have really beaten the Maru scenario, by showing the limitations of the simulation as a blinkered depiction of the real situation and what a Starfleet Captain can do in that situation.
Negotiation isn't an option because the Klingons aren't interested in negotiating and that's not what the test is designed for. Too many people (in-universe and in-audience) get too hung up on trying to find ways "beat" or "win" the no-win scenario. Winning is not the point, and Starfleet shouldn't program any simulation where that outcome is possible or acceptable. It is a test to see how you handle difficult choices with no good safe answer.
This is essentially like entering a trolley problem simulator and then asking, "Well, why can't someone just try to MacGyver a pair of new brakes so that the trolley can be stopped." First off, you only have seconds to make the choice, so the trolley will smash the victims to death before you even pick up enough loose rubber bands to fashion a makeshift brake pad. But second, and more critically, that's not the point of the trolley problem. If you put a cadet into a trolley problem simulator for the intended purpose of understanding how they psychologically respond to options where SOMEONE is going to die.....you don't program the trolley to have brakes that can be repaired on the go, because it's not supposed to be a test of the cadet's brake repair skills
In other words, "With great power comes great responsibility."
This looks fun. Kobyashi Maru is a sort of mantra I use. It is the refusal to accept a binary solution.
(of course, both of those solutions are, to me, No win, thus needing a better solution)
Apologies, apparently the Kobayashi Maru By Julia Ecklar is book 47 however when I read it originally it was 26 and my copy is 30 so no idea what going on. My favorite Star Trek book.
Has nobody tried broadcasting on all channels that the Maru is in active danger, your ship is entering foreign territory to give them aid, and requesting that any nearby ships of the correct jurisdiction give aid as well?? It seems like just being honest in what’s happening is a pretty obvious solution....once the ships arrive actively start trying to communicate/coordinate rescue with them
I had the same inclination to broadcast intent before crossing into enemy taritory. But it didn't occur to me to ask the enemy for assistance. That's a good idea!
Logical.
My presumption would be that some cadets did try that approach......and that the Klingons (being the kind-hearted understanding altruists that they are) take those communiques as a sign of some kind of deception or trap and destroy the Kobayashi Maru and all aboard it any way, as well as any other ships that cross the border.
And as I recall, in Wrath of Khan, Saavik tries to send out a hail that they are on a rescue mission.....and the Klingons respond by jamming their transmissions and opening fire.
"It migth not be the case in your country"
oh! no, it definitely is.
Great video as always.
Really enjoyed this. Part of what makes Star Trek so great is the ethical and philosophical questions it weaves into the narrative.
Love this discussion. I like to think of the Maru test as starfleet looking at their command candidates and trying to figure out “how does this person make the best of a bad situation?” To me it doesn’t even have to be about life death and sacrifice, though the fact that Kirk finally couldn’t cheat death is an important dramatic point in WoK. I think of, um. The thing that makes me love Captain Picard so much. When Data is getting command for a fake battle and second guessing himself, and Picard’s words of wisdom are basically “you can do everything right and still fail.” And when Wesley takes tests to enter the academy and doesn’t make the cut, “Did you do your best? Will you learn from this and do better next time?” When I think of the test in this light, I can understand why Kirk would get a commendation instead of a punishment - if what we’re really looking for is can you make the best of a bad situation (rather than “the purpose of the test is to make you feel fear”), then changing the conditions of the test is sort of the best answer to the test.
I loved this video so much I watches twice already. One with my boyfriend and one with my mom. And Jesse thank you for the way you talk my mom is not fluent in English, but you say the worlds so well that she could understand most of it.
The answer to the kobayashi Maru test fire Photon torpedoes past the ship, detonate them creating a shockwave which will cause the ship to drift back towards federation space engage tractor beams and drag it out
I love the depth of character explored in The Wrath of Khan. I've always felt the line uttered by Spock "I never took the Kobyashi Maru test until now, What do you think of my solution?" is the most emotional line int he whole of Trek. I literally choked up the first time I heard it back in the 1980s and similarly several times since. It says so much about the respective attitudes of both Kirk and Spock, not just in this particular film but throughout the entire three seasons of the original tv series as well.
