You missed a piece in this. When O'Brien went in for his dressing down with Sisko, O'Brien wondered out loud why the transporter wasn't shut down and isolated to O'Brien's com badge location when Sisko realized that O'Brien and his com badge weren't in the same place. O'Brien could not have carried out his plan without assistance from Sisko. Sisko gave a blustery non-answer. O'Brien wasn't a rogue player here. They all held the same values but were constrained by the Prime Directive. The Prime Directive was the rule that they didn't interfere with other cultures. The Prime Directive is a metaphor of people who go into other cultures and change their cultures for the worse, as was blamed on the Christians in the case of some native cultures. If Sisko knew about and could stop O'Brien in a second but allowed his actions, was Sisko complicit in the crime? I don't think it's very unrealistic If Flynn (a military man) committed an illegal action, and Trump knew about it but allowed it anyway, was Trump complicit in the illegal action? Those are some of the questions the US is now asking. I think those scenarios get played out in a lot of ways. In DS9, there's a recurring theme of exploring the point at which inaction or blindly following orders becomes immoral in itself. Picard struggled with it and so did Sisko. They both took actions or inactions they felt were more moral than blindly following orders. [Edit: removed a possible spoiler] I'll just say here that your questions about what happens when military orders aren't followed is explored a lot. About the hunters, I just saw a post on reddit yesterday about a hunter who was killed when the elephant he killed fell on him. The hunter and anti-hunter discussion turned so vitriolic that the thread had to be shut down due to death threats. It doesn't seem like the hunter question is very settled. There's not much more to explore. I've read that when a piece of fiction stays with you, it's a great piece of fiction. This piece made you think and question. I rarely see that when people watch things. I think that's a great achievement for a piece of fiction.It seemed odd to me for two reasons. One, O’Brien is a military man. The military has a chain of command and its instilled in its members that the chain of command shouldn’t be broken for a whole slew of reasons
Those are a ton of questions. Those questions are deep as fuck. Yet none of them were adequately addressed let alone resolved. Tosk went free. For them, the hunt continued. For me, I’m sitting here with philosophical blue balls.
I did not miss that part. However, 1) O'Brien had no way of knowing that Sisko and the rest of the DS9 team would aid him in his crazy scheme (and I'd like to point out that this is once again illustrated by him taking off his badge) and 2) Sisko, through his position of power and authority, is in better position to smooth things over. That's not to say Sisko's decision was right or wrong, just that Sisko was risking less with his choices than O'Brien was with his choices. I think we'll have to agree to disagree on this one, just because I think of the idea of risking the big picture for a small event is unrealistic behavior. I'm not saying that it's the right decision (and depending on when you talk to me I could go either way and I really hate moral quandries), but I'm just saying that I don't think the whole DS9 crew would be willing to take that risk. Dude. Tell me about it. I love animals. I love nature. I believe conservation efforts are extremely important. That said, I don't think hunting is immoral and I do think there's a lot of validity that the act of hunting contributes to the conservation movement and hunting/fishing for your meat is more moral than factory farmed meat and there's all sorts of caveats to all of those statements and blah, blah, blah. That said, holy shit, it's a contentious issue and it doesn't surprise me in the slightest that a conversation about it got out of control on a place like Reddit. Damn.You missed a piece in this. When O'Brien went in for his dressing down with Sisko, O'Brien wondered out loud why the transporter wasn't shut down and isolated to O'Brien's com badge location when Sisko realized that O'Brien and his com badge weren't in the same place. O'Brien could not have carried out his plan without assistance from Sisko. Sisko gave a blustery non-answer.
I don't think it's very unrealistic.
About the hunters, I just saw a post on reddit yesterday about a hunter who was killed when the elephant he killed fell on him. The hunter and anti-hunter discussion turned so vitriolic that the thread had to be shut down due to death threats. It doesn't seem like the hunter question is very settled. There's not much more to explore.
