• Welcome! The TrekBBS is the number one place to chat about Star Trek with like-minded fans.
    If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

In the mirror universe, would evil races/peoples be good?

indolover

Fleet Captain
If good people in the real universe are the opposite in the mirror universe (such as an evil mirror Kira, or an evil mirror Spock), then would evil people in the real universe be good persons in the mirror universe?

So, would persons such as Dukat, Seska or even Lore if he existed be good? What about the Founders, or even the Borg?
 
It's possible that the Mirror Universe isn't so much a mirrorverse but a darker universe.

So theoretically, the good guys would be bad, and the bad guys would be EVER MORE bad.
 
What does that mean, "evil"? Categorizing people and, even worse, races as "good" and "evil" seems very childish.

People in the so-called "Mirror Universe" were never the "opposite" of their regular counterparts. What does that even mean? To be the opposite, would they have to be different in every possible way? But then they wouldn't even seem like different versions of the same people, would they? The fact that the first MU episode was called "Mirror, Mirror" does not mean that the universe they visited in that episode was literally an inverted world where things were the opposite (which is a completely absurd idea in itself). It never worked that way in any of the episodes we've seen, or else Spock, for instance, wouldn't be so frank or have his own idea of honor (however different from the regular Spock). Many of the counterparts to the regular 'good' characters weren't particularly 'evil', even if they did less savory things than their prime universe counterparts (Forrest, T'Pol, Trip, Soval, Spock, O'Brien, Jennifer, even Sisko.) Quark wasn't 'evil' in either universe. Mirror Garak was definitely not a nice guy, but, frankly, the regular Garak wasn't exactly the most morally upstanding person, either - he was just more complex and interesting. The only time when they took a really unlikable character and made them good in the "Mirror" universe was Brunt - and that was at the point when DS9 Mirror universe was becoming a complete travesty that nobody, least of all the writers, took seriously in any way.

The so-called "Mirror" universe is just a parallel universe (one of the many, according to "Parallels") where things went differently, which created different conditions for many of the characters: the Terran Empire, a more militaristic Bajor, etc. I can't see how or why would the Founders or the Borg be in any way different in the MU. As for people like Dukat, it depends on the circumstances.
 
What does that mean, "evil"? Categorizing people and, even worse, races as "good" and "evil" seems very childish.

Enslaving species, threatening to kill millions if not billions, being royal jerks for no reason, torture, making it no secret you intend to keep conquering others simply because they exist; Basically the kind of stuff where you just have to face it and say "This is wrong' instead of running away and hiding behind the flimsy justification of "The world is entirely grey and there is no such thing as good and evil" as a way of cowardly not doing anything or saying anything simply because said evil folks may have one or two admirable or impressive qualities to them that blinds others to the truth of their nature and actions.
 
What does that mean, "evil"? Categorizing people and, even worse, races as "good" and "evil" seems very childish.

Enslaving species, threatening to kill millions if not billions, being royal jerks for no reason, torture, making it no secret you intend to keep conquering others simply because they exist; Basically the kind of stuff where you just have to face it and say "This is wrong' instead of running away and hiding behind the flimsy justification of "The world is entirely grey and there is no such thing as good and evil" as a way of cowardly not doing anything or saying anything simply because said evil folks may have one or two admirable or impressive qualities to them that blinds others to the truth of their nature and actions.

That was a pretty good response. Well stated.
 
"We are Borg. Resistance to our kindness is futile. Can we get you a snack, or maybe something to drink?"
 
When Alice went through the looking glass, she didn't go to opposite world. While Earth and the Federation in the MU were certainly very different in TOS, even then it was obviously not "opposite" universe.

The Klingons in the DS9 MU episodes certainly weren't "opposite", if anything they were even more barbaric and warlike. And as it has been said, the Borg and the Founders are on the other side of the Galaxy, event that altered the MU in the Alpha quadrant don't necessarily have any effect on the MU.

