I just finished Star Trek III. This is not the first time I've watched this movie--I've seen it so many times I could probably storyboard it. But I was struck by something I've never noticed before. Perhaps it was the papers I was grading while I watched it, perhaps it was recent conversations, but I noticed a really interesting theme on logic and emotion this time.

When Jim Kirk asks for permission to head back to Genesis for Spock's body the Commander tells him no and explains that as a rational, logical human being Kirk should understand why he can't be allowed to break rules. Kirk is then reprimanded for acting so emotionally and warned not to let his emotions ruin his career.

I found this interesting for a number of reasons. The first is that the Star Trek series is seriously loved by my family. We don't do conventions, but don't let that fool you into thinking we're normal where Star Trek is concerned. More importantly, however, is the fact that showing emotion is a capital crime in my family. There's no crying in our household. Some even pride themselves on their logic and ability to control their emotions. Now here's the great irony in all of this--first no one, not even Vulcans, can remove emotions wholly and completely from their being and second my family that doesn't successfully remove emotion (even though we try) idolizes Captain James T. Kirk who is an exceptionally emotional character. He's brilliant, he's strategic, and a great captain, and he usually makes well-informed choices, but he is emotional.

Finally, my point in all of this, is that this movie captures beautifully, in a way I've never noticed before, the illogicality of morality. It is illogical for the Kirk and his crew to go get Spock--this is summed up at the end when Kirk says to Spock "the needs of the one outweigh the needs of the many." It's emotional and dangerous for the crew to steal the Enterprise, but it's the right thing to do. Spock's body must be retrieved and as his friends they do so at whatever cost to themselves. They do so because Spock's religion demands it and there is no one else to do the job.

My earlier comment now, about the illogicality of morality could certainly be challenged. Perhaps morals are always logical--there was no one else to retrieve Spock's body, or no one else willing, and so it is only logical that Kirk et. al. do so. But here the morality of friendship buts up against the logic of utilitarianism. Does friendship matter more than the mathematics of lives? Can people's worth be judged based on numbers? What causes the logic to leave the realm of utilitarianism and enter the realm of personal relationship?

I'm leaning towards believing the answer lies in emotion. Why shouldn't we kill one child to make the world a perfect place? Because that's wrong? Because it isn't okay to gain perfection through the murder or torture of another? How do we know that? Because we aren't operating on a wholly mathematical system. We're operating on emotions. I find it interesting and worthwhile to think about this, because too often I think we forget the role of emotions in our major decision making. For too long we've lived under the shadow of Aristotelian beliefs: intelligence/logic=good, emotions/passion=bad. This idea has been absorbed whole into our society and infiltrates our thinking to such a way that no one questions it. Things that make us feel are automatically placed below things that make us think--even if the things we feel about make us think as well. Chick flicks are a fantastic example of this as they are usually written off based on the genre, regardless of the quality of writing or maturity of theme explored.

All of this from Star Trek III. Is it possible to imagine a morality not based on utilitarianism that doesn't rely on emotion at some level? Are there absolute truths and if so are we able to access them in any way not dependent, to some degree, on emotion? Why is it wrong to murder if not because of empathy? Why is it wrong to torture? Rape? Why allow for equality or freedom if not because some part of us feels that it is what all people are entitled to?

There is all sorts of language to answer these questions. Many brilliant people have offered many brilliant treatises and essays on the subjects and I could certainly do some research and write a paper that neglected to mention emotion even once, but I ask you: does our defining these answers in academic terms devoid of emotion negate the fact that emotion is what drives us to look for an answer and justification for what we feel?