What do you think?
Rate this book
The Ethics of Star Trek
For Trekkies everywhere, a fascinating look at the philosophy of Star Trek, from Kirk and Spock to Janeway and Seven of Nine
For four decades, Star Trek has been the obsession of millions of fans. But real Trekkies know that the show is more than just riveting entertainment. Its complex moral dilemmas present a view of the future that holds important truths for us in the present. Drawing on episodes from all four Star Trek generations, this unique book explores the ethics of the series in relation to the theories of the world's great philosophers. Questions about good and evil, right and wrong, power and corruption are discussed in language that,is both readable and compelling as the authors show, how the program has evolved over the years to address society's changing values. For this century and beyond, The Ethics of "Star Trek" is an intriguing look at a brilliantly imagined-world and what it can teach us about how to live.
For four decades, Star Trek has been the obsession of millions of fans. But real Trekkies know that the show is more than just riveting entertainment. Its complex moral dilemmas present a view of the future that holds important truths for us in the present. Drawing on episodes from all four Star Trek generations, this unique book explores the ethics of the series in relation to the theories of the world's great philosophers. Questions about good and evil, right and wrong, power and corruption are discussed in language that,is both readable and compelling as the authors show, how the program has evolved over the years to address society's changing values. For this century and beyond, The Ethics of "Star Trek" is an intriguing look at a brilliantly imagined-world and what it can teach us about how to live.
384 pages, Paperback
First published December 1, 2000
21 people are currently reading
527 people want to read
About the author
Judith A. Barad
4 books2 followersJudith Barad is Professor of Philosophy at Indiana State University, teaching courses on ancient and medieval philosophy as well as on philosophy and Star Trek.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 26 of 26 reviews
September 29, 2018
A great read for Star Trek fans, although I think the ST and Philosophy book was better. The Ethics of Star Trek covers some of the same ground but sticks to a narrow band of thinkers and ideas. While there is definitely a strong knowledge of ST, of all the series (minus anything after VGR) the episodes discussed may not cover the broad array of story and thematic richness that some fans may be looking for.
The ethical focus pushes to analyze the choices of the captains and a couple senior officers, looking at life-and-death situations largely but also decisions regarding whole societies. Aristotle, Plato, the Stoics, Kant, Bentham, the existentialists, and the Christian philosophers of the Renaissance are all discussed and applied to ST situations.
The prose is accessible, written more for a general audience that are ST fanatics. Easy to read but tends to oversimplify at times and there are a few mistakes the editors missed regarding quotes or facts from the shows. These weren't a problem for me, except for one instance in the first chapter.
For these types of books, I think I would go with ST and Philosophy first. If you want more, read this one. Otherwise, I think this book has largely been surpassed by later works.
The ethical focus pushes to analyze the choices of the captains and a couple senior officers, looking at life-and-death situations largely but also decisions regarding whole societies. Aristotle, Plato, the Stoics, Kant, Bentham, the existentialists, and the Christian philosophers of the Renaissance are all discussed and applied to ST situations.
The prose is accessible, written more for a general audience that are ST fanatics. Easy to read but tends to oversimplify at times and there are a few mistakes the editors missed regarding quotes or facts from the shows. These weren't a problem for me, except for one instance in the first chapter.
For these types of books, I think I would go with ST and Philosophy first. If you want more, read this one. Otherwise, I think this book has largely been surpassed by later works.
April 27, 2025
Yes, this (parts of this) was my late evening read last Saturday. And yes, it was for study related reasons (or, better, certain study reasons which were dutifully crafted by myself so that they could include an incursion into my beloved Trek world).
April 29, 2020
The purpose of this book is not to examine the treatment of ethical dilemmas in the Star Trek oeuvre, nor indeed to use various Trek episodes to exemplify ethical theories. Instead, it's to determine the ethical framework upon which Trek is based, and even to apply that framework as the basis for an ideal human society. This is troubling, because to emulate Star Trek is not to emulate the United Federation of Planets, an admittedly noble institution, but rather a group of Hollywood writers and producers. The Federation was created as an ideal society — by definition — by Gene Roddenberry, therefore to conclude that its ethical foundations are optimal is kind of like discovering that circles are round. The episodes of Trek cannot provide adequate real-world examples of ethical theories precisely because they're fictitious: The writers decide whether they want the characters to behave ethically or not. Since the writers (and the times) keep changing, the ethical basis of the various series and episodes is not consistent. For example, in one TNG episode the Klingon society is portrayed as valuing actions and results over motives, but in a later DS9 episode exactly the opposite is stated.
