Kirk did not murder Edith Keeler. And no, I do not want Star Trek writers to write stories that justify murderous conspiracies and make them seem like efficient and heroic efforts.
"intentional failure to provide assistance with fatal consequences" doesn't roll of the tongue
I don't think so.
Edith Keeler had been dead for three centuries.
And Kirk had the chance to change that but did nothing. In fact, he did his very best do keep it that way.
it's the ethical question that's the core of the episode, isn't it? If you have to decide to save a life or stand by and do nothing for the Greater Good. It is a clash between two schools of moral thought, utilitarianism and deontological ethics. Basically a variant of the trolley problem. Which is the more ethical option? Or, more simply: What is the right thing to do? Kirk decided to kill Keeler (or decided to not save her life), but is it ethically sound to let someone die under any circumstances if one has the power to save that life?
so, you have no responsibility whatsover to the one life you could save right now?
Trolley problems are usually bullshit, real decision making almost never have such clearly defined results and thinking that it does will lead to more people being run over by trolleys than would if people kept their eyes open for better solutions. But access to time travel really fuck ups ethics in such a profound way that many questions become pretty ludicrous.
the point still stands, is it ethically sound to let one person die if you have the power to save that life?
That is often how Star Trek is expected to be portrayed, even though the higher ups have been portrayed in various lights, including very negative ones.
I think facing what was coming, the Sisko had a moral imperative to do whatever it took to defeat the Dominion by any means necessary. but that he became squeamish about Sec31 doing the same thing (successfully) later, seemed a bit odd.
