www.ditl.org

But the Borg are not hell bent on taking over humanity. They are more mildy interested in us and thus send a cube if one is in the area.

OK - I'll accede to that, at the time of "I, Borg." However, previously and subsequently they were - "BoBW," "FC."

The borg liek to change their minds alot, god knows they are run by a woman! What else could you expect!

But the Borg are not hell bent on taking over humanity. They are more mildy interested in us and thus send a cube if one is in the area.

I wouldn't call it 'hell bent', but they do seem to have an unhealthy (for us) interest in assimilating us.

Picard chose to uphold his morals ahead of his survival.
To equate it to modern day life, even in war time - murder is one of the few crimes that cannot be defended by the plea of 'necessity'. If Picard murdered an innocent individual then he would be guilt of murder - regardless of whether it was necessary. The fact is there were alternate solutions - as shown by the very existance of the Federation, and that the Borg only sent two cubes to assimilate the UFP - both of which were destroyed, the second of which by completely 'convential' and non-luck related means.
If the Borg had then come to assimilate the UFP in force, Picard would still have not commited murder. He wouldn't be considered a traitor - he did the right thing, regardless of the outcome. There is a very old saying - 'the ends do not justify the means'.

Its easy to think such (The ends don't justify the means) when you are still alive and millions have died to make it so.

If someone could have killed hitler in 1941, would you still complain about it?

Thorin wrote:To equate it to modern day life, even in war time - murder is one of the few crimes that cannot be defended by the plea of 'necessity'.

It does, however have the defence of "self-defence". Quite apart from the fact that the anti-Borg virus would have been far more effective than modern biological weapons, it also wouldn't have suffered from the biggest problem with such weapons - the fact that they're indiscriminate. The virus would have worked solely against the enemy military, and due to its nature could not have affected noncombatants.

Deepcrush wrote: If someone could have killed hitler in 1941, would you still complain about it?

Of couse not - he wasn't innocent. Hugh was. At least, as innocent as Picard and Seven of Nine - he wasn't in control of his actions while in the Borg collective.

It does, however have the defence of "self-defence". Quite apart from the fact that the anti-Borg virus would have been far more effective than modern biological weapons, it also wouldn't have suffered from the biggest problem with such weapons - the fact that they're indiscriminate. The virus would have worked solely against the enemy military, and due to its nature could not have affected noncombatants.

All besides the point - Hugh was not a threat a the Federation, and the Borg were. Murdering Hugh is not self-defence - regardless of the ends. In the eyes of the law, killing an innocent being for whatever ends (including the survival of yourself/others) is murder.

All besides the point - Hugh was not a threat a the Federation, and the Borg were. Murdering Hugh is not self-defence - regardless of the ends. In the eyes of the law, killing an innocent being for whatever ends (including the survival of yourself/others) is murder.

Yes, it would have been murder. But the alternative was to allow the continued existence of a race which was the largest threat to the survival of every race in the AQ and BQ ever encountered. Do you really not think that one murder would be worth the continued survival or dozens, maybe hundreds, or races? And that's not including whatever effects it might have had for the races fighting the Borg off in the DQ.

Hugh was a threat. His very presence attracted the Borg to the E-D, and more importantly he was an enemy soldier. The fact that he expressed no personnal hostility towards the E-D crew is utterly irrelevent - and that would disappear once he was reassimilated. Picard passed up the oportunity to launch an effective and discriminate attack on the Federation's greatest enemy, a dereliction of duty for which he should have been court-martialed.

Thorin wrote:

Deepcrush wrote: If someone could have killed hitler in 1941, would you still complain about it?

Of couse not - he wasn't innocent. Hugh was. At least, as innocent as Picard and Seven of Nine - he wasn't in control of his actions while in the Borg collective.

It does, however have the defence of "self-defence". Quite apart from the fact that the anti-Borg virus would have been far more effective than modern biological weapons, it also wouldn't have suffered from the biggest problem with such weapons - the fact that they're indiscriminate. The virus would have worked solely against the enemy military, and due to its nature could not have affected noncombatants.

All besides the point - Hugh was not a threat a the Federation, and the Borg were. Murdering Hugh is not self-defence - regardless of the ends. In the eyes of the law, killing an innocent being for whatever ends (including the survival of yourself/others) is murder.

Your point is a fair one for morals but still silly in reality. Hugh wanted to return to the borg, so as far as I care he was guilty. A lot of people die everyday for you to live the way you do. Not all of them are soldiers but in the end it doesn't matter who they are. They are either on one side of a war or another. With you or against you. There isn't any gray area to play cute and nice when dealing with the borg.

Rochey wrote: Yes, it would have been murder. But the alternative was to allow the continued existence of a race which was the largest threat to the survival of every race in the AQ and BQ ever encountered. Do you really not think that one murder would be worth the continued survival or dozens, maybe hundreds, or races? And that's not including whatever effects it might have had for the races fighting the Borg off in the DQ.

Not that I like quoting Star Trek in the real world, but how many murders does it take before it becomes wrong? 1? 10? 1000? A million?

Captain Seafort, Hugh was not a threat. Maybe his presence was, but as a sentient being he was not a threat. He was as much of an enemy soldier as Picard and Seven of Nine.

I'm not saying what I would have done in the situation, doubtlessly I would prefer by civilization to continue - but whether I would murder someone to it? What is the threshold of number of innocent beings where murder becomes wrong to save yourself?

If people die for the reason to save me, or my way of life, then that was their choice. If Hugh willingly gave up his life to destroy the Borg - absolutely fine. If he didn't, then it was murder, and you can't say at some point it is okay to murder someone to save yourself, then at another is isn't okay to murder more to save yourself.

Murder is a meaningless killing of another. That death would not have been meaningless.

Deepcrush wrote:Murder is a meaningless killing of another. That death would not have been meaningless.

I suggest you look up the definition of murder, because that first sentence I can categorically state as wrong.

Which definition I should ask first. As there is atleast one per person on earth and there have been many billions of people on earth. What is murder to a man who kills to save his family vs a man who is just looking for some quick cash? You "categorically state" is worthless when lives are on the line and you have the chance to save them.