Not rescuing Nero: thumbs up or down?

[Amaris]

Well, I'm going to jump in here and say that I agree with the decision Kirk & Spock made. Nero had killed billions of sentient beings, destroyed a homeworld, wanted to destroy many more homeworlds and billions more lives and forever altered billions and billions of lives. I wouldn't have even offered to help, and I would have fired as much as I could, on that ship to ensure its destruction.

J.

 

[Peter the Younger]

You know, there is a reason Deontology is a philosophy that is discussed only in the ivory towers of academia. It's similar to the reason the writers of DS9 thought up Section 31.

You can be as eminently civilized as you wish, consider every decision carefully in terms of its ultimate good, seek - and find - moral perfection in every single situation... if you have the luxury of living in an unrealistic utopia.

In the real world, the savages will eat you.

 

[Heimdall]

You know, there is a reason Deontology is a philosophy that is discussed only in the ivory towers of academia. It's similar to the reason the writers of DS9 thought up Section 31.

You can be as eminently civilized as you wish, consider every decision carefully in terms of its ultimate good, seek - and find - moral perfection in every single situation... if you have the luxury of living in an unrealistic utopia.

In the real world, the savages will eat you.

Discussed only in the ivory towers of Academia? I..actually disagree. Another of the major criticisms of Kantian Deontology is that it is simply the popular morality redressed. That is, it's the morality of common people, dressed up as a higher form of ethics. I believe this was Nietzsche's stance, actually. You see it every day, though in less sophisticated forms. There are examples of people being Deontological all throughout history and yet not 'being eaten by savages'. As well, sometimes if they are, their legends become much more than themselves. Think of Socrates. Jesus. Jeanne D'arc. Every time someone makes a stand of principle against the inevitable, they're being Deontological at some level. Most of our heroes, the people who give us hope and inspiration were/are at some level Deontological. Admittedly it's not easy in the real world. But was it ever easy in Star Trek, for instance? No. But the point is that the moral choice is not easy. It's often the hardest things which are the most moral.

 

[cbp44189]

They offered him a rescue.

He refused.

They honored his request.

It was logical.

I agree. In fact, I thought they showed mercy by blowing him out of space.

 

[ProtoAvatar]

The borg.
Are the borg good or bad?
During star trek, the borg were portrayed numerous times as being a giant consciousness. There were not just a machine following a program, they were aware.

This means that they are deontologically evil. They know what they are doing, they have a choice.

And they are evil from an utilitarian POV. They don't see assimilating others as "adding others to their perfection.", they see it as adding to their perfection. Period.
The collective doesn't care about anyone else but themselves. In "Q Who", Q tells Picard that the borg won't even acknowledge him because he's "too small". That's what other life forms are to the borg - a bug to be squashed.

The borg queen is just a drone. When was the last time a borg queen tried to stop the collective's murderous ways? Her design is different from a standard drone - she has more autonomy - but she does not have free will. The queen is there only to further the objectives of the borg.

In "Scorpion", we learn that Picard said, after he was freed from the borg, something like this: -Do not expect reason or mercy from the borg. In its collective state, it knows no remorse; only the will to conquer.


Will the virus from "I, Borg" work?
Heimdall, you and I know practically nothing about borg tech and star trek technology in general. We're like cavemen trying to figure out how a computer works.
Data, La Forge and Picard, on the other hand, know a lot about the trekverse technology - including the borg variety. If they think that the virus has a very good chance of working, then the virus has a very good chance of working. It's as simple as that.
Your wild speculations about how the colective will counter the virus are just that: speculations based on a ridiculously superficial knowledge.

Borg modus operandi and strength.
"in the canon universe the Borg /do not/ attack in a large force"

But they do. In "Q who", Guinan explained how the borg act.
First, they send a few probes to assess the target civilization's defenses. These would be the cubes from "Best of both worlds" and "First contact".
Then, they come in force, in large numbers. Let's say, 1000 cubes in 30 years - more than enough to assimilate everyone in the Alpha and Delta Quadrants.

