That’s exactly the point of the episode. It’s a breakdown of deontology (actions are either good or evil themselves, regardless of their outcomes) compared to consequentialism (good or evil is determined by the outcome of said acts). It’s all well and good for the Federation to adhere to its morals, but the result of that adherence was Sisko posting growing casualty lists in the wardroom week after week. Was Sisko morally wrong for causing the assassination of a Romulan Senator, a criminal, his own ideals, and indirectly causing the deaths of thousands or millions of Romulans, in exchange for shortening the war?
Funny, I hated that episode when I saw it. Seemed like a betrayal of everything the Federation and Starfleet were supposed to stand for.
Strange to think it’s well-received after having such a strong reaction at the time.
That’s exactly the point of the episode. It’s a breakdown of deontology (actions are either good or evil themselves, regardless of their outcomes) compared to consequentialism (good or evil is determined by the outcome of said acts). It’s all well and good for the Federation to adhere to its morals, but the result of that adherence was Sisko posting growing casualty lists in the wardroom week after week. Was Sisko morally wrong for causing the assassination of a Romulan Senator, a criminal, his own ideals, and indirectly causing the deaths of thousands or millions of Romulans, in exchange for shortening the war?
Also Avery Brooks’ performance was intense.
Excellent breakdown, thanks for your reply.
I suppose I’ll have to re-watch and see how I react now. At the time, I was horrified.