Yes (and I think the characters generally have, albeit reluctantly) but even then they shouldn't do so lightly, they should make strong efforts that they won't be discovered and they should acknowledge that negative consequences could occur and occasionally have such consequences actually occur.
I think that should be an exception written into the PD, so we can stop all the needless debates on a moral question I think is obvious, should the Federation help civilizations that are about be destroyed by a natural disaster? Yes, so stop debating something that is so obvious, because I have not seen one good moral argument about letting a civilization die because of a natural disaster.
I thought the foolishness came from being so lenient to Data for disregarding the rules or otherwise abruptly reversing his views.
Except you just agreed that there should be intervention to save people from natural disasters, which is what Data is usually doing, why should Data be punished for putting compassion in a pretty clear black and white circumstance, over adherence to orthodoxy?
From what I recall when the characters did intervene they never failed and there was never much doubt about if they would succeed, in part because the original series (and somewhat Voyager with Janeway) portrayed the captain as ready to intervene (in many more situations than natural disasters) and the show rarely treated the decisions as problematic, more often like Our Crew, especially The Lead, is awesome and unquestionable.
I think character "hand-wringing" (internal or intercrew conflict) is generally more interesting than solving a problem.
Because people want proactive heroes, not people who moan and complain and look for excuses to do nothing in the face disaster.
Y
I thought Kirk was pretty callous in transforming the societies in "The Return of the Archons" and "The Apple" and his actions were meant to be questionable in "A Private Little War" and to a lesser degree "This Side of Paradise." But it's true the captains generally have been willingly constrained by the directive and only broken it in rare, reasonable circumstances.
If the main captains generally do right thing under the circumstances, shouldn't we trust their judgment, rather then demand the PD hold their hands at all times.
Well if you think intervention is OK not just for benevolent assistance but personal advantage that shows why rules against interference can be necessary (and generally that 24th century humans may not be so different from how they are today). And while not indigenous to the planet (which I thought generally wasn't a big precondition for the directive, that with the aliens having warp drive you could reveal yourselves but not otherwise interfere) they had been there as a society for hundreds of years so removing them and taking their resources seems against the spirit and intention of the directive.
They said in the film PD doesn't apply to the Ba'Ku.
I think helping to cure diseases and advance medical science goes far beyond personal advantage.
But here is the problem with that movie, why didn't someone just ask the Ba'Ku if they were willing to leave the planet? Because if they said no, they would look like elitist jerks and there would be no movie, that is why.
I am not saying removing them by force is the right thing to do, but I do not see the harm in simply asking them this question and if they were not elitist jerks, wouldn't they want to help others, even if they are no longer immortal in the process.
I don't think you use a movie that flawed to prove your point, there are so many plot holes in that film.
