It is hard to take the ethical dilemma of “I, Borg” seriously, because I never bought into the idea that the Borg were stupid enough that they would all get sucked into Geordi’s puzzle of death.
Best and Worst Treatment of Ethical Dilemmas
- Thread starter DonIago
- Start date
It is hard to take the ethical dilemma of “I, Borg” seriously, because I never bought into the idea that the Borg were stupid enough that they would all get sucked into Geordi’s puzzle of death.
I agree, had I been in Picard's position, I probably would have wiped the Borg, or at least tried to. But then, I tend toward brutal pragmatism.
But that's the Star Trek philosophy, I think. What's morally right matters more than what's the greatest good for the greatest number. The needs of the one can indeed outweigh the needs of the many. Look at "Latent Image"... Janeway risks allowing Voyager's only qualified physician to destroy himself because Seven convinces her that it's somehow morally wrong to modify his memories. I know a lot of people like that one, but it's never sat right with me. Especially when she threw the flesh and blood Tuvix under the bus, to save far fewer lives.
But up until that point, the show made it very clear that Picard coming back from assimilation was a one-time thing, an extraordinary circumstance that could not be repeated. So all of those people were functionally dead already. It's basically debating if it's ethical to kill a zombie.
Perhaps I'm forgetting something, but when did the show make that clear exactly? As far as I'm aware, de-assimilating anyone else had never been attempted.
Crusher explained that without the link to the rest of the collective, removing the Borg tech was routine microsurgery. As long as it was active, it wasn't possible to de-assimilate someone without killing them. After the Borg cube self-destructed, she took Picard to Sickbay and removed the tech easily.
In any case, Picard knew the Borg better than anyone else, and he instructed his crew that if they encountered other crew who had been assimilated: "Don't hesitate to fire. Believe me, you'll be doing them a favor."
In any case, Picard knew the Borg better than anyone else, and he instructed his crew that if they encountered other crew who had been assimilated: "Don't hesitate to fire. Believe me, you'll be doing them a favor."
Picard said that in the same film in which he was shown to be blatantly emotionally compromised, and where it was revealed that Crusher hadn't exactly removed all the Borg modifications as thoroughly as she believed, soooooo....
Just because Picard may have been emotionally compromised doesn't mean he was incorrect.
Given everything we know of assimilation... I agree kiling them would be a mercy. If I was assimilated, I certainly would look at it that way.
Given everything we know of assimilation... I agree kiling them would be a mercy. If I was assimilated, I certainly would look at it that way.
"May have been"? I think his 'conversation' with Lily made it clear just how emotionally compromised he was.
I'm not saying he was incorrect either, but I don't think this establishes anything in terms of the feasibility of de-assimilating other people; Our Heroes simply don't have the capacity to do so in the moment.
The real issue is that you have the opportunity to eradicate the Borg... presumably completely, since it has yet to be revealed that there are multiple collectives. Do you do it, whatever the cost to you? Or is the price (be it weaponizing Hugh or wiping out people whose only crime was being in the Borg's way) too high? And if another poster would choose different, why is your decision the right one?
Admiral Necheyev said it best... Picard's first duty is to safeguard the lives of Federation citizens, not 'wrestle with your conscience'. Picard himself said later in the same episode ("Descent") that the moral thing to do might not have been the right thing to do. And there IS a difference between the two things sometimes.
(As far as I'm concerned, because Picard didn't even attempt to use the weapon in "I Borg", it makes him at least partially responsible for everyone afterward who was killed or assimilated by the Borg.)
Assimilated Borg... it is tragic, and it's terrible. But completely honest? Absolutely, they must be eradicated. The Borg can't be bargained or negotiated with, and they will just keep on killing and assimilating until the entire galaxy is Borg. While this does kill billions, it will save trillions from suffering the same fate (or death... if they are lucky).
Basically, the Borg are a disease. For those who think Picard was right in not attempting to use Hugh as the carrier of the weapon, let me ask you this: is it right to allow billions and billions MORE people across who knows how many races to either be killed or assimilated by not even attempting to end the Borg?
