your PALE MOONLIGHT

[Deranged Nasat]

There is a reason we have morals. They aren't arbitrary codes of conduct we follow for ceremonial purposes, nor are they campy principles we adopt for fun. We have morals because they make sense.

They may make sense, but that does not make them useful or meaningful. Indeed, many aspects of traditionally accepted morality have no place in today's society because while they certainly make sense in terms of primitive behaviour (otherwise they wouldn't have developed in the first place) they offend modern sensibilities, at least those of sensible non-hypocrites. And that's an important point, I think: many aspects of morality (socially-accepted shared codes of thought) are actually hypocritical and illogical and frankly the "moral" people in society I often find distasteful, if I may be so blunt. They have no true empathy or personal prinicples, they don't self-examine or question, they merely act and indeed evaluate both their own conduct and that of others on the basis of a rigid code that is indeed more often ceremonial than meaningful. Personal ethics should trump morality every time in my opinion. In my eyes, the great thing about what Sisko did in this episode is simply that he broke out of the confines of "morality" to chart his own ethical path, and struggle with what was right or wrong for him, socially-imposed "rules" be damned. That doesn't of course mean Sisko did the right thing- he's still struggling, as he should be. Self-examination at all times is key. And did he do right or wrong here? Well, we can debate that all day if we like- I can't come to any one clear answer, and neither can Sisko, I think. He "can live with it", yet is clearly disgusted with himself at the same time. Sisko is struggling with his own ethics, which is always far more endearing to me than any story about "morality", simply because I distrust and reject morality- if my meaning is clear. This episode is about one person's ethical struggles, which is better than TNG or Voy episodes concerned with a "moral" position that disregards personal considerations.

 

[Withers]

Oh, I know. But it was still stupid, because he did not admit he was being self-righteous and annoying.

That is all 99% of Star Trek would be if anyone ever opened up that can of worms- one person after another giving a soliloquy about their annoying self righteousness. He was stupid for not admitting this? I'm gonna go out on a limb and say that statement didn't get the proper amount of thought before it posted.

-Withers-​

 

[StarryEyed]

^ Awesome post, Deranged Nasat!

 

[Arpy]

Spoken like a true politician.

Rob

I don't know what that means.

 

[ProtoAvatar]

There is a reason we have morals. They aren't arbitrary codes of conduct we follow for ceremonial purposes, nor are they campy principles we adopt for fun. We have morals because they make sense.

There are also situations - in war, mostly - when there is no moral choice, Arpy.
Sisko' choices were either let Vreenak die or let billions of federation citizens die. How do you follow morals in this situation?

 

[DonIago]

Picard would probably argue that when part of your attempt to be moral involves committing dishonest acts, you've already lost the high ground.

 

[blackzoid]

There is a reason we have morals. They aren't arbitrary codes of conduct we follow for ceremonial purposes, nor are they campy principles we adopt for fun. We have morals because they make sense.

There are also situations - in war, mostly - when there is no moral choice, Arpy.
Sisko' choices were either let Vreenak die or let billions of federation citizens die. How do you follow morals in this situation?

True, but don't forget that Sisko did also indirectly kill every Romulan soldier who would give their lives in the Dominion war. He was the one who got them into it after all. Plus I'm sure the Dominion did capture several Romulan systems. Possibly Romulan civilians casulaties there as well.
Or do Romulan deaths beyond the scope of the episode not count?

Still its hard to condemn Sisko in this case. The episode successfully sold to me the fact that Sisko simply had no choice in the matter. The Romulan's must have known that the Dominion would eventually be coming for them, they probably just wanted the Dominion softened up by the Klingons and the Federation first. Sisko could not afford to let the Romulan's sit back until that point was reached.

And Sisko is still a good man, from his logs at the end of the epsiode it doesn't sound like he actually can live with it. Its just the way he says "I can live with it" for the second time that tells me he can't. Its an epsiode that was screaming for a followup.

And of course its still infinitedly morally superior to what those monsters in Section 31 did. Preemptively commiting genocide while painfully obvious alternatives (like closing the wormhole as the Romulans themselves wanted to do in "Visionary"!) existed? Not what the Federation or even any race should be about. Those "people" deserve life imprisionment for that crime. Plain and simple.

 

[ProtoAvatar]

Picard would probably argue that when part of your attempt to be moral involves committing dishonest acts, you've already lost the high ground.

