In the pale Moonlight DS9 S6:EP19
- Thread starter CobraCommander
- Start date
Even if Sisko was completely wrong...
I'd say that makes the story more interesting.
I'd say that makes the story more interesting.
Let's stick to Trek unh? I discuss enough real world politics in TNZ.
I have a pretty elastic view of morality as it relates to national survival. The Klingons were willing to fight against the Dominion that covers up a multitude of sins. At least until the Dominion is dealt with.In fact when it comes to wars of national survival concerns over morality and ethics are better left to historians.
I might be incorrect, but I've always thought the Klingon Empire had prior to its war with Cardassia been keeping its nose clean as far as wars of conquest were concerned.
They're Betazoids, not Obi-Wan Kenobi.
It's called you pop in from warp speed and swiftly take over a planet of largely-pacifists.
"I am sensing a lot of hostility from those Jem'Hadar" 
The positiong about being allied with the Klingons is perhaps an interesting one. Don't we regularly see lots of Klingons in the 24th Century bemoaning the 'weakness' of the Empire as it stands, and how usually the Federation plays a part in it? It seems to corroborate the position that the Empire had been keeping it's nose clean so to speak, post Khitomer at the least.
The positiong about being allied with the Klingons is perhaps an interesting one. Don't we regularly see lots of Klingons in the 24th Century bemoaning the 'weakness' of the Empire as it stands, and how usually the Federation plays a part in it? It seems to corroborate the position that the Empire had been keeping it's nose clean so to speak, post Khitomer at the least.
ITPM had a good plot but a faulty presentation in that Sisko's staring-at-the-camera monologues were overwrought, near-hysterical, and drove home every plot point with a sledgehammer, obliterating any potential for subtlety. Telling the story in flashback was probably a bad call.
I don't think this is necessarily the case. There are episodes like TNG Preemptive Strike and VOY Latent Image or Tuvix where the characters are presented with situations where there isn't a simple, perfect solution that lets them come out with a clear conscience.
I think it's especially important to remember that a great deal of what DS9 did was anticipated on TNG.
Which was kinda the point. The plot is interesting and important, but what makes this episode a AAA instalment is its focus on Sisko's conscience and seeing just how strong the struggle is inside him to justify the situation he allowed himself to get involved in.
I wholeheartedly disagree.
IMO the exact opposite of all that is true. The Sisko's great monologues are exactly what sets ITPM head and shoulders above all other episodes of Trek, and makes it Trek's very best episode. The presentation is immaculate.
Best of all, is the final line before the fade to black - absolutely perfect- best line ever spoken in Trek!
I agree with you, but Sisko is no different in this regard than Picard or Kirk and I assume Janeway too (not familiar enough with the minutiae of VOY to be sure). One of the most common lines in Trek seems to be, "it is my duty to ensure the safety of my crew!" meaning, the Captain never cares what all other life forms get harmed so long as they are harmed whilst the Captains are protecting themselves and their men.
I respect Sisko more than the other Captain regarding this because unlike them, the Sisko is at least honest (to himself) in ITPM about the underhanded nature of his actions. On the other hand, the other Captains play off their playing God activities as if there is no possible question as to their moral right to do so, with the implication that they have that right simply because they are human.
That's quite a broad statement. In order to keep one's morals intact, war must be avoided at all costs? So no matter what the consequence of avoiding war, doing so is the only way to remain true to one's morals? So you don't think that Picard, for example, would be able to find a situation in which he felt war was the only acceptable alternative for the good of the Federation and was able to participate in it in such a way that it did not compromise his morals? Because I certainly think he could.
Sisko acknowledged he went against his own morals, and he felt that it was the only possible course of action. But that doesn't mean he was correct in his assessment and that there was no other alternative. He was one man. A powerful and important man in the war to be sure, but still just one man. He made a judgment on his own that this was the only way to turn the tide of the war. But how are we to know that he had all of the information necessary to make that decision? How do we know that there wasn't an alternative that he overlooked that could have allowed him to keep his morals intact?
Bottom line: I don't believe that defeat, surrender, or abandoning ones morals and principles are the only options available in a war.
^ Perhaps so, but that's not what his statement said. He said simply "If you want to keep your morals intact, war needs to be avoided at all costs." That's painting with an extremely broad brush, and I simply don't think the statement, as he phrased it, is true. It could be true for an individual, depending on what their personal morals are. But it's certainly not true across the board.
But the broader, and more Trek-related, point here is whether or not it was true for Sisko. And I just don't think that it was. I think avoiding war at all costs would have, in fact, been a violation of his morals because it would have meant the population of Earth, and of Bajor, and of every place he cared about put into Dominion slavery. His personal morals would not allow him to stand idly by and watch that happen. However, when he went so far as to work with Garak and be complicit in the murder of a Romulan official, he acknowledged that he had gone too far in the other direction for his own morals, but he felt that he had no other choice. I don't think he was in a position to make that determination, though, and I disagree with the notion that his only options were "sacrifice morals" or "let the Federation be defeated."
But the broader, and more Trek-related, point here is whether or not it was true for Sisko. And I just don't think that it was. I think avoiding war at all costs would have, in fact, been a violation of his morals because it would have meant the population of Earth, and of Bajor, and of every place he cared about put into Dominion slavery. His personal morals would not allow him to stand idly by and watch that happen. However, when he went so far as to work with Garak and be complicit in the murder of a Romulan official, he acknowledged that he had gone too far in the other direction for his own morals, but he felt that he had no other choice. I don't think he was in a position to make that determination, though, and I disagree with the notion that his only options were "sacrifice morals" or "let the Federation be defeated."
Similar threads
