Science Fiction Helps Us Understand Ethics (If Not Science)

BY BARCODE 2x. In photo: The Large Hadron Collider, photo courtesy of CERN

Ethics are a science. Determining the outcomes of our actions is certainly a viable, quantifiable science. We have two big films at the multiplex, Star Trek and Angels & Demons, which use imaginary physics to help illustrate some very ethical issues. And while the ethical examination is fairly clear in the telling of these morality tales, the faulty science used in the films tend to take away from their power. And while we might admire the bravado of the two films' heroes, their successes only come after lengthy, elaborate cheating and lying.

In Star Trek, we are seeing the reboot, the prequelization of a popular franchise, which has gained mythical status in our culture. The leagues of fans are mostly satisfied and the overall critical response to this big, lavish production has been very positive. When the TV series began, the Starship Enterprise was an ethical probing machine. Traveling in and among the planets, each stop along the way was an exercise in ethical judgment. Each culture they visited gave the crew an opportunity to explore an ethical dilemma from a logical and emotional standpoint. The new film takes less time with each episode in its meandering plot. Kirk is a lying, cowardly, tail-hounding cheat who manipulates his friends and indeed, all of Starfleet with a swagger and a sneer. He never finishes his degree there at the Academy. In fact, he is on academic probation when he is stowed away aboard the Enterprise. Through the clever machinations of the volatile Dr. McCoy, Kirk boards and within a few days, he has taken the helm. He has been helped along the way by nepotism; his father was a Starfleet captain, briefly, and while Kirk is a cowboy who would gamble the life of his entire ship and has no proven track record, he comfortably assumes the captain's chair. After a strange encounter with a time-warp, he meets an older version of Spock, who counsels him to return to the ship and get the young Spock all riled up. After the young Spock resigns due to a Starfleet regulation forcing the surrender of power if the commanding officer becomes too emotional, Kirk takes charge. This is the man we are to trust now, the man who would be Shatner.

Similar cheats occur in the scandalous Angels & Demons. After the death of a Pope early in the film, we are taken to the Large Hadron Collider in Switzerland. (Click here for more information on the Large Hadron Collider and CERN, the European Organization for Nuclear Research) This Vatican of science is breaking the rules one morning. The machine is turned on through the shady authority of its leading scientist. The collision of atoms at near-light speed causes the creation of a tiny, deadly "anti-matter" particle. The particle is taken by an Illuminatus, part of an ancient sect of the Cathlolic Church. When the four Preferidi, the preferred four Cardinals poised to become Pope, are kidnapped and Vatican city is threatened by the atomic explosion of the mysterious anti-matter, the Vatican must bring in an American specialist Robert Langdon (Tom Hanks) to decode their symbols. He is granted access to the secret Vatican libraries, containing mythical and ancient clues to everything in the entire universe, as well as the clues he needs to He views ancient texts and uncovers the truth, conveniently, over a 12-hour period. His discoveries uncover corruption in the church, leading to unspeakable violence, a huge explosion in the sky, and the new Pope rises, with a new-found respect for science in religion.

The real Hadron Collider has not yet been turned on. Its purpose is to simulate, on a tiny level, the creation of the universe. This is a risky particle accelerator, which many believe could cause very dangerous and destructive events. Black holes, tiny galaxies, any number of events could unfold when the particles collide. For Angels and Demons to invent a new use for the Collider means we are no longer dealing in real science. And perhaps when we create science that is too far-fetched, we distance ourselves from the real everyday ethics that the story might be examining.

Similarly, when the Starship Enterprise escapes a black hole using good old I'm-giving-her-all-she's-got-cap'n, we may be entering into a universe where anyone, even a galactic cowboy like Kirk, can succeed. We have seen our own cowboy leaders elected, like Kirk, through nepotism and cronyism. And we have seen how their risky behaviors have caused our own planet to collapse in on itself. So maybe we should embrace a different kind of hero in film. Perhaps Spock would have led the Enterprise astray. And perhaps he would have put our world at risk of destruction. Had not Kirk arrived to kick the Romulans' asses, the Earth could have been destroyed. Using beaming technology (another impossible science), the crew escapes many dangers without tearing their uniforms.

Spock is not the leader we want either. Spock is the champion of pure science, just like Kirk is the champion of risk ventures. Are either of these people suitable to boldly go where no man has gone before? Who belongs in that captain's chair?

Both Langdon and Spock are scientific types, in the great tradition of super-educated white men in film who save the day. Both lack the conscience and the benevolence of an Indiana Jones, who seeks to preserve the world's antiquities. Both lack his charm too, and his physical capabilities. Moreover, they are scientists without a great moral objective. Spock's emotionless zen-like approach to life is one that really helps no one. He is unable to save his own planet, and does not learn enough from the experience to save ours either. Langdon is out to take apart the Catholic Church and expose its darkest secrets, instead of trying to improve it. And by breaking the laws of physics, they come away unscathed, and usually they wind up with a date lined up for later. Daring rescues, hair-splitting timing, and godlike ability to escape any anger that the universe might throw their way, these heroes have a few chinks in their armor when you take a closer look. Between the cowboy and the over-educated fools, who do you trust with the secrets of time, space, faith, and beyond?

Trust none of them. Where science fiction succeeds in an ethical study, we see humans interacting with extraordinary scientific possibilities. When they themselves have the ability to bend the forces that bind the universe, then they are beyond any ethics I know of. When a story relies entirely on impossible science, we lose our context. The magic of the original Star Trek lay in its characters' struggles with moral situations. Their faults are the strength of the program. We learn from them. When they develop otherworldy powers, we lose our ability to identify with them, and learn from them. Star Trek was once a very powerful and marvelous vision of the future. Diverse, peaceful, and personal. The new reboot takes us further from the strength of the source material.

And Angels & Demons, with its modern-day science fiction trappings, gets us further away from the real issues within the Catholic Church, such as lack of transparency, sex scandals, and worldwide hindrance of gay rights. Find me a hero who could solve those problems, and I'll see you at the multiplex.