The dissapointing end script in Spock's death scene in Star Trek 2 : The Wrath of Khan



What do you mean?

At the end of Star Trek 2 : 'The Wrath of Khan' Spock realizes the ship is doomed unless he go into a lethally irradiated part of the engineering deck to affect repairs. He chooses himself for the task logically, he has the ability to repair the engine and the superior constitution necessary to withstand the radiation long enough to see to the task's completion. Scotty had the ability but would have died prior to getting it done. More over Spock recognised that he did not have the right to demand that another to die for him, or for any other. The only person able to make that choice is the person for whom it is to be made, i.e. yourself. In this context Spock behaves rationally, morally and therefore heroically. But as any fans of Star Trek know Spock is subject to scriptwriters not to genuine logic and so after this brilliant plot turn, and in the midst of Spock's moving expression of his value for Kirk's friendship he utters this fallacy:

"the good of the many outweighs the good of the few, or the one"

It may be dramatic cinema buts it is sickening philosophy, especially from a character supposedly driven by rationality. It befits the political climate of majority rules, of expediency as guide, of anti-Americanism and anto-individiualism*. If you have read Atlas Shrugged by Ayn Rand you would have observed how those in power used the good reputation of the nation's premier scientist to deceive the people into accepting an evil government weapon of suppression, and noted the scientist's sanction of this deception. In the film the anti-philosophy of mob rule is slipped in between some of the character Spock's finest moments, a character admired by many. Was this deliberate? Probably not, but the effect is as if it was.

When I see that scene I wish to replace those words with something like this;

"The ship would not have made it to safety, Jim. My choice....was....logical."

This may not be melodramatic but it would have been consistent with Spock's character, and the heroism of the scene.

Kirk's character swings from healthy egoism, bullying authoritarian, heroic leader to whining collectivist throughout the series and the films but in the follow up to the above film, Star Trek 3 : The search for Spock, the entire premise lies with Kirk's value for Spock. He, and the crew, risk their careers and the integrity of the biggest public authority in the Galaxy - the federation of planets (a militant supra UN!) - in order to rescue his friend. At the end, when Spock asks why he went to such lengths Kirk smiles and reverses Spock's earlier quotation;

"The good of the one outweighed the good of the many." Spock, perhaps cleansed by his bizarre regeneration, appears to understand.

In his refusal to sacrifice himself or his values for the sake of another (in this case the government's notion of good) the character of Kirk has its moment as a true American hero. You could almost hear him saying "the public good be damned!"

Ofcourse, after that Hollywood had to justify it all by having them rescue whales in a well crafted, amusing but obviously anti industrial fourth film. That's another story...

*Anti-Americanism, if you have studied American history and the constitution, means anti-individualism. It makes one think twice when you hear the kind of things attacked as being 'anti American' these days!



Please follow a link below.