In the pale Moonlight DS9 S6:EP19

[ProtoAvatar]

i don't know, i still think that there must be absolute standards against which moral questions can be judged, and certain actions are good or bad regardless of the context. probably one of the reasons why i dislike ds9, if the fate of the fictional alpha quadrant hangs in the balance, every atrocity is justified.

Your argument has at least one problem:
In many situations (often encountered in war) all the options one has are 'bad', if judged by such absolute, ultimately simple rules.

For example, in 'In the pale moonlight':
You leting millions whose life you were sworn to protect, die - without bothering to take the consent of every one of them - when you could have stopped it IS bad.
You being an accessory to murder IS bad as well.

This is one of the reasons DS9 is a much more profound, better show than TNG or VOY:
DS9 had the courage to pose itself such hard questions;
TNG or VOY always chickened out, they always rigged the universe so that the protagonists had a perfectly moral option (or what the scenarists thought was a perfectly moral option) - unlike what, history reveals, happened/happens in the real world often enough.

 

[Kai Winn]

i guess you regard war as the natural state of things, but i do not. i'm also not qualified to decide or judge what is good for many, i'm occupied with what is good for me, and i don't want to leave the decision making for myself to the siskos. i recall that the federation had the chance to save billions of lifes by surrendering to the dominion as suggested by bashir's enhanced buddies, but to die for the ideals of the federation was evidently worth it.
ds9 more profound than the other series? i wonder why the prophets who knew everything what ever happened or happens in past, present and future, did not shut their wormhole in the first place. logical nonsense like that is the distinct property of ds9.

 

[ProtoAvatar]

Kai Winn

War is a reality - like it or not.

About 'In the pale moonlight' - the position you advocate would actually "leave the decision making to the siskos". It's only that Sisko's decision should be different - let you and millions others die, without asking for your consent.

About DS9 vs TNG, VOY - DS9 had inconsistencies, yes. TNG and VOY had FAR LARGER inconsistencies (aka 'logical nonsense' that is most definitely NOT the distinct property of ds9), etc.
Also - having the prophets close the wormhole would be just more of the same cowardly writing characteristic for TNG or VOY.

 

[DonIago]

Out of curiosity, what would you do if the will of the people was opposed to Sisko's actions?

 

[Jefferies]

Out of curiosity, what would you do if the will of the people was opposed to Sisko's actions?

That is a rather huge assumption in itself. The "people" in this case I suppose are the citizens of the Federation. At the time of the Dominion War the Federation included over 150 members with over 1000 colonised worlds. It's total population is in the hundred billions and might be as high as a trillion. I would expect such a diverse and complex society to have a highly nuanced and differenciated spread of opinion on pretty much any topic, including the War. Also, it is my impression the the members of the Federation don't mingle alot. Rather, they maintain their cultural and ethnic idenity on each of their worlds. Which means there could be quite strong devides on issues between members. Thus, the idea of a monolithic opinion held by a significant majorty of Federation citizens seems much too simplified.

What we know is that the Federation is a representative republic. It's representative body is the Federation Council. Starfleet is entirely under the command of the Council. We heard this many times during the series where even at the small level of Captains commanding a single ship, orders were issued directly from it. The Council represents the people and is elected by them. However, considering the huge diversity that I pointed out above, it probably spends a large amount of time finding compromises which means it's decisions will be a rather multifaceted blend of positions. Just think of Obama's recent health care bill and how profoundly that was changed by passing through the house of representatives and the senate. And that was in a country that has a lot more cultural cohesion compared to the UFP. (Although my hope would be that the Federation Council is enlightened enough to embrace bipartisan or multipartisan politics.)

So comming back to your suggestion, to make it more sensible. What if the Council had decided to go with surrender? Basically what that would mean is that it would be abolishing itself. Surrender would mean submitting to the Dominion and we know they do not have a representative legislature. All democratic constitutions have clauses that require the protection of that constitution and that any attempts to abolish it or fundementally change it's gurantee of rights or principle of democracy are illegal.

Thus snap shot popular opinion against defensive action of Starfleet, or even a (highly unlikely) ruling by the council to surrender would have all been in violation of the Federation Charter (i.e. the Constitution of the Federation) and thus obeying such directives would be treason.

As a Starfleet Officer Sisko was bound to defend the Charter, to ensure it's survival. At the point of ITPM that survival was seriously threatened and thus his actions regardless of public opinion and Council legislation, were constitutionally necessasitated.

