^ Using the same logic, let us use as an example the traditional early man, the founder of human civilization. For all intents and purposes, the Biblical story of Cain and Abel suffices.
Did the first man on earth who committed murder commit a single act, or did he create a resulting effect of retribution and vengance which has carried on to the present day? If the latter is true; if one man's anger was the starting pistol for hatred for thousands of years, then should that man be judged as having the blood of all men killed through violence thereafter on his hands, or should he not?
I suggest that he should not, because we rationally understand that if "Cain" had not been the first man to kill his fellow man, another man would have been. Likewise, I make some motion to the end that the event of "I, Borg" cannot be treated as a single catalyst which would have necessarily defined all future Borg engagements.
On the other hand, if we are to assume that the Borg virus would have been as entirely effective as it was hoped, we may look to a 20th century example of the same moral question: Was the nuclear bombing of Japan merciful, in that it ended the war, or was it genocide?
We might stamp endorsement upon the bombing of Japan, but would any of us dare to frown on someone who would, under those circumstances, refuse to wipe entire cities of unarmed civilians off of the map? Would anyone dare say, "Because you will not kill women and children, you are a murderer?"