That said, the book nevertheless provides an interesting discussion of all the major ethics philosophies, throughout human history, and uses specific situations from the first four Trek series and the first nine movies to illustrate the critical issues involved. Unfortunately, the discussions are somewhat simplistic, as if Barad felt she had to "talk down" to her audience. The Trek audience, however, is possibly the pop-cultural segment least in need of patronage, and I wish Paramount would realize that. In a few areas, Barad presents the basic principles of an ethical theory or the issues involved in a particular episode, but neglects to take the extra step or to examine more complex theoretical nuances raised by some of the situations. A few examples:
Cultural Relativism: The conclusion here is that cultural relativism is logically inconsistent because of its basic principle that there are no universal cultural precepts, which is itself a universal cultural precept, and that it therefore cancels itself out. It is also pragmatically unworkable because a strict adherence to its tenets would prevent Starfleet from interceding in cultures that practice clearly reprehensible programs like genocide, slavery and repression. But what's not addressed is the possibility that cultural relativism is itself relative, meaning that one culture cannot even impose its interpretation of cultural relativism upon another. By this premise, Starfleet can intercede in the case of genocide because one culture is preventing another from adhering to its own cultural imperative; i.e. the concept of cultural relativism in general (as opposed to a strictly Federation perspective) is not being respected. Starfleet does in fact believe in cultural relativism, in fact the Prime Directive is based upon it, and will act to prevent gross violations of that credo in other cultures. A culture must be allowed to pursue its own tenets within its own boundaries, but it must be prevented from forcibly imposing those tenets upon other cultures.
Duty vs. Motive: During the discussion of whether morals proceed solely from religion or exist independently, Barad concludes that Starfleet captains act not for their own benefit but for that of their crews. In this way she likens them to political leaders throughout history (and the fictional Star Trek future). Someone needs to explain to her the difference between civic leadership and military leadership. As every Trekkie knows, a starship captain acts not for the benefit of his crew but for that of the mission — which, in most cases, is exploration, discovery, and/or diplomacy. The crew of a starship is a team with a unified goal, the successful completion of the mission. The captain's job as mission leader is to decide how best to accomplish that goal, while simultaneously protecting the rights and safety of the ship's crew, equipment, and civilians. Jean-Luc Picard and other captains often stated that their primary responsibility was to the safety of their crew, but it is not their only responsibility, nor is it the reason they act. If it were, they would leave the crew at home and go out on the mission alone, thus protecting the crew from any possible harm. A starship is not a society: It exists not for the benefit and welfare of its members but to fulfill a specific mission. Starfleet officers accept the potential hazards of that mission when they enlist.
Still, this book is a good addition to the literature and a fun read for any Trekkie. Since Star Trek exists in large part to examine and/or challege ethical principles through sci-fi allegories and technology-enabled "gray area" situations, a thorough investigation of its relationship to established ethical theories was clearly in order.
That said, the book nevertheless provides an interesting discussion of all the major ethics philosophies, throughout human history, and uses specific situations from the first four Trek series and the first nine movies to illustrate the critical issues involved. Unfortunately, the discussions are somewhat simplistic, as if Barad felt she had to "talk down" to her audience. The Trek audience, however, is possibly the pop-cultural segment least in need of patronage, and I wish Paramount would realize that. In a few areas, Barad presents the basic principles of an ethical theory or the issues involved in a particular episode, but neglects to take the extra step or to examine more complex theoretical nuances raised by some of the situations. A few examples:
Cultural Relativism: The conclusion here is that cultural relativism is logically inconsistent because of its basic principle that there are no universal cultural precepts, which is itself a universal cultural precept, and that it therefore cancels itself out. It is also pragmatically unworkable because a strict adherence to its tenets would prevent Starfleet from interceding in cultures that practice clearly reprehensible programs like genocide, slavery and repression. But what's not addressed is the possibility that cultural relativism is itself relative, meaning that one culture cannot even impose its interpretation of cultural relativism upon another. By this premise, Starfleet can intercede in the case of genocide because one culture is preventing another from adhering to its own cultural imperative; i.e. the concept of cultural relativism in general (as opposed to a strictly Federation perspective) is not being respected. Starfleet does in fact believe in cultural relativism, in fact the Prime Directive is based upon it, and will act to prevent gross violations of that credo in other cultures. A culture must be allowed to pursue its own tenets within its own boundaries, but it must be prevented from forcibly imposing those tenets upon other cultures.
