To be fair, Picard never was in a situation (as far as I know) where doing the 'deontogical' thing would have lead to unavoidable defeat (and probably extermination) as Sisko is. He "only" gives up an opportunity to destroy the Borg, who might, or might not, come back later.
I'll highly disagree, here. The Borg are an extremely big threat at that point in time (VOY hadn't happened to them, yet), and they show signs of coming back (the mere fact that Hugh & co are there!).
On the other hand, Sisko doesn't know about the Dominion yet. He doesn't even know about the wormhole when he meets Opaka!
The worst he faces is potential failure of his mission to "bring Bajor" into the fold", which at that point he has no particular attachment to, he's just exercising his duty.
My answer to that would be that this is one of those situations where not choosing between A and B is a choice too (because then by default A will happen), so that the question of 'right to decide' is probably moot - you're forced to decide, even if only by inaction. But this has long since been debated exhaustively by people far more grounded in ethics and philosophy than I am.
Yes, it has been, but it's not really a settled question, which is why I alluded to the Trolley Problem earlier.
If you're unfamiliar with it, this is the Trolley Problem:
There is an automated trolley moving on a track. For some reason, 5 people are tied up on the track, the trolley will kill them if nobody acts.
You are there to save them! You're too far to run to them and untie them, but you're close to a railroad switch: you can divert the trolley on another track... but that track has 1 person tied to it.
Do you flip the switch?
Most people, when faced with that hypothetical, pick the utilitarian solution: flip the switch.
But the same problem in another context elicits a very different response: this time,
you are a surgeon. A brilliant surgeon who never fails. You have 6 patients: one is in there for a minor issue but is a model of health, the other five badly need organ transplants. All different organs. Do you kill the healthy patient to save the other 5?
Pretty much everyone picks the deontological answer here: "no".
Yet, it's 5 lives lost through inaction or one you personally kill in both scenarii.
There are hypotheses as to why the answers differ. Mine is that in the first scenario, we empathise most with the person near the switch, whereas in the second, we place ourselves in the shoes of the healthy patient (even though the prompt is that we're the surgeon). Why? Because most of us aren't surgeons, so our experience lies on the patient side, and wouldn't it be terrifying if your next doctor's appointment could end up with you being killed to save 5 other people? Simply because there are more of them?
"Being near a switch", though, is a situation we could find ourselves into, so in that case, the gut reaction isn't there.
Plus, we're used to medicine favouring deontology over utilitarianism.
Justice, too: kill someone through action, that's homicide. Don't save someone: that's a crime in some countries, but not others, and it's considered lesser than homicide.
Inaction is a decision, sure, but not acting is not equivalent to acting.
But anyway, this is what I said I wouldn't do.
