Was Garak an evil character, or a shade of grey?

[Mr. Laser Beam]

^ Odo was not innocent, not from Garak's perspective. Odo was a legitimate combatant.

Dukat would have tortured true innocents, like Jake or even Molly. Garak would never do that.

 

[Nerys Ghemor]

Actually--I think you've got that backwards. Dukat might spare a child, for the twisted reason that it would make him feel magnanimous (think Comitus in Gladiator--"AM I NOT MERCIFUL???!"). It would be for very much the wrong reason, but I think Dukat would spare a child. Garak...he wouldn't. He'd slaughter babies if he thought that would serve Cardassia.

 

[Gul Re'jal]

^ Odo was not innocent, not from Garak's perspective. Odo was a legitimate combatant.

Dukat would have tortured true innocents, like Jake or even Molly. Garak would never do that.

Dukat would not torture "true innocents", he'd have to have a reason--from his perspective. Just like Garak had to torture Odo because he saw Odo guilty of whatever.

I also think that Garak would torture "innocents" if he only had a reason to, including children. Such people always had "good reasons". Neither of them would do it for fun, both would find a way to justify it as serving Cardassia.

 

[ProtoAvatar]

Dukat killed millions while he was on control of the bajoran occupation - and then went on to try to conquer the alpha and beta quadrants, then directly burn tha alpha/beta quadrants. The means he used were callous and selfish - his superficial excuses/self-delusion not changing that.
That puts him safely in 'evil' territory.

Garak is as innocent as an angel by comparison.
His actions were consistently for the 'greater good' of the alpha/beta quadrants - and, sometimes, but not always, accomplishing these goals would have improved his own standing.
'Greater good', 'obediance to the state' are values aggressively indoctrinated into cardassians from childhood; not that that stops the cardassians from plotting and stabbing each other's backs as a matter of course, as their overactive politics shows.

Garak also only resorted to criminal means to accomplish these goals when there were no legitimate means to accomplish them; and in these cases he actually acknowledged it and felt remorse, as opposed to Dukat and his excuses.

 

[Mr. Laser Beam]

^ Exactly. Dukat never showed remorse or guilt for anything he ever did.

Garak, OTOH, was a man of his own unique moral code, and tried to live by it. Indeed, his Obsidian Order implant was needed to help him cope with the pain he suffered in the course of his life.

And I stand by my position that Garak would not torture or kill the innocent. Definitely not children. Garak, being a loyal Cardassian, abides by the devotion to family. Killing a child strikes at the very heart of that.

 

[JustKate]

You can't (and "you" doesn't refer to Laser necessarily) have it both ways: Either Garak would do anything if he thought it would benefit Cardassia or there are lines he would not cross even to benefit Cardassia, including things he would think were wrong under other circumstances, such as killing a child.

I think Garak really would do anything to benefit Cardassia, if he thought it was important enough. If, say, a head of state who needed to be eliminated for the benefit of Cardassia happened to be a child...yeah, he'd do it. He wouldn't enjoy it, he would feel bad about it, he'd try to find a better way, but if he were convinced it was necessary for the greater good of Cardassia, he'd do it. I don't think he'd even hesitate that much.

What differentiates him from Dukat, IMO, isn't so much what each man would do - it's the motives they'd have for doing things. With Dukat, Dukat himself almost always came first - well before Cardassia and even (much of the time though not quite all of the time) his children; with Garak, everything was for Cardassia. And the other thing that differentiated the two men is that Garak was always more honest about his actions than Dukat. Dukat could look at subjugating, enslaving and tormenting a planet, a people, and individuals and call it "mercy," and he'd use that word not only to other people but even to himself in the solitude of his own soul. He was perfectly capable of believing that he was merciful even while behaving like a monster - a charming monster, but a monster nonetheless. Garak, on the other hand, would know and admit, to himself and, when it suited his purposes, to others, exactly what he was doing.

But to answer the OP, grey - definitely grey. All interesting characters are at least somewhat grey, IMO, and that includes the good guys.

 

[DevilEyes]

And I stand by my position that Garak would not torture or kill the innocent. Definitely not children. Garak, being a loyal Cardassian, abides by the devotion to family. Killing a child strikes at the very heart of that.