Duty vs. Motive: During the discussion of whether morals proceed solely from religion or exist independently, Barad concludes that Starfleet captains act not for their own benefit but for that of their crews. In this way she likens them to political leaders throughout history (and the fictional Star Trek future). Someone needs to explain to her the difference between civic leadership and military leadership. As every Trekkie knows, a starship captain acts not for the benefit of his crew but for that of the mission — which, in most cases, is exploration, discovery, and/or diplomacy. The crew of a starship is a team with a unified goal, the successful completion of the mission. The captain's job as mission leader is to decide how best to accomplish that goal, while simultaneously protecting the rights and safety of the ship's crew, equipment, and civilians. Jean-Luc Picard and other captains often stated that their primary responsibility was to the safety of their crew, but it is not their only responsibility, nor is it the reason they act. If it were, they would leave the crew at home and go out on the mission alone, thus protecting the crew from any possible harm. A starship is not a society: It exists not for the benefit and welfare of its members but to fulfill a specific mission. Starfleet officers accept the potential hazards of that mission when they enlist.
Still, this book is a good addition to the literature and a fun read for any Trekkie. Since Star Trek exists in large part to examine and/or challege ethical principles through sci-fi allegories and technology-enabled "gray area" situations, a thorough investigation of its relationship to established ethical theories was clearly in order.
December 15, 2023
This was a great primer on the philosophy of ethics, in my opinion. It was very approachable, especially considering how much I have always enjoyed Star Trek. I say this about a lot of the non-fiction I read, but I think it's likely I'll be returning to this book from time to time, as a reference.
Dr. Barad begins by asking if, by looking at all the Star Trek series and movies that had been made up to that time (excluding The Animated Series), we can identify an overarching philosophy upheld - at least mostly - by each of the series. She takes us through the basics of several different philosophies, from moral relativism, to Platonic and Aristotelian virtue ethics, to consequentialism, to Kantian duty ethics, to the existentialism of Kierkegaard and Sartre, and more.
I found her conclusion satisfying, indeed. Dr. Barad discounts moral relativism and pure religion rather handily. That's not surprising, it's really common sense for anyone who's watched more than an episode or two. Ultimately, she decides that the ethics of Star Trek are something of a tapestry, to use her wording, pulling together "the most judicious principles of virtue, duty, and existentialist teachings."
I think she makes a pretty strong case, and I like the idea that Star Trek, by weaving together this tapestry, essentially created its own moral framework that is actually applicable to the lives of individuals. For a while now, I have considered myself an existentialist in the vein of ethical humanism. Considering I have advocated for (or at least pined away for) a Star Trek Future for humanity, maybe I'm just an ol' Trekker at heart.
Dr. Barad begins by asking if, by looking at all the Star Trek series and movies that had been made up to that time (excluding The Animated Series), we can identify an overarching philosophy upheld - at least mostly - by each of the series. She takes us through the basics of several different philosophies, from moral relativism, to Platonic and Aristotelian virtue ethics, to consequentialism, to Kantian duty ethics, to the existentialism of Kierkegaard and Sartre, and more.
I found her conclusion satisfying, indeed. Dr. Barad discounts moral relativism and pure religion rather handily. That's not surprising, it's really common sense for anyone who's watched more than an episode or two. Ultimately, she decides that the ethics of Star Trek are something of a tapestry, to use her wording, pulling together "the most judicious principles of virtue, duty, and existentialist teachings."
I think she makes a pretty strong case, and I like the idea that Star Trek, by weaving together this tapestry, essentially created its own moral framework that is actually applicable to the lives of individuals. For a while now, I have considered myself an existentialist in the vein of ethical humanism. Considering I have advocated for (or at least pined away for) a Star Trek Future for humanity, maybe I'm just an ol' Trekker at heart.