Although for the sake of discussion if you wanted to go with the Destiny trilogy of novels there might not have been Borg at all in the MU.
 
It's basically the Stargate SG-1 Rules of "dark" universes: Good guys are bad, bad guys are WORSE.
 
What does that mean, “evil”? Categorizing people and, even worse, races as “good” and “evil” seems very childish.
So Hitler was just misunderstood, then?

Uh-oh, I Godwinned!
The fact that the first MU episode was called “Mirror, Mirror” does not mean that the universe they visited in that episode was literally an inverted world where things were the opposite (which is a completely absurd idea in itself). It never worked that way in any of the episodes we've seen, or else Spock, for instance, wouldn't be so frank or have his own idea of honor (however different from the regular Spock).
And in “Mirror, Mirror,” the Halkans were the same peaceful race in both universes. So it seems that in the MU, some things are opposite to our own universe, some are the same, and some are just, well, different.

Frankly, I don't care -- as long as we see plenty of bare female midriffs.
It's basically the Stargate SG-1 Rules of “dark” universes: Good guys are bad, bad guys are WORSE.
No, bad guys are BADDER!
 
What does that mean, "evil"? Categorizing people and, even worse, races as "good" and "evil" seems very childish.

Enslaving species, threatening to kill millions if not billions, being royal jerks for no reason, torture, making it no secret you intend to keep conquering others simply because they exist; Basically the kind of stuff where you just have to face it and say "This is wrong' instead of running away and hiding behind the flimsy justification of "The world is entirely grey and there is no such thing as good and evil" as a way of cowardly not doing anything or saying anything simply because said evil folks may have one or two admirable or impressive qualities to them that blinds others to the truth of their nature and actions.
Very nice speech. I applaud you. But let's look at the specifics now, shall we?

"Enslaving species"? In what capacity? "Threatening to kill millions if not billions..." Again, in what capacity? Say, there is is this state, empire, whatever that's been threatening, killing and enslaving for centuries. Let's say all leaders are evil. How about all their soldiers? Say, some of them are drafted, and ordered to kill and threaten and enslave. Maybe they can't refuse for fear of being killed themselves. But they're all evil. Now how about all the civilians back home who use slaves, or use the product of slave work. They're all also evil, I presume. Now how about all of those who aren't participating in any of the killing, but are wholeheartedly supporting their leaders and their policy? Evil. Now those who aren't quite supporting, but they're just indifferent. Or those who are just doing nothing to stop it...

USA practiced slavery for a long time. Was everyone who ever owned slaves evil? Was Thomas Jefferson evil? Was every Southern gentleman and belle evil?

Now let's see if you're a member of an enslaved race, you're trying to survive, you're hungry, you're scared, your family is starving, you have been abused and humiliated. You start doing things to appease your masters. You become a collaborator, you facilitate slavery and abuse - and maybe you start abusing and humiliating people yourself. You're evil, right? But are you also a victim?

Or maybe you're a member of an enslaved race, and you decide that you have had enough of slavery and abuse, and you start fighting for freedom. You start blowing people up, you kill a lot of soldiers, and you also kill a lot of hapless civilians. You're a terrorist and a mass murderer. You're evil?

Or, how about... You're a child. A militia comes over and takes you. They teach you to kill people. You kill a lot of people, you rape, you torture them... You're evil?

Or, you're a happy child of well-off parents who went to a good school, got a good job, married, had kids, had a normal life as a decent family man and neighbor. You never really gave a damn about anything except yourself and a few other people in your life. You hate immigrants, gays, people with different skin color, people of a different religion (but you don't speak about it in wrong company), and you're disgusted by all those hobos out there who dirty the streets because are too lazy to work, they should all be shot if it was up to you. But you've always been a decent citizen and never did anything wrong. You are a good person.

Your speech above sounds great, but kind of falls apart when applied to the real world. It's very easy to point to Adolf Hitler or Ted Bundy as an example of evil, and Gandhi as an example of good, but the problem is, most people fall in between. So what do you do with them? Do you count percentages of evilness, and categorize as 'evil' those who fall over 50%, while others fall into the 'good' category, or what?

