I’m disappointed that they clearly don’t. The same tired justifications which amount to the ideals of Star Trek are a luxury made possible by hard men doing bad things in the dark.
It’s a fundamental misunderstanding of what Section 31 is supposed to be. Sloan wasn’t a good guy. 31 actively tried to commit genocide.
The idea behind them is that arguments of ends justifying the means and “getting dirty” to preserve higher ideals is morally, philosophically, and practically bankrupt. The Federation didn’t need 31 to win the war, and in fact, their methods would have made it much worse. Section 31 as a plot device exists to show us that there will always be those looking to use higher ideals to support terrible actions, and we must be constantly vigilant against them.
It truly pains me how that message has been twisted, and people think Section 31 are not only good guys but also cool.
Do we know that for certain? The cure to the virus was actually pretty fundamental to the Female Changeling ordering the Jem’Hadar to stand down. She refused to surrender until Odo linked with her and cured her.
i think that the existence of the disease is more of a maguffin than the point that the solution was achieved without section 31… the “problem” could have been any number of unrelated things (eg some spacial anomaly threatening the founders for some reason, etc) and the fact that it’s s31 is more an interesting plot device to create other narratives around, rather than degrading the ultimate point
What, then, is the message in the episode where Sisko “would do it all again” concerning assassinating a political rival and faking evidence to bring the Romulans into the war against the Dominion? It’s an example where I can still see the show trying to say “sometimes good people must do bad things for the good of all” that doesn’t even concern Section 31.
episodes shouldn’t be assumed to be exploring the same moral or philosophical points… it’s very difficult to explore complex logical arguments through innuendo whilst also maintaining a consistent grounding for all of them
and also, the decision is left up to the viewer: by presenting situations that both (perhaps) cross, and do not cross the line it allows us to form our own opinions, rather than the shows writers convince us of their idea of what’s right and wrong
people are fallible: the shows writers, and the characters. in some of that inconsistency, we can form our own ideas of what we believe
Sorry if I wasn’t clear; I didn’t mean to make it sound like an attack or a lecture. Section 31 is just one of my pet peeves in Trek for a while. We are in agreement! 😊
Villains or heroes isn’t the issue. It’s the argument that we need a group that doesn’t play by the rules that apply to the rest of society that I find problematic.
Shouldn’t we strive for a world in which the rules really do apply to all? Can’t we hope to conceive of a set of laws standards by which we should all be judged? Isn’t the world of Star Trek meant in some way to be aspirational, rather than just a reflection of what we have now?
Lieutenant Barklay and the huge, powerful, and successful paramilitary organization who employs him are exactly who is supposed to guard Federation worlds. Which is what they do.
Not sure if you caught the reference, but the person you’re replying to was paraphrasing Nicholson’s line from A Few Goof Men. They’re likely not actually taking that position in the debate.
They were definitely villains in the series…but I don’t think DS9 ever made a strong case that they weren’t necessary (nor do I think they were trying to).
Right up until the end, the morphogenic virus was critical to the end of the war.
I’ve often thought that there must have been plenty of Section 31 operations that didn’t rise to the level of, you know, genocide, and that those operations were likely more ambiguous.
I’m hoping that whatever they’re up to in this movie is more in that vein - almost certainly illegal, but probably more ethically murky?
I think the dark humor is what kills this for me. A “mission impossible” style spy show set in the Star Trek universe would be fine. An empress from the mirror universe who gets her kicks killing and eating people with a wink and a nod to the audience isn’t anything I’m interested in.
Right, it’s Sisko’s “It’s easy to be an angel in paradise…” from season 1. That’s the main theme of the whole show - how do the Federation’s ideals hold up in significantly less than ideal conditions? What does it mean to be “the good guys” when all of the choices in front of you are varying degrees of bad?
People always mention the later seasons, understandably so, but it carries through the entire series. In some ways, it’s even more prominent in the early seasons when DS9 is portrayed as being pretty remote, Federation back up is far away, the main cast is own their own, and the Cardassian fleet is always nearby.
I’m disappointed that they clearly don’t. The same tired justifications which amount to the ideals of Star Trek are a luxury made possible by hard men doing bad things in the dark.
Yeah. Reading the article, Section 31 seems great if you just want to just shit on everything else in the franchise. Nope, not for me.
@toast
I mean, in DS9, section 31 were clearly villains, right?
Not heroes in the shadow. This is what they told themselves in order to justify their shit.
@ThirdMoonOfPluto
It’s a fundamental misunderstanding of what Section 31 is supposed to be. Sloan wasn’t a good guy. 31 actively tried to commit genocide.
