Was Dukat really evil?

[SoullessMinion]

Nasty things happen, certainly. Predators victimize those weaker than than themselves. I don't see anyone denying that here, nor is it "ostrich-like" to point out that behavior as wrong. I don't see it as particularly insightful or realistic or, as you say, not share a "syrupy mood when it comes to nasty truths" to look at injustice or crime, real or in fiction, then shrug and say, "them's the breaks."

Victim-blaming, that's the denial. It allows for the comfortable fallacy that as long as we are strong enough or smart enough or whatever enough, nothing bad can happen to us and we don't have to bestir ourselves to help anyone else, because they obviously deserve their misfortune for not being as good as we are. It is also unmitigated nonsense and contributes to a lot of misery in this world. As well as fictional worlds.

How exactly were the Cardassians desperate at the time of the Occupation? Later, during the Dominion war, yes. But if you're happily subjugating your neighbor, you're probably not in too bad a shape. The Bajorans certainly were, but then they deserved it for existing, right?

I'm curious, Shada Dukal, do you consider the Founders' attempted extermination of Cardassia justified, as well?

 

[Sci]

General humanistic indignation is not enough to stop unpleasant things from happening.

No one said it is. You're talking about a completely different subject now.

Life is unfair and complex and denying it is like assuming the ostrich position – this is too ambiguous so we will not get into it, we will simply condemn it. Personally, I am happy not to share the prevailing syrupy mood when it comes to nasty truths.

This is typical rhetoric for people who think themselves far more jaded than they actually are, or of predators who seek to justify the harm they cause to others by denying the legitimacy of human moral systems. Either way, it is a pretense at sophistication not actually being demonstrated.

 

[Gov Kodos]

General humanistic indignation is not enough to stop unpleasant things from happening. People take not because they have the right to do it but because they can. Life is unfair and complex and denying it is like assuming the ostrich position – this is too ambiguous so we will not get into it, we will simply condemn it. Personally, I am happy not to share the prevailing syrupy mood when it comes to nasty truths.

Stupidity and lack of pro-active thinking never pay. Neither in geopolitics nor in messing with the wrong people in the wrong bar.

When a species faces extinction and cataclysms as Cardassians did, there are two types of reaction. The first one is, “I would rather die than do this”, and the second one is, “I would rather do this than die.” Cardassians as a species opted for the second reaction, no matter whether people like it or not. Desperate people don’t care about morality, they simply survive.

No. Might does not make right. Nor does your lame social Darwinism make right, either.

 

[Bad Thoughts]

General humanistic indignation is not enough to stop unpleasant things from happening. People take not because they have the right to do it but because they can. Life is unfair and complex and denying it is like assuming the ostrich position – this is too ambiguous so we will not get into it, we will simply condemn it. Personally, I am happy not to share the prevailing syrupy mood when it comes to nasty truths.

Stupidity and lack of pro-active thinking never pay. Neither in geopolitics nor in messing with the wrong people in the wrong bar.

When a species faces extinction and cataclysms as Cardassians did, there are two types of reaction. The first one is, “I would rather die than do this”, and the second one is, “I would rather do this than die.” Cardassians as a species opted for the second reaction, no matter whether people like it or not. Desperate people don’t care about morality, they simply survive.

No. Might does not make right. Nor does your lame social Darwinism make right, either.

While I agree, I would have hoped that someone named "Governor Kodos" would play the part.

(Just sayin'.)

 

[Shada Dukal]

Unfortunately, might is always right. Of course, people hate to admit it and they try to develop philosophical systems and governmental models that mitigate and muffle this unpleasant realization.

Fiction often mirrors reality but one should bear in mind that this is a discussion on highly hypothetical fictional subject.

Yes, the Founders had the right to handle the matter as they saw fit, but the Cardassians unlike the Bajorans stopped them. Being a victim is a state of mind. Bad things can happen to everyone but victims only complain while fighters fight.

I guess you can have a look at the Memory Alpha, Beta or the “Terok Nor” trilogy to check the circumstances that lead to the Bajoran Occupation. In short, there was famine on Cardassia, Dukat lost his first-born child who died from a hunger-related intestinal infection and lack of proper medical care. Cardassia was in turmoil due to lack of resources caused by an ongoing conflict with the Talarians. Their initial plan was to have Bajor as an affiliated world because they did not want to deplete their already thinning resources further.

