D
Deleted 102017
Guest
Do you think that the Prime Directive is morally justifiable or does it sometimes prevent the Federation from doing the right thing?
I think the Prime Directive is a great concept for the series, but episodes like Pen Pals, Homeward and Time and Again really poisoned the idea, to the point where captains like Kelvin Kirk and SNW Pike got chewed out by their superiors for saving planets.
The Prime Directive shown in TOS, where you stay out of other people's business unless an evil computer has enslaved them, the Klingons have invaded, a historian has screwed with their culture, or an asteroid is on its way, makes sense to me. Interfering with civil wars, giving advanced medical technology, messing with elections to put the 'good guys' in charge, parking a shuttle in front of the government building and saying "Take me to your leader", it can all backfire in horrible ways that no one can predict.
And even if making contact with pre-warp cultures did work out, the Federation's culture is so strong that everyone would soon be going to see Crisis Point II at the holocinema and visiting the local Quarks. It would not necessarily be doing them a favour!
Basically, when the Prime Directive is used as a complication to make stories more interesting, then it's good. When it's used as an obstacle that has to be broken to do the right thing, then it's bad.
The Prime Directive shown in TOS, where you stay out of other people's business unless an evil computer has enslaved them, the Klingons have invaded, a historian has screwed with their culture, or an asteroid is on its way, makes sense to me. Interfering with civil wars, giving advanced medical technology, messing with elections to put the 'good guys' in charge, parking a shuttle in front of the government building and saying "Take me to your leader", it can all backfire in horrible ways that no one can predict.
And even if making contact with pre-warp cultures did work out, the Federation's culture is so strong that everyone would soon be going to see Crisis Point II at the holocinema and visiting the local Quarks. It would not necessarily be doing them a favour!
Basically, when the Prime Directive is used as a complication to make stories more interesting, then it's good. When it's used as an obstacle that has to be broken to do the right thing, then it's bad.
I'm not even sure the Prime Directive as presented in TNG issue the issue, but moreso the way it was interpreted by Picard. I'm not sure that Sisko or Janeway really handled it the same way.
Picard treated the Prime Directive as though it were an absolute. I think the classic example of this is in "Homeward," when he is prepared to just let an entire civilization go extinct rather than interfere in their "natural" evolution, which is morally repugnant. I can't imagine that Sisko or Janeway would have made the same decision in that situation.
In Time and Again, there's a conversation that basically goes like this:
Janeway: The Prime Directive says we can't alter this planet's natural course of events.
Paris: Even when we know they're all going to die?
Janeway: We don't know what the consequences will be if we interfere.
Paris: They have to be better than everyone dying.
Janeway: We're not warning them, that's an order.
And obviously by the end Janeway chooses to save the day.
Janeway: The Prime Directive says we can't alter this planet's natural course of events.
Paris: Even when we know they're all going to die?
Janeway: We don't know what the consequences will be if we interfere.
Paris: They have to be better than everyone dying.
Janeway: We're not warning them, that's an order.
And obviously by the end Janeway chooses to save the day.
In the case of "TIME AND AGAIN", Janeway deciding in the end to interfere was due to the rescue attempt of them being the cause of the planet's destruction. So because they interfered in the worst way possible, even by accident, it was her obligation to correct that. And since her stopping the rescue. It prevented them from getting stuck back in time, and the planet never blew, allowing the world to go on like normal, with no interference since it also reset time.
Overall, the Prime Directive is a great idea. It's not the Federation or anyone else's job to impose their values on another society or try to alter it. Like Janeway said to Torres in "PROTOTYPE", who are we to swoop in and play god without the slightest consideration of the consequences.
Regarding a situation like "Homeward"... countless races have gone extinct over time. It's simply the way things happen. And considering how few Boraalans were left when they transported them to that other world, all they likely did was delay the inevitable, simply because their gene pool is so small that it will create problems in the not too distant future. (And speaking of breaking the Prime Directive... Nikolai getting one of them pregnant is a MASSIVE one. First, Picard should not have allowed him to stay with the Boraalans after that. Second, their dna may not be fully compatable... yes, she's pregnant, but we don't know if the baby will even be born.)
Overall, the Prime Directive is a great idea. It's not the Federation or anyone else's job to impose their values on another society or try to alter it. Like Janeway said to Torres in "PROTOTYPE", who are we to swoop in and play god without the slightest consideration of the consequences.
