Is the Prime Directive preventing Star Fleet from punishing genocide?

[Trekker4747]

Re: Is the Prime Directive preventing Star Fleet from punishing genoci

I've never bought into that concept, it assumes that human beings are just pure animals with out a consciousness to guide them. It might be the case when it comes to a governing body wanting to restrict a behavior that is or isn't innate but in most cases I see laws as being more just putting a system in place to punish people who step out of the social "norm."

Is the only thing preventing you from raping that hot secretary at work, or stealing your neighbor's car, or killing that hot girl's husband is the fact that it's illegal? Like, if it wasn't against the law would you do these things? I think general human nature in these modern times would simply prevent people from behaving in such a manner. You wouldn't go out and kill someone (were it not illegal) simply because your modern morals tell you that doing that is wrong. Having it illegal just puts a system in place to punish it, the law can say "See? We told you if you did this you can get in trouble."

Now in some cases, like with the Bashir/Augment case, it's a matter of a governing body trying to legislate and force a morality. Genetically altering someone isn't inherently "wrong" or "dangerous" (sure centuries in Earth's past it caused problems) nor is it inherently "right" or "safe." So the government is forcing a "morality" on people by making it illegal and punishable (in which case it IS a deterrent.) The modern day equivalent would be laws on alcohol consumption (not drinking and driving, but restrictions on sales in some states), prostitution (a "victimless" crime providing both parties are aware of dangers involved) and drug use (which... why are we against this one again?).

So the laws against genetically-altering people in Trek is pretty contrary to Humanity's and the Federation's guiding principles and is them trying to force a morality on people. It's not clear how deep the genetic manipulation goes but look at a case like Geordi's, would genetic alteration have allowed him to be born with sight? Birth defects are fairly common in today's society simply due to how temperamental genes can be, do people in the 24c century still give birth to people with mental disabilities? Physical birth defects? Downs Syndrome? Autism? Or does medical science allow for a certain level of prenatal care and help to ensure these things don't happen?

In Bashir's case it seemed to be (IIRC) Bashir was born average or a little below average and his father got him "treatment" that hyper-advanced Bashir (which didn't quite jive with how Bashir acted in the series up until that point... but, whatever.) Seems to me that such a thing being illegal was... silly.

Sure in Earth's past genetically-altered humans were a problem that lead to a massive war, a tyrant and many deaths but that was several hundred years ago. Certainly Earth would see that in the 24c they'd be a bit better prepared to handle such a thing and even may have advanced the techniques enough to ensure another Khan doesn't rise with such an aggressive desire to rule.

Earth's/Starfleet's/The Federation's position on genetically altering babies makes about as much as sense as today us still fearing... Actually I'm not sure what to go with there wouldn't possibly be offensive. But is there any belief that was held about a race or a behavior that existed 300 or 400 years ago that still is held to any logical or reasonable degree today?

 

[sojourner]

Re: Is the Prime Directive preventing Star Fleet from punishing genoci

I've never bought into that concept, it assumes that human beings are just pure animals with out a consciousness to guide them. It might be the case when it comes to a governing body wanting to restrict a behavior that is or isn't innate but in most cases I see laws as being more just putting a system in place to punish people who step out of the social "norm."

Is the only thing preventing you from raping that hot secretary at work, or stealing your neighbor's car, or killing that hot girl's husband is the fact that it's illegal? Like, if it wasn't against the law would you do these things? I think general human nature in these modern times would simply prevent people from behaving in such a manner. You wouldn't go out and kill someone (were it not illegal) simply because your modern morals tell you that doing that is wrong. Having it illegal just puts a system in place to punish it, the law can say "See? We told you if you did this you can get in trouble."

Thousands of years of human history would seem to disagree with you. Do you really think if you lifted punishment for crimes that the crime rate would not go up? Do people have conscious to guide them? Yes. Is everyone's definition of right and wrong the same? No. Thus the reason for a society to decide on rules/laws. Individuals will react to those laws in different ways. Some will try to change them, some will leave that society, and some will break those laws. To think that everyone can "be good" without laws is to forget that every individual has their own definition of "good".