Still, I would like to thank you for the interest in my views but my views here are related to the actions of Dukat and Cardassians. I discuss Cardassian way of thinking and Cardassian motivation. You discuss human way of thinking and human motivation. I don’t see any point in applying human reasoning to Cardassian actions.

 

[Sci]

Unfortunately, might is always right.

I wonder what the victims of the Holocaust, or of Jim Crow, think of that logic.

Of course, people hate to admit it and they try to develop philosophical systems and governmental models that mitigate and muffle this unpleasant realization.

"I am ever so much more sophisticated than you because I face harsh truths about which you go into denial."

You are confusing capability with legitimacy.

Yes, the Founders had the right to handle the matter as they saw fit, but the Cardassians unlike the Bajorans stopped them. Being a victim is a state of mind. Bad things can happen to everyone but victims only complain while fighters fight.

Strange logic, given that the Cardassians engaged in plenty of complaining about Dominion oppression, and that the Bajorans literally fought the Cardassians off their world.

 

[Owen E Oulton]

Step daughter.

He married Kira's mother, or they lived together long enough to justify a common law marriage, therefore Meru's children were his children.

By our standards, maybe, but I severely doubt that Bajoran law is based on English Common Law.

Besides, he was technically a slave-owner. Kira's mother may have suffered what we would recognise as Helsinki Syndrome, making any such cohabitation under duress, and thus not binding.

 

[Gov Kodos]

Unfortunately, might is always right.

Translation:
The Jews deserved the Holocaust.

 

[Sci]

Unfortunately, might is always right.

Translation:
The Jews deserved the Holocaust.

It is indeed very hard to avoid such a conclusion by Shada's purported standards.

Of course, the problem with all might-makes-right/there-is-no-morality-only-what-the-traffic-can-bear arguments is that they must eventually come face to face with the human instinct for empathy when people see someone else being made to suffer an atrocity.

There is, after all, a reason that those who commit atrocities must almost literally brainwash themselves with some form of "everybody deserves happiness EXCEPT (insert targets)" message -- the human instinct for empathy would never allow for genocide, or slavery, or other such suffering unless it is first overcome by powerful social programming.

The only people who don't feel empathy for the victims of atrocities without first having received some form of "they deserve it" social programming, the only people who just don't experience empathy for others? They're literally mentally ill.

 

[Gov Kodos]

Unfortunately, might is always right.

Translation:
The Jews deserved the Holocaust.

It is indeed very hard to avoid such a conclusion by Shada's purported standards.

Of course, the problem with all might-makes-right/there-is-no-morality-only-what-the-traffic-can-bear arguments is that they must eventually come face to face with the human instinct for empathy when people see someone else being made to suffer an atrocity.

There is, after all, a reason that those who commit atrocities must almost literally brainwash themselves with some form of "everybody deserves happiness EXCEPT (insert targets)" message -- the human instinct for empathy would never allow for genocide, or slavery, or other such suffering unless it is first overcome by powerful social programming.

The only people who don't feel empathy for the victims of atrocities without first having received some form of "they deserve it" social programming, the only people who just don't experience empathy for others? They're literally mentally ill.

Quite agreed. Might simply makes things possible to achieve. Might in no way makes those achievements right.

 

[SoullessMinion]

Unfortunately, might is always right.

Translation:
The Jews deserved the Holocaust.

Yeah. It's hard to draw any other conclusion from Shada Dukal's argument. And as Sci's excellent point about empathy illustrates, might-makes-right as a philosophy is as short-sighted and intellectually lazy as it is morally abhorrent.

 

[kkt]

I really wonder what Shada Dukal sees in shows like Star Trek. I mean, the protagonists could be masters of the Galaxy, if only they threw away that silly prime directive, and qualms about not attacking a weaker party.

 

[Shada Dukal]

Victims can’t speak for themselves exactly because might is right. Still, some victims can be used to further current agendas, some not. History is written by the victors and if taking into account victims’ position serves their current goals, they will include it, if not, they will suppress it. Holocaust victims and Jim Crow’s victims are politically correct victims and their plight is fully redeemed and recognized. Respectively, the Russian, East-European, Balkan and German civilians who were killed in WWII as well as the Russian and German soldiers who died fighting for their respective countries were just “acceptable losses” in Dukat’s terminology. They simply did not die in a politically correct place and time.


What I say is hardly sophisticated, it is just realistic. People with capacity can make everything legal. Sad but true. Life is not perfect then why sci-fi should be? I don’t think that rooting for the right goody automatically makes the world a better place. It is more of buying a moral indulgence for not being able to do anything else. We are all consumers of pop culture but we interpret it differently.


