Best and Worst Treatment of Ethical Dilemmas
- Thread starter DonIago
- Start date
And however many Romulans died who might not have died otherwise (since we have no way of knowing how the war really would have played out if the events of this episode hadn't occurred).
Extrapolating, and not intending to be taken too seriously, for all we know the events that Sisko instigated here were what laid the groundwork for Shinzon's coup, Data's death, and could even have influenced how things played out when Romulus needed to be evacuated.
Considering how the Cardassians were treated later and how they and the Romulans attacked the Founders' homeworld, the Romulans would have been beaten down to a pulp, subjugated, and had millions killed.
The Founders would NOT have forgotten about that attack.
I feel like that's been part of a captain's job description for a long time. Apocalypse Rising had Sisko and his team infiltrating a Klingon space station, TNG had Picard on covert ops missions a couple of times, TOS had Kirk stealing a cloaking device. He's not a captain, but Starfleet Intelligence had O'Brien doing spy work.
And I don't think there is a department of Starfleet that does what Sisko did in that episode, at least not officially (and we know Sisko's feelings about Section 31). He came up with the plan and he was the one who got to put it into action.
And there is one thing that I don't think anyone else has mentioned.
Vreenak clearly knows Sisko, which for him to talk about that kind of detail about any Starfleet officer means he at least respects Sisko, despite him saying his opinion of Starfleet officers and Sisko wasn't as tall as he thought he'd be. There aren't many Starfleet officers he would have any respect for. Garak also made it a point to say Vreenak would likely arrive if Sisko asked... that's an advantage no one else had. Considering this entire endeavor hinged on Vreenak coming to DS9, Sisko was absolutely essential in this.
I'm not sure even Section 31 could have pulled it off without Sisko being a draw for Vreenak.
Vreenak clearly knows Sisko, which for him to talk about that kind of detail about any Starfleet officer means he at least respects Sisko, despite him saying his opinion of Starfleet officers and Sisko wasn't as tall as he thought he'd be. There aren't many Starfleet officers he would have any respect for. Garak also made it a point to say Vreenak would likely arrive if Sisko asked... that's an advantage no one else had. Considering this entire endeavor hinged on Vreenak coming to DS9, Sisko was absolutely essential in this.
I'm not sure even Section 31 could have pulled it off without Sisko being a draw for Vreenak.
Sucks to be Romulans then.
In WW2 Britain diverted food shipments from India to keep Britain feed during the battle of the Atlantic. It caused a famine un India. However it kept Britain going in the war and thus led to the downfall of the NAZIs. I'm glad Britain did it because it means I'm here alive now. War sucks people die, what matters is you win and the UK won and Germany and Japan didn't.
Earth and the Federation remained free. They won the Dominion war, so sisko decision was correct no matter how many Romulans died.
This presumes the Dominon win the war or otherwise are in a position to take action, though.
Nobody anticipated the Prophets involving themselves in the war, yet they did.
In the first episode with the Jack Pack, said pack anticipated that the Federation would eventually lose the war, but they were wrong because events occurred that they couldn't anticipate.
We have no idea how things might have played out if the Romulans hadn't joined the war but S31 had still infected the Founders.
In one of their models, the Jack Pack did anticipate the Romulans entering the war like they did, only later and in not the same way as presented here.
In any event, there is no 'moral' decision when it comes to war... not if you want to win. Garak in "ROCKS AND SHOALS" was right when he said humans put a lot of rules in war... rules that make it more difficult to win. Especially when the other side fights with no rules of war.
I don't like it and wish such things never happened, but that's another reason why wars should be avoided whenever possible.
In any event, there is no 'moral' decision when it comes to war... not if you want to win. Garak in "ROCKS AND SHOALS" was right when he said humans put a lot of rules in war... rules that make it more difficult to win. Especially when the other side fights with no rules of war.
I don't like it and wish such things never happened, but that's another reason why wars should be avoided whenever possible.
I think that’s true to a degree. But what I love about DS9 is they explore the flip side of that.
I’ve always liked the convo between Dukat and Weyoun in “Sacrifice of Angels” about what constitutes victory. Because both of their versions of total victory are highly immoral but would arguably just foster more rebellion among the populations that are left. In both, you see their ignorance.
Dukat’s ego believes a conquered people should come to appreciate the victors, and can’t understand why people won’t recognize their “greatness.” And one of the biggest flaws of the Founders is they don’t understand how to deal with their fear of others beyond crushing it.
A person or nation who starts a war is never moral or ethical.
If you are on the defence then everything is fair game.
The Dominion and cardassisns were always in the wrong as they started the war. The Federation was on the defence. To survive anything is justifiable.
WW2 Japan,italy and Germany started it and and horrors wrought in that war were squarely 100% on them.
Last edited:
And even the "correct" decision is often horrifying. Had Truman waged conventional war on Japan, it would have cost a million American lives, but the invasion process also destroyed Japan utterly. Instead of recovering in mere decades, it would likely have taken centuries, if they recovered at all. But the fact remains 150,000 people died, tens of thousands more had horrific burns, and untold others died from radiation-inflicted cancer.
Most of Europe recovered in 20 or so years. We had already burned a good portion of Japan to the ground.
Death toll would’ve likely been higher. Not sure if it would’ve slowed rebuilding that dramatically.
Except that even what counts as "starting a war" is potentially open to interpretation.
Generally, a military invasion of the other country's territory qualifies.
What if there's a legitimate dispute as to where one country's territory begins and the other ends?
I'm being a bit facetious here, since typically I think everyone would agree that the side that engages in violence loses the moral high ground.
In general, one's regard for ethical dilemmas will depend a lot on whether you think the captain made the right call. Assuming there was a call to be made.
In the matter of "Pale Moonlight", most people seem to support Sisko. In "Tuvix", I think they're kind of even. And in "Dear Doctor", I think the majority of fans feel thar Archer acted wrongly.
In the matter of "Pale Moonlight", most people seem to support Sisko. In "Tuvix", I think they're kind of even. And in "Dear Doctor", I think the majority of fans feel thar Archer acted wrongly.
JD Vance: "Look, stop bitching about your kids' toys for a bit and consider this... if they end up fighting a war, we're going to make damn sure that's a US-made weapon they're holding!"
Vance Just Made Trump’s Dolls Comment Even Weirder
JD Vance took Donald Trump’s comments to an even more nonsensical place.newrepublic.com
You sort that out by diplomatic means.
Soon as you invade you are in the wrong.
I always thought the ethical dilemma in "I, Borg" was idiotic. "Oh, gee, is it ethical for us to wipe out the Borg?" Well, since the Borg only exist to commit genocide on a planetary scale, are responsible for billions if not trillions of deaths, and contribute absolutely NOTHING in return... Fucking YES. Wipe them all out.
