MovieChat Forums > Star Trek: Deep Space Nine (1993) Discussion > "The Magnificent Ferengi" morally questi...

"The Magnificent Ferengi" morally questionable?

posted 8 years ago by Ohio9
30 replies | jump to latest

Just saw "The Magnificent Ferengi" in season 6. I gotta say, this was one morally dubious one. Let's recap

The federation is willing to exchange a captured Vorta prisoner to get Quark's mom back even though they know he will be tortured and executed by the Dominion after they get their hands on him. Really? The Federation is willing to hand prisoners over to other nations knowing they will be tortured and killed? Okay....

Then the Ferengi team led by Quark proceed to murder their prisoner, double-cross the Dominion negotiation team, murder a few Jem'Hadar guards, and capture the Vorta negotiator.

Now if this had been done to show how horrible the morals of the Ferengi were, I could accept this. But the tone of the episode and ending seemed to suggest this was all perfectly okay and the audience is supposed to be happy with how the situation turned out.

Really this episode had me feeling bad for the Dominion. They did everything right and seemed to be keeping their end of the deal, yet all they got were double-crosses and murders in return.

This isn't the first ST episode I've seen where the cast did some horrible crime that everyone laughed off or ignored at the end, but it was one where the crimes and immorality were more blatant then most. Anyone else get the same impression?

[–] kerryedavis 8 years ago

But didn't those bad things happen because the Ferengi were bumbling incompetents? Rather than intentionally.

On the other hand, it seems like everything in "In The Pale Moonlight" was intentional, even if through deception on SOMEONE'S part.

[–] frosted_one 8 years ago

That's my recollection not that I rewatch that particular ep ever

[–] Ohio9 8 years ago

The murder of the prisoner was an accident, but everything else was deliberate action. There is also the part where the Federation agrees to hand over their prisoner to the Dominion knowing he'll be tortured and killed. Kind of hard to find a justification for that.

[–] kerryedavis 8 years ago

Maybe since the Vorta as well as the Jem'hadar are just produced by the Founders to act as servants/soldiers, the Federation didn't figure there was much of a problem with one of them being "tortured."

[–] Ohio9 8 years ago

Even if they are just mass produced for combat or leadership, the Vorta and Jem-Hadar are still sentient beings capable of reasoning and agency. As such, you would think the federation would still treat them as beings with rights.

[–] kerryedavis 8 years ago

I'm not so sure. Aren't they created already programmed for obedience to the Founders etc? I suppose they might still have sentience, but not free agency.

[–] Ohio9 8 years ago

Apparently they do, because their actions show it. For example, the captured Vorta explains he's going to be executed when he returns to the Dominion, because Vorta are supposed to commit suicide rather then be captured.

And yet he didn't. He made the choice to go against what the Dominion wanted him to do. Isn't that as clear a sign of agency as one can possibly find?

We've seen other cases before as well. There was the one episode that featured a group of Jem'Hadar that fled from the Dominion hoping to live on their own. There was another episode where a Jam'Hadar murdered his Vorta commander because he was upset the commander had lied to them. This wouldn't happen if the Vorta and Jem'Hadar had pre-programmed unbreakable discipline and loyalty.

[–] kerryedavis 8 years ago

Well since it amounts to a flawed outcome of what his design was, maybe it qualifies as mental illness.

[–] Ohio9 8 years ago

They all seem like reasoned choices, not mental illness.

[–] kerryedavis 8 years ago

Reasoned choices according to us, but not according to how he was designed to behave by his creators/gods.

[–] Ohio9 8 years ago

Yes but again, the fact that they can chose to go against their design proves they have agency.

[–] kerryedavis 8 years ago

But does that prove it automatically deserves to be respected or approved or whatever? One could say the same thing about someone who has free agency not to obey rules against murder, arson, or what-have-you.

[–] Ohio9 8 years ago

I didn't say it proves they deserve respect. I'm saying it shows they should be worthy of human rights. Even arsonists and murderers still are treated as people with rights, worthy of things like the presumption of innocence, right to a fair trial, and protection against cruel or inhumane treatment.

[–] kerryedavis 8 years ago

I suppose then it would depend on what kind of "torture" they planned.

But really, there's still some issues left over from before. If you determine that even a "free agency" is mentally ill by the standards appropriate for them - and once again, the standards appropriate for a Vorta don't have to be the same as for you and me - is it "inhumane" to, for example, keep them confined in order to prevent them from harming themselves or others? Is the answer somehow automatically "no" just because they're a "Free Agency," or maybe just because you're politically liberal or leftist? That was basically the excuse used to empty out mental hospitals a few decades ago in the US, partly resulting in the boom of homeless mentally ill people.