In war, NO ONE has the moral high ground.
War is, at most, necessary (ex - for self defense), but make no mistake - it is a VERY BLOODY business. It's kill or be killed.

Apropos Picard - he had his own "In the pale moonlight". The episode is called "TNG:I, Hugh".

Picard choose the opposite of Sisko's choice - he refused to use Hugh in order to stop the borg and save HUNDREDS OF BILLIONS of lives.
Since that time, the Borg Collective destroyed hundreds of species, killed billions upon billions of sentient beings and assimilated yet other billions.
THE BLOOD OF ALL THESE BEINGS STAINS PICARD'S HANDS, TOO, BECAUSE HE COULD STOP ALL THIS AND DIDN'T. And that's supposed to be the moral decision? Laughable!

 

[indolover]

I think this was an excellent episode, and i often think that this is one reason why the Great Bird may not have approved of DS9.

I also reckon it made Sisko a more realistic character, than the other captains at least. Picard is with Sisko my most liked Captain, but I reckon that he could not do this due to being too moral a person.

I think Sisko really was right to do it, given the situation involved. The Dominion had captured Betazed and Benzar, and were in striking distance of the core Federation planets (including Earth). This put the Federation severely on the back foot, and more resources were needed to restore the balance. The only solution therefore was Romulan entry into the war, given a likely defeat (even eventual genocide of the Federation races).

Something had to give; if it meant deceiving the Romulans into the war, then so be it. Some may even say that everything happens for a reason. The wartime alliance could end the traditional hostility between the Federation and the Romulans, the end of the Neutral Zone, or rescinding of the Treaty of Algeron. The only issue I can see in the future is if, somehow, the Romulans ever find out they were deceived into entering the war, which must have been as costly on them as for all the major players in it. God help the Federation if this ever got out on Romulus.

 

[DonIago]

It's easy to judge Picard based on what -did- come to pass, but if Hugh's individuality had disrupted the entire collective (it clearly affected at least his ship), I wonder whether you'd be judging him so harshly?

Hell, we don't even know that Sisko's acts haven't laid the groundwork for a war with the Romulans that will wreak even more havoc than the DW did.

 

[Withers]

Sisko' choices were either let Vreenak die or let billions of federation citizens die.

That's not really how it went. In my head his dubious behavior wasn't specifically what happened but anything that could have happened after contracting Garak as a partner. Sisko had no way of knowing exactly what Garak was planning to do... just that he would take the extra steps Sisko couldn't do with his own hands (like plant a bomb on a shuttle.) Ultimately, he's responsible, but the choice he made wasn't "Vreenack or the Alpha Quadrant." Rather, in his case (which differentiates him from Picards situation above), he gambled (with lives) on the unknown. That's what I found questionable. The deaths were just the inevitable outcome of such risks.

-Withers-​

 

[blackzoid]

It's easy to judge Picard based on what -did- come to pass, but if Hugh's individuality had disrupted the entire collective (it clearly affected at least his ship), I wonder whether you'd be judging him so harshly?

Hell, we don't even know that Sisko's acts haven't laid the groundwork for a war with the Romulans that will wreak even more havoc than the DW did.

Very strongly agree on this.
Its pretty easy in hindsight to criticise Picard for what he did, but if Hugh's individuality had bloodlessly destroyed the Borg, we would be singing his praises.

 

[ProtoAvatar]

"In war, NO ONE has the moral high ground.
War is, at most, necessary (ex - for self defense), but make no mistake - it is a VERY BLOODY business. It's kill or be killed.

Apropos Picard - he had his own "In the pale moonlight". The episode is called "TNG:I, Hugh".

Picard choose the opposite of Sisko's choice - he refused to use Hugh in order to stop the borg and save HUNDREDS OF BILLIONS of lives.
Since that time, the Borg Collective destroyed hundreds of species, killed billions upon billions of sentient beings and assimilated yet other billions.
THE BLOOD OF ALL THESE BEINGS STAINS PICARD'S HANDS, TOO, BECAUSE HE COULD STOP ALL THIS AND DIDN'T. And that's supposed to be the moral decision? Laughable!"

It's easy to judge Picard based on what -did- come to pass, but if Hugh's individuality had disrupted the entire collective (it clearly affected at least his ship), I wonder whether you'd be judging him so harshly?

But Picard knew that Hugh's individuality won't affect the entire collective - to be exact he knew that the chances of this happening were almost zero.

