Well, yeah, but I was thinking of a planet-wide disaster, something that wouldn't really leave much behind. And surely digging up artifacts isn't the same thing as 'live' observation.
When Did The Prime Directive Change And Why?
- Thread starter sonak
- Start date
Well, yeah, but I was thinking of a planet-wide disaster, something that wouldn't really leave much behind. And surely digging up artifacts isn't the same thing as 'live' observation.
YARN
Fleet Captain
Well, Edith was not really "meant to die" in the sense that the universe has a plan and her death is part of "the will of the force" or something. The universe doesn't care if she lives or dies, it is just that human history turns out better for us if she does die. This probably sound like a quibble, but some posters are arguing the case here as if the PD respects the intentions of God or nature or some hidden grand design, bringing in the hand of fate to justify non-intervention.
The thing that really marks the Keeler case distinct from PD cases IMO is not that they used a utilitarian decision calculus, but that they had knowledge of the future. Indeed, this case is almost the opposite of PD cases in this aspect. That is, the anxious caution which informs the prime directive is that good intentions are not enough, because intervention can have unseen consequences. Basically, "Don't intervene because you don't know." In the case of Keeler, however, they had to intervene precisely because they did know.
Yeah, but in the case of time travel, the issue is more of "temporal violation" versus "prime directive violation". History is a string of events that happened in a certain way and you don't want to risk changing it (if your current state of existence was at least acceptable). Saving Edith Keeler resulted in a dramatic change that effectively prevented the Federation from forming (with Earth as the primary driver--it might have just existed with a different species leading the charge). They realized she had originally died and that McCoy saving her changed everything. So... they had to let her die, as she "originally did", in order to preserve the time line. Thus, I don't see it as something to do with the non-interference prime directive.
Now one could get into the debate on whether history should be open for changes, but that's a whole other topic.
Now one could get into the debate on whether history should be open for changes, but that's a whole other topic.
YARN
Fleet Captain
Yeah, but in the case of time travel, the issue is more of "temporal violation" versus "prime directive violation". History is a string of events that happened in a certain way and you don't want to risk changing it (if your current state of existence was at least acceptable). Saving Edith Keeler resulted in a dramatic change that effectively prevented the Federation from forming (with Earth as the primary driver--it might have just existed with a different species leading the charge). They realized she had originally died and that McCoy saving her changed everything. So... they had to let her die, as she "originally did", in order to preserve the time line. Thus, I don't see it as something to do with the non-interference prime directive.
Now one could get into the debate on whether history should be open for changes, but that's a whole other topic.
At bottom, I don't think we really disagree on much.
I agree that there are significant differences between the time travel case and typical PD cases. Indeed, my argument rests on the premise that these differences matter in the case of Keeler.
But isn't this the point of the Prime Directive, that you never can know what 'knock on effects' your actions might take, and since ANY interference with a less advanced culture will almost certainly have negative knock-on effects, that's presumably why the Prime Directive exists.
Yeah, we really don't know that Nikolai's actions necessarily ended up helping the Boraalans. For all we know he merely prolonged their extinction by a few months, up to the point where they realized they'd been moved from their homeworld and committed suicide en masse...or even just en masse enough to make the continuation of their species impossible...though I guess at least one human was happy to help with that, PD or no PD...(eye-roll)
I suppose it would be a fitting coda if a human-Boraalan hybrid introduced issues that doomed the species.
I suppose it would be a fitting coda if a human-Boraalan hybrid introduced issues that doomed the species.
YARN
Fleet Captain
Right, now read the rest of my argument.
Also, prove that that "ANY interference with a less advanced culture will almost certainly have negative knock-on effects". Explain, for example, how diverting the BIG asteroid from hitting the planet of the pre-warp culture has obvious negative ramifications for that culture.
You could be right. Not every sentient species survives to reach space faring technologies and beyond. But you have to give them credit that their dying was way beyond their control--the planet was simply losing its ability to sustain life.
What Nikolai did was save a group of people that he knew and loved. The prime directive was not his deepest concern, from what I saw. He certainly didn't want them to realize that the transplant took place, and to keep the Federation a secret from them. But that was only for their survival. If he felt they were mature enough to understand what happened and continue unfettered, he probably would have told them everything he knew.
YARN
Fleet Captain
Maybe the asteroid ends up hitting another planet that had a developing civilization.
Or the pre-warp civilization creates the U-Bomb; the bomb that destroys the universe with Red Matter.
Or perhaps the rock is sentient.
OK, I keep seeing this argument brought up again and again, most recently by Don Iago.
Basically, the argument says: "if you interfere, you don't know that your well-intentioned interference might not produce unintentionally disastrous effects."
First, is this how you approach helping people in real life scenarios? "There's a guy drowning over there, flailing his arms, and I'm a first-class swimmer, but.... he could turn out to be a serial killer, so maybe I shouldn't interfere."
Posters have argued that the analogy is flawed, because it doesn't deal with "naturally developing cultures."