[–] Ohio9 8 years ago

The confinement is not inhuman because the Vorta in question was an enemy soldier captured on the battlefield, thus making him a prisoner of war.

But I just figured the Federation would have a policy against forcibly returning a POW to his side when they know torture and execution will be the result.

[–] jaf51463 8 years ago

One thing everyone seems to be forgetting is that the Vorta is question, Keevan, betrayed the Jem'Hadar under him and told Sisko what their battle plan was going to be in order to save his own life. Sisko hated Keevan for that and had to restrain himself from shooting an unarmed Keevan after the battle was over. (Season 6 Episode 2 "Rocks and Shoals") That being the case, when the opportunity came up to trade Keevan for Ishka, Sisko might have thought that Keevan was finally going to get what he deserved. He did talk Starfleet into approving the deal and that may be why he did.

The one thing that did surprise me in this episode is that the Dominion did not declare war on the Ferengi afterwards - one dead Vorta, two dead Jem'Hadar, and another captured Vorta.

[–] Ohio9 8 years ago

Oh I remember that episode, but I doubt Star Fleet regulations allow the personal revenge desires of their Captains as valid grounds for sending a POW off to certain torture and death.

[–] kerryedavis 8 years ago

Unless Sisko actually told them THAT'S why he wanted to do it, why would it have been an issue?

[–] Ohio9 8 years ago

If he didn't tell them, you still have the same issue I brought up before: The Federation agreeing to send a POW off to torture and death. Whatever Sisko's intent was, you'd think there would be laws against that sort of thing.

[–] kerryedavis 8 years ago

I haven't seen the episode in some time, but I guess it means he made his case to Starfleet, that it was worth it to get back the prisoner/hostage being held, without mentioning his revenge motive.

[–] Ohio9 8 years ago

Yeah I just have a hard time believing Star Fleet would agree to something so brutal no matter what Sisko's intent was.

[–] cind5 8 years ago

Is this the episode with Iggy Pop in it? I just find out that was in one from a IMDB poll. Wow! At least he came his pants on, let's be grateful for that.

Spenser with an "S", like the poet.

[–] cabbageboy316 8 years ago

If you see the previous episode with Keyvon (sp?) you'll really hate that character and want something bad to happen to him, so when it does in the Ferengi episode it was laugh out loud funny. I love this particular episode. Funniest episode of any Trek series.

[–] User_474 8 years ago

The federation is willing to exchange a captured Vorta prisoner to get Quark's mom back even though they know he will be tortured and executed by the Dominion after they get their hands on him.

A captured enemy is not of much concern to most people but in context here Quark and Rom did their part to save the Federation so the Federation was doing its part to help Quark and Rom save their mother. The writers may agree with you because they mitigated the torture with an accidental shot to the chest.

Then the Ferengi team led by Quark proceed to murder their prisoner,

An accident is not murder.

double-cross the Dominion negotiation team

The Dominion that attacked a neutral vessel and took a neutral prisoner, the saints, double crossing saints is evil.

murder a few Jem'Hadar guards

you mean the security forces illegally holding a Ferengi citizen hostage? That's not murder, they were there because other Ferengi may have had an issue with the hostage holding of one of their foremost citizens. The Jem'Hadar should have been better at their jobs if they wanted to hold hostages against the will of the hostage and family of the hostage.

and capture the Vorta negotiator

A Vorta happy to hold hostages and threaten an innocent mother to get something from her children, you seem to be on the wrong side of the moral high ground.

Now if this had been done to show how horrible the morals of the Ferengi were, I could accept this.

The horrible morals that caused them to call in a favour to save their mother, accidentally lose their bargaining chip and solve the issue with daring courage? Fuick those immoral Ferengi.

But the tone of the episode and ending seemed to suggest this was all perfectly okay and the audience is supposed to be happy with how the situation turned out.

The hostage was rescued, no one had to die to do it, all good.

Really this episode had me feeling bad for the Dominion. They did everything right and seemed to be keeping their end of the deal, yet all they got were double-crosses and murders in return.

What are you smoking? They took a 3rd party hostage, they got blinded by the chance to get a bigger prize. Their soldiers cannot be murdered while conducting a mission, they sent soldiers because it was a mission that they should have expected resistance completing. If they were conducting a humanitarian exchange then they would not have needed weapons.

