Spoilers Star Trek: Discovery 2x05 - "Saints of Imperfection"

[XCV330]

I think your question is too simplistic and framed in such a way as to invite only one way of thinking. Nothing occurs in a vacuum, and the choices we have rarely culminate in dualities where only one choice is the right one to make. That being said, genocide is not a viable answer, and an organization willing to engage in it is not one to be lauded, let alone trusted.

Wiping out the entire species of the Founders, or something similar if done to the Borg would have been perfectly viable. While the power vacuum left in their wake would have been difficult to manage, there's no reason to think that the galaxy would be in a worse shape without either species.

It could be argued that when a thorough assessment of a civilization like that of the Dominion or Borg was done and it found that the species could never be reformed in a way that would keep them from being a primary threat to stability and to their neighbors, that such removing such a species would be a de-infestation for the good of all, and therefore a moral imperative.

 

[Locutus of Bored]

Ah, the famed non-answer dodge. You simplistically call S31 the Gestapo, and then accuse me od a simplistic response. Himmler would be proud.

He compared a fictional genocidal secret intelligence service to a real life genocidal secret intelligence/police service.

You compared a real life poster who has never harmed anyone to the facilitator of the Holocaust. Over a Star Trek debate.

See the difference?

(ninja'd by cultcross)

 

[Longinus]

This is fiction. If you write fiction in such a way that it seems to endorse genocide as a valid choice, then something has gone wrong. (Unless you're writing absurd black comedy.) The very fact that so many people seem to think that S31 has a point is completely terrifying and utter perversion of the values Star Trek should uphold.

 

[XCV330]

This is fiction. If you write fiction in such a way that it seems to endorse genocide as a valid choice, then something has gone wrong. (Unless you're writing absurd black comedy.) The very fact that so many people seem to think that S31 has a point is completely terrifying and utter perversion of the values Star Trek should uphold.

It's just a show. No gorns have been harmed.

 

[Greg Cox]

I like to think there's a sane middle ground between "Starfleet must be morally pure and idealistic at all times or it's not STAR TREK!" and "Section 31 is are true heroes who should be allowed to get away with anything for the good of the Federation."

Again, the 23rd century is not supposed to be some of utopian paradise where people always do the right thing, and where Starfleet personnel are always paragons of virtue. Remember Ben Finney framing Kirk for murder because he blamed Kirk for ruing his career? Remember Laurence Marvick being driven to murder and madness because of his unrequited love for Miranda Jones? Remember Dr. Daystrom having a nervous breakdown because he never topped his early successes and now his "Ultimate Computer" has gone rogue?

STAR TREK is not merely a delivery mechanism for providing a Positive Vision of the Future. It's also a fictional drama, which means it's going to be about people in conflict with each others, themselves, their own inner demons and failings, etc. And the same goes for Starfleet and the Federation.

Does Section 31 represent Starfleet as its best? Of course not, and I don't think it's supposed to. Do I find it plausible (and, more importantly, dramatically interesting) that it exists and sometimes goes too far? Absolutely.

No future is perfect, not even on STAR TREK. Lord knows it wasn't on TOS . . ...

 

[Alan Roi]

He compared a fictional genocidal secret intelligence service to a real life genocidal secret intelligence service.

You compared a real life poster who has never harmed anyone to the facilitator of the Holocaust. Over a Star Trek debate.

See the difference?

My apologies to all.

 

[F. King Daniel]

I will say this episode offered the most compelling "argument" yet for the S31 series... although Georgiou is a generic OTT villain with none of the depth of her Prime self (and her crimes are debated to death elsewhere), the "cool stealth ship with neat high-tech gizmos" game was strong.

 

[Longinus]

I like to think there's a sane middle ground between "Starfleet must be morally pure and idealistic at all times or it's not STAR TREK!" and "Section 31 is are true heroes who should be allowed to get away with anything for the good of the Federation."

Again, the 23rd century is not supposed to be some of utopian paradise where people always do the right thing, and where Starfleet personnel are always paragons of virtue. Remember Ben Finney framing Kirk for murder because he blamed Kirk for ruing his career? Remember Laurence Marvick being driven to murder and madness because of his unrequited love for Miranda Jones? Remember Dr. Daystrom having a nervous breakdown because he never topped his early successes and now his "Ultimate Computer" has gone rogue?

STAR TREK is not merely a delivery mechanism for providing a Positive Vision of the Future. It's also a fictional drama, which means it's going to be about people in conflict with each others, themselves, their own inner demons and failings, etc. And the same goes for Starfleet and the Federation.

Does Section 31 represent Starfleet as its best? Of course not, and I don't think it's supposed to. Do I find it plausible (and, more importantly, dramatically interesting) that it exists and sometimes goes too far? Absolutely.