Not if the child was an orphan. Or born out of wedlock. Or half-Bajoran. Those children had no status or protection on Cardassia.

In that same way that the KKK not being racist towards white Protestants has to stand for something.

Interesting discussion here. However, the show itself supports Bob Karo's point. The Federation is presented as totally justified in perpetuating the genocide against the Founders by withholding the cure from them. I don't agree with the showrunners doing that. But, TheGodBen, will you criticize the showrunners' decision to promote the message presented by Bob Karo, namely that genocide is ok as long as humans are doing it to non-humans?

That question would make sense if the show had ever promoted that message. Maybe you watched some other show, since DS9 clearly presented the attempted genocide of the Founders as wrong.

But to answer the OP, grey - definitely grey. All interesting characters are at least somewhat grey, IMO, and that includes the good guys.

True.

 

[DonIago]

The Federation's refusal to help the Founders with the virus isn't portrayed as a moral act, but rather an act of desperation. They were desperate to win the war and were willing to "look the other way" on immoral acts (see ITPM, IAESL) if it increased the odds of them winning.

Might have been interesting to see how things would have gone over if the Founder virus or the ITPM plot had been brought up much earlier in the war, before the casualties really started to mount.

 

[Nerys Ghemor]

^ Exactly. Dukat never showed remorse or guilt for anything he ever did.

Dukat was definitely a sociopath.

But I actually think that Garak is the more coldblooded, the more evil. The difference is that Dukat is quixotic--what makes him dangerous is that sometimes he gets a whim to do something horrible...but other time his whims can blow the other way and he can do something "good." Garak, however, is consistently amoral. In this way he is more predictable than Dukat, and that might make him "look" better in comparison somehow, but I think it would be foolish to say that Garak is in ANY way a better man than Dukat. Both of them are slimeballs.

 

[Navaros]

Maybe you watched some other show, since DS9 clearly presented the attempted genocide of the Founders as wrong.

Maybe it did at first, in the disease's debut episode, but Sisko and the show itself definitely presented the genocide against the Founders as 100% right starting as of when Sisko withheld the cure from them - and since that was never afterwards shown to be wrong - continuing past the close of the series, i.e. forever.

The Federation's refusal to help the Founders with the virus isn't portrayed as a moral act, but rather an act of desperation. They were desperate to win the war and were willing to "look the other way" on immoral acts (see ITPM, IAESL) if it increased the odds of them winning.

Might have been interesting to see how things would have gone over if the Founder virus or the ITPM plot had been brought up much earlier in the war, before the casualties really started to mount.

So, you are essentially saying that genocide is ok when the going gets tough.

Really, it's not though.

There really is no excuse for genocide, ever, and regardless of any possible excuse, the Feds deliberately choosing to commit genocide by withholding the cure proves that they are evil. And the show delivers a very disturbing message by endorsing that evil as if it is not evil, and perfectly fine.

 

[TheGodBen]

But, TheGodBen, will you criticize the showrunners' decision to promote the message presented by Bob Karo, namely that genocide is ok as long as humans are doing it to non-humans?

Will you criticise the showrunners' decision to promote the message that murder and tricking non-humans into a war that will cost them millions of lives is okay as long it saves human lives?

I can admire a story while not agreeing with the events that transpired, and I'm pretty sure that writers can write that way too.

 

[DonIago]

The Federation's refusal to help the Founders with the virus isn't portrayed as a moral act, but rather an act of desperation. They were desperate to win the war and were willing to "look the other way" on immoral acts (see ITPM, IAESL) if it increased the odds of them winning.

Might have been interesting to see how things would have gone over if the Founder virus or the ITPM plot had been brought up much earlier in the war, before the casualties really started to mount.

So, you are essentially saying that genocide is ok when the going gets tough.

Really, it's not though.

There really is no excuse for genocide, ever, and regardless of any possible excuse, the Feds deliberately choosing to commit genocide by withholding the cure proves that they are evil. And the show delivers a very disturbing message by endorsing that evil as if it is not evil, and perfectly fine.

I'm sorry, where's the part where I'm endorsing the Fed's actions?

 

[ProtoAvatar]

How easy it is to argue on fantasy universes and scenarios.

