Dukat = Evil?

[Temis the Vorta]

Evil isn't a Christian term, really...

And by that logic, no human terms should be applied to any alien in fiction.

Humans had the concept of evil long before Christianity arose. And Star Trek's "aliens" are obviously just humans in disguise. Maybe "real" aliens would be so unlike us that "good" and "evil" wouldn't apply, but Star Trek has never been like that.

But does doing evil deeds make a person evil?

What else would make them evil? How about someone who thinks evil thoughts but never acts on them and for all outward appearances is a saint? Is that person evil instead? I'd call them extra saintly since they are squelching their impulses so thoroughly. All that matters is what someone does, not what they think.

Conditions were still terrible, but I think without Dukat they would have been far worse.

He could have done a lot more to help the Bajoran. He could have sabotaged the Cardassians as much as possible without getting caught; he could have rebelled and helped the Bajorans overtly. They might have killed him as a probable spy, but at least he would have taken the chance. Or he could have gotten away to the Federation and requested help for the Bajorans, or just hid out for the rest of his life. At least he would no longer be part of an evil system.

 

[sonak]

Evil isn't a Christian term, really...

And by that logic, no human terms should be applied to any alien in fiction.

Humans had the concept of evil long before Christianity arose. And Star Trek's "aliens" are obviously just humans in disguise. Maybe "real" aliens would be so unlike us that "good" and "evil" wouldn't apply, but Star Trek has never been like that.

But does doing evil deeds make a person evil?

What else would make them evil? How about someone who thinks evil thoughts but for all outward appearances is a saint? Is that person evil instead?

depends on whether you're a consequentialist or intentionalist.


Personally, I'd prefer someone who had terrible deeds in their heart, but did all kinds of good works out of a desire for religious salvation or fear of punishment to someone who had all kinds of noble intentions but never bothers to follow through.

 

[RoJoHen]

But does doing evil deeds make a person evil?

What else would make them evil? How about someone who thinks evil thoughts but never acts on them and for all outward appearances is a saint? Is that person evil instead? I'd call them extra saintly since they are squelching their impulses so thoroughly. All that matters is what someone does, not what they think.

Sure, but does doing evil things make one evil forever? Sure, Dukat did evil things during the Occupation. Does that mean he should be considered an evil person for the rest of his life?

 

[The Dominion]

I said being the head of the Occupation made him evil.

But it didn't, because he didn't ultimately make the political decision, he was just put in charge.

And Hans Frank didn't make the political decision to invade and occupy Poland, he was just put in charge of that occupation. But the man was still executed for his war crimes.

Because, hey, guess what, not being the head of state does not mean you didn't make the choice to help carry out atrocities.

Well, he certainly is guilty of doing nothing to help, and from a legal point of view he does deserve to be executed. But what I was talking about was the character himself. He wasn't pure 100% evil. He certainly wasn't inexcusable, but he wasn't quite the devil either.

He wasn't a genocidal madman, he didn't particularly hate the Bajorans (at least not until afterwards, when he started to feel they were a threat to his ego and self image, because they represented a stain on his character.) He wasn't the most unreasonable or cruel Gul during the occupation, and he did make concessions to the Bajorens under his rule. That, of course doesn't make him real swell guy, or excuse him from his crimes, but it doesn't make him a totally one dimensional evil character either.

As far as his character goes, that made it feel like he could have come close to turning himself around, if he wouldn't have tried to violently suppress the guilt about what he did. But in the end he didn't, and that is the deciding factor on weather he was good or not.

 

[Tulaberry whine]

Consider Quark's comments, when the Cardassians re-invade, there are no Ghetto fences, no Bajoran slaves and no sign that Gul Dukat's pushing for that...

Perhaps. However, he made his intentions to re-occupy Bajor clear before he had even retaken the station.

It was Weyoun who had to rein him in and it's made plain that it was the Dominion who kept Dukat and the Cardassians in check after they had captured the station.

In any case, this is a really rather odd thing to say considering at the same time Dukat was leading an aggressive war of expansion that eventually resulted in the deaths of billions.

 

[Lord Garth]

Dukat was almost every bad-guy type rolled into one. Slave owner, occupier, adulterer, and cult leader.

He didn't see himself as evil but I would say he was. I would argue Gul Darheel was a darker shade of evil than Dukat, even if he was in a lower position, but it's only a matter of degree. Darheel seemed to be the type who took pleasure in what he did and made no apology while Dukat rationalized everything and constantly sought approval and understanding from others for what he did, no matter what it was.

 

[Nerys Ghemor]

And that is an excellent summation of the two characters and why they are both evil.

 

[indolover]

Evil is such a specific christian term should it really be used for an alien? There are lots of things you can call him* without resorting to an external force that takes him over (until, perhaps, an external force does take him over at which point you could justifiably say he is Evil).

*amoral, psychotic, pitiless, misanthrope, genocidal, etc etc

I think human morality (which in reality is subjective in itself) cannot be applied to aliens, especially since their evolution and psychology would be different to our own.

Take Klingons for instance, they may see a lack of aggressiveness as evil. Ferengi may see charity and modesty as evil. Vulcans may see being overly emotive as evil. It all depends as said on basic evolution/psychology.