You don't seem to understand how desperate the situation is. The Federation is ridiculously outmatched by the borg. In Voyager, it is established that the borg control vast territories in the Delta Quadrant, that they have hundreds of thousand of cubes. The Federation only has, at most, 30000 vessels - and I'm counting the last piece of junk, not just Enterprise-like ships.

Utilitarianism - what are the chances?
"Didn't you earlier mention that even a 10% chance of having billions die is unacceptable? I'm noticing a degree of inconsistency in your judgment calls"

Inconsistency? Hardly.

If Picard uses the virus, there's, let's say, a 90% chance that the collective will be destroyed and a 10% chance that the borg will survive and attack sooner.

If he doesn't use the virus, there's a 99% chance that the borg will attack the Federation in 30 years - and assimilate the Federation and everyone else from two quadrants.

And don't think that 30 years will somehow level the playing field between the borg and the Federation.
The Federation will progress, but so will the borg.
By its nature, the collective doesn't have internal strife, economic crises, stagnation. It assimilates technology from the entire Milky Way galaxy and several parallel universes, keeping itself at the peak of technological evolution. It assimilates worlds and builds cubes with exponential speed.
The Feds will be "lucky" if the gap in power between The Federation and The Borg Collective doesn't increase dramatically.

Now, tell me, what is the better utilitarian option?

Deontology
You think not using the drone is deontologically correct?

Not using the drone will almost certainly condemn your entire civilization - and numerous others - in a few decades. Hundreds of billions will die or be assimilated.

Using the drone will give these hundreds of billions a 90% chance of survival. When dealing with someone as powerfull and malevolent as the borg, 90% is a godsend, a miracle!
But Picard didn't do it because he selfishly wanted to follow his strict moral code. His decision was immoral by any standard - including the deontological one.

Defending against the borg - self-defense or not?
The Feds are acting in self-defense when trying to destroy the borg even if the borg don't fire on them momentarily. Why?
Because it is virtually certain that the borg will attack with deadly force later on.
If you know with certainty that the person next to you will shoot you after 1 hour, you are in self-defense if you attack this person, trying to stop her by any means necessary.

The borg drone are slaves? Regretable. But if a drone or a million drones attack you, you are in self defense when you kill them.

 

[QuasarVM]

Once again, your ignore my statements and carry on as if adding smilies and exclamations points on vapid responses adds more weight to your argument.

Nobody said let him go. Nobody. The arguments that have been proposed break down like so.

1. Arrest him and try him for crimes against sentient lifeforms
2. Let him die in the black hole
3. If he must be killed by the Enterprise and her crew there are much better ways of writing the scene so we don't even have this debate.

Is that simple enough?

Uh...duhhhhh...no...uhhhh...not simple enough for an intellectually challenged dimwit like meee...uhhhh...could you re-explain it? Uhhh...duhhh...I'm not sure I gots it....

Me just wants to see blood, guts and explosions...uhhhh...duhhhh....

Quazar, that is really not necessary. Could you please cut it out?

I would "cut it out", but I'm not intellectually superior enough to figure out how to do that. I need you to explain to me how...uhhhhh....

Only you are smart enough to know how. I need your sage wisdom and superior intellect to guide me...SOS! Or is that SMI (Save My Intellect)?

 

[ProtoAvatar]

Heimdall
"when you expressly desire revenge like that, you are reduced to being no better than Nero."

I disagree.
Nero killed 6 BILLION innocent rational beings. Kirk may have wanted revenge against a sociopath that comited an unfathomable crime. The difference between 6 BILLION people and a monster is HUGE.
If deontology can't differentiate between Kirk and Nero, if it can't differentiate between "one person or five trillion" then it has serious flaws and is in need of revision.

"people's perceptions are different from what is Right."

Nero's guilt is beyond question.

"As stated before, it would be just to execute him via due process."

So, if Kirk has his revenge, it's immoral. If the Federation (or the state) has its revenge, by executing Nero (after due process, of course), it's just and moral. Why exactly is that so?