September 26, 2024
Got a new library card for my college down and it's literally three times the size of my home one so I've been going on rampage. I found this gem and it instantly caught my eye, especially cause I'm taking a philosophy and ethics class this semester. Star trek has been one of my lifelong interests and yet I've never truly sat down and thought about much of the lessons in ethics it considers. Of course there were some chapters that were better than others, but honestly some of the ones I thought were going to be the most boring were actually extremely thought provoking and interesting. Also this is more of a personal note but all of the best examples were from TNG and I've put off fully watching the entire show this long and I think I just need to dive in. That's besides the point, I liked the way this book used episodes as framework for ethical concepts and yet still elaborated enough on the concepts themselves. Sure some of the topics were a little baseline, but it's a short book with a lot to cover so I wasn't bothered. Honestly this whole book just made me love this franchise even more so. It's so irreplaceable and I think that makes me appreciate just how amazing it was when it first came out. It truly started so much in every area you could possibly think of. I fear modern science fiction owes it's existence and popularity to this franchise.
June 13, 2018
Judith Barad, with Ed Robertson. The Ethics of Star Trek. New York: HarperCollins, 2000. 368pp.
Dr. Barad knows this subject well; she teaches a course on the Ethics of Star Trek at Indiana State University. She examines the role of ethics in star trek, as ethical theories go from Aristotle to modern existentialism. In this spirit she examines such questions as what Kierkegaard would say of Captain Janeway; whether James T. Kirk found the Aristotelian Mean; does the greatest good for the greatest number allow subjugation of individual autonomy; is religion the sole source of ethics; where would we be if everyone acted like Ferengi; and others.
Of course she consideres the episode "Plato's Stepchildren" as it pertains to Plato's Republic, and to what extent the rules of the Philosopher-King are found in the Federation. Naturally this leads to examination of Plato's student Aristotle, and Kirk's conduct in "The Enemy Within" where the captain is split into a rational and irrational half. In so doing he shows us examples of Aristotle's theory on virtue. In Voyager, Janeway also shows Aristotelian traits in her examining the context of the situation. THis leads to the general observation: "For every mean, there's a context. FInding the appropriate mean for a particular context is often a matter of trial and error." Which is where the Prime Directive so often seen as a hindrance and hamper shows wisdom, for it allows the captains to monitor natural developments so they may find the context.
Consideration of Aristotle naturally leads to his famous theories on friendship from the Nicomachean Ethics, and indeed the friendship of Kirk, Spock, and McCoy is often one of the most endearing elements of the Original Series. Besides being his close friends, McCoy and Spock provide the respecive emotional and logical extremes from which Kirk finds the Aristotelian Mean. The various kinds of friendship lead to a discussion of hedonism versus stoicism in the example of Worf with Jadzia Dax.
Other philosophers find exegesis as well. First Officer Riker agrees with the position of Kant that duty should always supercede personal inclinations. [This Kantian regard for duty also shows a difference between Kirk, who cheated on his test in the Koboyashi Maru scenario, and Picard, who would never dream of doing such a thing.] Hobbes, in his holding of our natural suspicious state, would probably smile at a Ferengi. Sisko channelled Socrates when he believed reason alone discerns good actions. Kant's emphasis on intent helps Worf balance being Klingon and a starfleet officer. Kirk leaves the Children of the Sun with faith in Christian ethics of love and humility that Neitzsche would find amusing.
The style is informal and conversational, and easily read. Not all episodes find inclusion; the notable talk Admiral Ross has with Bashir on laws falling silent in time of War [taken from Cicero's defense speech at a murder trial] just one example. And the discussion of Sartre's influence in Seven of Nine's talk with Janeway about existence preceding essence makes no mention of Seven's prior existance as a human girl before the Borg converted her into a drone. So when the discussion begins on Seven telling Janeway she was a manufactured item, thus in Sartre's schematic not entitled to moral obligation a human being would get [the same argument Riker used as advocate at Data's trial], the reader may well find the technical point of Seven's true humanity unravel the comparison.
Dr. Barad knows this subject well; she teaches a course on the Ethics of Star Trek at Indiana State University. She examines the role of ethics in star trek, as ethical theories go from Aristotle to modern existentialism. In this spirit she examines such questions as what Kierkegaard would say of Captain Janeway; whether James T. Kirk found the Aristotelian Mean; does the greatest good for the greatest number allow subjugation of individual autonomy; is religion the sole source of ethics; where would we be if everyone acted like Ferengi; and others.