This wasn't exactly the purview of your video, but The situation with commander Troi needing to order Geordi to his death reminded me of when Tilly had to potentially order Owo to her death. I remember watching that and thinking Tilly faced her Kobyashi Maru.
So Americans call trams 'trolleys' and trolleys 'shopping carts'.
Takes a bit of the sting out of it when the answer to the trolley problem is, "just stop pushing the 🛒."
@@MorgenPeschke but now you have a much more realistic ethical test. When no one is watching, what do you do with your empty "trolley"?
This is exactly the kind of work I love from your channel. What can we learn from both the question and the answers shown on screen.
Congrats again on the video, Jessie! One of the things I've come to appreciate about "Star Trek" is the show's willingness to interrogate its own philosophy as it evolves. I'd call that damn refreshing.
It’s philosophical questions like this are my favorite. One reason I love Prey’s take on this theme
Jesse, I think this is one of your best videos. I think it's really important in the current sociopolitical climate. Nobody today recognizes the ramifications of our behavior and policy, but only the ramifications of which opposing pole we choose to align ourselves with. We need to be better than that.
I’m not sure I entirely agree with your analysis, specifically in regard to the Search for Spock. Specifically, saving Spock costs Kirk both his ship and the life of his son (although we can ponder how the former is presented as a bigger tragedy than the latter), and the message of the film is that you have to move beyond the simple utilitarianism of “the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few” in favour of a more nuanced approach that values individual life.
Which isn’t to disagree with your overall argument; just that it doesn’t always come down to an equation.
Oh my god! This video is so awesome. I'm kida crying right now remembering the movie moments...
Kobyashi Maru isn't a test of your command abilities, it is a test of your character.
This is probably one of my favorite videos. I thought it was extraordinarily well thought out and presented. It’s also sadly topical.
My favorite versions of the KM test were Kirk and Scotty's stories in the book "The Kobyashi Maru (Star Trek Original Series #47)" by Julia Ecklar.
This was a wonderful video. Thank you!
Has anyone ever just beamed the Kobyoshi's crew onto the host ship and bugged out?
Thanks, Jessie! 💖 Love this one.
The greatest lesson I learned from my Kobayashi Maru test is how to effectively side eye my instructor for not appreciating my creative ways at failure. 😎
Also “wonderful” may not be what I use to describe Kirstie Alley these days 😅
She joins the illustrious ranks of such actors as Kevin Sorbo, Dean Cain, Scot Baio, James Woods, Jon Voight, Rosanne Barr, Adam Baldwin, and of course, Donald Trump. ☄️🚽🧻💩
It would be interesting to see the 32nd century Kobyashi Maru test. If we look at Troi's command test as an evolution of the concept where she is sending simulations of her actual crew to their deaths perhaps the 32nd century version would take the next step and use some futuristic means to temporarily make those taking the test believe it is real like a temporary memory overlay that starts with the simulation and ends once you shut it off. Starfleet already was doing something like this with its new cadet selection test in TNG where they tricked Welsley into thinking the test was real.
I think there is a valid discussion to be had regarding the value of the test in predicting real-world behavior. In order to make the test unwinnable, it may have to have events that border on absurd to ensure a skilled tactician will lose. The test wouldn’t be as revealing if the trainee is convinced the conditions are so unrealistic as to be not worth considering.
To me the Kobayashi Maru, is what life is its the no-win situation. I cannot remember which particular zombie movie I was watching but they basically had the people back into a corner and there was no Escape and one of the trapped people said no matter what we do we're all going to die,of course she meant right then and there but that exact same sentiment can be stated by anybody at any point in time, whether you're young and in perfect health and the richest most famous person on the planet, it applies to any life-form which is temporal like all things we just happen to be consciously aware of this.So life is the ultimate test how we Face the inevitable no-win situation. And they're clearly as many different ways to deal with it as there have been or will be conscious living organisms!