What does that mean, “evil”? Categorizing people and, even worse, races as “good” and “evil” seems very childish.
So Hitler was just misunderstood, then?
No, Hitler was evil, and not just that, he was eeeevil, because he was this monster that came out of nowhere and single-handedly started a war and killed 6 millions of Jews. I don't know how he managed to do it, since he had nobody's support, and the whole world was against him from the start, you know. I think he was probably an alien with superpowers.

Or maybe he had help from a bunch of other aliens with superpowers (they were called "Nazis"). They battled Humans, who were all good. In the end, the good Humans won and the evil Nazis disappeared, and everyone was happy again.

It's always like this, there are just Good people and Evil people (who are probably inhuman monsters). There is never anything in between. C'mon, we can't have that "shades of gray" talk here! That's a cowardly way of not saying or doing anything! Instead, we'll bravely talk about how evil Hitler was. Because, you know, it takes sooo much courage to talk about Hitler in 2010. Oh boy, we just called Hitler evil, aren't we brave!!! We spoke up!
 
Last edited:
The Klingons and Cardassians were probably even more warlike in the MU.

Wouldn't want to dare meet the MU Dominion or Borg, then!
 
It's basically the Stargate SG-1 Rules of "dark" universes: Good guys are bad, bad guys are WORSE.

Yes, but could evil Wolverine be assimilated by the eviler Borg? That's the question about which we all want to know the answer...
 
USA practiced slavery for a long time. Was everyone who ever owned slaves evil?

Perhaps. Was anyone ever forced, against their will, to own slaves? Just because "everyone was doing it" doesn't make it any less evil. Everyone has a choice.
I didn't ask if it (slavery) was evil, but if those people were all evil.

Were they all eviler than their descendants and generally people today who don't practice slavery?

Or maybe those people today were less likely to practice it in the first place, for, well, objective reasons, such as living in a very different society - so it doesn't really speak to their character and individual morality that much?
 
Ah, the old 'I was just taking orders when I butchered those people' routine. That doesn't fly, and it never has. To be fair, that's not exactly what you're saying, DevilEyes, but it could very well be misconstrued.

With respect, DevilEyes, I think you may have missed indolover's point. You are correct, the individuals in a race or country are not 'evil' because of the dominant government system. Not all Terrans in the Terran Empire are 'evil', Borg drones do evil things against their will, some Klingons are more honorable than others, and so on.

However, I don't think indolover was trying to quantify 'evil' and probably meant it in the context of antagonism. In TOS, the Klingons were 'the bad guys' and therefore 'evil.' In Voyager, 8472 were 'the bad guys' and therefore identified as 'evil.' So I don't think that's childish at all. Is it childish to call the Klingons the antagonists? Or to say the Borg are the bad guys? Are you saying you'd never describe the Dominion as 'the bad guys'?

It's not doing evil things that makes someone evil. It's the decision to consistently, repeatedly, knowingly, sapiently, reasoningly do evil things that makes someone evil.

So no, 'evil' people are not necessarily 'good' in the MU, antagonistic races are not necessarily benevolent in the MU, and 'good' people are not necessarily 'evil' in the MU. It's the circumstances that are mirrored, not the people. Look at Smiley, Quark, and Sisko for example. They weren't 'evil.'
 
I thought this was answered in that mirror episode where Brunt was a nice and helpful guy, unlike his obnoxious, self-centered regular universe self. :D
 
Ah, the old 'I was just taking orders when I butchered those people' routine. That doesn't fly, and it never has. To be fair, that's not exactly what you're saying, DevilEyes, but it could very well be misconstrued.
Hopefully not, since I think my point was (IMO) very clear, and I listed many different examples, from terrorists/freedom fighters to child soldiers, so I don't know why people would get stuck on the mention of chain of command. (But incidentally, the international tribunal does seem to rank some war criminals as 'eviler' than others, for the same crimes: they seem to be especially after the people high up in the ranks, those who give orders. So maybe you should take the complaint to them...)