Picard knew that the only realistic chance of stopping the borg was to use Hugh to dismantle the collective consciousness with that logical paradox.
He choose not to do this because this would mean using Hugh, knowing full well that he's condemning who knows how many BILLIONS - perhaps the entire Federation, too - to death - or worse!
My statement is accurate:
"THE BLOOD OF ALL THESE BEINGS STAINS PICARD'S HANDS, TOO, BECAUSE HE COULD STOP IT ALL AND DIDN'T. "

 

[indolover]

I think Sisko was mightily relieved, as well as immensely pissed off, when he heard Vreenak's shuttle was destroyed.

Sisko's only plan at the outset was to rig the data rod. after the "it's a faaake!!' scene, Sisko himself said that the Romulans could easily have joined the war against the Federation, had Vreenak had got back to Romulus with the fake data rod.

I reckon Sisko was simply desperate, and saw no other way out. In a way, it's no more wrong than a man who hasn't eaten for a week stealing a loaf of bread. Ok, a poor analogy, but stealing bread would be deemed wrong in normal circumstances. in this case, desperation makes it right.

 

[ProtoAvatar]

Sisko' choices were either let Vreenak die or let billions of federation citizens die.

That's not really how it went. In my head his dubious behavior wasn't specifically what happened but anything that could have happened after contracting Garak as a partner. Sisko had no way of knowing exactly what Garak was planning to do... just that he would take the extra steps Sisko couldn't do with his own hands (like plant a bomb on a shuttle.) Ultimately, he's responsible, but the choice he made wasn't "Vreenack or the Alpha Quadrant." Rather, in his case (which differentiates him from Picards situation above), he gambled (with lives) on the unknown. That's what I found questionable. The deaths were just the inevitable outcome of such risks.

-Withers-​

Sisko knew that, if the romulans won't enter the war, the Federation will fall.
He contacted Garak so that the steps he wouldn't be able to do will be done.

Was there a chance of all this not working? Of course - there are no certainties in life, in any situation. Well, with one exception - if you don't act, you get nowhere.
The risk gain ratio of the situation was acceptable - for the simple reason that not acting would result in the Federation falling.

Hell, we don't even know that Sisko's acts haven't laid the groundwork for a war with the Romulans that will wreak even more havoc than the DW did.

One problem at a time. Without Sisko's intervention, there wouldn't even be a Federation to fight this hypothetical war with the Romulans.
And I think any such war would be motivated primarily by future geopolotical realities than by a decades/centuries old instance of hurt pride.

After all, for the romulans, the war went well.
Sisko might have deceived the romulans into entering the war, but the romulan soldiers died for Romulus - to keep their empire suveran and to amass spoils of war. The romulans were successful on both accounts.

I think Sisko was mightily relieved, as well as immensely pissed off, when he heard Vreenak's shuttle was destroyed.

So much is certain.

 

[blackzoid]

"In war, NO ONE has the moral high ground.
War is, at most, necessary (ex - for self defense), but make no mistake - it is a VERY BLOODY business. It's kill or be killed.

Apropos Picard - he had his own "In the pale moonlight". The episode is called "TNG:I, Hugh".

Picard choose the opposite of Sisko's choice - he refused to use Hugh in order to stop the borg and save HUNDREDS OF BILLIONS of lives.
Since that time, the Borg Collective destroyed hundreds of species, killed billions upon billions of sentient beings and assimilated yet other billions.
THE BLOOD OF ALL THESE BEINGS STAINS PICARD'S HANDS, TOO, BECAUSE HE COULD STOP ALL THIS AND DIDN'T. And that's supposed to be the moral decision? Laughable!"

It's easy to judge Picard based on what -did- come to pass, but if Hugh's individuality had disrupted the entire collective (it clearly affected at least his ship), I wonder whether you'd be judging him so harshly?

But Picard knew that Hugh's individuality won't affect the entire collective - to be exact he knew that the chances of this happening were almost zero.

Picard knew that the only realistic chance of stopping the borg was to use Hugh to dismantle the collective consciousness with that logical paradox.
He choose not to do this because this would mean using Hugh, knowing full well that he's condemning who knows how many BILLIONS - perhaps the entire Federation, too - to death - or worse!
My statement is accurate:
"THE BLOOD OF ALL THESE BEINGS STAINS PICARD'S HANDS, TOO, BECAUSE HE COULD STOP IT ALL AND DIDN'T. "

Not to derail the thread completely but:

1: Picard had 2 options to use Hugh. As a carrier of the computer virus or as a carrier of the sense of individuality. Either way, Picard hoped that the Collective would be altered. He picked the bloodless option, but he still picked an option. Either way, he did not just do nothing.
Don't strawman that away.