Despite its pop culture status, I have to assume that the KM test was just one of hundreds that a candidate might be presented with. To have one, unchanging test for everyone would guarantee that word would soon get out!
We know Troi's was different. Maybe it was the same for all cadets for a while, but then changed.
One thing I’d like to bring up is the Trek EU New Frontier novels and one Captain Calhoun when he took the test.
His solution? BLOW UP THE KOBAYASHI MARU.
The closest I've come to a plausible solution was to send out some modified probes capable of slowly tractoring the craft back, and retreating if threatened. It shows good faith as far as respecting the border goes, and maintains the spirit and most of the letter of the law. The downside is that it could easily be eliminated as a possibility in the test.
I'm not a fan of the trolly problem though: it's basically an avenue for somebody to start off with a premise, and then modify it continually into an unwinnable one. If the KM was the trolly problem as it's typically used, you'd be confronted with it, come up with a solution, then be told that your child was actually the stationed on the KM, come up with an alternative that saves them, and then be told your other child was your engineering officer or something. If anything the pure KM is a better philosophical quandary than the trolly problem itself because it leaves room to think in the moment without confounding issues, and if you need to think, you have consequences to bear.
What I love about Star Trek III is that it *doesn't* reject the premise and answer of Star Trek II. Yes, Kirk gets his best friend back. He also loses the ship he loved above all others. And in Star Trek IV, sure, he gets a new Enterprise...but he still paid the original price.
oh my GOD your voice is so lovely and relaxing to listen to!!!!
In the game Starfleet Academy you take the test yourself and you can choose weather or not to cheat and how to cheat. Star Trek Online also has one but I think you can win it (been a while)
Kirk was praised for his ingenious solution to the Kobyashimaru - but what would have happened if, instead of Kirk, a female cadet had tried the same thing?
I say “instead of” to clarify that she isn’t copying Kirk, but doing her thing in an alternate universe in which Kirk either didn’t exist or exists but never pulled that trick. That way, this question can focus solely on how the same actions are perceived and judged differently when a man does them than when a woman does them.
Awesome vid! But I always felt that Calhoun had the upper hand in the test due to his war chief past. It gave him the ability to think with a seasoned and battle proven mind than that of a green cadet intent on bravery and valor. Your analysis on him was still pretty solid for the most part.
One solution to the Kobyashi Maru that rarely seems to get mentioned is to just not respond to the distress signal. Certainly by doing so you doom the ship's crew, assuming that the Klingons haven't already killed them to set up the ambush, but in doing so you guarantee the survival of your own ship and crew and avoid starting a war which could potentially kill millions.
Alternatively, if you really had to respond then you could send shuttles to attempt to evacuate the crew of the Maru without endangering your entire ship.
Now THIS is the peak intellectual nerd content I come here for!
It’s been a REALLY long time since I’ve listened to the soundtrack. Forgot how hard the Klingon theme slaps
God bless you for bringing in the command test from TNG!
A much better test for command than the Kobyashi Maru.
No quasi-military commander could reasonably expect to escape a situation where someone's death is going to result from {his} decisions. How {he} reacts to the sacrifice of a life, and {his} personal survival coming as a consequence of that sacrifice is extremely telling.
Unfortunately, it is easier to simulate the scenario than the subsequent emotional weight of the actual event
In Bridge Crew my solution was to put my ship in-between the firing ships and the Kobyashi Maru and transport over everyone I could and when the Kobyashi Maru drops below 30% hull integrity warp out even though there are still people on the Maru. I was so surprised when that actually worked. Not quite a save everyone situation but I think its the best solution you can get in that version of the scenario
I don't think the test does what it is supposed to. Like its all well being willing to sacrifice people in a simulation but in a real life situation it would be insane having to deal with the emotion of it and having the weight of those deaths on your shoulders
Really enjoyed this video, keep it up!
