We could've had the First Asian Female Captain, but no....

[cultcross]

As well made episode 'In the Pale Moonlight' is (unlike 'Damage') I still not like the ultimate conclusion or the message, and it pretty much ruined Sisko's character for me, especially as he never suffered any repercussions for it. I would have preferred a follow up episode where the Romulans eventually learn what happened and the situation blows on Federation's face. (There of course should have been some out, instead of allied Romulans and Dominion just destroying the Federation. It should have probably involved Federation somehow regaining the Romulan's trust, preferably via some great personal sacrifice by Sisko.)

For me, the fact that he had to live with what he did was consequence enough, dramatically speaking. There were numerous points like this throughout the Dominion war - Sisko making decisions which turned the tide one way, or another, and feeling the weight of responsibility. Did he save the Federation, or doom the Romulans, both, or neither? Did he save more lives overall, or simply condemn the Romulans to the same fate as himself? This was one of his character's big themes in the final seasons of the show (heavy is the head that wears the crown, both in terms of Starfleet and his position as the Emissary), and I rather liked that aspect of early season 7, when he retreats from his command to hide on Earth. Given some of the decisions he'd had to make in the preceding two years, it's no wonder. It's a more interesting approach to me than a morality tale where he gets his comeuppance. In real life, most people's bad deeds go unpunished, and it is interesting to see a good man live with them.

 

[CorporalCaptain]

Did he save the Federation, or doom the Romulans, both, or neither?

Good question for him to ponder at the time. Unlike the trolley problem in its classic form, Sisko didn't have perfect information; in the context of the trolley problem, he could see only so far down each of the tracks he had to choose between.

 

[AlanC9]

Nope.

Again, what's the argument?

 

[Locutus of Bored]

As well made episode 'In the Pale Moonlight' is (unlike 'Damage') I still not like the ultimate conclusion or the message, and it pretty much ruined Sisko's character for me, especially as he never suffered any repercussions for it. I would have preferred a follow up episode where the Romulans eventually learn what happened and the situation blows on Federation's face. (There of course should have been some out, instead of allied Romulans and Dominion just destroying the Federation. It should have probably involved Federation somehow regaining the Romulan's trust, preferably via some great personal sacrifice by Sisko.)

My personal fan take on that is that the Romulans knew Sisko and Garak had assassinated Vreenak right from the start, and THAT, rather than the forged evidence, is what convinced them to join the Federation/Klingon alliance; the fact that some in Starfleet were willing to do whatever it takes and demonstrate downright Romulan ruthlessness when it came to winning the war. The Romulans knew what was going to happen once the Dominion finished off the Feds and Klingons, but they were stalling for time to rebuild their fleet as long as they thought Starfleet was going to continue to be weak and idealistic (in their terms) in the face of war. There was probably a large pro-alliance faction (no doubt including the Tal'Shiar) that hated Vreenak's guts and thought he was only prolonging their inevitable defeat until after the Klingons and Starfleet were conquered, and knew that the only possible way to beat the Dominion was to join forces against them.

 

[Nyotarules]

Perhaps. And I want Federation to be better than that.

The Federation (and Starfleet) is a humancentric organisation its never going to be better than that when the chips are down.
BTW its neither immortal or immoral to kill nasty people, its immoral to murder nasty people

 

[Mudd]

BTW its neither immortal or immoral to kill nasty people, its immoral to murder nasty people

This doesn't even make basic sense as a sentence.

 

[Longinus]

The Federation (and Starfleet) is a humancentric organisation its never going to be better than that when the chips are down.

Then we seem to disagree on what should be the fundamental premise of Star Trek.

 

[cultcross]

My personal fan take on that is that the Romulans knew Sisko and Garak had assassinated Vreenak right from the start, and THAT, rather than the forged evidence, is what convinced them to join the Federation/Klingon alliance; the fact that some in Starfleet were willing to do whatever it takes and demonstrate downright Romulan ruthlessness when it came to winning the war. The Romulans knew what was going to happen once the Dominion finished off the Feds and Klingons, but they were stalling for time to rebuild their fleet as long as they thought Starfleet was going to continue to be weak and idealistic (in their terms) in the face of war. There was probably a large pro-alliance faction (no doubt including the Tal'Shiar) that hated Vreenak's guts and thought he was only prolonging their inevitable defeat until after the Klingons and Starfleet were conquered, and knew that the only possible way to beat the Dominion was to join forces against them.

I can definitely buy that the Romulans, or a faction of the same, used the incident as an excuse to do what they wanted to do all along, and didn't look too closely at it.

Then we seem to disagree on what should be the fundamental premise of Star Trek.