 

[DonIago]

I think it's rather simplistic to state that the alternative to Sisko's plan is surrender.

 

[Jefferies]

I think it's rather simplistic to state that the alternative to Sisko's plan is surrender.

Well Sisko made it quite clear in the episode that they were at a turning point of the War. The Federation was loosing and they needed something close to a mircale to turn things around. He might be the Emissary but mircales are still hard to come by. So considering the limited amount of options, doing nothing would have been accepting defeat which is pretty similar to surrender. Or do you have any suggestions to what else Sisko could have done to greatly improve the Federation's chances?

 

[DonIago]

Who says that Sisko has to do anything?

As I recall, we also saw an episode where Bashir and the Brain Trust said the Feds would lose the war. Well, we saw how that turned out.

In any case, asking me what they could have done otherwise is unrealistic. I don't have the level of knowledge that Sisko (much less his superiors) would have regarding the Federation's capabilities.

 

[sonak]

I agree with those who say Sisko did the right thing here. If you try to fight a war while keeping yourself morally pure, you'll probably lose. Wars don't offer "good choices," that's why it's best to avoid them when possible.


Also, Sisko didn't really do much here, Garak did the crime, and what good would it have done to reveal what happened afterward? I agree with Garak's summary: they probably helped to win the war, and the cost was a few deaths and Sisko's self-respect. If anything, it was almost silly how tormented with guilt Sisko was considering the situation.

 

[flemm]

If anything, it was almost silly how tormented with guilt Sisko was considering the situation.

This I disagree with. ItPM is a great episode precisely because Sisko is tormented by it. It's meaningless otherwise: preserving life is the goal; having a moral code and living up to it is also important. What Sisko is forced to confront here is that, in the scheme of things, it's better that he lives with his own shortcomings and accepts that things worked out for the best in this case, than be self-righteously moral, wipe his conscience clean and sacrifice what has been gained, strategically, by his actions.

ItPM is not an inverted-morality play that is supposed to teach us that we can't be moral all the time. It's about one man struggling to do the right thing with the immense burden of the war and millions of lives on his shoulders, and the episode recognizes, as Sisko ends up recognizing, that no one is likely to come through that type of situation with his hands clean.

 

[Kai Winn]

he was probably tormented by other thoughts, like "what business did we have in the delta quadrant? exploration? exploration my ass, it's exploration of resources which belong to someone else. why didn't we shut the wormhole down early on? why not now? what sort of radiation did o'brien use in the episode where his wife was possessed by the evil spirit? a thug, a romulan senator and his bodyguards, or a couple of wormhole aliens speaking mumbojumbo, what difference does it make? are the precious orb hallucinations of a few selected people on bajor worth it to sacrifice billions of life in a war i assisted to provoke?"

 

[indolover]

Sisko is a dude, but he was a monumental dick in that episode.

Who is Sisko to decide the fate of another species just so his own people can be saved? Who is Sisko to reason that "once we fall, you're next!"? That is the Romulans' business, not the Federation's. The Romulans despise the Federation, and frankly for good reason always have, ever since the Federation was founded. So the Romulans would probably be the first to cheer once the Federation fell.

I don't think at all Sisko's actions were justified, and screw consequentialist morality/the ends justify the means. Sisko essentially acted as God, and he had no right to do that to another people, just to save his own skin.

 

[Flying Spaghetti Monster]

Sisko is a dude, but he was a monumental dick in that episode.

Who is Sisko to decide the fate of another species just so his own people can be saved? Who is Sisko to reason that "once we fall, you're next!"? That is the Romulans' business, not the Federation's. The Romulans despise the Federation, and frankly for good reason always have, ever since the Federation was founded. So the Romulans would probably be the first to cheer once the Federation fell.

I don't think at all Sisko's actions were justified, and screw consequentialist morality/the ends justify the means. Sisko essentially acted as God, and he had no right to do that to another people, just to save his own skin.

The fact that you don't like his actions makes for a better episode. It's boring when the viewer agrees with everything a character does. might as well watch an episode where they spend all their time growing stuff in the arboretum

 

[DonIago]

You mean like in that thankfully never-aired Voyager episode, "Kes's Day"?

 

[sonak]

Sisko is a dude, but he was a monumental dick in that episode.

Who is Sisko to decide the fate of another species just so his own people can be saved? Who is Sisko to reason that "once we fall, you're next!"? That is the Romulans' business, not the Federation's. The Romulans despise the Federation, and frankly for good reason always have, ever since the Federation was founded. So the Romulans would probably be the first to cheer once the Federation fell.