Something to note is that the Battle of the Binary Stars and Kobyashi Maru test have many similarities to one another. similar location, no-win scenario, rapidly spiraled out of control, etc to the point where it seems the battle in Discovery's season 1 served as the inspiration for the infamous test of character.
Kirks nephew comes up with a great solution. He signals the Klingons for hand to hand combat with their commander, while he beams over he instructs the crew to rescue the ship and leave the neutral zone, outweighing the needs of the one - it's from one of the books
this is a top quality video, i mean all your videos are great, but with this video you have outdo yourself
Great content in general! Loving the channel!
This brings a lot of memories of my intro to ethics class. The general philosophy here is very solidly utilitarian. I'm trying to imagine it from a deontological perspective... maybe it would turn out the same when dealing with lives. Utilitarianism though is more about maximum happiness. Which means that philosophy would say that something that makes the majority of people happy is the right, ethical choice, even if it harms the few.
I think I have to give this a longer think. Thank you for this video!
Starfleet Academy (the game) inevitably featured the Kobyashi Maru and to its credit there were a few ways you could deal with it, although as a part CYOA game only one way could lead to the best ending:
Change the scenario the same way Kirk did.
Change the scenario so it’s possible to survive the ambush.
No changes and lose by getting killed.
No changes and lose by not trying to rescue the Maru.
Inevitably following Kirk’s lead is the way to go but at least the game continues if you go a different way.
The novel (yes this game got a novel somehow) went a bit further, the player character follows Kirk’s lead but Kirk and friends do some alterations of their own and the end result is a ‘win’ in that all ships end up disabled so they can’t be captured.
Funny how some things stick with you, not played the game in literal decades, can see it is on Steam now though.
In the comics, Nog was able to "beat" the test by bargaining with the Romulans and crashing the system. Basically, nobody in the Federation ever thought of striking a deal with the enemy, so the simulation had not been programmed for it. And that is also a lesson for others: If you don't think of a solution, or think there is no solution, run it by someone with a completely different culture from your own. You might be surprised.
Missed the premier, but watched the replay. Very interesting! well done, Jessie! :-D
Jesse Gender, the Kobyashi Maru is certainly an interesting moral plot element in Star Trek and you brought up some important pointa about it. Yet there's an approach in that test, and much modern analysis that...honestly once troubled me and now is nearly rage inducing. With all the talk of consequences and challenges in terms of dealing with social justice problems? Would that not indicate that...everyone must accept that the best solution to these social injustices are a deeply punitive approach?
Considering how counter intuitive the Kobyiashi Maru could be in the context of Star Trek? Perhaps the assumption of a no win scenario in general life might actually point more to cynicism than a deeper test of character. That's why I mentioned feeling rage induced at this point by that sort of education. If anything we do, even social protest, becomes based in the assumption there's a possibility of not winning? Than people will likely wind up metaphorically stepping on their own feet. That's a deeper issue with the perception of Star Trek I see so much today: desiring it to be more punitive in its intent. The Kobyashi Maru test is, in its variable solutions, at least a more well rounded depiction of human choices.
I think the most important part of the 'Needs of the many outhweigh the needs of the few' is that the few primarily refers to the self, not to others.
But, what would be neat to see is more of the education systems used in the federation. In TNG, we don't really get a good enough look at it. In DS9, it seems to group all the kids together and give the assignments, which has different requirements based on age.
Since Voyager only had one kid, it doesn't really count, but what does count, would probably be the 'Flutter' holodeck programs, which seems to be an edutainment game focused on basic science.
It would really neat to actually have a star trek show more focused on civilians rather than star fleet, because seeing more of the society within the federation would be great.
I think the greatest use of the accepting whats there, but not limit yourself was in undiscovered yountry where kirk, was in no win situation, fugitives and they knew the traty was sabotaged and they needed to do something, using himself as figure klingons rightfully hate as key figure, with his luck , and friends, zulu, to save the treaty. In admitting his faults and using his character developement to inspire making it work. And to see beyong his bias agains klingons he showed before.
