www.ditl.org

The moment Hugh is reassimilated by the Borg, he would cease to be "innocent." Moreover, it would be the Borg who in a sense would be killing Hugh (his independent mind, if not his body) through the reassimilation process (we're all assuming this is what will happen and not the "Descent" storyline the writers went with), and it was Hugh's choice to go back knowing he'd be assimilated back into the Collective.

Even regardless of what's been discussed here (I would accept the "murder" in this case as well), the nature of the Borg makes this a situation a bit unlike any in real life.

Rochey wrote:
Picard didn't know they'd survive. Just as Churchill didn't know Nazi Germany would be defeated. Picard's actions could (and may still) have doomed the federation.
How many trillions of innocent beings were assimilated because of Picard's actions? How many cultures were destroyed?

Then why doesn't the US nuke Iran and N. Korea? Bush doesn't know that the US will survive otherwise.

Fine, whatever. The meaning of my point, which you have notably failed to adress, is quite clear. Even so, I'll state it nice and simply for you:

Is allowing Hugh to survive, condeming uncounted trillions to a horrific fate, somehow more moral than killing him, and saving those trillions of lives, and even more in the future?

Hugh is not being allowed to survive, he is just not being murdered. Uncounted trillions were not condemed to a horrific fate - clearly (again) - as they survived,

I've agreed that killing Hugh would be murder. I've agreed that murder usualy warants punishment. I have not agreed that killing Hugh should be treated the same way as someone getting stabbed during a robbery (or whatever). Why? Because there were extenuating circumstances.

Then we are in agreement. But I was dealing in a strictly modern society with modern laws, and quite simply whether Picard was doing the lawful right or wrong thing, not opinionated right or wrong thing. Someone said he would be a traitor if the Borg had (of which there was never any guarentee) destroyed the UFP, which I pointed out would not go down in the records as such, as officially, and officially alone, within the confines of the law, he did the correct thing - regardless of any possible outcome. I believe Picard did the right thing by not murdering Hugh, and if he had, while I believed he would have done the wrong thing, in my opinion he shouldn't be given a custodial sentence or similar - for his work as a SF captain and for the very much so extenuating circumstances.

I believe then Rochey, we both agree on the 'lawful' sides of it, and the disagreement is simply a matter of opinion on morals - whether murdering one individual is justified by the potential survival of millions. The fact is, as what I have been arguing, is that people [deepcrush, for example] doesn't understand the concept of murder.

No, but it can justify the act, as in this situation.

Murder can never be justified.

Wasn't Hugh attracting the Borg by his presence? In that sense, he does represent a threat to the crew.

Hugh doesn't. Hugh as in the sentient being presents no threat to anyone. I'm not sure if he was attracting Borg - I don't ever remember any turning up (don't they just leave their 'dead' or 'disconnected'?), but even if he were, it's only Hugh's presence, not Hugh himself; and they are different things.

Captain Picard's Hair wrote: Even regardless of what's been discussed here (I would accept the "murder" in this case as well)

Then we are in agreement, and the rest is opinion.

Then why doesn't the US nuke Iran and N. Korea? Bush doesn't know that the US will survive otherwise.

Wow! Even starfleet would call that one stupid!

Then we are in agreement. But I was dealing in a strictly modern society with modern laws, and quite simply whether Picard was doing the lawful right or wrong thing, not opinionated right or wrong thing. Someone said he would be a traitor if the Borg had (of which there was never any guarentee) destroyed the UFP, which I pointed out would not go down in the records as such, as officially, and officially alone, within the confines of the law, he did the correct thing - regardless of any possible outcome. I believe Picard did the right thing by not murdering Hugh, and if he had, while I believed he would have done the wrong thing, in my opinion he shouldn't be given a custodial sentence or similar - for his work as a SF captain and for the very much so extenuating circumstances.

I believe then Rochey, we both agree on the 'lawful' sides of it, and the disagreement is simply a matter of opinion on morals - whether murdering one individual is justified by the potential survival of millions.

Hey now, there you go! I think he got it!

The fact is, as what I have been arguing, is that people [deepcrush, for example] doesn't understand the concept of murder.

And then he just lost it. Thats what I get for getting my hopes up. He was on a roll then just pooped it. Did anyone else here think that for some reason I don't understand what murder is? Or is thorin just flopping again?

Then why doesn't the US nuke Iran and N. Korea? Bush doesn't know that the US will survive otherwise.

The US is not in a state of war with these nations. The Federation was in a state of war with the Borg, which is what I was talking about. The Borg were a clear and immediate threat to the Federation, with hostile intentions.

Hugh is not being allowed to survive, he is just not being murdered.

What the hell is the difference? And what the hell does the difference even matter?

Uncounted trillions were not condemed to a horrific fate - clearly (again) - as they survived,

Firstly, trillions were condemned to a horrific fate. You're concentrating on the Federation, but what about all those races in the Delta Quadrant? What about the Gamma quadrant? What about other races in the Alpha and Beta quadrants the Federation hadn't encountred yet?
Secondly, again, they did not know they would survive.