 

[Feofilakt]

So, if Kirk has his revenge, it's immoral. If the Federation (or the state) has its revenge, by executing Nero (after due process, of course), it's just and moral. Why exactly is that so?

Because one is outside the law and the overriding duty to serve both humanity and the federation while only serving moral gratification and the other is not. Individuals cannot make that decision, because there is simply too much inconsistency among people. What you think warrants execution is different from what I think warrants execution and so we leave the state and law to decide that. There is a reason civilizations move beyond the most basic "eye and for eye" morality and justice systems: Because it is incredibly destabilizing and often leaves many parties unsatisfied. What is worse than eye for an eye mandated by law? Vigilante individual based justice or blood feuds, which actively degenerate society.

If Nero was about to escape, sure... fire and kill him to prevent this from happening again. However, the poor writing did not reflect this reality and we are left with Kirk having to either bring him in (if possible) or blowing him out of existence when he was doomed anyway, which looks quite bad.

 

[Amaris]

^ I disagree. Nero killed billions and was intent on killing billions more, well into the trillions most likely. It had been noted that his first passage through the singularity did not destroy his ship, therefore it was imperative that he not be allowed to enter the singularity, on the chance that he might make it through once more. Kirk offered assistance. Nero declined. Therefore, Nero either knew he was going to die, or knew he had a chance of making it through the singularity. Either way, immediate action had to be taken. Once Nero turned Kirk down, that opened the playing field completely. I feel Kirk and Spock's actions are completely justified in this particular situation.

J.

 

[Heimdall]

"Heimdall
"when you expressly desire revenge like that, you are reduced to being no better than Nero."

I disagree.
Nero killed 6 BILLION innocent rational beings. Kirk may have wanted revenge against a sociopath that comited an unfathomable crime. The difference between 6 BILLION people and a monster is HUGE.
If deontology can't differentiate between Nero and Kirk, if it can't differentiate between "one person or five trillion" then it has serious flaws and is in need of revision."

Or, once gain, it's not concerned with outcomes. You seem to fail to grasp this point. Consider the following.

If we say sentient life is infinitely valuable, we have to acknowledge the consequences of that. For instance, if I take one "Infinite" and compare it to 6 billion other "Infinites", are the 6 billion other "Infinites" larger than the one infinite? No. This is because even a single Infinite is limitless, and encompasses the scale of the other 6 billion infinites as well as itself. They would be equal due to this quality. In fact, it would be 'redundant'.

On the other hand, if we say sentient life is not infinitely valuable, we have to acknowledge the consequences of that. For instance, that there are distinct values we can place upon people, either monetary or not.

And, once again, you're missing the point. The point isn't that a Deontologist couldn't act against Nero and stop him, or potentially even kill him. The point is that 1; Whatever Nero did to "deserve" it is rather irrelevent. And 2; Two wrongs don't make a right. Whatever he did does not allow other people to make equally evil acts. Once again, the difference is only in intent.

Nero's guilt is beyond question.

Straw man argument. When did I ever say differently?

So, if Kirk has his revenge, it's immoral. If the Federation (or the state) has its revenge, by executing Nero (after due process, of course), it's just and moral. Why exactly is that so?

It's only revenge if the intent is to have revenge. That is, I'm angry and I want to make myself feel better. If it's done via a different process, for instance enacting Justice, it's not Revenge. You're confusing Justice and Revenge.

 

[ProtoAvatar]

Feofilakt
First - Nero was about to escape to another time - he had done this once before. Ergo, Kirk's motives were, primarily, morally utilitarian, not egoist.

Secondly - I agree with your argument, and it explains why it is necessary, from a practical POV, to obey the law.
I was asking Heimdall why it is moral, from a deontological POV, for the state to have its revenge, but not for the individual.
Deontological moral and practicality have little in common - as Heimdall keeps pointing out.

 

[Heimdall]

The borg.
Are the borg good or bad?
During star trek, the borg were portrayed numerous times as being a giant consciousness. There were not just a machine following a program, they were aware.