With respect, DevilEyes, I think you may have missed indolover's point. You are correct, the individuals in a race or country are not 'evil' because of the dominant government system. Not all Terrans in the Terran Empire are 'evil', Borg drones do evil things against their will, some Klingons are more honorable than others, and so on.

However, I don't think indolover was trying to quantify 'evil' and probably meant it in the context of antagonism. In TOS, the Klingons were 'the bad guys' and therefore 'evil.' In Voyager, 8472 were 'the bad guys' and therefore identified as 'evil.' So I don't think that's childish at all. Is it childish to call the Klingons the antagonists? Or to say the Borg are the bad guys? Are you saying you'd never describe the Dominion as 'the bad guys'?

It's not doing evil things that makes someone evil. It's the decision to consistently, repeatedly, knowingly, sapiently, reasoningly do evil things that makes someone evil.
Now you've contradicted yourself. What about all those people who do evil things, but haven't made a decision to consistently, repeatedly, knowingly, sapiently, reasoningly do evil things?

Thing is, most people don't just make a decision to do evil things. Evil Overlords in fiction might, but most people in real life don't just say "now I am going to be evil". The OP makes the Mirror Universe seem like a place where people are just being EVIL for evil's sake. It doesn't work that way. If a character whose counterpart is good in the prime universe is evil in the MU, it's because of a specific set of circumstances that drove them to become more ruthless, more violent, more selfish, etc. Or because of the society/culture that fostered and encouraged ruthlessness and violence. In those terms, we may also say that Terran Empire, or the Klingon-Cardassian Alliance, are evil - not that every individual is evil, but that they are a corrupted, violent, evil society/culture, and therefore likely to shape many more individuals in such a way.

I don't think we could just use that to encompass the entire universe. What about all those worlds enslaved by the Terran Empire, or the Alliance? What about all the worlds we didn't even get to see?It's a big galaxy... If Humans or Bajorans are a lot more ruthless and murderous, it doesn't mean that the entire universe is like that.
 
Or maybe those people today were less likely to practice it in the first place, for, well, objective reasons, such as living in a very different society - so it doesn't really speak to their character and individual morality that much?

Society is irrelevant. Like I said, just because everyone was doing a thing, does not make that thing any less evil.

Those who commit evil acts are evil persons.
 
Or maybe those people today were less likely to practice it in the first place, for, well, objective reasons, such as living in a very different society - so it doesn't really speak to their character and individual morality that much?

Society is irrelevant. Like I said, just because everyone was doing a thing, does not make that thing any less evil.

Those who commit evil acts are evil persons.
Society is irrelevant? :wtf: Are you serious?

So you don't think that it was society that was the problem? It's just that the 19th century happened to have a high concentration of evil individuals, by pure chance - while the people today are, by contrast, so wonderful?

Serial killers might be an aberration. Things like slavery and oppression on a large scale, genocide, mass murder, are a much wider problem, the problem of a society.

And if we today have such concepts as human rights, equality, Geneva convention... things that we take for granted and that have been taught all our lives... it seems silly to pat ourselves on the back on being such wonderful individuals, compared to our evil ancestors.

Say, for instance, person A lived in early-mid 19th century American South, was an abolitionist and spoke against slavery; person B lives in 21st century and speaks against slavery...

Is it the same thing? Who do you think I am more impressed with?

I thought this was answered in that mirror episode where Brunt was a nice and helpful guy, unlike his obnoxious, self-centered regular universe self. :D
So why were the Cardassians and the Klingons still 'bad guys'?

Seriously - the writers obviously weren't taking the MU seriously at all at that point, so I don't think that the episode can answer any questions. They just had random crap happen because they thought it would be fun. Nice Brunt? Flesh and blood Vic? More girl-on-girl action? Bring it on!
 
If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

Sign up / Register


Back
Top