In the real world, USA bombed 2 cities out of existence - killing ~350000 civilians, who had no say in the war - in a situation that wasn't desperate at all.

Do you endorse this action or not?

 

[Nerys Ghemor]

That could be a thread of its own. I think it would derail this one, personally.

 

[ProtoAvatar]

That could be a thread of its own. I think it would derail this one, personally.

The parallel with the attempted 'founder genocide', condoned due to a 'desperate' (maybe, maybe not) situation is obvious.

And I noticed you haven't answered my question in the least:

"In the real world, USA bombed 2 cities out of existence - killing ~350000 civilians, who had no say in the war - in a situation that wasn't desperate at all.
Do you endorse this action or not?"

 

[DonIago]

Sorry, but this isn't TNZ.

And if you're asking me whether or not I endorse the action, I fail to see what my personal views on that question have to do with the actual thread topic.

 

[Mr. Laser Beam]

^ Exactly. Dukat never showed remorse or guilt for anything he ever did.

Dukat was definitely a sociopath.

But I actually think that Garak is the more coldblooded, the more evil. The difference is that Dukat is quixotic--what makes him dangerous is that sometimes he gets a whim to do something horrible...but other time his whims can blow the other way and he can do something "good." Garak, however, is consistently amoral. In this way he is more predictable than Dukat, and that might make him "look" better in comparison somehow, but I think it would be foolish to say that Garak is in ANY way a better man than Dukat. Both of them are slimeballs.

I think Garak is definitely capable of doing good. The episode "Cardassians", for example.

 

[ProtoAvatar]

Sorry, but this isn't TNZ.

And if you're asking me whether or not I endorse the action, I fail to see what my personal views on that question have to do with the actual thread topic.

You fail to see my point?
It's quote simple, actually. In fact, I already stated it:

It's easy to play the moralist when it comes to fantasy events.
It's a lot harder to do so when it comes to something concrete, something that actually happened in your history; it's a lot harder to bash your honored historical figures.

Until one is willing to throw at Truman&co, for the atomic bombings, the same epithets one throws at Sisko&co for the attempted founder genocide, one should refrain from criticising Sisko&co's actions too much, constantly displaying a huge double standard.
"If your house is made of glass, don't throw stones."

And I couldn't help but notice - you also did not answer my question:
"In the real world, USA bombed 2 cities out of existence - killing ~350000 civilians, who had no say in the war - in a situation that wasn't desperate at all.
Do you endorse this action or not?"

 

[PKTrekGirl]

Sorry, but this isn't TNZ.

And if you're asking me whether or not I endorse the action, I fail to see what my personal views on that question have to do with the actual thread topic.

You fail to see my point?
It's quote simple, actually. In fact, I already stated it:

It's easy to play the moralist when it comes to fantasy events.
It's a lot harder to do so when it comes to something concrete, something that actually happened in your history; it's a lot harder to bash your honored historical figures.

Until one is willing to throw at Truman&co, for the atomic bombings, the same epithets one throws at Sisko&co for the attempted founder genocide, one should refrain from criticising Sisko&co's actions too much, constantly displaying a huge double standard.
"If your house is made of glass, don't throw stones."

And I couldn't help but notice - you also did not answer my question:
"In the real world, USA bombed 2 cities out of existence - killing ~350000 civilians, who had no say in the war - in a situation that wasn't desperate at all.
Do you endorse this action or not?"

*is very curious as to the answer he will get to this question*

And yes - *I* see your point perfectly...and I'm sure others do also.

And tying this back to the original topic, just another example of why DS9 worked so well. No one and no group on this show was completely squeaky clean. And no one was 100% evil. Even Dukat has his moments were he actually does the right thing...and Sisko has an equal number of moments where he does the wrong thing.

That's what sets the show apart - the humanity of it. The idea that good people can do terrible things under the right circumstances, and bad people can likewise do the right thing occasionally.

It's easy to judge the actions of Section 31...and later the Federation in a vacuum. But compare it to a real life situation of similar weight, and it's a whole different story...all of a sudden a lot more 'complicated', with a lot more considerations in play.

Life is rarely black & white...and neither was DS9. And all the better, IMO.

 

[Nerys Ghemor]

PA--I was not TRYING to answer your question. I just thought it was not in context with the thread.