Worf's decision in "Change of Heart"

[Watersluis]

If you put the lives of those you love at risk for the nebulous many, I don't think you can be trusted.

After all, who are you fighting for if not the people you care for?

I think military commanders tend to award responsibilities to those who choose the nebulous many, and those that don't will find themselves losing wars, and everyone they care for in the process.

The collaborator Worf was to rescue had vital information which would enhance the U.F.P.'s chances of winning the war. — He would surely live to regret his decision if the U.F.P. had lost by the skin of it's teeth, and would have won if not for that information.

 

[Captrek]

If you put the lives of those you love at risk for the nebulous many, I don't think you can be trusted.

After all, who are you fighting for if not the people you care for?

Didn’t Picard let Jack Crusher die for a greater good? And, in a roundabout kind of way, his own mother (by putting the key back for his child self to find)? And sacrifice Tasha Yar to restore history? What about Kirk and Edith Keeler?

 

[Watersluis]

Didn’t Picard let Jack Crusher die for a greater good? And, in a roundabout kind of way, his own mother (by putting the key back for his child self to find)? And sacrifice Tasha Yar to restore history? What about Kirk and Edith Keeler?

Troi was promoted to commander for showing to have the capacity to order a man to his death to save the others. — Obviously inside of a simulation this is quite a bit easier than in real life.

It's quite ludicrous to suppose that a military commander would be expected to defy orders and let a thousand men die to save one he happens to be close to. — Such is surely an offence criminally punishable. “compassion” is a quaint choice of words for irrationality and nepotism in this case.

 

[Charles Phipps]

Troi was promoted to commander for showing to have the capacity to order a man to his death to save the others. — Obviously inside of a simulation this is quite a bit easier than in real life.

It's quite ludicrous to suppose that a military commander would be expected to defy orders and let a thousand men die to save one he happens to be close to. — Such is surely an offence criminally punishable. “compassion” is a quaint choice of words for irrationality and nepotism in this case.

I think a commander who lets his own family die to serve the cause should be immediately fragged by his troops. He is a fanatic and a madman.

There's a reason dystopian and totalitarian regimes try to turn parents against their children.

 

[DonIago]

But a commander who's willing to let a million people die to save four is not a fanatic and a madman?

 

[Charles Phipps]

But a commander who's willing to let a million people die to save four is not a fanatic and a madman?

You believe what you want.

 

[Watersluis]

I think a commander who lets his own family die to serve the cause should be immediately fragged by his troops. He is a fanatic and a madman.

He would certainly not, especially if he would disobey an order to do so.

There's a reason dystopian and totalitarian regimes try to turn parents against their children.

Ah yes, those regimes that exemplify the nepotism of favoring their families while the people starve, to which you advocate.