Of course she consideres the episode "Plato's Stepchildren" as it pertains to Plato's Republic, and to what extent the rules of the Philosopher-King are found in the Federation. Naturally this leads to examination of Plato's student Aristotle, and Kirk's conduct in "The Enemy Within" where the captain is split into a rational and irrational half. In so doing he shows us examples of Aristotle's theory on virtue. In Voyager, Janeway also shows Aristotelian traits in her examining the context of the situation. THis leads to the general observation: "For every mean, there's a context. FInding the appropriate mean for a particular context is often a matter of trial and error." Which is where the Prime Directive so often seen as a hindrance and hamper shows wisdom, for it allows the captains to monitor natural developments so they may find the context.
Consideration of Aristotle naturally leads to his famous theories on friendship from the Nicomachean Ethics, and indeed the friendship of Kirk, Spock, and McCoy is often one of the most endearing elements of the Original Series. Besides being his close friends, McCoy and Spock provide the respecive emotional and logical extremes from which Kirk finds the Aristotelian Mean. The various kinds of friendship lead to a discussion of hedonism versus stoicism in the example of Worf with Jadzia Dax.
Other philosophers find exegesis as well. First Officer Riker agrees with the position of Kant that duty should always supercede personal inclinations. [This Kantian regard for duty also shows a difference between Kirk, who cheated on his test in the Koboyashi Maru scenario, and Picard, who would never dream of doing such a thing.] Hobbes, in his holding of our natural suspicious state, would probably smile at a Ferengi. Sisko channelled Socrates when he believed reason alone discerns good actions. Kant's emphasis on intent helps Worf balance being Klingon and a starfleet officer. Kirk leaves the Children of the Sun with faith in Christian ethics of love and humility that Neitzsche would find amusing.
The style is informal and conversational, and easily read. Not all episodes find inclusion; the notable talk Admiral Ross has with Bashir on laws falling silent in time of War [taken from Cicero's defense speech at a murder trial] just one example. And the discussion of Sartre's influence in Seven of Nine's talk with Janeway about existence preceding essence makes no mention of Seven's prior existance as a human girl before the Borg converted her into a drone. So when the discussion begins on Seven telling Janeway she was a manufactured item, thus in Sartre's schematic not entitled to moral obligation a human being would get [the same argument Riker used as advocate at Data's trial], the reader may well find the technical point of Seven's true humanity unravel the comparison.
This entire review has been hidden because of spoilers.
March 8, 2025
I recently finished reading The Ethics of Star Trek, and it turned out to be quite different from what I was expecting. Going into it, I had hoped for something lighter — perhaps in the vein of Michael Sandel's Justice, where complex ethical concepts are made engaging and accessible, but all framed within the exciting world of Star Trek.
Instead, the book leaned heavily into technical philosophy, making it feel less readable and more like academic literature. Rather than enhancing or making the Star Trek experience more vibrant, I found that it often felt like it was draining the joy out of the series — a real shame given the richness of moral dilemmas and thought-provoking scenarios that Star Trek has always explored.
Of course, I totally expect that many readers may disagree with my perspective. Some might appreciate the rigorous philosophical deep dive, but for me, it missed the mark in capturing the spirit of Star Trek while making its ethical questions more relatable.
Ah well — not every book is for everyone!
Instead, the book leaned heavily into technical philosophy, making it feel less readable and more like academic literature. Rather than enhancing or making the Star Trek experience more vibrant, I found that it often felt like it was draining the joy out of the series — a real shame given the richness of moral dilemmas and thought-provoking scenarios that Star Trek has always explored.
Of course, I totally expect that many readers may disagree with my perspective. Some might appreciate the rigorous philosophical deep dive, but for me, it missed the mark in capturing the spirit of Star Trek while making its ethical questions more relatable.
Ah well — not every book is for everyone!
January 3, 2020
Overall, an excellent introduction to ethics in general. Except for a mishandling of Nietzsche ( but then, who doesn't), their explanations and match with various characters and episodes were very good. In particular, presenting the ideas of W. D. Ross, who is sadly out of print for the most part, was well done.
The final chapter, when they proceed to declare there is after all, an ethical standard held by the Star Trek canon is handled with care. Considering how many different writers contributed to what was mostly an episodic set of series (excepting DS-9) the amount of coherence is astounding.
Only four stars for the Nietzsche problem.
The final chapter, when they proceed to declare there is after all, an ethical standard held by the Star Trek canon is handled with care. Considering how many different writers contributed to what was mostly an episodic set of series (excepting DS-9) the amount of coherence is astounding.
