Mutiny

[Mr. Atoz]

Of course, everyone knows that taking control of a ship by force of arms is mutiny. But there's more to it than that. Several times on the series and in the movies, officers will request "permission to speak freely". Did you ever wonder why they do that?

In the military sense, any time you question out loud any decision made by a superior officer, you imply that the decision was an incorrect one. You also imply that you could make a better decision, and that the superior is incompetent to command. So technically, this is also mutiny. You don't even have to disobey an order; just criticizing it is enough.

The military does, however, recognize that sometimes a junior officer might have a valid point of view. So he or she can voice that opinion provided he or she asks permission first. In "The Wrath of Khan" for example, Saavik was about to criticize the Kobiyashi Maru test, which would also imply criticism of Admiral Kirk's decision to keep it as part of the training course. Therefore, she had to ask permission.

But it can be a fine line. You are only required to obey "lawful" orders. So just what is an "unlawful" order? If your captain orders you to violate the Prime Directive, or to open fire on obviously unarmed civilians, is that a "lawful" order? In certain cases, disobedience would not only be proper but the only ethical course of action.

[Thallassa]

On the other hand, you may not be aware of all the facts in the case. That is why strict, unquestioning obedience is usually required. I know for example that Spock would never think of disobeying an order by Captain Kirk, even if it seemed to conflict with the Prime Directive. He would trust Kirk and suppose that he had a very good reason for giving the order.

[Mr. Atoz]

In fact he did. In "The Apple", Spock was very much opposed to interfering with the people of Vaal, but he followed Kirk's orders anyway.