He grew with the impossible no win scenario and made it work by doing that , a lot of conflicts could be solves that way. By just growing beyong biases and strict plans and negotiate and adopting but not giving up ideals.
I just noticed, in ST2 when Savik was taking the test the other crew members had to fall on the floor when the fake ship was being attacked.
That means Sulu and Uhuru had to fall.
Normally in the show people like Nichols and Takai had to fall like Sulu et. al. were falling.
In the exam Takai had to pretend he was Sulu pretending he was a bridge crew on Savik's ship.
Like a meta-falling.
I wonder if I spelled any of those names wrong.
In the Julia Ecklar novel, "Kobayashi Maru", it is explained that Kirk gave himself a reputation as a fierce and honorable warrior, which 'intimidated' the Klingons into negotiating.
Great video and may I say that you look awesome in the TNG Uniform. Makes me want one!😎🖖🏻
I liked the book "Kobayashi Maru". (I know it only as "Kob-A-yashi" not "Kobyashi".)
Thank you very much!
did NOT watch the whole video yet, just scrolled through the channel and Im like BE MY BEST FRIEND!! Girl, u love startrek and I was talking about how superman and louis is a great show (surprisingly) and saw u have a video about it too!! omg!! kkk subscribed...IM A FAN!
I do have a problem with Tuvok's reasoning, but only because the simulated aggressors were Romulans. Tuvok advocated retreat, but Spock in Balance of Terror agreed with Stiles that retreat was showing weakness, and would embolden more Romulan aggression. In TNG, we saw the Romulans spike the Enterprise's warp core when LaForge and Ro Laren were phased out of sync, and seal the Enterprise in an asteroid when searching for the Pegasus. In DS9, the Romulans had a cloaked ship ready to destroy the station, stopped only when O'Brien kept time-jumping forward. And there was the joint Tal Shi'ar/Obsidian Order fleet to destroy the Founder homeworld. Xenopsychology must be a critical component in command schooling: Klingon fight for their interpretation of glory and honor, while Romulans fight to exert dominance via any method regardless of treaty, I.e. laws are meant to broken only when we say so.
(Deleted and reposted to correct a SUPER-embarrassing typo.)
I presented to a friend once the proof of the need of the many outweighing the need of the few or the one once we have accepted the premise of all sapient life being equally sacred - and presented evidence that this was a premise that both Kirk and Spock would agree to. However, my friend pointed out that my proof required an additional premise- that being that the needs that we are talking about are of about the same magnitude. I had to concede that my friend was correct.
This is relevant because my friend’s modification is necessary for you BLM comment to hold.
You see - with my friend’s modification we can clearly place the physical safety of one Black person over the comfort levels of five racists - because even though it is fine against one, someone’s actual physical safety is still more important than the comfort levels of five, or even more people who can just as well restore their comfort by getting rid of their racist attitudes.
The same applies when you or I (both of us trans-women) need to use the restroom and there are other people who are uncomfortable with us doing so. Even if those other people outnumber us, our need to pee safely is a basic needs while they’re discomfort from it is a self-inflicted wound brought on by their transphobia that they can just as well fix by getting rid of their transphobia.
Love the video! But (just personally!) I really liked how Kirk talked about the Kobyashi Maru in the Wrath of Khan. (I actually felt some of the dialogue was unfair to him) So much of TOS was Kirk facing death and unfair scenarios, and although he won quite a bit, so many of the episodes ended bittersweet and him having to deal with the choices he made. With the help of bones and Spock of course. You said this and I agree, (TOS/WoK) Kirk really respected the test (he failed multiple times), But Kirk also knew that starfleet was fucking with him on purpose. So I think its unfair to say that The Wrath of Khan (or TOS Kirk) didn't realize the weight of his actions or shouldn't have cheated. To me, The Wrath of Khan was more about using what you have at your disposal, even if its technically breaking the rules. (i.e. "Changing the conditions of the test" or Spock's choice to die).
