Originally Posted by Captain Tom Coughlin
I, Borg works specifically because Picard has to weigh that decision. The entire episode is based on his coming to a decision.
And the counter argument is a completely valid one or he wouldn't have had to struggle with it. That's why it's a well written episode. The Borg destroyed countless lives after that moment. That blood is at least partly on Picard's hands. He had a chance to save those people.
It's the needs of the many argument. We're talking about a body count that may be in the tens of trillions. They destroy worlds wholesale.
Look back on the threads I start. I was always intrigued by the counter arguments in TNG. About Hugh, about Jellico and countless others. You made the arguement that I don't like Insurrection because we don't focus on what the Federation is about. That's not true. Those are often the best stories
They made it work on the show. Insurrection tried to be that, but it fell flat. That's the problem.
TNG has always been preachy and dogmatic. Measure of a Man, The Drumhead, these are not some "either or" ethical dilemma stories.
"I, Borg" can be read as ethical dilemma story but IMO it is fairly blunt. Picard, hardly objective here, misperceives Hugh as a drone and needs some time to perceive him as an individual and the point of the story is to create an aha moment: the Borg are evil as they only value their collective whereas we are good because we value singular forms of life so in order to remain good we may not sacrifice one for the sake of our collective, we may not turn Hugh back into a quasi-drone.
That's just the basic liberal human-rights anti-totalitarian position we all have. It is blunt propaganda and the eerie effect is that we often need some time to realize that this is what we already believe because the cases are so extreme with Borg and androids that are alife and so on.
Perhaps I am an idiot but I simply don't see many of such complex multi-faceted stories you talk about in TNG.