That doesn't make us animals. It makes us unique.

Also, motive also overrules "good conscious" in many situations and can even be driven by it in some.

 

[Timo]

Re: Is the Prime Directive preventing Star Fleet from punishing genoci

We are helped here by the fact that Bashir's offense was described as a rare and unique one - and declared an offense for reasons that, if possible, were even more unique. Apparently, the UFP has a very definite and explicit "blind spot" or "taboo" when it comes to genetic engineering, due to an exotic case of historical precedent.

The Feds hate genetic improvement because they had Khan. It probably wouldn't be out of place to compare Bashir's crime to the exhibiting of Nazi symbols today. The act in itself is a harmless one, but the historical implications are immensely powerful and disruptive.

Did Bashir's sentence serve a deterring purpose? That would depend on whether it was made public. And that's a two-headed phaser, as it might not pay to advertise that these services are being offered in the first place, or that this specific case, with its ambivalence and possible sympathetic aspects, exists...

Timo Saloniemi

 

[Trekker4747]

Re: Is the Prime Directive preventing Star Fleet from punishing genoci

The Feds hate genetic improvement because they had Khan. It probably wouldn't be out of place to compare Bashir's crime to the exhibiting of Nazi symbols today. The act in itself is a harmless one, but the historical implications are immensely powerful and disruptive.

what about displaying Nazi symbols 300 years from now?

Will anyone then really even care what it means?

 

[Timo]

Re: Is the Prime Directive preventing Star Fleet from punishing genoci

The 2370s are only removed from Augment infamy by 300 years, apparently, as ENT attributes the "post-atomic horror" and the adjoining antics of Colonel Green to the eugenics craze, too...

Considering that the Nazis were (in popular approximation) all about eugenics, too, I wouldn't be surprised if the black swastika on white and red still were abhorred in the 23rd century, and its bearers in essence bunched up with Khan and his supposedly less nice Augment brethren. When Kirk runs into the symbol, he's certainly familiar with the implications. Although the fact that his old mentor is involved might have something to do with it!

Timo Saloniemi

 

[T'Girl]

Re: Is the Prime Directive preventing Star Fleet from punishing genoci

what about displaying Nazi symbols 300 years from now?

I wouldn't be surprised if the black swastika on white and red still were abhorred in the 23rd century

The swastika shape dates back to the early Indus Valley Civilization.

By the 24th century, it will more likely be associated with thousands of years of Hinduism, rather than the couple of decades the Nazi's used it.

 

[Timo]

Re: Is the Prime Directive preventing Star Fleet from punishing genoci

I really wouldn't bet on that...

Timo Saloniemi

 

[Trekker4747]

Re: Is the Prime Directive preventing Star Fleet from punishing genoci

I would think in the 24c it'll be seen "for what it is" a symbol for the Nazi Party but it probably wouldn't exactly be as offensive or as taboo as it is today. (Given that there's some people today still either lived through the holocaust/WW2 themselves or are within a couple of generations of those who did.)

I mean think of things that may have been offensive or had deep, controversial, meaning in 1712. Do those things still apply today?

 

[Timo]

Re: Is the Prime Directive preventing Star Fleet from punishing genoci

The sins of the fathers probably would live longer if they weren't limited to one specific conflict. Apparently, everything from the 1990s to the 2070s (and possibly from the 1930s already) is bunched up as the "Eugenics Wars" or the "Last World War" in the minds of our heroes; the villains of such a diverse set of individual conflicts might well have more persistence in the public memory than a single villain, no matter how charismatic.

That is, instead of just Hitler, there would be the eponymous Eugenics villain nobody can quite name, because he's Hitler, Green, and everybody in between. Similarly, there's the Red archetype, the Kraut archetype, the Scheming Jew archetype or the Insane Roman Caesar archetype today, because these negative phenomena spanned more than just one conflict and involved more than just one character of infamy. And Genghis Khan and Attila, while distinct and unrelated larger-than-life villain personalities, tend to blur together into the still persisting Nomad Terror archetype - representing a threat that spanned more than half a millennium, and remains in the collective memory despite being almost a full millennium in our past!