How could you not use Picards line of "it is possible to commit no errors and still lose. That is not a weakness. That is life." It showcases the huge difference between the approach of the two captains.
I would love to know how you would approach the test.
GREAT video!
See I always had a problem the way Kelvin Spock describe the purpose of the test. "The purpose is to experience fear in the face of certain death" no simulated test can appropriately give us that real fear of death. The test will give a different fear which is fear of failure. Believe me those are very different types of fear
This is kind of the only thing i like in Generations.. And it wasn't even the intentions of the writers.
When the Enterprise B reach a possible no win scenario or a catastrophic failure to rescue the two ships, Captain Harrison actually chooses to give control of the ship to Kirk and put himself in a risky situation.
This time how ever, even though Kirk felt the urge to accept command of the ship, he actually learned from Spock and reject to take command to ultimate made his Kobiashi Maru sacrifice.
I watched Galileo 7 yesterday, which was (supposedly) Spock's first command duty.
Given the no-win situation the seven Starfleet officers had faced, I'd consider this mission to be Spock's Kobayashi Maru test. Risking the himself and four other surviving officers (including Scotty and Bones) in a desperate bid to (hopefully) alert the departing Enterprise to their location.
If it wasn't for Sulu's keen eye (ok, the HD version really up the visibility of the trail that Spock set off, so it doesn't seem like a big a deal with the bright green streak of light), the Galileo would have burnt up in re-entry as it plummeted back into the atmosphere of the planet(oid?) they tried to escape.
I have watched all the Star Trek episodes from TOS as well as all the movies. I enjoy the drama and action. One thing that has always bothered me about this "test" is at its heart a Starfleet Captain has to weigh the lives on that ship against all the lives that may be lost in a war with the Klingons. In one of the movies, Kirk says it was a no-win test of character. If I was a Starfleet Captain and I took a starship across the neutral zone to save a few hundred souls even if not a test if my actions started a war that cost millions their lives, would I be able to live with myself? I doubt it. With that said here is what I think is the most fascinating part, are you 100% positive your actions would start a war where lives on both sides would be lost? About 12 years ago I was attending a class reunion with about 50 classmates who graduated from Georgia Tech with me. We took a poll about what would we do. We split almost 50-50 on whether we would save the ship as opposed to I would stay on my side of that border and not causing a possible war. As a systems Engineer when I am designing a system I place lots of warnings that are triggered when certain things are not done correctly. In that movie, the ship's computer is issuing a warning about crossing that boundary. One thing I teach techs is to NEVER bypass a warning. If Starfleet cares enough to put such a warning in their ship's computers I am pretty sure they mean for it to be obeyed! This was my argument in that discussion.
The Royal Navy has s similar test for submarine commanders called The Perisher.
Late to the party, but.....one aspect of the Kobayashi Maru test that I don't feel gets its due is how it serves as not just a lesson for cadets, but also as a psychological profile for Starfleet. Obviously there are many different ways for a cadet captain to respond to that test--you can go out guns ablazing trying to take on as many Klingons as the computer will throw at you, trying one deft tactical maneuver after another; you can cross the border and try to retreat the moment the hostile Klingon ships come into range; you can adhere to the letter of interstellar treaties and avoid crossing the border even if that means sacrificing the KM. Do you agonize over the decision, explore all possible alternatives to crossing the border, and hail Starfleet Command for assistance and orders, or do you just rush in the instant lives are on the line?
As Jessie notes, there is no one right answer to the test, and Starfleet clearly accepts people with different ways of handling. But Starfleet Command may absolutely assign Captains to different ships/tasks based on how they handle it.
