Would The Federation force the Founders to give up their God status?

[Solarbaby]

I'm not too up on WWII history but I do remember that Japan had to denounce their emperor as a God to the people as part of their terms of surrender.

Do you think it would fit into the Federation's values to force the Founders to denounce themselves as God's to the Vorta and Jem'Hadar? I wonder because, they are slaves against their will.

They don't know it because they are genetically engineered but they are still slaves. If the Romulans had lost a war to the Federation and had used Reman slaves as cannon fodder I believe the Fed would have set them free of their Romulan masters. Therefore I think the Federation would feel it a necessity to free any race from slavery after a war victory.

Plus there have been soooooooooo many preachy episode's where Starfleet has denounced the notion of Gods. I wonder if the Federation would force the Changelings to become mortals and I wonder what impact it would have on the Jem'Hadar and Vorta. I suspect mass suicide by the Vorta. Or would the Federation not interfere with natural order of the Dominion society as a whole?

Would the Changelings have accepted this? I don't believe they would as it would make them vulnerable and possibly persecuted as in their past pre Dominion. But I can't believe the Alpha Quadrant would let the Dominion continue in the Gamma Quadrant as before. They could stage another attack in the future with the wormhole restored. They have the forces ready to overcome the Alpha Quadrant.

The idea of defeat must be a new concept to the changelings who have remained masters of the destiny for 1000s of years. It would be a huge devastation to them. Their paranoia would call them to take back what they lost and install order where there is chaos. The peace at the end of DS9 can not be permanent. Unless the Female changeling really did learn something of value when she finally linked with Odo. Maybe Odo joined with the great link and convinced them of peace but I seriously doubt it would have an impact. Section31 poisoned the Changelings, they would seek revenge. It's their nature. They created the Dominion to protect themselves. We know how brutal the Dominion can be. The self preservation instinct wouldn't go away after Odo linked.

So I think the Federation would need to make the Founders "mortal" in the eyes of the Vorta and Jem'Hadar to keep the threat of another Dominion war away.

 

[Pemmer Harge]

Re: Would The Federation force the Founders to give up their God statu

I don't see how they could. The Federation never got through the wormhole, never occupied the Founders' planet.

 

[Jono]

Re: Would The Federation force the Founders to give up their God statu

You can't compare the end of WWII with the Dominion War (in regards to the Dominion) as the Federation didn't end up occupying the Dominion's homeworld and its territory as Pemmer Hargehas said.

Even if they did, could the Federation "free" the Jem'Hadar and Vorta? Their belief is apparently encoded into them at birth/creation and as far as we saw only a very small minority, probably a vastly insignificant minority, have been able to break out of it and that was due to faults in their creation. Maybe the best thing for the Federation to do instead would be to let these species die out. As far as we know the Founders/Dominion completely control the population of the Jem'Hadar and Vorta, so force them to stop production to these races and either wipe out the rest of let them die out naturally. You could replace them with new individuals that don't worship the Founders but how would the old guard take that? It might cause a civil war of sorts and an imploding Dominion is unlikely to be good for anyone in the Gamma Quadrant, it might even spark the old guard to go to war against the Federation again.

However, as stated above the Federation would not be able to force the Dominion in the Gamma Quadrant to do anything really since it spent its time out of the fight and while it lost 2,800 ships in SoA it has had nearly 2 years to replace these losses. Someone here has said this before but the Feds best chances to avoid war would be to try and "rehabilitate" the Female Founder and release her back to the Dominion unharmed to show the Founders that there are "good solids" out there that can peacefully coexist with Changelings.

 

[T'Girl]

Re: Would The Federation force the Founders to give up their God statu

I'm not too up on WWII history but I do remember that Japan had to denounce their emperor as a God to the people as part of their terms of surrender.

(sound of buzzer) No they were not. After the Japanese surrender General MacArthur was very careful not to reduce publically the position of " The Heavenly Sovereign." While the governmental position of the Emperor in the post-war constitution was made symbolic and ceremonial, which it largely was pre-war (he still sort of picks the Prime Minister), the Emperor to this day remains the highest authority of the Shinto religion.

Do you think it would fit into the Federation's values to force the Founders to denounce themselves as God's to the Vorta and Jem'Hadar? I wonder because, they are slaves against their will.

Of course the Dominion War never ended with a unconditional (or even conditional) surrender, but instead with the Treaty of Bajor. The Dominion forces withdrew back into the gamma quadrant, the Founders receive the cure to the biological weapon they had been infected with and a single symbolic Founder would face war crimes, in return the Federations and her allies would not have a protracted fight to a victory.

Short of with-holding the cure and risking a second invasion, how could the Federation "force" the Founder to do anything?