Aware in the sense that they're an entity with perceptions, but not in the sense that they have choice like we do. All throughout Star Trek we're never really informed as to what extent the Borg are able to deviate. For all we know, the Collective could simply be operating upon a pre-programmed method of behaviour. Think of the "Terminator".

Heimdall, you and I know practically nothing about borg tech and star trek technology in general. We're like cavemen trying to figure out how a computer works.
Data, La Forge and Picard, on the other hand, know a lot about the trekverse technology - including the borg variety. If they think that the virus has a very good chance of working, then the virus has a very good chance of working. It's as simple as that.
Your wild speculations about how the colective will counter the virus are just that: speculations based on a ridiculously superficial knowledge.

I'm inclined to actually believe that Data, La Forge, and Picard don't have nearly as much knowledge about Borg technology as you're suggesting. While Picard may have had more experience than most, he clearly didn't know everything. For example, as you say, it took Voyager for us to learn the full extent of the Borg threat. As well, he was honestly surprised at finding Borg who were still 'borg' but not attached to the Collective. IIRC as well, they were surprised when they found Lore's colony of Borg. I would venture to say that the crew of the Enterprise probably only have a slightly stronger grasp of what Borg technology is like. It's so far beyond them and us it's hard to fathom.

Plainly, they don't have a full grasp of what the Borg are capable of, when it comes to their collective. As well, simply assuming that whatever plan the Enterprise cooks up will work is not particularly wise. There have been many plans which backfire on the various crews in Star Trek; Sisko's in "The Pale Moon light", for instance.

However, what we do have is an example of what happens when undesirable information gets injected into the Collective. Hugh's sense of individuality was enough to throw his Cube into disorder, and as a result the Collective disconnected it.


And they are evil from an utilitarian POV. They don't see assimilating others as "adding others to their perfection.", they see it as adding to their perfection. Period.
The collective doesn't care about anyone else but themselves. In "Q Who", Q tells Picard that the borg won't even acknowledge him because he's "too small". That's what other life forms are to the borg - a bug to be squashed.

Correct, but to say that they are 'evil' infers some sort of choice, some sort of capability. As stated, they are a force of nature. They have no reasoning or conscience as a whole. They just...are.

In "Scorpion", we learn that Picard said, after he was freed from the borg, something like this: -Do not expect reason or mercy from the borg. In its collective state, it knows no remorse; only the will to conquer.

Much like a force of nature, as I said.

But they do. In "Q who", Guinan explained how the borg act.
First, they send a few probes to assess the target civilization's defenses. These would be the cubes from "Best of both worlds" and "First contact".
Then, they come in force, in large numbers. Let's say, 1000 cubes in 30 years - more than enough to assimilate everyone in the Alpha and Delta Quadrants.

You don't seem to understand how desperate the situation is. The Federation is ridiculously outmatched by the borg. In Voyager, it is established that the borg control vast territories in the Delta Quadrant, that they have hundreds of thousand of cubes. The Federation only has, at most, 30000 vessels - and I'm counting the last piece of junk, not just Enterprise-like ships.

You're misunderstanding what I was saying. I was not saying that they don't attack in large numbers. I'm saying that in the Star Trek Canon they "don't" attack in large numbers, in the sense that they didn't attack in large numbers. That is, by Voyager there was no en masse attack on Federation space.

Inconsistency? Hardly.

If Picard uses the virus, there's, let's say, a 90% chance that the collective will be destroyed and a 10% chance that the borg will survive and attack sooner.

If he doesn't use the virus, there's a 99% chance that the borg will attack the Federation in 30 years - and assimilate the Federation and everyone else from two quadrants.

90% chance? Ah, based upon what? Your say-so? I remain unconvinced on the issue. I don't think we can actually place a firm percentage upon this case without becoming completely arbitrary. We have no way of knowing whether the plan would actually have worked, nor to what degree it would work. All we know is that something similar happened with Hugh anyway, and the effect was so minute as to not be noticed that much by the Borg.

You think not using the drone is deontologically correct?

Not using the drone will almost certainly condemn your entire civilization - and numerous others - in a few decades. Hundreds of billions will die or be assimilated.

