If the Prime Directive were done properly

[Brennyren]

So our heroes should refuse to help a species because said species may do bad things later? By that argument, nobody should ever be helped/rescued/saved, because we have no way of guaranteeing they will never commit evil. "Hit by a truck? Yeah, just let her lie there. Destiny might be keeping her from becoming a bank robber" is no different morally than "Planet about to be destroyed by seismic activity? Yeah, just let it blow up. Destiny might be keeping them from producing the next Khan."

I present the argument in absolute terms because that's pretty much how I see it. If you have the opportunity and the ability to save a life or a species, and no clear and compelling reason not to, then the moral choice is to save the life or the species. Could something bad happen later as a result of that choice? It's possible. We can never foresee all the results of our actions; we can only act based on what we know at the time of decision. It's equally possible that the outcome for the community or the Federation will be good, and much more likely that it will be neutral. (As most of us make no great impact on the world, most planets probably make no great impact on the Federation.) To let a person or a species die when you could save them is to assume the worst possible outcome is the only possible outcome.

 

[Gingerbread Demon]

So our heroes should refuse to help a species because said species may do bad things later? By that argument, nobody should ever be helped/rescued/saved, because we have no way of guaranteeing they will never commit evil. "Hit by a truck? Yeah, just let her lie there. Destiny might be keeping her from becoming a bank robber" is no different morally than "Planet about to be destroyed by seismic activity? Yeah, just let it blow up. Destiny might be keeping them from producing the next Khan."

I present the argument in absolute terms because that's pretty much how I see it. If you have the opportunity and the ability to save a life or a species, and no clear and compelling reason not to, then the moral choice is to save the life or the species. Could something bad happen later as a result of that choice? It's possible. We can never foresee all the results of our actions; we can only act based on what we know at the time of decision. It's equally possible that the outcome for the community or the Federation will be good, and much more likely that it will be neutral. (As most of us make no great impact on the world, most planets probably make no great impact on the Federation.) To let a person or a species die when you could save them is to assume the worst possible outcome is the only possible outcome.

Pretty much. I picked Pen Pals because there was so much hand wringing in this episode. Just help the bloody people. It's the right thing to do.

 

[at Quark's]

The weird thing though is, that in Homeward, Picard at first seems very adamant they 'should' let them die, even though it pains him, and he is furious at Nikolai for saving them behind his back. At the end of the episode however, we have this:

CRUSHER: Are you saying you're sorry we saved the Boraalans?
PICARD: No, of course not. Our plan for them worked out well. But I wish that Vorin could have bridged the gap between our two cultures. I would have liked the chance to have known him better.

To me this sounds like not only is Picard torn between saving those people and adhering to what he sees is the "correct" interpretation of the PD, it sounds like he is actually glad someone else breaks it for him. Possibly because thinks he cannot do so, as a Captain (would he perhaps have done it, had he been in a less visible and "exemplary" position )?

 

[Gingerbread Demon]

I loved this video on Lore Reloaded

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

Nice.

 

[Marynator]

I felt in the original series the Prime Directive was just a plot device, like their transporters not working or something, because they run into "Well couldn't Captain Kirk just do ... whatever ... to solve everything? We need a reason why he can't." and so you have the Prime Directive just fitting whatever they need to stop him doing in that episode.

I feel in Next Generation, it's really more thought out and stories are planned around it instead of it being used to fill gaps in stories, and maybe it definitely seems to strict sometimes but I feel that's sort of the point, having a law you don't necessarily agree with all the time having you make hard decisions you don't like. I don't remember anything about fears for the next Hitler, I only remember that from his conversation with Berlinghoff Rasmussen about fear of altering his history, and Captain Picard really rather rejected such a thought, right? I always thought the thing about transporting people to another world is about cultural contamination, like if they can save them without revealing themselves then they'll do it, I don't remember where they ever said they can't change an asteroid's course? And I don't recall a single time Captain Picard denied help to people asking for it, in fact isn't that what changes his mind in Pen Pals, because she sent a real plea?

 

[suarezguy]

I present the argument in absolute terms because that's pretty much how I see it. If you have the opportunity and the ability to save a life or a species, and no clear and compelling reason not to, then the moral choice is to save the life or the species. Could something bad happen later as a result of that choice? It's possible.