(As far as I'm concerned, because Picard didn't even attempt to use the weapon in "I Borg", it makes him at least partially responsible for everyone afterward who was killed or assimilated by the Borg.)
Assimilated Borg... it is tragic, and it's terrible. But completely honest? Absolutely, they must be eradicated. The Borg can't be bargained or negotiated with, and they will just keep on killing and assimilating until the entire galaxy is Borg. While this does kill billions, it will save trillions from suffering the same fate (or death... if they are lucky).
Basically, the Borg are a disease. For those who think Picard was right in not attempting to use Hugh as the carrier of the weapon, let me ask you this: is it right to allow billions and billions MORE people across who knows how many races to either be killed or assimilated by not even attempting to end the Borg?
I imagine Picard himself would acknowledge that his choice not to use the pretty picture makes him somewhat culpable for the Borg's future actions. On the other hand, he was also right that Hugh's acquisition of individuality did cause some disruption to the Collective, and we have no way to know whether the pretty picture would have caused more or less damage.
Going by the novelverse, at least, Our Heroes did eventually find an advanced civilization capable of collectively(!) deassimilating the Borg, so the people who had hope were, in that sense, right to do so.
All Hugh's individuality did was disrupt his cube. We've seen no other evidence of it affecting others, and we have seen the Borg simply disconnect a cube that was too infected or damaged to be useful to them again. (It seems to have been done to Hugh's cube, and the cube with the Borg children in "COLLECTIVE" also had their link severed by the Collective itself.)
Regarding the picture, my point wasn't whether it would succeed or not. My point was it wasn't even attempted, which is why I think Picard's decision was wrong. If he tried it and it didn't work, I can't fault him for attempting to do his job... safeguarding the lives of Federation citizens. (And, quite frankly, every other race in the galaxy.)
Also, according to PIC S2, the Borg (Jurati's collective anyway) would prove decidedly useful against the greater threat that emerged.
But since I would not have known that at the time, were I in Picard's shoes in "I, Borg"... I would most likely have shown Hugh the picture and sent him to take down the Collective, then dealt with the guilt afterward.
But since I would not have known that at the time, were I in Picard's shoes in "I, Borg"... I would most likely have shown Hugh the picture and sent him to take down the Collective, then dealt with the guilt afterward.
Hence my use of the phrase "some disruption". Frankly I suspect if they'd gone the pretty picture route the outcome would have been essentially the same, though perhaps the Borg exposed to the picture wouldn't have been able to be co-opted by Lore, but I'll be the first to admit we have no way to know.
But since we don't really know how much damage Hugh's attempted reintegration did or how much damage the pretty picture would have done, we have no way to claim with certainty which approach would have been more damaging to the Collective; we can only speculate.
I thought Picard not taking the pretty picture approach was very true to the ideals of the franchise, and a very moral/ethical approach to the problem. But as he himself noted, that doesn't mean it was the 'right' approach.
Has anyone ever categorized the dilemmas under type headings?
* Sacrifice one for many or many for one?
* Interfere or not?
* Man or machine?
* Use tech/medicine or not?
* Sacrifice one for many or many for one?
* Interfere or not?
* Man or machine?
* Use tech/medicine or not?
Agreed, and it is very much in keeping with the ideals of the franchise. It was a good dilemma. I simply disagree with Picard's decision.
I really wonder how different the events of TNG and DS9 would be if you swapped Picard and Sisko. I think it's a given that "In the Pale Moonlight" would have progressed very differently, and possibly disastrously for the Federation. DS9 during the Dominion War needed a captain willing to get their hands dirty.
Most certainly. Picard is a captain that's great to have during peacetime. But during a war? As sad as it is to say, he's too idealistic for wartime.
Generally, if many for one is the "moral" option, that's the one they pick.
Someone always interferes, even if the ship as a whole does not.
Man. Star Trek is very human-focused. When the machine is favored, it's because of their human tendencies, not how mechanical they are.
Last one varies.