This isn't the first ST episode I've seen where the cast did some horrible crime that everyone laughed off or ignored at the end, but it was one where the crimes and immorality were more blatant then most. Anyone else get the same impression?

If you want to accuse the Federation and Ferengi of being immoral then you have to completely ignore the immoral acts of the Dominion as in it is not immoral to take a mother hostage but it is immoral to rescue the mother.

[–] Ohio9 8 years ago

The hostage was rescued, no one had to die to do it, all good.

Wrong, several people did die in the process. Did you not see the episode or read what I wrote?

Was it ever established that Quark's mom was on a Neutral vessel when she was captured? I don't remember that being mentioned. Accident or not, the Ferangi still totally murdered their prisoner. It was only an "accident" in that one of them was trying to murder someone else. In real life, if you try to murder someone, and your bullet hits a bystander (or a prisoner in your custody), you'll still be arrested for murder. Saying "it was an accident" won't help you.

And there still is the issue of the Federation willingly turning over a POW to certain torture and death. You would think they would have rules against this sort of thing.

[–] User_474 8 years ago

Wrong, several people did die in the process

None of the rescuers was killed as far as I remember. As for the hostage takers, they took a hostage and threatened to kill her. Your moral compass needs adjusting if you think that hostage takers deserve to be dealt with in good faith.

Was it ever established that Quark's mom was on a Neutral vessel when she was captured?

Do you figure the Negus sent his girlfriend into a warzone aboard a belligerent warship? Maybe you do. But then she is clearly a non-combatant from a neutral party. Do you approve of neutral non-combatants being taken hostage and threatened with death unless someone specifically mentions they were on a neutral ship?

And there still is the issue of the Federation willingly turning over a POW to certain torture and death. You would think they would have rules against this sort of thing.

Quark and Rom played their part to save DS9 and the Federation and were owed a favour. The favour was repaid by giving them an actual enemy combatant to exchange for their non-combatant mother and saving her life. You seem to like the Dominion and respect the way they deal with prisoners so what's your issue?

Accident or not, the Ferangi still totally murdered their prisoner. It was only an "accident" in that one of them was trying to murder someone else. In real life, if you try to murder someone, and your bullet hits a bystander (or a prisoner in your custody), you'll still be arrested for murder. Saying "it was an accident" won't help you.

I saw it and I'd call it an accident, there was no intent to murder or even to hit anyone or he would have kept firing.

[–] Ohio9 8 years ago

None of the rescuers was killed as far as I remember

No, but people were still killed in what was supposed to be a peaceful prisoner exchange. And again, the Dominion totally kept their end of the bargain and agreed to every Ferangi demand. As such, it's safe to assume they would have kept their word and made the exchange without violence if things had gone according to plan.

Do you figure the Negus sent his girlfriend into a warzone aboard a belligerent warship?

Doesn't say either way. I don't see any reason for them attacking the ship otherwise. Why would they want too? It wasn't to ransom Quark's mom for money (Nog says they have no interest in latinum), nor was it for the prisoner exchange. The exchange was Quark's idea, not the Dominion's.

You seem to like the Dominion and respect the way they deal with prisoners so what's your issue?

I never said the Dominion treated their prisoners well. Prior episodes clearly showed they don't. And in this one, it was clearly established they were going to torture the Vorta for information and then kill him as soon as they got him back. Iggy Pop's character even said "his fate is sealed".

I saw it and I'd call it an accident, there was no intent to murder or even to hit anyone or he would have kept firing.

Really? That's a pretty generous way of looking at the situation. I think it's pretty clear there was intent to murder. The guy clearly tried to kill Quark. The fact that he didn't fire again doesn't mean he didn't intend a murder on the first shot. In real life, if you shoot at someone once, you will probably be charged with attempted murder even if you miss and don't fire again.

Besides, I think the only reason the guy stopped firing was due to the surprise of hitting the wrong man.

[–] User_474 8 years ago

No, but people were still killed in what was supposed to be a peaceful prisoner exchange.

That's a dead argument, they took a hostage and brought weapons to the exchange. Why did they bring weapons? To kill people to get what they wanted. They lost.

As for the rest. Go ahead and feel bad about it.

[–] kerryedavis 8 years ago

There sure are some odd... moral compasses... on these boards.

[–] User_474 8 years ago

It's a worry that someone would give more consideration to a group holding a gun to an elderly woman's head than to the group who risked their lives against soldiers to save said woman.