A captain who is willing to sacrifice anything to protect international boundaries/treaties may be the best choice for a touchy diplomatic situation. A captain who will risk themselves to save others may be the right choice for a rescue mission involving a foreign dignitary. A captain who is tactically gifted and able to fight off a half dozen Klingon Birds of Prey before losing may be the right choice for a dangerous wartime mission. So it's not just about the lesson for the cadet, it also helps Starfleet develop a personality profile on their commanders so they can select the right commanders for the right missions.
It's interesting that you mentioned the novels but did not mention the Kobayashi Maru novel set in the Romulan war that was purported to be the actual original scenario. Archer actually ran away because if he got too close his ship could be taken over by a Romulan virus but then some people resented him for a while.
11:20. Well this is relatively simple, and commanders usually do not have much trouble sending subordinates to certain death and deal with this (if it is really necessary). It is much more difficult to do it yourself. Or sacrifice yourself for your crew. Therefore, the solution of Kirk from Intro Darkness was so much better.
••No win situations, by definition fall into the binary of win or no win.
•Lack of ability to face the music- someone who make choices without believing that those choices can cost anything is not *the* consequent result of not accepting a Kobyashi Maru.
•test of character... a constructed test is not a true test of character, some things can be indicated but it is not the same as real life decisions. Discussing it, with all implications, more than occasionally, is preferable and more practical. Makes for more elasticity in problem solving.
• If we are to consider the needs of the many over the few, we are then thinking of, or defining, an individual as an object. To know the importance of a single individual, is the only way to understand the importance of more than one individual.
•I have a disdain for utilitarianism belief and action. Every individual, whether human or non human, is more than the sum of their parts, regardless of what capitalism, or religion, may dictate.
Of all of the versions of the test on screen and in novels I think Saavik is the only character that took it fairly. I give Shatner's Kirk a pass because it dealt with the themes of his character in that movie. Every other attempt seemed to run on the character knowing exactly what to expect from the test so they had the opportunity to metagame the test (especially Calhoun and Peter Kirk in the novel Sarek). Saavik came off in ST2 as if the test was completely new to her. I assume that the test would be widely discussed around campus unless everyone kept it quiet in the on screen depictions to preserve the mystery for everyone while the novel characters get the benefit of everyone that failed.
Also - if you're going to discuss Troi's test from TNG it might be worth discussing the Psych Test that Wesley faced in Coming of Age.
Kirk in the first draft of the Kelvin timeline was a MONSTER in order to win.
(kirk's logic was the same as discussed in en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Kobayashi_Maru_(Star_Trek_novel) )
the book covered some other ways that star fleet f*cked with their cadets.
This is similar to the game Life is Strange which has a choice similar to the KM test. Do you sacrifice the town or the woman you love. bae vs bay. In a command situation I can see the importance of the test. What do you value the most. Something you need to know as a commander.
in the novel for Wrath of Khan, kirk poked at Saavik for sacrificing her ship and crew to try and save people that may not be the best or brightest and should have just went on their way or not even have attempted a rescue. (yeah he was pretty classist ). This i like Calhoun's solution ultimately.
but Saavik's counter argument is that if Starfleet officers started deciding for themselves what civilians were and weren't worth risking their lives for, then they were no longer subordinate to and supposed to serve a civilian government. ( I am not a big fan of the Calhoun decision )
(i think Sulu had a similar - retreat - solution.)
But that aside, I really like your analysis of the test, especially the difference between prime Kirk and alt Kirk’s responses. They both cheat, but for different reasons and it’s a great way to set up fascinating differences between versions of the same character.
The test is a substantial element of Trek lore that is thematically relevant to all the series and in the best of Trek fashion gives us important ideas to consider deeply.
Kirk I think actually came to terms with this lesson when he sacrificed himself to save the crew of the Enterprise B
For the test to work the cadet must not know in advance what it is about, starfleet's best kept secret.
"The needs of the many outweighs the needs of the few..." If this is a moral maximum, then the Admiral in the TNG film, "Insurrection" is validated in his actions as the destruction of the regenerative rings of the Baku planet would lead to untold millions of theoretical saved lives.