I think you may be overlaying what you want the premise to be over what it is. Star Trek has generally not presented the philosophy of 'turn the other cheek', occasional Picard moments aside. From TOS onwards, Starfleet has been happy to fight and kill when it considers it required. Check out The Savage Curtain - Kirk mocks Surak for trying a peaceful solution and starts sharpening a stick, and the rock monster guy even calls them out on the fact that their survival methods and outcomes are indistinguishable from those they describe as 'evil'. Trek often went with the admirable theme that enemies are just like us once you get to know them, but almost exclusively this was done when they were winning or in a position of power and they showed mercy - Balance of Terror, Corbomite Manoeuvre, Arena, I Borg, and when they are losing, or face danger, all seems fair and they kill without a second thought.

 

[Longinus]

I think you may be overlaying what you want the premise to be over what it is.

Oh, certainly!

Star Trek has generally not presented the philosophy of 'turn the other cheek', occasional Picard moments aside. From TOS onwards, Starfleet has been happy to fight and kill when it considers it required. Check out The Savage Curtain - Kirk mocks Surak for trying a peaceful solution and starts sharpening a stick, and the rock monster guy even calls them out on the fact that their survival methods and outcomes are indistinguishable from those they describe as 'evil'. Trek often went with the admirable theme that enemies are just like us once you get to know them, but almost exclusively this was done when they were winning or in a position of power and they showed mercy - Balance of Terror, Corbomite Manoeuvre, Arena, I Borg, and when they are losing, or face danger, all seems fair and they kill without a second thought.

I really have no problem with them fighting, or even occasionally using underhanded tactics, in a desperate situation. I defended Georgiou's use of booby trap, for example. But the two occasions I had biggest problem with ('In the Pale Moonlight' and 'Damage') are not that. They're making uninvolved third party to suffer in order to further your own goals. That is kinda huge difference. Illyrians or the Romulans were not the enemy, they were completely innocent (to the conflict at hand), uninvolved third parties.

 

[cultcross]

I've not seen Damage that I recall, so forgive me I have no basis to discuss that one, but in Moonlight, I don't think the writers are trying to say that what Sisko did was right. They are deliberately asking us to debate it, to say is it okay for a good person to do bad things for the 'greater good' of stopping an invading force? By the sounds of things you and I would probably come down on the side of "No". But many would not, and that's what I love about the episode - it isn't black and white, it doesn't tell you the answer, it makes you think. It reminds me a lot of A Private Little War in that respect. Kirk did something ethically questionable in order to serve what he saw as the greater good. And while that was partly to do with restoring the balance of power in the culture, it was also a hell of a lot to do with his own interests in stopping the Communists Klingons from establishing a favourable dominant government in Vietnam Afghanistan Tyrees Planet.

I Borg is interesting because Picard is presented with a similar choice and makes the opposite decision. Although we know it wouldn't happen because hashtag heroship, that could have indirectly resulted in his death and the destruction of all he held dear. Is his adherence to his principles actually right, in light of the stakes?

I think about these episodes a lot. I rarely get involved in interstellar wars these days, but I do find myself faced with choices where at least one option is to violate an ethical principle for a 'greater' outcome.

I love Trek episodes which leave you with questions, in short. Questions about morality, choices, and exactly how you function without a brain.

 

[cooleddie74]

"Cogenitor(ENT)" is another prime example of an ethical quandary and a decision made by a Starfleet officer that costs lives and creates upheaval between species. A shining example of doing the right thing for the wrong reasons and what can happen when the humanitarian thing to do is the wrong thing to do.

 

[Mudd]

The Prime Directive is a stupid idea as far as Trek's storytelling is concerned.

If there were such a thing as aliens in spaceships IRL, one would hope that they have a Prime Directive. A forlorn hope, I suppose.

 

[AlanC9]

Well, it's a more hopeful answer to the Fermi Paradox than most of the others.

 

[Tuskin38]

As well made episode 'In the Pale Moonlight' is (unlike 'Damage') I still not like the ultimate conclusion or the message, and it pretty much ruined Sisko's character for me, especially as he never suffered any repercussions for it. I would have preferred a follow up episode where the Romulans eventually learn what happened and the situation blows on Federation's face. (There of course should have been some out, instead of allied Romulans and Dominion just destroying the Federation. It should have probably involved Federation somehow regaining the Romulan's trust, preferably via some great personal sacrifice by Sisko.)

There was a novel that covered that, because there is a novel for everything.

Sisko confessed and nothing happened. Ends justify the means and all that IIRC.

I think the Romulans found out too? I don’t recall, it has been a while since I read it.

Had some nice scenes with Garak on earth though. Questioning why people were allowed to hold anti-war protests