Damar voiced his opinion about their grudging partnership with the Dominion many times and then he just did what had to be done. It took him several months. The Bajorans screeched for 50 years, their Resistance was disorganized and lacked wide public support, and finally the Cardassians left due to internal problems and pressure from the Federation.

 

[Gov Kodos]

Victims can’t speak for themselves exactly because might is right.

Repeating this doesn't make it true.

Still, some victims can be used to further current agendas, some not. History is written by the victors and if taking into account victims’ position serves their current goals, they will include it, if not, they will suppress it.

None of which makes such actions right.

Holocaust victims and Jim Crow’s victims are politically correct victims and their plight is fully redeemed and recognized.

Politically correct victims?
What happened to those peoples was wrong whether or not the perpetrators could get away with it or not.

Respectively, the Russian, East-European, Balkan and German civilians who were killed in WWII as well as the Russian and German soldiers who died fighting for their respective countries were just “acceptable losses” in Dukat’s terminology. They simply did not die in a politically correct place and time.

Ludicrous assertion.

What I say is hardly sophisticated,

Simplistic, shallow, ill-conceived, silly, ridiculous... lots of possibilities, but yes, not sophisticated.

it is just realistic.

No, simple minded half-baked defense of predatory opportunism isn't a realistic view of life.

People with capacity can make everything legal. Sad but true.

Legality doesn't make anything right or true, only legal.

Life is not perfect then why sci-fi should be?

Where was that said?

I don’t think that rooting for the right goody automatically makes the world a better place.

Who said that?

It is more of buying a moral indulgence for not being able to do anything else.

No.

We are all consumers of pop culture but we interpret it differently.

That is irrelevant to the 'might is right' assertion you keep repeating.

Damar voiced his opinion about their grudging partnership with the Dominion many times and then he just did what had to be done.

By your argument, the Cardassians were weak and deserved what they got.

It took him several months. The Bajorans screeched for 50 years, their Resistance was disorganized and lacked wide public support, and finally the Cardassians left due to internal problems and pressure from the Federation.

None of which justifies Cardassia conquering Bajor since might doesn't make right.

 

[Mage]

Shada, with all due respects....
You said you're talking about the POV of those who think like this, but are also coming acros like someone who agrees with the kind of reasoning dictators and occupational forces use.

There is no way for me to think of you as any other kind of person than one who would, if given the change, occupy a whole nation to further your own agenda. And that, sadly, makes you a less than human human.

 

[Shada Dukal]

Repeating that might does not make it right does not change the fact that developments based on this principle happen every day.



The question is not whether it is right but whether it possible. It is possible both in RL and in fiction. Whether people like it or not, whether they can avert it or not does not stop it from happening.


Bajorans are the politically correct victims – cute, meek, human-like. We all were supposed to cry over their fate. Cardassian were ugly, scaly “spoonheads” that were bad because they were not pro-Federation aliens. So their cause was politically incorrect and fans were supposed to condemn them. Good aliens support the Federation, bad aliens are punished. It is so predictable and cheap. Fortunately, DS9 changed that but some fans prefer to cling to their preconceptions.


What is ludicrous assertion for someone is just a piece of history for someone else. As I said before everything is subjective and relative.


Yes, indeed, my opinion is hardly sophisticated. It is only different, it raises controversial issues, it is too sincere, and it is awfully realistic. Feel free to add.


Well, saints in Paradise don’t like someone to remind them that predatory opportunism makes the world go round. Not liking it does not make it less valid.


Exactly, legality can only change what is considered right and what is considered true. All legal things automatically become right and true. Laws are often unjust but we live by them. Moral justice and legal justice are different things.


Well, if you don’t get a bang from watching a character or a show why do you do it? Everyone can decide which character to like and support.


“Might is right” as an assertion comes from the dawn of history and can be applied to the interpretation of many pop cultural products because they often depict clashes of fictional powers and conflicts.


Each nation deserves its historical fate, it is the result of their choices or lack of such. The question is how they handle it. Cardassians handled it with dignity, Bajorans were pathetic.


Cardassia took over Bajor, had it for 50 years and withdrew. Whether the fans like it or not is their business.


I really appreciate the zest you invest in this discussion and I am flattered that you pay so much attention to my humble persona. However, what about Dukat? Why don’t you elaborate on that?

 

[Gov Kodos]

Repeating that might does not make it right does not change the fact that developments based on this principle happen every day.