Does the species doing bad in some way at the present constitute a compelling reason not to? If so that can put people in the questionable position of saving some and not others based on their moral standards, which is in some ways reasonable and appropriate and yet in other ways seems excessively selective and influential, a situation where the phrase playing God applies with its disturbing connotations.
Fear of the endangered species doing bad is or may be part of the justification for the Prime Directive but I think the much larger or only reason is fear/self-doubt about the Federation, that if it isn't prevented from giving assistance in some circumstances it will be likely to give assistance with strings attached and thus dominate or control the species going forward.
And yet the Federation does give humanitarian assistance to prevent natural catastrophes if the assistance is asked for and won't change the internal characteristics of the species (which revealing the existence of aliens would do).

 

[Gingerbread Demon]

I felt in the original series the Prime Directive was just a plot device, like their transporters not working or something, because they run into "Well couldn't Captain Kirk just do ... whatever ... to solve everything? We need a reason why he can't." and so you have the Prime Directive just fitting whatever they need to stop him doing in that episode.

I feel in Next Generation, it's really more thought out and stories are planned around it instead of it being used to fill gaps in stories, and maybe it definitely seems to strict sometimes but I feel that's sort of the point, having a law you don't necessarily agree with all the time having you make hard decisions you don't like. I don't remember anything about fears for the next Hitler, I only remember that from his conversation with Berlinghoff Rasmussen about fear of altering his history, and Captain Picard really rather rejected such a thought, right? I always thought the thing about transporting people to another world is about cultural contamination, like if they can save them without revealing themselves then they'll do it, I don't remember where they ever said they can't change an asteroid's course? And I don't recall a single time Captain Picard denied help to people asking for it, in fact isn't that what changes his mind in Pen Pals, because she sent a real plea?

Only when Data put her on speakerphone so everyone could hear her, then she became a real person, with a real problem.

 

[C57D]

I think that the difference between TOS & TNG PD's is that TOS's is to protect prewarp civilisations from exploitation by Starfleet and avoid interference in their natural development, while at the same time promising help for threatened or stagnant ones. While TNG's keeps the restrictions on interference and exploitation, but removes the helping out part.
For Kirk it was the actions that counted, for Picard it was more the spirit of strict adherence to the doctrine. If TNG spent more time trying to help when they could, instead of having a pedantic hand wringing moralising debate on why they can't, I would respect then more.
But I guess that suns up the core difference between the series. TOS action supported by debate, TNG debate, moralise and act smug and superior. Then techno babble it to death.

 

[DonIago]

I'm not sure the TOS-TNG is a fair comparison. I'm not readily aware of a situation in TOS where a culture was threatened by a natural disaster or such, versus having been somewhat artificially manipulated to begin with.

It's easy to rationalize involvement by saying "this supercomputer has already altered their development, we're simply restoring it" or "hey, this nifty-looking obelisk is already here to help these people, we just need to figure out how to turn it on." Did we ever see Kirk in a situation where a civilization was going to be extinguished simply because they got unlucky? I think Nibiru came closest, but that of course was well after TOS, and that wasn't the same Kirk.

Similarly, did we ever see Picard in a PD situation akin to the ones Kirk tended to find himself in?

 

[C57D]

I'm not sure the TOS-TNG is a fair comparison. I'm not readily aware of a situation in TOS where a culture was threatened by a natural disaster or such, versus having been somewhat artificially manipulated to begin with.

It's easy to rationalize involvement by saying "this supercomputer has already altered their development, we're simply restoring it" or "hey, this nifty-looking obelisk is already here to help these people, we just need to figure out how to turn it on." Did we ever see Kirk in a situation where a civilization was going to be extinguished simply because they got unlucky? I think Nibiru came closest, but that of course was well after TOS, and that wasn't the same Kirk.

Similarly, did we ever see Picard in a PD situation akin to the ones Kirk tended to find himself in?

I think that the Asteroid in Paradise Syndrome certainly counts as one hell of a natural disaster that was going to wipe out a prewarp civilisation.
Picard would have had a field day, defenceless culture facing a huge natural threat, and not even a native culture, but a transplanted one. How unfortunate and definitely a breech of Picard's PD!
Otber than that maybe the PD examples do differ between TOS & TNG, but still the broad strokes remain the same. Kirk tries all he can to help, defend and revitalise PD affected cultures while Picard would rather stand back and watch them fail.

 

[JoeZhang]

The other thing about the PD - why don’t the other empires just move in and asset strip the planets?

 

[Sgt_G]

Who's to say they don't inside their own empire borders??

