Captain Picard and the Categorical Imperitave

The wonderful thing about Star Trek is that it's not a science fiction show as much as it is an exercise in philosophy.  I can think of an episode for just about every topic that we've covered in class.  In the following clip, we see the android member of the Starship Enterprise, Data, at a hearing to determine whether he belongs belongs to Starfleet or is ultimately free to make his own choices.  If the hearing decides that he is property, the implication is that he would be disassembled, studied, and ultimately replicated many times.  A multitude of Datas would be extremely useful for Starfleet and humanity at large, but could result in the creation of a subclass of synthetic beings.  In class, we've talked about Kant's Categorical Imperative verses the Utilitarian philosophy of Bentham and Mill.  The following clip tackles that issue directly and also questions what it is to be alive/whether life can be synthetic in nature.

Commander Data's Hearing

Captain Picard (Patrick Stewart) seems to align himself closely with the views of Kant in this instance.  He recognizes that Commander Data cannot practically be separated from humans in terms of meta-awareness, and is thus cannot be classified a simple machine and disassembled.  Picard calls attention to the slippery slope that Starfleet would be treading on if they decide to violate Data's personhood in favor of utilitarian gain; that the implications for the future outweigh the immediate gain.

Picard ultimately succeeds in making his case.  To us, the audience, it seems clear that he was correct all along.  But what is great about this series is that the question of utilitarianism vs. categorical imperative does not stop here.  There are situations the Enterprise finds itself in where multiple androids like Data would have proven extremely useful, and also situations that validate Picard's actions at the hearing.  Picard typically acts with tremendous integrity, usually mirroring the philosophies of Kant.  However, there are several notable examples where he definitely contradicts this behavior.  The message that I take from this is that, as humans, it is difficult for even the best of us to stick consistently with one philosophy or code of ethics.  Doing the "right thing" is not always easy or clear.  The circumstances of any ethical dilemma have factors that could make either a utilitarian or categorical imperative response more appropriate.  So who between Kant or Bentham is correct.  The long and short of it is, it depends.