As stated earlier, Deontology is about doing the right thing regardless of the outcome.

Using the drone will give these hundreds of billions a 90% chance of survival. When dealing with someone as powerfull and malevolent as the borg, 90% is a godsend, a miracle!
But Picard didn't do it because he selfishly wanted to follow his strict moral code. His decision was immoral by any standard - including the deontological one.

First of all, we don't know if there's a 90% chance of survival. You're artificially, arbitrarily imposing that to prove your point when there's no way for us to know whether it would actually work.

Also, as stated earlier. Someone deontologically following their principles is not selfish. It could be pig-headed, but it's simply not selfish. As well, it's not immoral by the Deontological standard. Honestly here, you're getting irrational.


Defending against the borg - self-defense or not?
The Feds are acting in self-defense when trying to destroy the borg even if the borg don't fire on them momentarily. Why?
Because it is virtually certain that the borg will attack with deadly force later on.
If you know with certainty that the person next to you will shoot you after 1 hour, you are in self-defense if you attack this person, trying to stop her by any means necessary.

I actually disagree here. If you somehow knew someone was going to shoot you, you do not have the right to attack them before they attack you as you act before they can. This is called a 'pre-emptive attack', and lead to a wide berth of Epistemic and ethical issues. For instance; they never made the choice in the first place to attack. This is ESPECIALLY true if we consider the Borg to be able to make ethical choices as you're suggesting. The future is always uncertain.

Likewise, let's not forget the massive damage imposed upon the Borg by the Voyager and Species 8472. This further makes the situation risky because the Federation would not have survived as it was if the Borg was provoked into attacking. This damage however gives the Federation more time to prepare for when the Borg start looking their way again.

 

[Heimdall]

First - Nero was about to escape to another time - he had done this once before. Ergo, Kirk's motives were, primarily, morally utilitarian, not egoist.

As we argued earlier, there's no certain way we can tell it would be able to survive the journey this time. As well, you're forgetting something.

I said Deontology and Egoism could not coexist. I never said Utilitarianism and Egoism couldn't coexist. Remember, Utilitarianism is only concerned with the outcome. If you're a dick, and your actions come out alright, a Utilitarian won't really argue against it. As well, there's no evidence to suggest that he wasn't being egoist. In fact, due to his reaction, he likely WAS being egoist by persuing revenge.

I was asking Heimdall why it is moral, from a deontological POV, for the state to have its revenge, but not for the individual.

I've already answered this question.


Deontological moral and practicality have little in common - as Heimdall keeps pointing out.

Deontological morality and practicality have little in common? Not...really. That's negative phrasing. Often, Deontology is incredibly practical because it inspires people and binds them together in a much superior manner than Utilitarianism or Egoism does. What's more practical than an ideology which actually allows your society to survive and surpass itself?

 

[ProtoAvatar]

"The point is that 1; Whatever Nero did to "deserve" it is rather irrelevent. And 2; Two wrongs don't make a right. Whatever he did does not allow other people to make equally evil acts. Once again, the difference is only in intent."

1.So, according to deontology, killing 6 BILLION people is equally evil to killing a sociopath, largely for utilitarian reasons.
I said it before - if deontology can't differentiate between 1 genocidal sociopath and 6 BILLION inocents, then it has seriuos flaws.

BTW - Some infinities are bigger than other infinities. It's counterintuitive, but it is so. If you don't beleive me, read Georg Cantor - he's the mathematician who discovered this and drove himself crazy trying to make sense of all the infinities he discovered

2.And that Kirk did the morally wrong thing when he killed Nero is open to debate.

"It's only revenge if the intent is to have revenge. That is, I'm angry and I want to make myself feel better. If it's done via a different process, for instance enacting Justice, it's not Revenge. You're confusing Justice and Revenge."

The sentence a court of law pronounces has two purposes: to rehabilitate the convicted and to punish them. A death sentence can have only one purpose - to punish the criminal, to get revenge - you can't rehabilitate someone who's dead.
It is both justice and revenge. So, why is it deontologically moral?