Only four stars for the Nietzsche problem.
April 22, 2024
Very dense on the philosophical, especially early on in the book. I watched Star Trek as a kid, a bit of TNG and DS9, bore I honestly didn't remember any of the episodes that were given as examples throughout. I thought it was highly interesting anyway. I enjoyed the last chapter which did an excellent job of tying the whole book together, coming up with an ethical framework for each of the 4 series and then an overall ethical framework.
February 5, 2024
This book is certainly different than I imagined going in. It focuses on a few key episodes from TOS through Voyager and explains the ethical issues that arise in each. At first it was quite slow but the later chapters tie things together well.
July 28, 2017
This book should be title "How to be a good person".
March 6, 2020
Fascinating!
Read
June 8, 2020One of the best texts I have ever read regarding the various Ethics contained within the Star Trek Universe.
October 24, 2014
I really enjoyed this! Unlike the “and philosophy” series, where each section is written by a different author on a different facet of philosophy, this compilation has a specific focus and the entire novel is one big essay with each chapter assessing a different facet of ethics. A philosopher highly practiced in ethics would likely find this too simplistic for their tastes, but for me, who only studied ethics in a couple courses in university (years ago), this was a great refresher for concepts I had forgotten in detail. It would also be easy enough for someone entirely new to ethical theories to read.
As the book has one author and all the chapters cohere, there wasn’t a particular chapter/theory I liked/disliked. It seemed to me like Barad knew was she was talking about regarding the Star Trek part of it at least- she referenced episodes from the Original Series to Voyager and you could tell she was engaged with the topic. I thought her overall argument made sense to me based on my opinion of how the Star Trek universe, or at least Star Fleet, seemed to operate .
There isn’t too much else I can say about it other than it was a very interesting read that any Star Trek fan would enjoy.
As the book has one author and all the chapters cohere, there wasn’t a particular chapter/theory I liked/disliked. It seemed to me like Barad knew was she was talking about regarding the Star Trek part of it at least- she referenced episodes from the Original Series to Voyager and you could tell she was engaged with the topic. I thought her overall argument made sense to me based on my opinion of how the Star Trek universe, or at least Star Fleet, seemed to operate .
There isn’t too much else I can say about it other than it was a very interesting read that any Star Trek fan would enjoy.
April 26, 2014
I wish I could have used this book to teach my ethics courses. At the same time, if you aren't familiar with Star Trek you would not understand how Barad uses the show to teach about ethics. The book can sound like a text book at times, but overall it is a good read for people who like Star Trek and are interested in the philosophical nature of ethics. I would recommend it to my Star Trek friends.
September 10, 2011
LOVED. The book was expertly written, quite clever, much funnier than expected and made me think. The first four television series are covered, so no "Enterprise". While I only caught occasional episodes of "Voyager" and "Deep Space 9" the book still made me feel like I understood the characters and the episodes discussed were well-detailed.
October 5, 2014
I really enjoyed the analysis of the ethics behind specific episodes and the conclusion explaining which ethical philosophy(ies) most closely match each of the series and some main characters. It reminded me of one of the reasons why I like star trek so much; that we are presented with complex ethical dilemmas that intrigue us and force is to think.
July 15, 2007
So I have to give this one 5 stars not only cause it was great but because the co-author wanted his picture taken with me at a convention (i was an orion slave girl) and he signed and gave me a copy. :)
June 10, 2007
I'm reading this for a class that I am taking. It's actually pretty entertaining. Especially since we get to watch old Star Trek episodes in class.
September 27, 2011
Read it via BookCrossing.
November 21, 2008
For the philosophical trekkie!
March 21, 2010
Excellent book. Serves as an interesting introduction to a variety of philosophical schools of thought all the while using familiar Star Trek situations as reference. Recommend reading this one.
April 12, 2010
It's a pretty interesting look at Star Trek through the vein of different philosophies. If you enjoy Star Trek and have ever pondered ethical questions about episodes you've seen, I recommend!
February 8, 2013
Fascinating - great examples and relearned a lot of philosophy I'd forgotten. :)
April 4, 2023
If philosophy isn't you thing, but you like Star Trek this book makes it easy to understand philosophical issues.
Read
June 21, 2017This is my favourite book that I was required to read for school. I loved it, and would have enjoyed it on my own. I'm glad college brought this book to me.
Displaying 1 - 26 of 26 reviews