DS9: In The Pale Moonlight. What would YOU do?

Consider this is question of ethics and principles posted for our officers.

I'm just getting into DS9. Of all the series, it's the one I watched the least of, and am finding that Sisko might just be my favorite captain. Noting also that my RP concept fits in with Sisko's background (I never knew he was a fellow 'New Orleanian') ties into a small background story that gives my toon even more depth.

But that's another story for another time.

This question is simple, if you haven't seen the episode, 'In the pale moonlight,' go and watch this clip:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dTgGtJ-PisA

Now, tell me, what would you have done in this situation? Sacrifice your principles for the greater good? Stood fast in what you believe?

This is your command. How would you handle it?

Personally, my character would have done the same thing. He wouldn't have liked it, but he would understand the need for such a decision.

It is a tough situation, but the fact is, I would or rather of let the Romulan's sit neutral then run the scheme. It was too high risk, if the Romulans ever found out, it would be war with Starfleet, and a permanent black mark in diplomatic futures. Sisko gambled with the lives of billions, and that is a level of arrogance I can not appreciate in any way.

i highly believe in the phrase "by whatever means neccessary" what sisqo did was morally wrong but when you're at war morals are out the window. plus it was only a few romulans

bloodsyn wrote:i highly believe in the phrase "by whatever means neccessary" what sisqo did was morally wrong but when you're at war morals are out the window. plus it was only a few romulans

Mores do not fly out the window when war breaks out. If you are fighting a war against a tyrant, but you become a tyrant to beat him, great you stopped a tyrant but you fixed nothing, furthermore you ensure more warfare and more lives lost.

If you have to fight a war, fight to preserve life, and fight with ethics and mores. it is the responsibility of every officer to consider the ethics and moral implications of their choice in a time of war. Sisko failed in this regard, and while it may of worked out, it risked FAR more damage then he had to gain.

But, to play devil's advocate, you can argue that if Sisko DOESN'T make that decision, it costs billions of lives as well. The above is a Kobayashi Maru of sorts. It is a no win situation.

You can argue that Sisko's decision risked billions of lives; you can argue that it saved billions of lives.

The Romulans were going to pick a side, they just didn't know what side they were going to land on when the time to choose came. Starfleet wanted the Romulans in their corner, and new the implications of the decision if Vulcan's cousins made the choice to side with the Dominion.

It really comes down to this: Do you want your principles to be the reason billions die, or do you want your lack of principles to be the reason billions die?

war does not preserve life. those who believe that are idealist fools.. There are times that to beat one enemy one must become that enemy and what sisko did was becoming of a romulan or even a cardassian not a startfleet captain. War is the single greatest destructive force in existence. Reasons for war are irrelevant. The basic facts remain you must defeat your opponent by whatever means neccessary.

The what ifs do not excuse an unethical choice. The simple fact is, the Romulan's had not chosen a side, and Sisko, in an attempt to FORCE them to choose, plays at subterfuge and risks making a mistake to cause them to choose the other side.

Simple fact is, especially in the context of the other events, the Romulans had a vested interest in DS9, they were benefiting from it under Starfleet control. They were running out the clock, staying neutral, because they were having troubles of their own.

They would of sided with the Federation, if only because it benefits them, and the Romulans have shown the cardassions far less love then the Federation. Sisko made an arrogant call, placing HIS desire above the lives of others. It was not his decision to make, it was the Romulan's choice, a choice he robbed them of through deception. This is not a K-Maru choice.

What defines character is the choices we make when it matters. His choice shows he is no better then the Dominion, or the Romulans.

I think Garek explained this the best...

Garek wrote:And if your conscience is bothering you, you should soothe it with the knowledge that you may have just saved the entire alpha quadrant, and all it cost was the life of one Romulan senator, one criminal, and the self respect of one Starfleet officer. I don't know about you, but I'd call that a bargain.

Cardassians get the job done, and can rationalize the motives of anything to make it smell like a rose.

The problem with this question is I know the outcome of the results. Given that, my answer is skewed. So I can't really explain why either because it'll spoil it for you.

You'll see what I mean shortly.

Yea it's one of the best episodes of DS9. DS9 ws the best of all the seasons because of the war and all the cool ship battles . I think if it was me and was begging to suffer soo many casultys then i would do whatever was necessary to win the war.

Definitely do what he did.

Simple fact is that if he hadn't then the Romulans would have stayed neutral and then get destroyed by the Dominion after the Dominion beat the Federation-Klingon Alliance. And if it had failed the Romulans would have either stayed neutral or attacked the Federation too. So either way the Federation-Klingon alliance was going to lose, so there was basically nothing to lose except some moral conscience. It was the logical thing to do. I would have done the same.