The idea behind them is that arguments of ends justifying the means and “getting dirty” to preserve higher ideals is morally, philosophically, and practically bankrupt. The Federation didn’t need 31 to win the war, and in fact, their methods would have made it much worse. Section 31 as a plot device exists to show us that there will always be those looking to use higher ideals to support terrible actions, and we must be constantly vigilant against them.
It truly pains me how that message has been twisted, and people think Section 31 are not only good guys but also cool.
Do we know that for certain? The cure to the virus was actually pretty fundamental to the Female Changeling ordering the Jem’Hadar to stand down. She refused to surrender until Odo linked with her and cured her.
i think that the existence of the disease is more of a maguffin than the point that the solution was achieved without section 31… the “problem” could have been any number of unrelated things (eg some spacial anomaly threatening the founders for some reason, etc) and the fact that it’s s31 is more an interesting plot device to create other narratives around, rather than degrading the ultimate point
What, then, is the message in the episode where Sisko “would do it all again” concerning assassinating a political rival and faking evidence to bring the Romulans into the war against the Dominion? It’s an example where I can still see the show trying to say “sometimes good people must do bad things for the good of all” that doesn’t even concern Section 31.
episodes shouldn’t be assumed to be exploring the same moral or philosophical points… it’s very difficult to explore complex logical arguments through innuendo whilst also maintaining a consistent grounding for all of them
and also, the decision is left up to the viewer: by presenting situations that both (perhaps) cross, and do not cross the line it allows us to form our own opinions, rather than the shows writers convince us of their idea of what’s right and wrong
people are fallible: the shows writers, and the characters. in some of that inconsistency, we can form our own ideas of what we believe
It certainly shows that the federation doesnt need a weird shadowy organization to skirt the rules and make morally ambiguous decisions.
@astronaut_sloth
This is actually, how I understood it.
Sorry if I wasn’t clear; I didn’t mean to make it sound like an attack or a lecture. Section 31 is just one of my pet peeves in Trek for a while. We are in agreement! 😊
Villains or heroes isn’t the issue. It’s the argument that we need a group that doesn’t play by the rules that apply to the rest of society that I find problematic.
Shouldn’t we strive for a world in which the rules really do apply to all? Can’t we hope to conceive of a set of laws standards by which we should all be judged? Isn’t the world of Star Trek meant in some way to be aspirational, rather than just a reflection of what we have now?
We live in a world that has
wallsfederation worlds, and those federation worlds have to be guarded.Who’s gonna do it? You? You, Lieutenant Barclay?
Yes?
Lieutenant Barklay and the huge, powerful, and successful paramilitary organization who employs him are exactly who is supposed to guard Federation worlds. Which is what they do.
Not sure if you caught the reference, but the person you’re replying to was paraphrasing Nicholson’s line from A Few Goof Men. They’re likely not actually taking that position in the debate.
They were definitely villains in the series…but I don’t think DS9 ever made a strong case that they weren’t necessary (nor do I think they were trying to).
Right up until the end, the morphogenic virus was critical to the end of the war.
@ValueSubtracted
I wanted to watch the series again, anyway. It’s been a time.
As I remember it, they left it rather ambiguous, which is the actual point.
If moral choices were easy, we wouldn’t have to think about them too much.
Yes, the virus ended the war, but at what price?
I completely agree.
I’ve often thought that there must have been plenty of Section 31 operations that didn’t rise to the level of, you know, genocide, and that those operations were likely more ambiguous.
I’m hoping that whatever they’re up to in this movie is more in that vein - almost certainly illegal, but probably more ethically murky?
I think the dark humor is what kills this for me. A “mission impossible” style spy show set in the Star Trek universe would be fine. An empress from the mirror universe who gets her kicks killing and eating people with a wink and a nod to the audience isn’t anything I’m interested in.
Villains who’s engineered virus forced the Dominion to the negotiating table… just saying.
“Good and evil isn’t as black and white as TNG portrayed it” is kinda DS9’s whole deal.
Right, it’s Sisko’s “It’s easy to be an angel in paradise…” from season 1. That’s the main theme of the whole show - how do the Federation’s ideals hold up in significantly less than ideal conditions? What does it mean to be “the good guys” when all of the choices in front of you are varying degrees of bad?
People always mention the later seasons, understandably so, but it carries through the entire series. In some ways, it’s even more prominent in the early seasons when DS9 is portrayed as being pretty remote, Federation back up is far away, the main cast is own their own, and the Cardassian fleet is always nearby.
deleted by creator