This is an interesting thread for me right now. I'm trying to figure out a follow-up to my latest story, "So Clever" posted under Fan Fiction, and different interpretations of the rule could drive my plot line.

 

[Discofan]

STID: A prewarp culture sees (briefly) the Enterprise --> Kirk is demoted and nearly sent back to the academy (after having saved the Earth from annihilation, no less!) Yeah, Kirk is not ready to be a captain he just prevented the Earth from becoming a black hole! What does it take to be ready!!!!

Nemesis: Picard and peeps exchange fire with members of a prewarp culture defending their planet from an invasion, likely kill a few of them and make them see their ship.

Nobody cares!


That elusive prime directive!

 

[DonIago]

STID: A prewarp culture sees (briefly) the Enterprise --> Kirk is demoted and nearly sent back to the academy (after having saved the Earth from annihilation, no less!) Yeah, Kirk is not ready to be a captain he just prevented the Earth from becoming a black hole! What does it take to be ready!!!!

Nemesis: Picard and peeps exchange fire with members of a prewarp culture defending their planet from an invasion, likely kill a few of them and make them see their ship.

Nobody cares!


That elusive prime directive!

I'm sure even PrimeKirk would agree that there's more to being a good captain than saving the Earth once. Heck, he got demoted right after that, specifically for disobeying a senior officer.

I would have loved to see Picard get chastised for what he did in Nemesis, but it's clear that wasn't a story the writers were interested in telling. (insert obligatory Nemesis story weakness snark here)

 

[DonIago]

I think that the Asteroid in Paradise Syndrome certainly counts as one hell of a natural disaster that was going to wipe out a prewarp civilisation.
Picard would have had a field day, defenceless culture facing a huge natural threat, and not even a native culture, but a transplanted one. How unfortunate and definitely a breech of Picard's PD!
Otber than that maybe the PD examples do differ between TOS & TNG, but still the broad strokes remain the same. Kirk tries all he can to help, defend and revitalise PD affected cultures while Picard would rather stand back and watch them fail.

But in "Paradise Syndrome" Our Heroes ultimately saved the planet through pre-established means, arguably simply giving that culture what it's already used to. Alternately if the E had deflected the asteroid the culture wouldn't have been altered because they wouldn't have known they were in danger to begin with.

As God said in Futurama, in my favorite encapsulation of what I think the PD should be: "When you do things right, people won't be sure you did anything at all."

I think Picard may have tried to intervene in PS because, as noted, he could do so without altering the culture in the process. If anything what seemed to irk him in "Pen Pals" was that Data went behind his back and knowingly...skirted...the PD by communicating with Sarjenka, IIRC.

I don't care if the broad strokes are the same, because I feel the PD is such a contentious directive that the specifics are highly relevant to any substantive discussion.

 

[Brennyren]

Does the species doing bad in some way at the present constitute a compelling reason not to? If so that can put people in the questionable position of saving some and not others based on their moral standards, which is in some ways reasonable and appropriate and yet in other ways seems excessively selective and influential, a situation where the phrase playing God applies with its disturbing connotations.

So sooner than make a choice, sooner than use judgment, save no one?

In "Pen Pals," Picard argued the same reasoning. Would we save a planet from natural disaster? Would we save them from a plague? Would we save them from war? Even those who had said yes to the first two demurred at the last, and Picard acted as if he had scored a point. As if refusing to act under certain circumstances meant one couldn't act under any circumstances. Black and white. All or nothing. False dichotomy. Going back to my previous analogy: would I refuse to save a known murderer from a car accident? Very possibly. Does that mean that, given the opportunity, I should never try to save anyone in that situation?

I think the much larger or only reason is fear/self-doubt about the Federation, that if it isn't prevented from giving assistance in some circumstances it will be likely to give assistance with strings attached and thus dominate or control the species going forward.

In other words: sorry, we can't help you, we don't trust ourselves not to screw it up? Does the Federation have oversight for this sort of thing? If not, they should.

I've read a suggestion in various places, that maybe what should happen is that the Federation creates a commission (scientists, sociologists, anthropologists, historians) with the specific purpose of determining when it's okay to intervene, and how to do so in the least intrusive way. Captain runs into a "situation"; contacts the commission; and gets their instructions, and maybe some expert help into the bargain. I've heard ideas I liked less.

And yet the Federation does give humanitarian assistance to prevent natural catastrophes if the assistance is asked for and won't change the internal characteristics of the species (which revealing the existence of aliens would do).