2:
"But Picard knew that Hugh's individuality won't affect the entire collective - to be exact he knew that the chances of this happening were almost zero."

Sorry, you are wrong here. Thats not what he believed at all. I've just seen the episode again and thats a flat out falsehood. He suggested that there was a chance of the sense of individuality being transmitted throughout the collective. No mention of it being almost zero. And Picard was the person with the experiance of what it was like in the collective. So he would have the first-hand experiance of collective internal communication.

3: I won't dwell on this point as we are assuming the programme would have worked, but it would be pretty unrealistic for a civilisation as advanced as the Borg to be thwarted by a computer puzzle. I doubt that the Borg would have fallen for it. But no problem, lets continue to assume that the programme would have worked. That doesn't necessarily mean Picard knew that the Hugh virus of Individuality would NOT have worked.

 

[DonIago]

^Well-said. Thank you.

 

[Arpy]

This is great. There's so much to address but it'd be impossible. Let me begin by saying that I'm not entirely unconvinced that forcing the Romulans' hand was wrong. I too think they were just waiting for the Dominion to weaken the Federation and Klingons enough that they would be the sole superpower after the war. Section 31 was thinking along similar lines, strategizing the balance of power post-war with the Federation and Romulans vieing for the top spot, the Klingons being so spent they'd not be as great a threat. The Romulans know the Dominion is a threat and this is their best chance at destroying them.

On the other hand, what if the Dominion would have honored the treaty? They weren't your typical conquer-by-arms empire. What if they would have left the Romulans, Miradorn, Tholians, Talarians, Sheliak, Gorn, Nausicaans, Tzenkethi, Ferengi, and scores of lesser powers be (together they're quite a bit of trouble) in return for certain concessions. The Karemma and Dosi and maybe the Tosk hunters seemed happy enough. Maybe they'd let other powers join the Dominion willingly. Then again, even if they would have, they'd be fools to.

But here's the thing. If these weren't the actions of Treks most "badass" captain Ben Sisko, or if the show didn't have another year to go, there was a very good chance that the Dominion would have found out about the ruse and then the war would be over. Then in the place of praise for all the wonderful gray immoralities we had fun with on the TV show, there would be melancholy among the viewers for getting a really dramatic - and very realistic - but too grim ending.

Here's another question. What if the decision to be immoral here were carried out not by a few individuals alone but by the entire Federation/Klingon alliance? What if we decided to let the Hobus supernova destroy Romulus (latest Star Trek movie) for similar reasons? Then we do become the "bad" guys we're fighting, just that it's us benefiting from these tactics and, well, who cares so long as it is us and not them doing it to us?

 

[Arpy]

"In war, NO ONE has the moral high ground.
War is, at most, necessary (ex - for self defense), but make no mistake - it is a VERY BLOODY business. It's kill or be killed.

Apropos Picard - he had his own "In the pale moonlight". The episode is called "TNG:I, Hugh".

Picard choose the opposite of Sisko's choice - he refused to use Hugh in order to stop the borg and save HUNDREDS OF BILLIONS of lives.
Since that time, the Borg Collective destroyed hundreds of species, killed billions upon billions of sentient beings and assimilated yet other billions.
THE BLOOD OF ALL THESE BEINGS STAINS PICARD'S HANDS, TOO, BECAUSE HE COULD STOP ALL THIS AND DIDN'T. And that's supposed to be the moral decision? Laughable!"

It's easy to judge Picard based on what -did- come to pass, but if Hugh's individuality had disrupted the entire collective (it clearly affected at least his ship), I wonder whether you'd be judging him so harshly?

But Picard knew that Hugh's individuality won't affect the entire collective - to be exact he knew that the chances of this happening were almost zero.

Picard knew that the only realistic chance of stopping the borg was to use Hugh to dismantle the collective consciousness with that logical paradox.
He choose not to do this because this would mean using Hugh, knowing full well that he's condemning who knows how many BILLIONS - perhaps the entire Federation, too - to death - or worse!
My statement is accurate:
"THE BLOOD OF ALL THESE BEINGS STAINS PICARD'S HANDS, TOO, BECAUSE HE COULD STOP IT ALL AND DIDN'T. "

I find it disturbing that we can't argue about Sisko's morals without trying to attack Picard's. What forum is this? Yeah someone brought him up, but the inferiority-complex here is really...harshing my mellow.

