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! 😊
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.
It certainly shows that the federation doesnt need a weird shadowy organization to skirt the rules and make morally ambiguous decisions.
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
@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! 😊