RSS iconTwitter iconFacebook icon

The Trek BBS title image

The Trek BBS statistics

Threads: 139,122
Posts: 5,401,025
Members: 24,743
Currently online: 562
Newest member: jessydhillon

TrekToday headlines

Trek Merchandise Sale
By: T'Bonz on Aug 28

Star Trek #39 Villain Revealed
By: T'Bonz on Aug 28

Trek Big Bang Figures
By: T'Bonz on Aug 28

Star Trek Seekers Cover Art
By: T'Bonz on Aug 27

Fan Film Axanar Kickstarter Success
By: T'Bonz on Aug 27

Two New Starship Collection Ships
By: T'Bonz on Aug 26

Trek Actor Wins Emmy
By: T'Bonz on Aug 26

Trek Retro Watches
By: T'Bonz on Aug 26

New DS9 eBook To Debut
By: T'Bonz on Aug 25

Trek Ice Cube Maker and Shot Glasses
By: T'Bonz on Aug 25


Welcome! The Trek BBS is the number one place to chat about Star Trek with like-minded fans. Please login to see our full range of forums as well as the ability to send and receive private messages, track your favourite topics and of course join in the discussions.

If you are a new visitor, join us for free. If you are an existing member please login below. Note: for members who joined under our old messageboard system, please login with your display name not your login name.


Go Back   The Trek BBS > Star Trek TV Series > The Next Generation

The Next Generation All Good Things come to an end...but not here.

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old January 2 2013, 12:23 PM   #16
Arpy
Rear Admiral
 
Re: ultimate reasoning behind prime directive ?

In the case of Homeward it was just there to separate who among the many faces of the galaxy the Federation can help out. It's an arbitrary notion that warp drive should be the litmus test but it's there.

Before we get too high and mighty, how many genocides have we let happen since WWII? And hell we let known terrorist Gaddafi rule Libya because he kept the oil flowing. We keep monarchists quelling democratic uprisings in Saudi Arabia because we get oil and have bases there.
Arpy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old January 2 2013, 04:56 PM   #17
sonak
Vice Admiral
 
Location: in a figment of a mediocre mind's imagination
Re: ultimate reasoning behind prime directive ?

Arpy wrote: View Post
In the case of Homeward it was just there to separate who among the many faces of the galaxy the Federation can help out. It's an arbitrary notion that warp drive should be the litmus test but it's there.

Before we get too high and mighty, how many genocides have we let happen since WWII? And hell we let known terrorist Gaddafi rule Libya because he kept the oil flowing. We keep monarchists quelling democratic uprisings in Saudi Arabia because we get oil and have bases there.

usually there were technological or political considerations(such as getting involved in conflict) in the situations you mentioned. Rescuing people from a natural disaster involves no such political consideration and Starfleet has the technology.
sonak is offline   Reply With Quote
Old January 2 2013, 05:01 PM   #18
Jeyl
Commodore
 
Jeyl's Avatar
 
Location: Asheville, NC
Re: ultimate reasoning behind prime directive ?

Apparently the new movie is going to take the PD to stupid levels as well.
Jeyl is offline   Reply With Quote
Old January 2 2013, 05:42 PM   #19
Hartzilla2007
Vice Admiral
 
Hartzilla2007's Avatar
 
Location: Star Trekkin Across the universe.
Re: ultimate reasoning behind prime directive ?

Jeyl wrote: View Post
Apparently the new movie is going to take the PD to stupid levels as well.


In fact I actually like the nuPrime Directive more than the Prime Universe version.
Hartzilla2007 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old January 2 2013, 05:52 PM   #20
Salinga
Captain
 
Salinga's Avatar
 
Re: ultimate reasoning behind prime directive ?

I actually am more in favour of the Optimus Prime Directive, not so much the nuPrime Directive.
Salinga is offline   Reply With Quote
Old January 3 2013, 04:28 AM   #21
Arpy
Rear Admiral
 
Re: ultimate reasoning behind prime directive ?

Isn't it just as wrong to let a people think that they can do nothing and no harm will come to them (no, primitives, you don't need science, it's just so unlikely anything bad will happen to you) than let them think someone else will come in and save them from harm should it arise (starfleet gods from the sky)? Someone argue the PRO prime directive case for me here...
Arpy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old January 3 2013, 08:10 PM   #22
GalaxyX
Rear Admiral
 
GalaxyX's Avatar
 
Location: Canada
Re: ultimate reasoning behind prime directive ?

The Prime Directive in principle, from my understanding, was a concept that would make the Federation as seen in TNG seem "enlightened". It postulated that the Federation should not interfere with any species not capable or mature to understand the realities known to warp capable species.

In practice, it was a cop out in practically every episode of TNG to save money because "nothing needed to be done" about any situations they ran into, therefore no budget was needed.
__________________
Top Gear America: Jay Leno, Adam Carolla, Tim Allen. DONE!
GalaxyX is offline   Reply With Quote
Old January 3 2013, 08:57 PM   #23
Dale Sams
Fleet Captain
 
Dale Sams's Avatar
 
Re: ultimate reasoning behind prime directive ?