 

[ProtoAvatar]

"In war, NO ONE has the moral high ground.
War is, at most, necessary (ex - for self defense), but make no mistake - it is a VERY BLOODY business. It's kill or be killed.

Apropos Picard - he had his own "In the pale moonlight". The episode is called "TNG:I, Hugh".

Picard choose the opposite of Sisko's choice - he refused to use Hugh in order to stop the borg and save HUNDREDS OF BILLIONS of lives.
Since that time, the Borg Collective destroyed hundreds of species, killed billions upon billions of sentient beings and assimilated yet other billions.
THE BLOOD OF ALL THESE BEINGS STAINS PICARD'S HANDS, TOO, BECAUSE HE COULD STOP ALL THIS AND DIDN'T. And that's supposed to be the moral decision? Laughable!"

It's easy to judge Picard based on what -did- come to pass, but if Hugh's individuality had disrupted the entire collective (it clearly affected at least his ship), I wonder whether you'd be judging him so harshly?

But Picard knew that Hugh's individuality won't affect the entire collective - to be exact he knew that the chances of this happening were almost zero.

Picard knew that the only realistic chance of stopping the borg was to use Hugh to dismantle the collective consciousness with that logical paradox.
He choose not to do this because this would mean using Hugh, knowing full well that he's condemning who knows how many BILLIONS - perhaps the entire Federation, too - to death - or worse!
My statement is accurate:
"THE BLOOD OF ALL THESE BEINGS STAINS PICARD'S HANDS, TOO, BECAUSE HE COULD STOP IT ALL AND DIDN'T. "

Not to derail the thread completely but:

1: Picard had 2 options to use Hugh. As a carrier of the computer virus or as a carrier of the sense of individuality. Either way, Picard hoped that the Collective would be altered. He picked the bloodless option, but he still picked an option. Either way, he did not just do nothing.
Don't strawman that away.

2:
"But Picard knew that Hugh's individuality won't affect the entire collective - to be exact he knew that the chances of this happening were almost zero."

Sorry, you are wrong here. Thats not what he believed at all. I've just seen the episode again and thats a flat out falsehood. He suggested that there was a chance of the sense of individuality being transmitted throughout the collective. No mention of it being almost zero. And Picard was the person with the experiance of what it was like in the collective. So he would have the first-hand experiance of collective internal communication.

3: I won't dwell on this point as we are assuming the programme would have worked, but it would be pretty unrealistic for a civilisation as advanced as the Borg to be thwarted by a computer puzzle. I doubt that the Borg would have fallen for it. But no problem, lets continue to assume that the programme would have worked. That doesn't necessarily mean Picard knew that the Hugh virus of Individuality would NOT have worked.

About the 'sense of individuality' attack - as I remember the episode, it was a last second addition, a long-shot, made after Picard decided NOT to use the logic puzzle.
It was NOT an option competing with the 'logic puzzle' - we did not see Picard weighing the pros and cons for them - the 'logic puzzle' was clearly far better.
We did see Picard saying "there was a chance of the sense of individuality being transmitted throughout the collective", acknowledging this chance was infinitesimal. I have a chance of winning the lottery, too - but I won't hold my breath.

The logic puzzle, on the other hand, had a very good chance of working - according to the episode.

Picard "did not just do nothing" - the option Picard chose had a very small chance of working and Picard knew this. Picard knew that he had only one realistic (as in, it could actually happen, it's not just a mathematical dream) chance of stopping the collective - by using the logic paradox.

But Picard didn't use this logic puzzle - ensuring that billions upon billions will die, when he had a realistic chance of stopping this.
And he didn't use this logic puzzle on so-called 'moral grounds', not because the 'sense of individuality' attack had a better chance.

I find it disturbing that we can't argue about Sisko's morals without trying to attack Picard's. What forum is this? Yeah someone brought him up, but the inferiority-complex here is really...harshing my mellow.

Arpy - I mentioned Picard here because his and Sisko's situations are almost identical.
If you have a logical objection to my argument, let's see it. If not - well, at least try not to so blatantly show your inferiority complex.