No future is perfect, not even on STAR TREK. Lord knows it wasn't on TOS . . ...

The big difference between the examples you provided and S31 (and the Klingon genocide plan from the last season) is the difference between individuals and institutions. Sure, it is not a perfect future in a sense that every individual is perfect, that would be absurd. But it is kinda apples and ornithopters to compare some individual officers showing poor moral judgement to the Federation having its own genocide department.

 

[Amaris]

Wiping out the entire species of the Founders, or something similar if done to the Borg would have been perfectly viable. While the power vacuum left in their wake would have been difficult to manage, there's no reason to think that the galaxy would be in a worse shape without either species.

It could be argued that when a thorough assessment of a civilization like that of the Dominion or Borg was done and it found that the species could never be reformed in a way that would keep them from being a primary threat to stability and to their neighbors, that such removing such a species would be a de-infestation for the good of all, and therefore a moral imperative.

I disagree. When you can rationalize the total annihilation of a species “for the good of all,” then there’s no limit to what you can do in the name of that “good.”

Hugh was saved. Picard was saved. Seven of Nine was saved. There is ample evidence that shows they can be saved.

 

[eschaton]

To me, the most important thing to note about Section 31 in this episode is they're taking orders directly from Admiral Cornwell. Thus not only are they well known within Starfleet at this time, they're also an accountable organization.

Hence we should make no conclusions about how Discovery will depict them based on DS9.

 

[Turtletrekker]

To me, the most important thing to note about Section 31 in this episode is they're taking orders directly from Admiral Cornwell. Thus not only are they well known within Starfleet at this time, they're also an accountable organization.

Hence we should make no conclusions about how Discovery will depict them based on DS9.

How do you know that Admiral Cornwell isn't acting unilaterally? Maybe she'll wind up being the show's "big bad".

 

[Nerys Myk]

To me, the most important thing to note about Section 31 in this episode is they're taking orders directly from Admiral Cornwell. Thus not only are they well known within Starfleet at this time, they're also an accountable organization.

Hence we should make no conclusions about how Discovery will depict them based on DS9.

I find the fact that Cornwell has a backround in psychology and seems to be high up in Starfleet Intelligence interesting.

 

[XCV330]

How do you know that Admiral Cornwell isn't acting unilaterally? Maybe she'll wind up being the show's "big bad".

She displays a certain spirit of lethe

I disagree. When you can rationalize the total annihilation of a species “for the good of all,” then there’s no limit to what you can do in the name of that “good.”

Hugh was saved. Picard was saved. Seven of Nine was saved. There is ample evidence that shows they can be saved.

There are always outliers. But how many trillions does one allow to die when for the sake of a promissing handful? Naturally if finding and saving those few to somehow cultivate something better from the annihilation of the bulk could be done, that would be more a question of supererogation.

 

[eschaton]

Oh, and as an aside, what the hell did Cornwell's "nation building is a messy business" line even mean?

Usually when the concept is used in the modern day, it's another, more developed nation attempting to develop a stronger sense of nation/civil society within a developing nation. Arguably this is what Section 31 has been doing with the Klingon Empire, but nothing in the entire friggin episode up until that point referenced the Klingons (aside from a few comments Ash made about not returning). Maybe this means Cornwell's line was supposed to be foreshadowing? That the Federation created the idea of a strong, unified Klingon Empire which then blew up in their faces? But nothing that Pike is doing is related to this work in any way, so why would she include him?

Alternately, she could have been talking about the internal nation building of the Federation, but this doesn't appear to be either something that Pike or Leland are working on, and it seems unrelated to the Red Bursts and the search for Spock.

Alternately, it might have been just a random buzzword the writer's room threw in to make Cornwell sound more hard-edged.

 

[Mr. Laser Beam]

How do you know that Admiral Cornwell isn't acting unilaterally? Maybe she'll wind up being the show's "big bad".

I hope not, because I like her.

If Cornwell turns out to be evil, that would qualify as a shark-jumping moment, IMHO.

 

[DaveyNY]

Perhaps Cornwell is the "CONTROL" person/thing that has been mentioned already?

 

[Longinus]

I hope not, because I like her.

If Cornwell turns out to be evil, that would qualify as a shark-jumping moment, IMHO.

She turned out to be evil in the last season already.

 

[Mr. Laser Beam]

She turned out to be evil in the last season already.

No, she eventually realized she was wrong and backed down.

 

[Longinus]

No, she eventually realized she was wrong and backed down.

Too little, too late. She approved an genocide.

 

[XCV330]

Too little, too late. She approved genocide.

She has the kind of moral flexibility that her role calls for.