Well, that's an arbitrary line to draw, and also, THERE'S NO SUCH THING AS "NATURAL DEVELOPMENT." Seriously, what does that even mean? That there's one proper path for each culture to take, and the Federation shouldn't interfere with that path? This is not how either anthropology or evolution works.
Why are people who know better making absurd arguments to defend an absurd rule?
Basically, the argument says: "if you interfere, you don't know that your well-intentioned interference might not produce unintentionally disastrous effects."
First, is this how you approach helping people in real life scenarios? "There's a guy drowning over there, flailing his arms, and I'm a first-class swimmer, but.... he could turn out to be a serial killer, so maybe I shouldn't interfere."
Posters have argued that the analogy is flawed, because it doesn't deal with "naturally developing cultures."
Well, that's an arbitrary line to draw, and also, THERE'S NO SUCH THING AS "NATURAL DEVELOPMENT." Seriously, what does that even mean? That there's one proper path for each culture to take, and the Federation shouldn't interfere with that path? This is not how either anthropology or evolution works.
Why are people who know better making absurd arguments to defend an absurd rule?
YARN
Fleet Captain
I think some are misapprehending the burden associated with argument by analogy. The burden is NOT that the analogy must be relevantly similar in ALL particulars, but rather that it must be similar with regard to the relevant particulars. If a comparison had to be perfect in every way, we would be speaking of identity and not an analogy. In such a case, however, there would be no point in comparison, as all the particulars would be identical.
To test a practical or moral principle, we may place it in a different context to see if the justification itself makes sense. A relevant particular may be the moral principle that "one should not intervene lest one unwittingly make matters worse." If this is true, it should be true in varying contexts (otherwise it is not really a universal principle of reasoning).
People get carried away with the heuristic "You can't compare apples to oranges" as if we could not, in may ways, discuss what these items have in common (e.g., commercially available fruit, similar in size, and weight.) It is only if we selected an irrelevant particular like "color" that a comparison would, by necessity, be injudicious.
If someone argues, "Starfleet should not steal, because stealing leads to violence", we can certainly test the general claim that "stealing leads to violence" without need of speaking of only Starfleet.
Considering Earth was barely missed by two meteors this week, the argument should become more relevant to us. If a space-faring race were to see a large spatial object about to destroy our non-warp capable civilization, should they save us or not?
Anwar's argument rings of "I'll only save you if it doesn't cost me time, money or resources; otherwise it is not worth saving you." It is a very self-centered attitude, not at all worthy of a society which places great value on sentient life, such as the United Federation of Planets.
YARN
Fleet Captain
And if a spacefaring culture simply kicked back and watched us get hit by a big rock (and we weren't aware of it) the implications for our planet would be even more highly significant.
ProtoAvatar
Fleet Captain
You don't know whether the man drowning in front of you will become the next Hitler.
Does this mean you should not save him because he could become the next Hitler?
You should, of course, save him - the point is you know the present and you should act on what you know, in accordance to your morals
As for the future: this man could become Hitler, Einstein or remain anonymus. Acting on these wanna-be prophecies would be ridiculous.
ProtoAvatar
Fleet Captain
"ANY interference with a less advanced culture will almost certainly have negative knock-on effects, that's presumably why the Prime Directive exists."
This notion was contradicted by our entire history of cultural contacts.
The only cases in which contacts betwen cultures had negative effects is when a more powerful (econimically, militarily) civilization sought to conquer, forcibly change the contacted culture.
This notion was contradicted by our entire history of cultural contacts.
The only cases in which contacts betwen cultures had negative effects is when a more powerful (econimically, militarily) civilization sought to conquer, forcibly change the contacted culture.
Last edited:
Earth was a less advanced civilization when it was contacted by the Vulcans, and within a matter of decades had turned from a war torn polluted hell into the beginings of a utopia (or 'an utopia'. Whatever). So the notion that there would almost certainly be 'negative knock-on effects' is not entirely viable.
And yes, before you say anything, I know Earth had developed warp drive at that time. Is that seriously relevent? How can that make so much of a difference? If the Vulcans had decided for whatever reason to make first contact a day before Cochrane's trip, how would that have affected things, if at all? The 'developing warp drive' criteria seems rather arbitary.
Reguarding the 'if aliens stopped the dinosaurs being wiped out we wouldn't be here' argument, it's not strictly relevent. As far as we know, the dinosaurs were not sapient, so aliens wouldn't have much motivation to even try to save them. Unless they liked dinosaurs. Dinosaurs are cool.
Now if the dinosaurs were sapient, then a case would be made for saving them. What you going to do, stand around and do nothing in the hope that one of the few species that do survive--I don't know, maybe a shrew or something--- might eventually develop inteligence?
As to the claim that 'if you can't save everyone, then you MUST save no one, because any one who chooses who to save would be regarded as a MONSTER and a HYPOCRITE!', well that's an easy one to test.
Everyone who contributes to this thread, please take the time to answer the following question.
Oskar Schindler.
Hero or monster?
Similar threads