That conquest happens does not make conquest right.

The question is not whether it is right but whether it possible. It is possible both in RL and in fiction. Whether people like it or not, whether they can avert it or not does not stop it from happening.

Shifting the goal posts won't help you.

Bajorans are the politically correct victims – cute, meek, human-like. We all were supposed to cry over their fate. Cardassian were ugly, scaly “spoonheads” that were bad because they were not pro-Federation aliens. So their cause was politically incorrect and fans were supposed to condemn them. Good aliens support the Federation, bad aliens are punished. It is so predictable and cheap. Fortunately, DS9 changed that but some fans prefer to cling to their preconceptions.

Political correctness is irrelevant to opposing predatory opportunism.

What is ludicrous assertion for someone is just a piece of history for someone else. As I said before everything is subjective and relative.

No, it's not. That's the bleating of predatory opportunists called on their bullshit.

Yes, indeed, my opinion is hardly sophisticated.

True, hardly sophisticated in any way.

It is only different, it raises controversial issues, it is too sincere, and it is awfully realistic. Feel free to add.

No, neither sincere or realistic, rather shallow actually.

Well, saints in Paradise don’t like someone to remind them that predatory opportunism makes the world go round. Not liking it does not make it less valid.

So, you learned a few new words, but learned nothing from them.

Exactly, legality can only change what is considered right and what is considered true. All legal things automatically become right and true. Laws are often unjust but we live by them.

Legality makes nothing right or true, simply legal. It still doesn't support your 'might makes right' idea that you tried shifting the goal posts from, above.

Moral justice and legal justice are different things.

Nor does that prove might makes right.

Well, if you don’t get a bang from watching a character or a show why do you do it? Everyone can decide which character to like and support.

Non-sequitor.

“Might is right” as an assertion comes from the dawn of history and can be applied to the interpretation of many pop cultural products because they often depict clashes of fictional powers and conflicts.

Still doesn't make it true.

Each nation deserves its historical fate, it is the result of their choices or lack of such.
The question is how they handle it.

Back to chucking the Jews into the gas ovens, eh?

Cardassians handled it with dignity, Bajorans were pathetic.

Conquest and genocide are not dignified.

Cardassia took over Bajor, had it for 50 years and withdrew. Whether the fans like it or not is their business.

That doesn't even make sense. Who is 'their'?

Besides, it still doesn't justify predatory opportunism.

I really appreciate the zest you invest in this discussion and I am flattered that you pay so much attention to my humble persona. However, what about Dukat? Why don’t you elaborate on that?

Translation: 'Look, squirrel!'
Dodging the argument doesn't justify your 'might makes right' idea, either.

 

[Bad Thoughts]

How ironic that the Cardassians were pathetically sniveling by the end of the series, thanks to a PC polity and a group of reforming warriors. How Nazi-like.

 

[K'Toska]

I think that Dukat is not more evil than any real person because most people in his shoes would do the same things.

Citations, please.

As for the topic of the thread: I know there are a lot of people who stray toward thinking morality is not set in stone and that "good" and "evil" do not really exist. I personally do not subscribe to that set of beliefs. I'm not particularly religious either. The way I see it: if someone repeats certain behaviors described by a given adjective, it is fair to say that they are the type of person who could be described by that adjective. For example, if someone repeatedly manipulates others, we could call him or her a "manipulative person." Does this necessarily mean that all said person does is manipulate others? No, but it is a large and important part of his or her character - to the point that it cannot be ignored and comes to the forefront of all he or she stands for.

"Evil" is the worst of bad behavior. Repeatedly committing acts that can be described as "evil" makes you subject to being called an "evil person." This is especially the case if you are aware of how horrible the acts are and even relish in the monstrosities. Does this mean you have no good qualities? No, but it does mean that generally, they do not compare to or redeem you for the bad ones.

Then people will say, "well what is deemed 'evil' differs from culture to culture." Sure, sometimes it does, but not always. In my experiences with people from various backgrounds, there are some actions which remain deplorable pretty much across the board. To say that Dukat's behavior was acceptable because he was a Cardassian is to assume that all Cardassians either behaved the same way or had no problem with that. In DS9, we see that that is not the case at all. Even Garak, a morally ambiguous character who has often done things we consider to be wrong, cannot stomach Dukat's actions or actions that were committed by some other Cardassians during the occupation.

Just my two cents.

 

[CorporalClegg]

If might truly made right, one would expect things to be all good after 10,000 years.