 

[Timo]

Re: Would The Federation force the Founders to give up their God statu

...And even half of that is noncanon guesswork. We have no idea whether the Dominion withdrew from Alpha, or gave back any of those Alpha planets that remained under its control when the fighting ended. Odo seemed to go an deliver the cure quite regardless of any "withdrawal symptoms" or other Dominion concessions.

Perhaps we're seeing an exceptionally enlightened postwar court here: the Dominion was actually declared the winner to keep them happy (and too keep them from really winning), while their local rep answered for her war crimes despite being on the winning side?

Timo Saloniemi

 

[Solarbaby]

Re: Would The Federation force the Founders to give up their God statu

Good points so far.

I just don't see that the treaty of Bajor (we don't really know much about it)was enough measures taken to ensure the war was at a end.

There were probably a lot more than 2500 ships ready to take the weakened Alpha quadrant forces if the Founders decided to continue the war. These aliens don't have human values. They can reduce a city to rubble without a second thought. Once they are cured they could easily seek retribution.

Starfleet must have considered the possible consequences from the Gamma quadrant along with the worst case scenarios. It just doesn't seem enough to sign a treaty against these brutal beings. As rightly pointed out Starfleet didn't occupy any Dominion territory. Its a really difficult thing concept to look at. It isn't like war on a planet which is the only thing we can compare a space territorial war to.

When you defeat your enemy you normally reduce their military capacity for a time. There's no way to do this. Look at a different way. Had starfleet been in a position to take the Founders home world - would they have considered making the Founders "mortal"? Is it something Starfleet would do? Would it fit in with Gene's philosophy of Federation values?

 

[neozeks]

Re: Would The Federation force the Founders to give up their God statu

There were probably a lot more than 2500 ships ready to take the weakened Alpha quadrant forces if the Founders decided to continue the war. These aliens don't have human values. They can reduce a city to rubble without a second thought. Once they are cured they could easily seek retribution.

Remember, Sisko and the Prophets still watch over the Wormhole.

Had starfleet been in a position to take the Founders home world - would they have considered making the Founders "mortal"? Is it something Starfleet would do? Would it fit in with Gene's philosophy of Federation values?

Yeah, had the Federation managed to win unconditional surrender of the Dominion, I could see them attempting a sort of 'denazicification' of the Dominion, including making the servant races more independant. But, of course, the question is how do you do it without causing even more trouble? The Jem'Hadar and the Vorta want to serve the Founders, it's what makes them what they are.

 

[ProtoAvatar]

Re: Would The Federation force the Founders to give up their God statu

Despite the dominon's withdrawal from the alpha quadrant, it ended the war as the strongest party.

Everyone in the alpha quadrant was weakened - their territories supporting the brunt of the dominion war.

The dominion's territories, on the other hand, were not even touched, its industrial capacity unaffected. It only lost expendable/replaceable jem'hadar and ships.
From this POV, one can compare the dominion with America during the world wars.

In this situation, as already pointed out, the allies were in no position to dictate conditions to the dominion (beyond retreating their encircled forces in the gamma quadrant).
Meddling in dominion internal politics or war crimes tribunals (beyond symbolic ones) were out of the question.

 

[Marie1]

Re: Would The Federation force the Founders to give up their God statu

So, in short, no. Some conquered worlds may have some brief rebellions when they hear about it, but they won't give it up, and the Vorta and Jem'Hadar won't feel that way either.

 

[DS9 Gal AZ]

Re: Would The Federation force the Founders to give up their God statu

Wouldn't interfering be agains the Prime Directive? If anything, I could see Odo trying to change things for the Vort and Jem'Hadar once he enters the link, giving them more freedom, etc. ...

 

[ProtoAvatar]

Re: Would The Federation force the Founders to give up their God statu

So, in short, no. Some conquered worlds may have some brief rebellions when they hear about it, but they won't give it up, and the Vorta and Jem'Hadar won't feel that way either.

Yes, Marie1:
It seems the jem'hadar are condemned to be cannon-fodder, expendable slaves who are happy to be so.

 

[Temis the Vorta]

Re: Would The Federation force the Founders to give up their God statu

My take on it is that the Vorta and Jems are no longer the natural species from which they were engineered (those species may or may not still exist independently somewhere). There's no way to remove the worship of the Founders and "free" them without engineering them to be different from what they are.

They are not natural species, but they still have the right to exist and not to have outsiders screw with them. The problem becomes: what if their natural behavior leads to the continuation of the Dominion as an oppressive force in the GQ? Should the Feds oppose/change that? Do they have the right to? Should they just mind their own business for a change?

 

[indolover]

Re: Would The Federation force the Founders to give up their God statu

Doing so would violate the Prime Directive.

And who is the Federation to impose its own values on others? The Klingons and Romulans practice slavery also. The Cardassians treated the Bajorans as slaves. Why not force them to abandon it?