Just ftr, in TOS they had no problem saving cultures from natural disasters.

As for "Homeward", I could have done with a little less facepalming from everyone, and some acknowledgment and tacit approval that Worf's brother has thrown away his career to save some lives here.*
Dale Sams is offline   Reply With Quote
Old January 4 2013, 01:05 AM   #24
The Castellan
Commodore
 
The Castellan's Avatar
 
Location: The Plains of Cydonia
Send a message via Yahoo to The Castellan
Re: ultimate reasoning behind prime directive ?

I look at it as a form of preventing competition. I mean Worf's adopted brother goes and saves a lesser civilization from destruction, and he gets into hot water for it.


Yea.....better to let a civilization die horribly, but at least its natural development was retained.


Being wiped out in a hideous way is not development.


Also, with oppressive governments preventing said civilizations from developing by withholding information and technology is NOT natural, either (we see that happen today), and what makes THAT acceptable to Starfleet? Hell, there'd be no federation had neither the Vulcan's helped earth, or Picard stopping the Borg.

Prime Directive = Overrated pile of ++++ that is used as an excuse to let everyone else 'eat cake'

And that "you have to have warp travel capability for us, the almighty Federation, to even consider talking to you" is arrogant right there.
__________________
The meaning of the apocalypse is the opposite of what most people think. It does not mean the end of the world; it means the revealing of hidden secrets and the beginning of a heaven on earth. The apocalypse is starting now.
The Castellan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old January 4 2013, 03:23 AM   #25
Arpy
Rear Admiral
 
Re: ultimate reasoning behind prime directive ?

The pd keeps getting labeled as a product of liberal tng folly but it's very conservative an ideal isn't it? Everyone is responsible for themselves and should mind their own business. No one has the right to expect anything from me and I shouldn't expect anything from anyone else.

I like the pd for various reasons and dislike it for others, but in Homebound I think it was little more than a muggufin (sp?) to set up the Nikolai holodeck story, and tptb didn't think things through. Thinking that some things were just meant to happen, when you could have prevented them, lends a mysticism to the I think well-meaning pd.

The warp tech threshold for contact also I think is just an semi-arbitrary point of policy that's there because there are so many cultures the Feds could get involved with but have to draw the line somewhere and they've chosen early warp to be it. They're not in the business of jumping cultures centuries or millennia ahead (if those cultures even would ever get there) and instead prefer dealing with equals/near equals. For both their and the other cultures' sakes.

...again that doesn't sit quite right with me. Opinions?
Arpy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old January 4 2013, 04:05 AM   #26
Dale Sams
Fleet Captain
 
Dale Sams's Avatar
 
Re: ultimate reasoning behind prime directive ?

[QUOTE=Arpy;7485376]The pd keeps getting labeled as a product of liberal tng folly but it's very conservative an ideal isn't it? [QUOTE]

I dunno. Are "No-tolerance" policies like suspending six year olds for making a gun with their thumb and finger liberal or conservative follies? I think conservatives howl about most stuff kids get in trouble over that they didn't as a kid.

In any event, we know that the PD was usually anything but 'no-tolerance'.
Dale Sams is offline   Reply With Quote
Old January 4 2013, 04:09 AM   #27
JirinPanthosa
Commodore
 
Re: ultimate reasoning behind prime directive ?

Unicron wrote: View Post
I'm also not convinced that merely having a similar level of advancement is a guarantee that the Federation will assist. When the Klingon civil war erupted and Gowron asked Picard for help, citing the terms of the alliance and his status as leader under Klingon law, he was declined on the grounds that the war was considered an internal affair of the Klingon government. Even though the outcome was clearly important to the Federation, Picard knew that merely charging in wasn't the best alternative.
No, but if a giant meteor started heading toward Kling (Yes I prefer to call it KLING) the Federation would spring into action.

Arpy wrote: View Post
In the case of Homeward it was just there to separate who among the many faces of the galaxy the Federation can help out. It's an arbitrary notion that warp drive should be the litmus test but it's there.

Before we get too high and mighty, how many genocides have we let happen since WWII? And hell we let known terrorist Gaddafi rule Libya because he kept the oil flowing. We keep monarchists quelling democratic uprisings in Saudi Arabia because we get oil and have bases there.
And we also supported a military coup against a democratic government in South America and supplied weapons to half the middle east. Just because our elected idiots do awful things doesn't mean we can't morally judge their fictional counterparts.

The pd keeps getting labeled as a product of liberal tng folly but it's very conservative an ideal isn't it? Everyone is responsible for themselves and should mind their own business. No one has the right to expect anything from me and I shouldn't expect anything from anyone else.

The warp tech threshold for contact also I think is just an semi-arbitrary point of policy that's there because there are so many cultures the Feds could get involved with but have to draw the line somewhere and they've chosen early warp to be it. They're not in the business of jumping cultures centuries or millennia ahead (if those cultures even would ever get there) and instead prefer dealing with equals/near equals. For both their and the other cultures' sakes.

...again that doesn't sit quite right with me. Opinions?
Depends what you call liberal and what you call conservative. The American definition of conservative would be to conduct with other countries on a strictly utilitarian basis. But it's the libertarians who preach a philosophy most similar to the prime directive.

