About your quote: “You cannot explain away a wantonly immoral act because you think it is connected to some higher purpose.” ~ Jean-Luc Picard

I look at it in three ways,

• Wantonly: We can either define as "(of a cruel or violent action) deliberate and unprovoked." or "in a reckless way" Reckless: without thinking or caring about the consequences of an action.

I think we can agree that this was not a unprovoked or reckless action. It was provoked by the Marquis use of cloaked missiles armed with biogenic (Genocidal?) weapons, in addition to Eddington's betrayal, theft and sabotage. It was not reckless because this was all leading up to the dominion war. This is after the first adversarial conflict with the dominion, and getting the Cardassians as an ally would undoubtedly be more beneficial than an alliance with the ragtag Maquis. Though I am curious if you believe otherwise.

• Re: Immorality: I think my other comment has more to discuss on this point, so I wont repeat that here.

• Higher Purpose: I can see this in a few ways The first is merrian-webster, and the least helpful: " a more meaningful reason to live, work, etc"
  secondly is the top result on google for me
  Which gives several points, but boils it down to "Higher purpose is just purpose beyond yourself, and you identify it when you find a goal that you really want and believe in." and lastly, I see it used often in a religious way.

What "Higher Purpose" do you believe Sisko uses, and why use this quote for this situation?

Eddington says he has a Higher cause/purpose , but I (as sisko does) argue he is the one acting recklessly in additionally to selfishly here, risking war with the Cardassians when there is a greater threat looming (The dominion) , a threat Eddington would know about as security officer.

EDDINGTON: Tell me, Captain. What is it that bothers you more? The fact that I left Starfleet to fight for a higher cause, or the fact that it happened on your watch?

SISKO: You didn't leave Starfleet. If you had, I wouldn't be here. You betrayed Starfleet. You used your position as security chief to feed the Maquis information about us. And at the same time, you misled us with false information about them. There is a word for that. Treason.

EDDINGTON: Look out there.

(Sisko looks out into the main cave again.)

EDDINGTON: Those people, They were colonists on Salva Two. They had farms, and shops, and homes, and schools, and then one day the Federation signed a treaty and handed their world over to the Cardassians. Just like that. They made these people refugees overnight.

SISKO: It's not that simple and you know it. These people don't have to live here like this. We've offered them resettlement.

EDDINGTON: They don't want to be resettled. They want to go home to the lives they built. How would you feel if the Federation gave your father's home to the Cardassians?

SISKO: I'm not here to debate Federation policy with-

EDDINGTON: I didn't tell you to turn around. Look at them, Captain. They're humans, just like you and me, and Starfleet took everything away from them. Remember that the next time you put on that uniform. There's a war out there and you're on the wrong side.

SISKO: You know what I see out there, Mister Eddington? I see victims, but not of Cardassia or the Federation. Victims of you, the Maquis. You sold these people on the dream that one day they could go back to those farms, and schools, and homes, but you know they never can. And the longer you keep that hope alive, the longer these people will suffer.

This conflict is morally grey, but I don't think its appropriate to just write off my arguments because of a quote from another morally compromised captain.

Because you said you rewatched it, how do you justify you use of the words "sterilized" and "humanoid" in your comment I originally replied to? Additionally, you use the word "Centuries" but the bomb will only "make the planet uninhabitable to all human life for the next fifty years."

What occupation are these Maqius humans fleeing from?

Why do you say they have no other options despite being offered to be resettled?

How are the Maqius "reclaiming" that world?

Is using a chemical method to make the planet uninhabitable to humans less moral than Picard teleporting everyone away against their will?

What do you think the cardassians would have done to the men women and children if Sisko did not solve this problem preemptively?

Edit: was it immoral for Kira to burn down the cottage in DS9: Progress?

For sure, one thing I love about ST is how diverse the main characters are between shows. I wouldn't want every captain to just just be a rehash of Sisko, Picard, Kirk or any of the others. Each captain's uniqueness is that makes them interesting and captivating.

I can see how it can be appealing. Makes for good storytelling at the very least.

That's what I really like. It's fiction and people can get their good storytelling. I wish they would stop electing leaders who behave against the future of humanity.

Archer withheld a cure for an entire species because Phlox convinced him it was the natural course of things. (Valakians) Janeway goes back in time to get her ship home with more crew alive, altering history in who knows what ways for the entire galaxy.

I feel like Janeway was justified if just due to the fact that the Equinox was a Starfleet crew that were breaking major Federation law. If any ship in the Delta Quadrant had the right to punish the crew of the Equinox, it was Voyager.