And the entire Treaty of Bajor is a crock. What firm assurance does Starfleet have that the Founders would abide by it? How does Starfleet know it was signed in good faith? Could a Changeling who ordered the deaths of 800 million Cardassians be deemed noble and decent? Noble and decent enough not to sign it for the sake of it, and as a rouse? The only think stopping the Dominion from winning the war was the Prophets eliminating their fleet and Sisko tricking the Romulans into the war. Without any of these occurring, the Federation would have lost big time. In short, the treaty was a gamble, and only something pushed on the Dominion since the essential war aims had been met - cease the Dominion threat in the Alpha Quadrant.

Knowing the Founders, they'd probably order the Vorta to develop transwarp capability and send a huge fleet of ships to get revenge on those Alpha Quadrant solids.

 

[ProtoAvatar]

Re: Would The Federation force the Founders to give up their God statu

Moral relativism vs moral absolutism, eh?:

Beyond a point, moral relativism becomes a betrayal of your own morals - even absurd.
For example - if you were to follow it strictly, you should not try and stop the borg from killing and assimilating your entire civiliation because, from the collective's POV, what it's doing is perfectly moral, and what right have you to say otherwise?
Nor should you try to stop the borg from killing uncounted billions in the delta quadrant and elsewhere - all being sacrifices on the altar of moral relativism. Much like your own moral values.

In many cases, your values and the values of aliens are fundamentally contradictory.
The question becomes - where do you draw the line between 'you have no right to tell others how to behave' and 'your own moral values dictate that you intervene'?


About the Prime Directive - before discussing it, it is necessary to define it far beyond a vague non-interference ideea.

 

[Nerys Ghemor]

Re: Would The Federation force the Founders to give up their God statu

PA--I think that's moral relativity you're talking about as the cause of such ridiculousness. Relativity is the idea that there is no good or evil, that it's strictly culturally defined. Absolutism is the idea that there is objective right and wrong.

 

[ProtoAvatar]

Re: Would The Federation force the Founders to give up their God statu

PA--I think that's moral relativity you're talking about as the cause of such ridiculousness. Relativity is the idea that there is no good or evil, that it's strictly culturally defined. Absolutism is the idea that there is objective right and wrong.

'Moral relativism' says that all moral systems have equal validity and you have no right to tell someone else what to do.

'Moral absolutism' tells that your moral code is superior to others and you are entitled to impose its values on others.

PS - Yes, apparently, in my previous post, the terms were mixed up at a point.

 

[Nerys Ghemor]

Re: Would The Federation force the Founders to give up their God statu

The difference is not attitude towards force--but rather the attitude towards whether or not there is objective moral reality. A relativist believes there's no such thing. An absolutist believes that the source of their moral code is outside of themselves, that is, inherent in the universe itself. However, while an absolutist may believe that others are doing the wrong thing, attitudes can vary wildly regarding use of force. Some see those very morals as forbidding forced conversion...not because all systems are equally valid, but because that system values free will.

(Obviously the Dominion is an example of the OTHER kind of absolutist belief, and can actually be compared with religious-motivated terrorism.)

 

[ProtoAvatar]

Re: Would The Federation force the Founders to give up their God statu

In my opinion, the distinction between moral relativism/absolutism is most important in their effects:

A moral relativist never intervenes because he doesn't beleive he has the right.

A moral absolutist intervenes because he beleives he is entitled to.
Yes, there may be a precept in a moral absolutist code that forbids interference - in which case, as far as the behaviour dictated by these morals is concerned, this type of absolutism is equivalent to moral relativism.


As I said, moral relativism becomes absurd in certain situations.
Moral absolutism, on the other hand, is also known to generate suffering.
Both extremes are unsound.

So - where does one draw the line between 'I have no right to tell them what to do/to meddle in their affairs' and 'I must interfere for my morals to mean something'?


As an observation - both moral relativist systems and moral absolutism ones with a non-interference clause tend to become self-contradictory:
For example - on one hand your morals tell you you MUST try to save the girl who's screaming for help, being raped and beaten to death in front of you; BUT on the other hand the same morals tend to tell you you MUST NOT intervene, simply because from the participants in the rape/murder's POV what they're doing is moral and just.

 

[Nerys Ghemor]

Re: Would The Federation force the Founders to give up their God statu

Usually in an absolute system there'll be a hierarchy of morals, where certain imperatives will trump others at certain times--such as preventing suffering trumping noninterference. But a relativist might not have it in them to help.

 

[indolover]

Re: Would The Federation force the Founders to give up their God statu

But with alien species, there can in my mind be no moral absolutes. Different species would have a wholly different nature and being. The Founders care about order (even Odo admitted that in the end it's what he cared about most) since it's their nature. Klingons are violent since it's their nature. So there can be few commonalities, if there are different bases.

Also, moral relativism doesn't have to mean (and perhaps doesn't usually) that anything goes. It can and perhaps more often means that a single morality has many different perspectives, or is viewed differently by different societies or people.