I apologize for assuming that you missed the part about Sisko being complicit. I thought that your conclusion would have been different had you taken that into account. I shouldn't have assumed that. Maybe this series isn't your cup of tea? Since I like moral quandries, the writing seems fine to me. In fact, for me, it's better than most since most series don't even try to contain any moral ambiguity. I do think the whole crew would be willing to take that risk. I base that on other episodes where the whole crew go on a mission, risking everyone's lives for one person's project or experiment or even their mistake. I pondered whether that was realistic or not while I was watching it. I think there are a couple factors that make it more believable, after thinking about it. This group of people are self-selected to be interested in exploration. They're willing to risk their lives for what they find. Banding together to protect everyone equally is also a survival technique. They're more powerful as a group than individually. If that means defending a bone-headed mistake of one crew member, it's still the guiding principle. Also, while life is still fragile, medical technology is so advanced that dying is less likely. That makes risk-taking slightly less risky. An episode from TNG had me thinking about the mindset of the crew a lot. In that episode, the crew found several people in cryogenic stasis. One person revived them through one of those bone-headed errors by a crew member, then the rest of the crew had to deal with it. After the doctor fixed all their medical maladies, she said something about them that stayed with me. "Too afraid to live, too scared to die." or words to that effect. To me, it meant that the people on the starship had decided what they were willing to die for. It gave them purpose and meaning. They were willing to risk their lives for what they believed in, and that included each other.I really hate moral quandries
I don't think the whole DS9 crew would be willing to take that risk.
To clarify, I hate moral quandries when people expect me to have some kind of answer to the quandrie and the stubbornness to stick to it to instead of the flexibility to change my mind or appreciate the fact that there's no easy answer. Now that I'm in season two, I'm liking it a bit more, if only because I'm having so much fun being a sour puss and picking it apart. I've already had one good discussion with a friend about how Starfleet is too lax in its vetting process for recruits and we talked about how having a cultural history of breaking rank isn't healthy for a military institution. We argued briefly, over text, whether or not the Star Trek Universe is indeed a post scarcity society (I hold that it isn't and there's a ton of evidence in DS9 alone to support that) and he made the claim that apparently Earth is a paradise, which until I get more information, I'm actually gonna assume that that's a red flag as absolute claims like that tend to be made by cults, authoritarian governments, etc. So, I'm having fun, but not in the way some people would want me to have fun I think. As to the whole risk taking thing, I kind of see where you're coming from, but I kind of disagree too. I'd hold that while individualism is important, the structure of the organization their in and the values they seem to discuss hint towards a focus on big pictures and greater good. With that in mind, some of the little risks they seem to take puts the greater good in jeopardy and yes, I know life's not that simple. I'm not really a huge fan of any of the characters on the show, but I will say I'm kind of enjoying the evolution of Kira's character, only because she slowly seems to be coming around to understanding that the life she used to lead doesn't have the behavior and values that's conducive to the future she's fighting for and so she's learning on the go. Quark is kind of cool too, if only because he's one dimensional to a fault, so even though he's a character, his role strikes me as more mechanical. Everyone knows what Quark wants and what he's gonna do, so it's all about how they navigate around him.Maybe this series isn't your cup of tea?
A moral quandry is uncertain by definition. They don't have definite answers. People expecting you to have answers are not understanding what a moral quandry is. Glad you're having fun. Maybe these people who are supervising your method of fun can be given a different role in your life? Unless you're hurting someone, you get to enjoy what you enjoy. I'm pretty sure there are entire forums where people analyze and criticize the inconsistencies in the Star Trek shows by episode, by series and across series. As the series goes on, Quark gets a bit more 3 dimensional with a bit of back history. A few of the other characters have some interesting back history as well.To clarify, I hate moral quandries when people expect me to have some kind of answer to the quandrie and the stubbornness to stick to it to instead of the flexibility to change my mind or appreciate the fact that there's no easy answer.
So, I'm having fun, but not in the way some people would want me to have fun I think.
Everyone knows what Quark wants and what he's gonna do, so it's all about how they navigate around him.