I don't think at all Sisko's actions were justified, and screw consequentialist morality/the ends justify the means. Sisko essentially acted as God, and he had no right to do that to another people, just to save his own skin.

Sisko's job was to help the UFP win the war to prevent the Dominion from conquering the Alpha Quadrant-so the Federation/Klingon alliance was fighting to save the butts of those like the Romulans, who were going to let others fight for them.

The stakes are too high in wars like that one for the Federation to try to fight them blindfolded and with one hand tied behind their backs. They needed the Romulans to enter the war to ensure victory, Sisko delivered that.

As I put earlier, if anything, Sisko was overly tormented by his utterly justified actions.

 

[DonIago]

I wonder how history will ultimately record Sisko's actions if and when they become public. Particularly if and when they lead to the Romulans reciprocating.

 

[indolover]

Sisko is a dude, but he was a monumental dick in that episode.

Who is Sisko to decide the fate of another species just so his own people can be saved? Who is Sisko to reason that "once we fall, you're next!"? That is the Romulans' business, not the Federation's. The Romulans despise the Federation, and frankly for good reason always have, ever since the Federation was founded. So the Romulans would probably be the first to cheer once the Federation fell.

I don't think at all Sisko's actions were justified, and screw consequentialist morality/the ends justify the means. Sisko essentially acted as God, and he had no right to do that to another people, just to save his own skin.

Sisko's job was to help the UFP win the war to prevent the Dominion from conquering the Alpha Quadrant-so the Federation/Klingon alliance was fighting to save the butts of those like the Romulans, who were going to let others fight for them.

The stakes are too high in wars like that one for the Federation to try to fight them blindfolded and with one hand tied behind their backs. They needed the Romulans to enter the war to ensure victory, Sisko delivered that.

As I put earlier, if anything, Sisko was overly tormented by his utterly justified actions.

Again, Sisko was playing God by using that reasoning. it's not his role to determine what is best for the Romulans, or any other Alpha Quadrant power.

What really did ensure victory? Wasn't it the Prophets destroying the Dominion fleet, as well as a resistence cell carrying a Breen energy weapon to the Federation?

To me, Sisko's actions were presumptuous.

 

[Quinton O'Connor]

I wonder how history will ultimately record Sisko's actions if and when they become public. Particularly if and when they lead to the Romulans reciprocating.

I can't say for certain because I haven't read any post-DS9 novels yet, but I could have sworn I read somewhere that one of them covered that.

I could be way off, though.

 

[DonIago]

I would think the only way to definitively "cover" it would be to eliminate Sisko and Garak.

 

[Harry Palmer]

In the Pale Moonlight is simply my favorite episode of Trek, while being the most unTrek. It succeeds by not offering Trek solution. Sisko and Garak don't sneak in and out of Dominion HQ fighting a running phaser battle with the Cardassians while Chief O'Brien tries to reroute the transporter signal through the deflector dish. The resolution is a lot more messy. Without doubt this is the most morally ambiguous episode of Trek yet written.

First let's discuss the situation. The war against the Dominion is going badly for the Federation Klingon Alliance which is hanging on by its fingernails. The Dominion had quite cleverly taken steps to isolate both from the rest of the Quadrant by signing a series of Nonaggression Pacts with the Quadrant's other powers both major and minor to insure that isolation. The Dominion we know is run by a genocidal casually brutal race of beings who see all life forms not their own as chattel. They will release plagues designed to slowly and tortuously kill those worlds which defy them or they will simply have legions of Jem'Hadar slaughter the population en masse. And this is what the Dominion would have brought to the Alpha Quadrant. An empire built on the principles of racial superiority and mass murder.


Now the Klingons and Federation they need help and soon. And there's the most powerful potential ally sitting back and watching. Somebody had to do something to get them in the game. Was Sisko right in his actions? It depends on what type of right you're talking about. Morally or ethically right? Strictly speaking no he wasn't. Personally I take the broader view that tricking the Romulans into joining the fight against the aforementioned genocidal mass murdering Domonion is ethically and morally right. Destroying genocidal mass murdering empires is always the right and moral thing especially when you are the current target of said genocidal mass murdering empire. A clear conscience is a poor recompense for a dead civilization. The fact is there was simply no honest way to get the Romulans to join the Allies so dishonest means had to be used. Sometimes you have no choice but to play dirty.


Which dovetails into my opinion of the Section 31 Changeling virus. Turnabout's fair play for the gelatinous murderers.