Incidentally, did we ever learn who the bad guys in the 1990s conflict were? Kirk and pals thought that Khan was one of the good guys...

Timo Saloniemi

 

[Mojochi]

Re: Is the Prime Directive preventing Star Fleet from punishing genoci

I recently rewatched the episode "The Survivors". At the end, the Douwd, after having harrassed and almost destroyed the Enterprise and the entire crew, admits that he committed genocide. Shockingly, Captain Picard replies by saying that it was okay to do so and lets the Douwd free.

To be fair, he never really said it was ok. In fact, the tone of his voice suggests complete reproach & condemnation. However, what he says is meant to suggest that not only is this crime pretty much out of Starfleet's jurisdiction, but it's also not something which could be fairly adjudicated by them, as it could only ever be fair to judge him by a peer group equivalent to him, which there is nothing of that kind in Starfleet. Frankly, all they could ever do to see he was judged fairly would be to hand him over to something like the Q continuum, & it's not even certain that their idea of fair is synonymous with either Starfleet's or the Douwd's

Basically, due to circumstances, he's getting a free pass on this one, & Picard is smart to just leave it at that. Plus, this tortured soul seems to be doing all the punishment to himself that anyone ever could have, by essentially locking himself away in a meticulously manifested "Happy Thought". Not a very free existence for a rather supernatural being, imo, & Picard knows it "You're free to return to the planet... ..and to make Rishon live again". Translation "You're free to return to your delusional exile. We'll be on our way, trusting that since you've already lost everything that ever mattered to you, you'll be a danger to no one else, you pitiful bastard"

That Douwd dude is living in a prison of his own construct, which leads me to consider that perhaps the Q continuum knows about it & have chosen to let him be, as they could not put a more suitable punishment on him than he has already done himself. Just a little theory I have, considering how eager they are to interfere in Humanity's path & judge them, but seemingly not this Douwd dude

 

[sonak]

Re: Is the Prime Directive preventing Star Fleet from punishing genoci

what about displaying Nazi symbols 300 years from now?

I wouldn't be surprised if the black swastika on white and red still were abhorred in the 23rd century

The swastika shape dates back to the early Indus Valley Civilization.

By the 24th century, it will more likely be associated with thousands of years of Hinduism, rather than the couple of decades the Nazi's used it.

I think it's going to take longer than that to disassociate that symbol from Nazism. Kind of sad what was done to the symbol, but there you have it.

 

[DWF]

Re: Is the Prime Directive preventing Star Fleet from punishing genoci

what about displaying Nazi symbols 300 years from now?

I wouldn't be surprised if the black swastika on white and red still were abhorred in the 23rd century

The swastika shape dates back to the early Indus Valley Civilization.

By the 24th century, it will more likely be associated with thousands of years of Hinduism, rather than the couple of decades the Nazi's used it.

You might check out Patterns Of Force again to see if the Star Trek writers agree with you.

 

[Lt. LaForge]

Re: Is the Prime Directive preventing Star Fleet from punishing genoci

Picard should have something like this:

'I am shocked to hear about your actions. Even though we are not powerful enough to be your judges, we have laws to fit your crime. Should you voluntarily submit yourself to justice, we would order your to a solitary exile in a distant corner of the galaxy, out of Federation space.'

And if Douwd says "no," what would you have Picard say? Even if Douwd agreed to some sort of incarceration (something he was already enduring), wouldn't it be a sham knowing that he's free to leave at HIS convenience?

 

[CorporalCaptain]

Re: Is the Prime Directive preventing Star Fleet from punishing genoci

To amend my other remarks upthread, I find it believable that laws against nuanced offenses, such as those that might be described as involuntary genocide, aren't on the Federation's books.