I don't agree.
With Worf, Picard reprimanded him because he followed his desire for vengeance while still a commissioned Starfleet officer; killing Duras was both a violation of Starfleet military law and represented a Federation officer interfering with internal Klingon politics at a time when the Federation was trying to maintain its neutrality. Had Worf resigned his commission before killing Duras, I don't think Picard would have reprimanded him.
Agreed. Duty wise, Picard really had no choice.
Similarly, with Ro, Picard didn't necessarily have personal animus towards Maquis members; he was sympathetic to their desire to protect their homes from Cardassian militias. Picard's issue with Ro was that he and Ro had taken an oath as Starfleet officers to obey and carry out lawful orders. Picard viewed Ro's decision as an act of betrayal because she did it while under oath as an officer. Had she resigned her oath, then joined the Maquis, I doubt he would have felt as betrayed.
True, but, one problem is that we see too much of Ro's point of view already to automatically understand Picard's position. We heard how the Cardassians poisoned their replicators. We saw them mow down and kill innocent colonists as a terrorist tactic. Apparently the Federation isn't really going to do anything about it.
So we see Picard calmly and eagerly discussing luring the Maquis into a trap. He seems a little un-sympathetic to what Ro might have seen.
Even after he asks her if she wants out, he then reminds her if she backs out, she'll be throwing everything away, and then threatened to have her court martial-ed if he finds out Ro lied to him.
So at this point, (maybe to us, the audience) Picard really seems out of touch with whats going on. Like he's all duty, and no context.
At the end, after, after he learns she went AWOL, Picard has that look, of utter disappointment and moral indignation--he can't even talk, he's so upset. When Starfleet and the Federation pulled back and refused to help the Romulans resettle, it was arguably immoral, but it was also a legal decision.
So seeing Picard publicly condemn Starfleet and then resign because he was following his conscience, and yet refused to understand why Ro left Starfleet to follow hers for the same type of reasoning-- is there an element of hypocrisy there.
He got angry at her because she killed a lifeform unlike any other known to exist, and did so when it seemed as though establishing communication with that lifeform was a possibility. They did not know with any certainty that the Crystalline Entity understood that it was murdering sentient beings; the possibility existed that the Entity did not realize and did not intend to kill sentient beings, and until such possibility is ruled out, murdering the Entity for something she did not know with certainty that it knew to be immoral, was itself immoral.
I actually believe Picard was technically right. But his delivery -- using Sperm Whales and cuttlefish as a direct analogy to what happened with the human colonists- as well as suggesting the Crystaline Entity had just as much a right to exist as they did-- it seriously damaged his argument.
We saw too much of Dr. Marr's (and Riker's ) point of view already, how it killed billions, so when we see Picard's literal eagerness to communicate with it, it comes off as dangerously out of touch, at least to some viewers.
And the same with Bjayzl. She did something despicable, and would likely get away with it, yet Picard would rather Seven spared her.
Are these examples of some type of toxic morality, where evil things are allowed to continue because of a reluctance to use violence to stop it?