I believe then Rochey, we both agree on the 'lawful' sides of it, and the disagreement is simply a matter of opinion on morals - whether murdering one individual is justified by the potential survival of millions.

On the lawfull side, yes.
But it is not the 'potential' survival of millions. It is the definite survival of trillions, maybe more. Picard knew well that the Borg wouldn't stop assimilating races all over the galaxy, and, despite that, he condemned all those just to allow one man to walk away unharmed.

Murder can never be justified.

Not even to save trillions of sentient, innocent beings?

Hugh doesn't. Hugh as in the sentient being presents no threat to anyone.

As a sentient being, no. But, as you pointed out, his presence does. But that is similar to saying a man forced to be in a war is not, as a sentient being, a threat, merely his presence is a threat. In that situation, the man would have to be killed to preserve lives. As would Hugh. Unfortunate, yes. But necessary, as a lot of things in war are.

I'm not sure if he was attracting Borg - I don't ever remember any turning up (don't they just leave their 'dead' or 'disconnected'?),

No idea, haven't seen that episode in ages. I think someone else mentioned it too, though.

Rochey wrote:

Murder can never be justified.

Not even to save trillions of sentient, innocent beings?

As this is the summation of your points - no.

However, I'd also like to address this;

As a sentient being, no. But, as you pointed out, his presence does. But that is similar to saying a man forced to be in a war is not, as a sentient being, a threat, merely his presence is a threat.

No, it's not. This man forced to be in the war still trying to kill you. He himself is a threat to you. He is aiming a gun at your head - willing or not. Hugh was not a threat, only his presence was arguably. However, I'm pretty sure the Borg weren't coming after him anyway - he's disconnected, why would they? They didn't hunt down the E-D just to get him - or even Locutus/Picard. Hugh's presence is as much of a threat as Picard's presence (which is, IIRC, zero). However, neither are a threat themselves.

However, I'm pretty sure the Borg weren't coming after him anyway - he's disconnected, why would they? They didn't hunt down the E-D just to get him - or even Locutus/Picard.

Hmm, good point. I'll have to watch the episode again.

A question, Thorin.

Were you in Picard's shoes, what would you have done? Would you have condemned Hugh to death to stop the Borg? Or would you have allowed Hugh to live, knowing your actions would condemn billions of sentient beings to a horrific fate, and knowing that as a result of your actions, the Federation, including your homeworld, your people, your friends and your family could be subjected to a fate worse than death?

Keep in mind, you wouldn't know the Federation survives.

First - "unlaeful" is unlawful. There are no degrees. If you want to say that it's not murder when my hypoglecimic reaction caused a death, then you have to revisit your definition. You have heard of hypothetical sutuations, no?

Secondly, any one German or Japanese soldier didn't constitute a threat to the allied nations in WWII - so, would you say that any one of them killed was a victim of murder? You're quibbling over semantics to avoid addressing the issue.[/quote]

I don't know - it's a similar style of unanswerable question to 'if you could only let one live, would you let your mother or father die'.
My opinion is simple - murder - that of which you would be found guitly of in a completely accurate, modern, unbiased court of law today - is never justified. Whether I would kill Hugh or not doesn't change the fact that I believe it is always unjustified - I've knowingly done the wrong things in my life, it doesn't change that it was wrong and my opinion on the right or wrong didn't change.
I'd probably have killed Hugh, because of my selfishness. But it doesn't change that I find it wrong. Just as if I had to allow my mother to survive, or 10 random people survive, I'd let my mother survive. It's morally wrong, but I'm too selfish to do otherwise.

Mikey wrote: Secondly, any one German or Japanese soldier didn't constitute a threat to the allied nations in WWII - so, would you say that any one of them killed was a victim of murder? You're quibbling over semantics to avoid addressing the issue.

[/quote]

No, I'm not. One German or Japenese soldier did constitute a threat to the allies. Not the nations as whole, but to any individual soldier they did. They caused a partial threat to someone. Hugh caused no threat - partial or otherwise - what so ever to anyone.

But the question is would you? Could you? Kill Hugh to protect the UFP.

I could. And I would eat green eggs and ham.

One mistake that everyone seems to be making is assuming that the options are "kill Hugh or let trillions die and/or be assimilated". It's nothing of the sort - Hugh is unusual in this case only because he'd be the delivery mechanism. Billions or trillions would die, because they were Borg. Hugh would die, not because of any specific action against him, but because he too was Borg. As I've already pointed out this is legal under the rules of war - civilian law is utterly irrelevent because it doesn't aplly to war.

There's also the issue that "unlawful killing" is not the same as murder - the former refers to any action with no lawful justification taken with the intention of causing harm that results in a death. Therefore Mikey's example of losing consciousness at the wheel of a car would count as an "accidental death", not an unlawful killing.

Thank you, Seafort - my example was not perfect, as you mentioned, but you support my point. An act which would count as vehicular manslaughter is unlawful, but it is patently not murder.

Hmm, good point Seafort.