"Deontological morality and practicality have little in common? Not...really."

History proves that the ones who are more powerful, more cunning, more ruthless win in the vast majority of cases. The idealists who value intent above result usually end up dead - inspiration for future generations.

 

[Heimdall]

1.So, according to deontology, killing 6 BILLION people is equally evil to killing a sociopath, largely for utilitarian reasons.
I said it before - if deontology can't differentiate between 1 genocidal sociopath and 6 BILLION inocents, then it has seriuos flaws.

Straw man argument. I never said that. What I DID say was that killing someone for Egoist reasons was wrong by Deontology. That is, taking revenge. Likewise, there's no evidence that he was really doing it for "Utilitarian reasons". His reaction belays the efforts of someone forced to kill another person for "the greater good".

As well, Deontologically, killing 6 billion people is the same as killing one other evil person(Sociopath doesn't really fit the character you're describing. He was angry because something he cared for was destroyed. A sociopath would shrug and move on.) if the intent is the same. There's no quantitative value. However, wanting to kill a race of people is different from wanting to kill a single person due to reasons of intention. Greater degrees of Malice, for instance.

BTW - Some infinities are bigger than other infinities. It's counterintuitive, but it is so. If you don't beleive me, read Georg Cantor - he's the mathematician who discovered this and drove himself crazy trying to make sense of all the infinities he discovered

Then we're dealing with infinites all of equal size. Otherwise, we're forced to place a distinct value upon people.

The sentence a court of law pronounces has two purposes: to rehabilitate the convicted and to punish them. A death sentence can have only one purpose - to punish the criminal, to get revenge - you can't rehabilitate someone who's dead.
It is both justice and revenge. So, why is it deontologically moral?

Once again, the Federation does not have the Death Penalty. You can reference this in multiple episodes.

As well, you're arbitrarily placing value judgments upon the death penalty. "Getting Revenge" is not the only reason for killing them. Revenge is tautologically an act of personal self gratification. Enacting Justice is another reason. In this case, a member of a society could be deemed 'too dangerous' to continue in the society or any other society. Hence, they are killed. This is not Revenge because the intent is not to make oneself feel better, but to prevent future problems. Notice the distinct differences?

History proves that the ones who are more powerful, more cunning, more ruthless win in the vast majority of cases. The idealists who value intent above result usually end up dead - inspiration for future generations.

Not really. That's a massive overstatement. Cunning has a degree of truth, but Deontologists and Consequentialists can both be cunning(For instance, I figured out a great way to prevent telling someone a truth you don't want them to know without lying). The same with power. All you're left with here is Ruthlessness, and I can cite numerous examples where a person's Ruthlessness actually lead to their downfall. Hitler being one of them. but You're forgetting the value of idealists as well. Where would society be without those people who dream for the future? No where. As well, you're underestimating the ability of a Deontologist to be practical. Read W.D. Ross for some reference here. A Deontologist is not adverse to a positive action, for instance. They will work to have the best outcome within the confines of what is morally acceptable.

 

[Qonos]

Star Trek plots with BALLS are the best (Khan--FC)...

Kirk offered Khan the opportunity to surrender in TWOK, of course.

He even tried - sincerely - to reason with the guy who'd killed his son in TSFS.

That said, if Young Kirk is an ethically facile hothead that's fine with me, I buy it, it's within the scope of character growth. Young Spock behaving as he did, though, makes him a pussy. Can't stand the heat...

I agree completely with what you said about Spock in the link in your other post above.

For Kirk, yes, it is an ethical question. I'd have had no problem if he had simply offered to rescue Nero (even if it's a half-assed offer), Nero tells him to, "Fuck off," and so Kirk says, "Fine. Mr. Sulu, get us out of here." And off they go.

Instead, he decided to stick around and fire on a ship that was already being destroyed by a black hole. What? Kill Nero before the black hole does?

I'd say it's more an act of mercy, Nero is dead before the Gravity can rip his body to shreds on an Atomic level.