Oh, please. Even in the episode "Pen Pals" itself, they conceded that defining one kid with the space-age equivalent of a short-wave radio as a planet asking for help was b.s. The ENT-D chose to interpret it that way because they wanted a reason to help. Because if they had not been able to b.s. their way around the sacred, almighty, untouchable P.D. -- if they had done what they were actually, under their own governing principles, supposed to do -- they would have left that planetful of people to die. And you can type all day long without convincing me that would have been the moral outcome.

 

[suarezguy]

So sooner than make a choice, sooner than use judgment, save no one?

Our judgments have been and still are and in ST continue to be highly dubious and even if we do have good intentions they can still can bring about Hell. Given that both the inclination to intervene and to refrain from intervening seem valid. The least that should be done is examine whether our intentions really our good or significantly just advancing our own interests.

And if you can't, as is often the case, save everyone your intentions likely will be biased toward advancing your own interests.

I've read a suggestion in various places, that maybe what should happen is that the Federation creates a commission (scientists, sociologists, anthropologists, historians) with the specific purpose of determining when it's okay to intervene, and how to do so in the least intrusive way. Captain runs into a "situation"; contacts the commission; and gets their instructions, and maybe some expert help into the bargain.

That would be a lot better than captains just deciding on their own (which it seems many opponents of the Prime Directive think would be a good idea).

Oh, please. Even in the episode "Pen Pals" itself, they conceded that defining one kid with the space-age equivalent of a short-wave radio as a planet asking for help was b.s. The ENT-D chose to interpret it that way because they wanted a reason to help.

Yes, that was quite a stretch to justify what they wanted to do and felt they should (Picard has referred to the Prime Directive as sacred and inviolable and yet in his actions admits that there are some valid exceptions) but it also seems to be stretching toward the actual policy and principle. "Final Mission" edit: (and "Deja Q") also had the ship giving assistance which fully complied with the policy and so was permitted.

Because if they had not been able to b.s. their way around the sacred, almighty, untouchable P.D.

The Prime Directive is supposed to be controversial and uncomfortable to viewers and also characters on the show (and the show sometimes sides with the character who intervenes as more right than the captain).

if they had done what they were actually, under their own governing principles, supposed to do -- they would have left that planetful of people to die. And you can type all day long without convincing me that would have been the moral outcome.

Do you think characters are bad if they choose to not go back in time to prevent deaths or if they try to prevent other characters from doing so?
Also is it particularly more moral to, if you don't have sufficient resources to save all the people, save half of a population of a planet and let the other half die or save 4% and let the other 96% die?

 

[Qonundrum]

If it were, then there'd be no show until Q came in to pester them.

Mmmm, 178 episodes of Q getting the crew to respond or not...

Spoiler: My opinion of that:

Seriously. If Q popped in during "Pen Pals" because Picard was constipated over not going in... or, worse, if Q didn't show up in "All Good Things" then there'd be no humanity because Picard's stuffy concealed nonchalance blooped out of existence, never mind he caused the problem in the first place - woops...

 

[Sgt_G]

I've read a suggestion in various places, that maybe what should happen is that the Federation creates a commission (scientists, sociologists, anthropologists, historians) with the specific purpose of determining when it's okay to intervene, and how to do so in the least intrusive way. Captain runs into a "situation"; contacts the commission; and gets their instructions, and maybe some expert help into the bargain.

Good in theory but probably bad in practice. How long does the captain have to wait for the committee to call a meeting, get together to discuss the situation, argue about it from all points of view (conference room scene in Pen Pals??), vote on the matter, and send a reply back? "Oh, thanks for getting back to me and telling me I can save the planet, but the asteroid hit it yesterday while you all were debating it."

Seriously, they put the guy (or gal) in command of the ship to make decisions. They sent him to school to learn the rules before sending him out. They picked him because they trust him to follow the rule, and to know when to bend or break the rules for the greater good. Right or wrong, the guy on the scene has to make the tough calls.

 

[Makarov]

Personally I think the entire prime directive makes for good stories but it's wrong. Why can't running into advanced species be considered part of evolution? If they can prevent a species from struggling, they should try. Imagine if instead of going to school, people had to just struggle to learn everything on their own, basically reinventing the wheel. It's a waste - share the technology freely instead

Not sharing their tech or making contact with them at all is basically turning their back on them