I figured they chose warp as the cutoff because shortly after a world discovers warp they're guaranteed to start meeting aliens anyway.

I'm all for non-interference in the internal affairs of other countries, so long as those internal affairs are voluntary on behalf of all involved. Freeing slaves and preventing genocides is a moral imperative, IMO. But after that, when everybody has the right to make their own decisions, we should not interfere in those decisions.
JirinPanthosa is offline   Reply With Quote
Old January 4 2013, 04:28 AM   #28
Trekky0623
Ensign
 
Location: Boulder, CO
Send a message via AIM to Trekky0623
Re: ultimate reasoning behind prime directive ?

The prime directive stems from ethics in anthropology, but taken to an extreme in some cases. In a basic sense, any conflict of interest between the person studying a people and the people themselves should favor the interest of the people. Though anthropologists usually find it deeply immoral to study a people in private, like we've seen with the duck-blinds in Insurrection and "Who Watches the Watchers".

In any case, the basis of morality, according to Kant, lies in not treating people as a means to an end, but rather as an end in an of themselves. In that sense, any interference in a people for personal gain is also deeply immoral. This, in essence, should be the groundwork of the prime directive: When studying or encountering a civilization, the party studying the civilization must not interfere in an effort to help with research, or to impose our morals on their civilization (such as interfering in a war, or meddling in policies in an attempt to better a civilization). What comes to mind with this kind of interference is the kind we usually think of as destructive—conquistadors and invaders who impose their own social structure onto other civilizations.

However, what Star Trek then does is take this to an extreme, saying that NO interference of ANY kind is permitted at ANY time, even at the cost of loss of life. However, saving a people from a natural disaster or preventing a star from exploding is not treating the people as a means, exploiting them. Indeed, saving a people helps them continue to be an end in and of themselves. And sometimes Star Trek DOES acknowledge this, as in "Pen Pals", when a distress call would seem to override the prime directive.

If a civilization asks for helps, then, it would seem that interference is permissible, if not morally required. What Star Trek fails to realize is that there can be inferred requests for assistance, inferred distress. In the United States, the police cannot enter your home without your permission or a warrant. However, if they see you being attacked in your home, for the same reasons as above, they are allowed to enter, as it can be inferred that if you could, you would request assistance.

Star Trek doesn't do this, though. The show, especially in Voyager, fails to apply reason to individual circumstances, analyzing the situation to see if it can be inferred that the civilization wants help. Instead, we get the usual argument of "The Prime Directive is correct because it is good. We cannot interfere." It is pseudo-philosophy at its finest.

Sometimes we hear the prime directive applied to post-warp civilizations, and this should most certainly not be the case. If warp travel is the border for which the Federation has decided to reveal themselves to civilizations, then surely if a post-warp civilization is in trouble, contact can be established and we can ask the civilization itself whether it wants help or not. In the case of the Klingon Civil War, it seems the Federation fails to recognize an official Klingon government, which would be the reason for non-interference. If they had, however, and the Klingon government had requested help, I doubt the Federation would have stood idly by while the Klingon people tore themselves apart in a Klingon civil war. Just like modern countries can request peacekeeping operations from other countries.

The Prime Directive is correct and moral in principal, but it has been taken too far to an extreme. If a planet is destroyed, or a ship is about to explode, we can surely assume that any rational being in that situation would want to be saved, and therefore we are morally obliged to help.
Trekky0623 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old January 4 2013, 05:32 AM   #29
robau
Lieutenant Commander
 
robau's Avatar
 
Re: ultimate reasoning behind prime directive ?

I just figure the prime directive is practical in wanting to deal with fellow warp cultures for trading and whatever.

[QUOTE=Dale Sams;7485556][QUOTE=Arpy;7485376]The pd keeps getting labeled as a product of liberal tng folly but it's very conservative an ideal isn't it?

I dunno. Are "No-tolerance" policies like suspending six year olds for making a gun with their thumb and finger liberal or conservative follies? I think conservatives howl about most stuff kids get in trouble over that they didn't as a kid.
I just read a discussion on that at a liberal board. There were a handful that applauded it. I doubt a single conservative does. Personally as someone who has been a conservative but now holds some liberal views, I have zero tolerance for zero-tolerance policies.
robau is offline   Reply With Quote
Old January 4 2013, 05:48 AM   #30
Dale Sams
Fleet Captain
 
Dale Sams's Avatar
 
Re: ultimate reasoning behind prime directive ?

One of the most blatant Kirk violations, that I never hear lip service given to is "Friday's Child". The Klingon hadn't interfered. He was offering an alliance, but he didn't provide arms or men. Maab's coup seems completly within his culture's boundries and Kirk sticks his nose in. The result is EXACTLY* why the PD exists.

Of course, alls well that ends well.

*Eleen: "I was prepared to die, kill him as well!" Good job, Kirk.

I suspect these pre-warp TOS contact CF's are exactly why the Feds changed their first contact rules.
Dale Sams is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump



All times are GMT +1. The time now is 05:12 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.6
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
FireFox 2+ or Internet Explorer 7+ highly recommended.