 

[ProtoAvatar]

Heimdall
The borg.
The borg - sentient or not?
Once again - during star trek, the borg were described multiple times as being a giant consciousness. Consciousness does not mean "an entity with perceptions", it means sentience, awareness.
For example (and there are others) - In VOY:"The Gift", Janeway describes the borg as being a giant consciousness - sentient in the fullest sense of the word.

This means, of course, that the borg are evil - by any definition of morality: deontological or utilitarian.

Defending against the borg - self-defense or not?
If you know beyond a reasonable doubt that your future aggressor will try to kill you, you have the right to defend yourself.
For example, if your agressor is a professional assasin and you know he was paid to kill you in an hour, you are in self-defense when, lacking other options, you are attacking him, trying to stop him from killing you.

The virus from "Q Who" - will it work?
The scenarists' intent was clear - if released, the virus will work. In the episode, there was never a doubt about that. In future episodes, the scenarists reinterpreted their ideas - somewhat.
In VOY:"Endgame", though, that neurolitic agent Janeway used to infect the borg worked like a charm.

Picard&co had only a slightly better understanding of borg tech than we do?
No. Absolutely not.
We have no understanding of Federation technology whatsoever. Or, perhaps, you can tell me how to generate efficiently strong gravitational and antigravitational fields? And be as detailed as possible!
The Federates are at a level at which they can understand borg tech without 10 years worth of explanations - unlike us.

Utilitarianism
"90% chance? Ah, based upon what?"
Based upon the scenarists' intent.
The percentage could be a lot lower and still the option to use the virus is the best option.
You don't seem to understand the gravity of the situation. Everybody in the Milky Way Galaxy is living on borrowed time. In a few millenia, at the most, the entire galaxy will be assimilated - unless a mindboggingly improbable event happened.

Deontology
Picard choose not to use the drone because he wanted to make the perfect moral choice, to look himself in the mirror with pride - and he sacrificed BILLIONS (that billions will die is a certainty) for that. No matter how you look at it, that's egoist. It may not be deontological, but it's egoist.

PS - Have to go for today. Thanks for the cool discussion.

 

[Heimdall]

"Heimdall
The borg.
The borg - sentient or not?
Once again - during star trek, the borg were described multiple times as being a giant consciousness. Consciousness does not mean "an entity with perceptions", it means sentience, awareness.
For example (and there are others) - In VOY:"The Gift", Janeway describes the borg as being a giant consciousness - sentient in the fullest sense of the word."

Awareness, Yes, sentience, not necessarily, choice? No, Consciousness does not necessitate a choice. Let's look at some definitions.

"Consciousness is a word often used in everyday speech to describe being awake and aware – responsive to the environment, in contrast to being asleep or in a coma. In philosophical and scientific discussion however, the term is restricted to a more precise meaning related to the specific way in which humans are mentally aware in such a way that they distinguish clearly between themselves (the thing being aware) and all other things and events."

" the quality or state of being aware especially of something within oneself b: the state or fact of being conscious of an external object, state, or fact"

So far, nothing here necessitates the ability to choose. In fact, some Philosophers like Spinoza claim we have Consciousness, but no ability to choose. Some would say that this lack of Free Will means Good and Evil really don't exist.

No. Absolutely not.
We have no understanding of Federation technology whatsoever. Or, perhaps, you can tell me how to generate efficiently strong gravitational and antigravitational fields? And be as detailed as possible!
The Federates are at a level at which they can understand borg tech without 10 years worth of explanations - unlike us.

First of all, I never said we understood Federation technology. Second, you're asserting something which is not really supported by Canon. The Federation are continually outclassed, and frankly surprised by the level of technology the Borg have. Especially when it comes to their collective. This is supported by


If you know beyond a reasonable doubt that your future aggressor will try to kill you, you have the right to defend yourself.
For example, if your agressor is a professional assasin and you know he was paid to kill you in an hour, you are in self-defense when, lacking other options, you are attacking him, trying to stop him from killing you.

