Morality in Spooks

[NightOwl]

Do you think the Spooks are moral? How does the show define morality?

For instance, many posters have described Lucas's

Series 9.6 Spoiler: show

letting Danielle die as unforgiveable, irredeemable, etc.

I haven't had time to go back and review the episode one thread, but I don't remember the same sense of outrage with

Series 9.1 Spoiler: show

Harry's appointing himself judge, jury, and executioner of Nicholas Blake. Harry commited a pre-meditated murder of a British subject on British soil in order to get revenge for the death of his officer. The U.K. has a functioning legal system and doesn't have the death penalty. Harry did not confess to the killing afterwards and accept his punishment. In fact, he covered up both the killing (making it look like a heart attack) and his guilt.

I have to believe that the writers anticipated that viewers would find Harry's actions acceptable. Whether they anticipated the negative reaction for Lucas's deed, I don't know. I'm not sure if we were supposed to be turned against Lucas or be sympathetic toward his situation.

Series 9.1 Spoiler: show

I realize that Blake admitted his guilt. But he did so only after Harry poisoned him. What if he had denied it? Would the possibly that Harry had killed an innocent man change people's reactions?

Series 9.6 Spoiler: show

Does it matter that Lucas may have thought Danielle could only know about Albany because she was part of whatever the series 9 conspiracy turns out to be.

Numerous times the members of Section D have engaged in murder or assasination, torture, or coercion. It's always done on the grounds of the greater good or the best interests of the nation. Yet they always seem to be disgusted when similar actions are committed by the CIA, FSB, or non-Section D British officials for those very same reasons. Should I be, too? Or should simply continue to frighten my cats by yelling "Moral relativism and hypocrisy!" at my TV on such occassions?