The Borg beat Jean-Luc Picard. Having their implants removed has not overturned their victory.

Maybe. Then again, part of me is growing very tired of the moral argument that says that we can never offer anything other than complete submission to monsters, because supposedly doing anything besides allowing them to destroy us completely, means that they've automatically turned us into them by default.

I know what Picard's attitude towards the Borg feels like. There is more than one real world subcultural group who I feel largely the same way towards, and who I think behave in a directly comparable manner. I have no illusions, however, about the fact that it is the behaviour which I hate, not the groups themselves. Where Picard went wrong (and where I have at times, emotionally, although I have never acted on this) was in terms of his desire for revenge.

Likewise, I've never understood why the Doctor wastes his time hating the Daleks. If I see a spider which I know to be poisonous crawling along my wall, I don't spend the next several hours wallowing in murderous hatred of it, emotionally or psychologically. I just recognise it as a potential threat, whack it with my shoe, put shoe back on, and then go back to what I was doing. The Daleks ironically had the right idea themselves in their attitude towards the Cybermen. "This is not war, this is pest control."

If a threat exists which does not have the capacity for reason or some kind of positive diplomatic solution, in which the value of the lives of both parties are recognised; and especially in which case said threat originates from some part of said species' life cycle, (as in the case of the Xenomorphs from the Alien movies) then defensive action taken against it should not be, and does not need to be, accompanied by extravagant emotional bias or prejudice. It can be persued entirely dispassionately, and it should be; if for no other reasons than because neutrality both increases tactical effectiveness, and is less likely to cause disproportionate use of force.

Picard got angry, and said rage became a desire for sadistic and entirely unnecessary behaviour. The Borg are a threat, and not one, in most cases, where talking or negotiation is going to work. Ok, so what do we do to contain that threat? Maybe we do still need to wipe them out completely. Ok, fine; but how do we still do that in such a way as to minimise any risk of secondary problems?

The use of excessive force is not just morally objectionable; it's just plain bad form, tactically speaking. Lack of precision is incompetent and unprofessional; it indicates lack of skill. Military philosophy and game theory both agree; where you place said force, and the type of force you use, are always infinitely more important than the amount of force used. Excessive generalisation invites overlooked edge cases. If you bombard a planet in order to wipe out a given species with a very general type of force which is in no way tailored to the specific nature of said species, then unless you destroy the planet completely, you can never entirely overlook the idea that some of said species might have somehow miraculously survived, because you haven't been thorough.

This is also the secret of Doctor Who, and the reason why, bad writing and deus ex machina aside, he can be as effective as he is. The Doctor employs unique solutions which are specific to the nature of the problem he is currently facing. He doesn't generalise. He doesn't assume that if all he has is a hammer, that every problem is necessarily a nail.

The other problem with getting angry, is that it usually occurs as a result of the ego's attachment to or obsession with a particular outcome. That is what got Oberyn Martel killed, when he fought Gregor Clegane during an episode of Game of Thrones. Martel was obsessed with torturing Clegane, and receiving an admission and acknowledgement of Clegane's guilt. As a result, he did not kill Clegane quickly enough, which gave Clegane time to kill him. You can't solve a problem by becoming irremovably attached to a specific solution, because what happens when that solution does not work? You have to focus only on the solution that is actually going to work, rather than the one which emotional hysteria attempts to dictate.

Likewise, Khan got the Klingon proverb wrong. The point of revenge being served cold, is that you do not let your emotions get in the way; although again, revenge implies that your emotions are still a problem in the first place. If you get angry it increases the likelihood of making mistakes, or creating desire to commit pointless, sadistic acts which have nothing to do with solving the problem, and which again, are likely to cause extremely undesirable secondary consequences.

This also is not about morality. It has nothing to do with positive morality in any non-pragmatic sense at all. I am speaking exclusively here, in terms which Machiavelli would appreciate; and I know that because I've read him. He never encouraged excess. He encouraged ruthlessness at times, yes; but ruthlessness is properly defined as the ability to take the logical steps necessary to reach a particular outcome, without having an emotional attachment to either said steps or said outcome, and that is what I am talking about here. Regardless of whether your behaviour is angelic or utterly diabolical, as much as possible you do not allow your emotions to become involved. Principle is defined as that which works whether you care about it or not.

Feel compassion, feel love, feel whatever positive emotions you like. They can be very beneficial and healthy, and they motivate us to engage in equally beneficial behaviour, for all parties involved. Even in the case of those, however, they should not become a barrier to objectivity. That is something I am still in the process of learning.