oh man

[DBS]

I really like that summation, herelad!

A little re-examination of my thoughts before might be in order. Thanks for the alternate viewpoint!

I agree with you that it was important to show that such an optimistic outlook can work, at least within that universe. Thus the Dominion War becomes analogous to the "surprising" successes of the democracies in World War I, where a way of life that seems inferior or naive to the traditionalists of the day proves able to hold its own.

I would caution future Trek writers against emphasizing the darker sides of characters and their morality, however. The important philosophical point here is that Trek characters sticking with their "more evolved sensibility" is a better way than stooping to amoral (or outright immoral) acts to "preserve the Federation at all costs".

So I would say that reaffirmative/redemptive conflicts like the Dominion War are important, both to history and to affirm the Federation's principles. It is not, in my opinion, okay to have the characters compromise those principles! That directly undercuts the philosophy.

(By the way, I think that any future series should focus on the ouster and dissolution of Section 31 . We've already had the fight for the Federation's physical existence, now it is time to reclaim her soul!)

[Sionnach Glic]

@Herelad

You have some good points there, it got me thinking somewhat diferently on a few points.

(By the way, I think that any future series should focus on the ouster and dissolution of Section 31 . We've already had the fight for the Federation's physical existence, now it is time to reclaim her soul!)

I would personally love to see Section 31 being shut down, its very existence goes against everything the Federation stands for.

[Mikey]

I agree 100% - with the horrible conotation attached the groups like the Tal'Shiar, etc., it leaves a very bad taste in my mouth to suddenly find out the the Federation (the Federation!) has it's own thought police. Then to find out via Enterprise that it's actually OLDER than the Federation.

The history of sci-fi, as well as of the world - not to mention my own relatives' experience with the Schutzstaffel - indicates that the presence of such a group means a moral failing in the society which produced it. That may be the way of the world, but it's not supposed to be the way of the ideal.

[Teaos]

I think section 31 is a needed evil. They may be morally wrong but they would have won us the war when all else seemed lost against the Dominion. They do what they do for the Federation and they seem to get results.

[Sionnach Glic]

Good point.
I mostly just dislike it because its so un-Federation.

[Mikey]

I think section 31 is a needed evil. They may be morally wrong but they would have won us the war when all else seemed lost against the Dominion. They do what they do for the Federation and they seem to get results.

But isn't the Federation supposed to be the ideal - willing to suffer without the expedient answers of Section 31, if it means maintaing the greater moral good?

[Captain Seafort]

It also makes the Federation seem more realistic. If they didn't have something like Section 31, while their enemies have the likes of the Obsidian Order or the Tal'Shiar, it's unlikely that the Federation would survive. It also removes the problem that the Federation is always depicted as a flawless utopia (strong implications of Communism aside), if something appears to be too good to be true, it usually is.

[Mikey]

Sorry, that wasn't too clear. What I mean to say is this: You can't be the ideal, the moral compass, or whatever, if you let the end justify the means.

[Captain Seafort]

You can't be the ideal moral compass if you get wiped out either. Like all thing it's a balance - in this case between being stupidly naive or becoming the same evil you hope to defeat. Refusing to take advantage of your opponents' weakness simply so you can maintain the moral high ground would be suicidally stupid. What, after all, have Section 31 done? A few political games to ensure that the Romulan government maintained a favourable attitude to the Federation, somewhat tame compared to, say, the US intervention in Chile in '73. Only the attempted genocide against the Founders could be considered to have a serious ethical question mark over it. Even that could be interpreted as blackmail rather than genocide, given their development of a cure.

[Mikey]

Of course you're right, in the real world. My government here in the U.S. of A. has done things that would make this argument absolutely ludicrous. However, this is not the real world that we're discussing; it's a TV show, and more specifically it is Gene Roddenberry's vision of a platonic ideal, paragon, archetype, or whatever you'd like to call it.

[SolkaTruesilver]

I think section 31 is a needed evil. They may be morally wrong but they would have won us the war when all else seemed lost against the Dominion. They do what they do for the Federation and they seem to get results.

But isn't the Federation supposed to be the ideal - willing to suffer without the expedient answers of Section 31, if it means maintaing the greater moral good?

Willing to suffer, yhea
Willing to die? no

[Teaos]

Section 31 has never really done anything that wrong. The founders hadit coming to them. I doubt many in the Federation would shead a tear for them.

[Mikey]

Don't get me wrong - I would have wanted them to perform the necessary evils on my behalf if I were a Federation citizen. What I'm saying is, and I guess it expresses dramatically the difference between TNG and DS9, that 'Trek is a show - the Federation on that show was meant to espouse certain ideals, and the presence of Section 31 takes away from that conception.

[Teaos]

I get what you mean. But DS9 is more realistic in showing that while things like section like 31 is wrong they are a anavoidable part of life.

[SolkaTruesilver]

Exactly. Worf said it one. "We were like heroes of the ancient saga, there was nothing that we could not accomplish".

TNG was the depictions of.. the best of the best of the best. They were true angels of morality, going around in a battleship - the flagship of the Federation! -. Super-Starfleet to the rescue!

DS9 is about peoples living in space. About these same angels having to live along side Religious terrorists, Ferengi Scoudrels, Cardassian Tailor. (The later is the one that makes me the more afraid). DS9 is about shades of grey. Depiction of.. not-so-white morality, put against a much darker shade of grey. (would you have sided with the Klingons during the Invasion of Cardassia? Or warned the Cardassians?)