But how can it be self-defense is he actually hasn't made the choice to attack you? You're attacking someone who has not acted against you. Again, this is pre-emptive. I would argue you have the right to PREPARE for it, but I would say you can't directly act against them until they actually make that final choice.

You seem to be going on a "practicality" thing now. What is the practical value of allowing yourself to attack people who aren't openly antagonizing you? I would say there is none, because that can be interpretted to mean anything. Depending on how paranoid you are, this could mean anyone.

The scenarists' intent was clear - if released, the virus will work. In the episode, there was never a doubt about that. In future episodes, the scenarists reinterpreted their ideas - somewhat.

The intent was clear? Obviously not, because I disagree. You're trying to channel knowledge you have no access to here. And you just say so yourself; they changed what they meant, and that means that the official 'canon' is changed by the conditions expressed in later episodes.


In VOY:"Endgame", though, that neurolitic agent Janeway used to infect the borg worked like a charm.

The Neurolitic Agent Janeway used was also a physical virus, not a computer virus like the Invasive Program. This is a completely different issue. As well, the Borg Queen was directly exposed to it, so it hit the "Head" of the Collective right off the bat. Apples and Oranges.


Based upon the scenarists' intent.
The percentage could be a lot lower and still the option to use the virus is the best option.
You don't seem to understand the gravity of the situation. Everybody in the Milky Way Galaxy is living on borrowed time. In a few millenia, at the most, the entire galaxy will be assimilated - unless a mindboggingly improbable event happened.

The intent was to show that it WOULD have worked? Or that Picard and co. THOUGHT it would work. Again, this is an assumption. You have no way to verify this point. You're claiming Noumenal knowledge of the intent of the writer, on an issue which a later event can be used to show as being uncertain.

Likewise, I do understand the gravity of the situation. This doesn't change much though, as I've continually been pointing out. It's still a shakey situation, and in the end the outcome was not decided in a negative manner because of him not choosing to do this. It's still entirely likely that Picard may have saved humanity by not inciting the wrath of the Borg before the events of Voyager.

Picard choose not to use the drone because he wanted to make the perfect moral choice, to look himself in the mirror with pride - and he sacrificed BILLIONS (that billions will die is a certainty) for that. No matter how you look at it, that's egoist. It may not be deontological, but it's egoist.

This is an assumption. There is no way for you to verify this point. More likely, he objected to it on ethical grounds because earlier he wanted to act upon it in full confidence. It took a change in his disposition to dissuade him from his original course of action. Knowing Picard's hatred of the Borg, it's unlikely he would turn from killing them all just so he could arrogantly look back on himself. In fact, the more obvious egoist choice would be to try and kill the Borg via Hugh. Then he could look back on himself as the Saviour of Humanity and the rest of the Sentient species of the galaxy.

 

[Sector 7]

A moral dilemma:
Q) If a man has philosophers in his left hand, and shit in his right hand; which is more useful?
A) The shit in his right hand makes good fertilizer; the left hand only smells like shit.

Nero deserved to die for his actions. There was a possibility he could escape through the black hole. Kirk made sure Nero would not be a danger to others. Justice served.
On the battlefield, a living (even wounded) enemy poses a threat which must be eliminated.

 

[Feofilakt]

A moral dilemma:
Q) If a man has philosophers in his left hand, and shit in his right hand; which is more useful?
A) The shit in his right hand makes good fertilizer; the left hand only smells like shit.

Nero deserved to die for his actions. There was a possibility he could escape through the black hole. Kirk made sure Nero would not be a danger to others. Justice served.
On the battlefield, a living (even wounded) enemy poses a threat which must be eliminated.

Yawn, philosophy has been a cornerstone of Western civilization since the Greeks and is an important component of the success of the West over less philosophically inclined civilizations. I think what defines justice and revenge has been more than clearly defined in this thread, with individual based vigilante "equalization" a dubious form of enforcement at best.

We also have rules of engagement in real life and a long history of wanting people to adhere to those rules. Having a strict "no quarter" policy puts you in the same camp as the Nazis and Soviets, no debate necessary. Have a nice day.