Payback can be a bitch. The Romulans killed an entire Starfleet crew, and the lost a senator. I call that a bargain.
Were they bad decisions and were the decisions truly amoral? I would think not using every tool at your disposal to save lives and possibly end fighting earlier is also an amoral state of being. Could I pull the trigger on such a plan that essentially sentences four or five people (we also have to remember Vreenak's pilot and guards) to death to possibly save thousands or millions? I don't know? Luckily, I will never be in a position to have to make that kind of choice. From where I'm sitting, it is math.
I always love how Star Trek having a certain outcome indicates the moral rightness of the character's decision.
There were many issues being addressed by the episode, making it difficult to encapsulate them all. I believe that a major part of the episode is how the interests of the state can complicate one's moral code.
I think Sisko, even unknowingly, qualifies as an accessory to murder. I also think when called on it, he would admit to it.
I think that's more the point. I don't think it is meant to have that clear answer, and its nebulousness is why we are still taking about it 20 years hence. I would completely agree.
More like raison d'état does not match up with individual morality. The state will, and often does, things it denies its citizens.
I like "In the Pale Moonlight", it's my favorite episode of DS9, but it's as far from a morality play as you can get. But someone torn up over pragmatism? Yeah, I can see that.
Yes, and I would prefer that. I have plenty of other places to get my moral lessons. A TV show isn't my go to.