Mikey wrote:First, this has nothing to do with a self-defense argument. Picard was acting as a soldier of the Federation. If a soldier kills someone who is a threat to his unit or his nation - or kills someone who could generate such a threat - it is killing, but not murder.
Hugh as an individual is neither a threat to his unit or his nation.
If that were true, Manson would be either free or hospitalized, not in jail. Sirhan Sirhan was legally insane, Manson wasn't. The difference isn't degree, nor is it inability to control themselves - neither was able to. The difference in the eyes of the law is the inability to distinguish right from wrong. As part of a psychology study, I read some of Sirhan's journals - nutty as a fruitcake, and no real tangible link with reality; a true psychotic in the technical sense of the term. Manson was psychopathic, AKA antisocial or sociopathic, and clearly NOT psychotic, but his illness dictated his actions as much as Sirhan's did. However, that is patently NOT the distinguishing feature in the eyes of the law.
Manson isn't legally insane - the Borg can't control their actions and don't know 'our' moral rights from wrongs.
So by your new definition, if I were in a state or country that had passed a law against any killing, and I then killed someone who was about to kill me or my child unless I did first, I would have excercised my right to self-defense AND be guilty of murder at the same time, yes?
What state or country has passed a law against
any killing? Perhaps I should ask you what if a country passed a law against breathing, and I then proceeded to breath. I am guilty? Well, yes. Killing in self defence is not murder. Thus it is a 'lawful' killing.
'Lawful' killings are killings that involve things like self-defence and accidents.
Unlawful killings are killings where there is no way to defend yourself, using established law. This is murder.
You defending yourself and your daughter by killing this other person is a lawful killing. So it's not murder - you should be exercising your right to read.
What if I had a hypoglycemic reaction while driving? (That's why diabetics can't get CDL's in America.) I pass out behind the wheel and run somebody over and kill them. That's illegal - we call it "vehicular manslaughter" - but its clearly not murder, except by your new definition.
If its the absolute of 'unlawful' then it's murder. But when driving in a car (including this country), and you kill someone, it's always manslaughter, meaning it's not completely unlawful - there are things that stop it being the absolute of 'unlawful' - heat of passion, non-intention, etc etc. But even still, manslaughter is for all practical purposes generally considered to be nearly on a par with murder.
I repeat - a soldier defending his nation (or interstellat Federation), or a sialor defneding his ship, does NOT have to defend himself for killing a proven threat to that nation (or ship.) It matters little whether that threat was directed to that soldier personally.
It doesn't matter whether the threat is presented to him, others, or everyone. But Hugh was not a threat to him, others, or everyone.
Stop calling me blind just because you have maintained an untenable position. Hugh was a demonstrable threat to the E-D (and more abstractly, to the UFP, although that's hardly a necessary line of reasoning right now.) It matter little whether he WANTED to be or not. Picard was the captain of the E-D; it was his duty, not just his right, to eliminate that threat.
Hugh was not a threat to the E-D - have you ever seen the episode in question?
Besides, I made the parallel between Hugh and other Borg examples because YOU maintained Hugh's "innocence" by way of being controlled by the collective. All those other Borg are too, whether you want to talk about them or not.
And as I've already said, which you did now address, it is self defence killing someone who will kill you - whether they are in control or not. It is not self defence killing someone who will not kill you.
So sacraficing trillions of people to save one is somehow more moral?
You make it sound like Hugh is the one who will kill all the UFP by himself...
They're not sacraficing the UFP - clearly - as they survived. It's not saving one - that sounds as if he would die and he was stopped from dying which caused the death of the UFP. It's failing to murder him - very different from saving him.
Stop trying to turn this into a black/white situation, it simply is not. If definite proof was given that killing one person would save thousands, he'd be let off. Yes, the murder itself is still ilegal, but he wouldn't be throw into jail for it.
You've both conceded that killing Hugh is murder and it is illegal. I'm not saying he'd be thrown in jail for it - I even said that probably if something like that happened today, he'd be given a suspended sentence, but if he murdered someone then he murdered someone - just because the outcome may be relatively good doesn't change the initial act.
Hugh was an enemy combatant, whether he wanted to be or not. Killing him would have been similar to a soldier killing a conscript, the conscript may not want to be there, but he's still an enemy.
Killing enemy conscripts is more like killing the collective Borg - regrettable, but it must happen and the legal defence is 'self-defence'. Killing Hugh is not self-defence - he presents no threat to anyone (regardless of the rest of the collective), and necessity does not apply to murder.