Regarding a situation like "Homeward"... countless races have gone extinct over time. It's simply the way things happen. And considering how few Boraalans were left when they transported them to that other world, all they likely did was delay the inevitable, simply because their gene pool is so small that it will create problems in the not too distant future. (And speaking of breaking the Prime Directive... Nikolai getting one of them pregnant is a MASSIVE one. First, Picard should not have allowed him to stay with the Boraalans after that. Second, their dna may not be fully compatable... yes, she's pregnant, but we don't know if the baby will even be born.)
Yeah, she was given a reason to change her mind, but she was always going to because no writer has ever had the heroes actually stand by and let the people die.
Janeway has no good points to counter Paris' argument aside from 'that's an order' and it makes me think that the writers themselves don't believe in Janeway's side of the argument. This 'let people die' side of the Prime Directive is treated like something they have to bring up and then write around, and it makes me wonder if it was originally Gene Roddenberry who issued the commandment back in the day or whether it was a misunderstanding during the writing of Pen Pals that stuck.
Personally I wish they'd just let it go.
Janeway has no good points to counter Paris' argument aside from 'that's an order' and it makes me think that the writers themselves don't believe in Janeway's side of the argument. This 'let people die' side of the Prime Directive is treated like something they have to bring up and then write around, and it makes me wonder if it was originally Gene Roddenberry who issued the commandment back in the day or whether it was a misunderstanding during the writing of Pen Pals that stuck.
Personally I wish they'd just let it go.
When the prime directive is about non-interference with the natural development of a species it's fine.
But letting an entire species die is not development. There are too many stories where the characters act as though extinction is "natural evolution" just to give our heroes some quandary to figure out, which has in turn given many the wrong impression of what the PD should really entail.
(I am setting aside the 'internal affairs of a society' aspect of the PD because that's different.)
But letting an entire species die is not development. There are too many stories where the characters act as though extinction is "natural evolution" just to give our heroes some quandary to figure out, which has in turn given many the wrong impression of what the PD should really entail.
(I am setting aside the 'internal affairs of a society' aspect of the PD because that's different.)
To the original questions, both. I don't mind either version of the PD as a story element. I could totally see how the second version came about because people like Kirk kept messing about in planet's business and it blew up in someone's face so bad someone back on Earth said enough is enough.
So..... This might get me into trouble, but I'll give this a shot. I am not attempting to be negative towards any religion!! Even though I am not religious myself.
In many religions on Earth, people have refused advanced medical care because they will pray to their god(s) and say 'difinity will save me.'
Well maybe difinity create modern medicine to make sure you will live on.
I see it the same with the Federation. It was created to create a better place for all sentient and non sentient life, yet it is willing to let planets die because of 'non interference' and 'the natural order of things'. It would make an interesting philosophical debate if one might wonder if everything that ever happened in the universe, all the horrible things, led to the creation of an institution that has the ability to safe lives but chooses not to.
Yes, coming across a planet of people that are just getting into the industrial age and are still fighting wars over things like religion and skin color and money, perhaps let them be. But if you can stop an entire planet from going extinct because you can prevent an asteroid from impacting it and CHOOSE not to..... Any evolved form of sensibility goes out the window.
'The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for good people to do nothing'.
In many religions on Earth, people have refused advanced medical care because they will pray to their god(s) and say 'difinity will save me.'
Well maybe difinity create modern medicine to make sure you will live on.
I see it the same with the Federation. It was created to create a better place for all sentient and non sentient life, yet it is willing to let planets die because of 'non interference' and 'the natural order of things'. It would make an interesting philosophical debate if one might wonder if everything that ever happened in the universe, all the horrible things, led to the creation of an institution that has the ability to safe lives but chooses not to.
Yes, coming across a planet of people that are just getting into the industrial age and are still fighting wars over things like religion and skin color and money, perhaps let them be. But if you can stop an entire planet from going extinct because you can prevent an asteroid from impacting it and CHOOSE not to..... Any evolved form of sensibility goes out the window.
'The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for good people to do nothing'.
It's like the trolley problem, except the train is heading toward an entire civilisation, and the other track has absolutely nothing on it. Do you have the right to pull the lever and sacrifice absolutely nothing to save thousands of people?
TOS definitely had Kirk breaking it, usually after the all-for-little discussions between Spock and McCoy. "The Apple" at least forced the issue because Vaal was trying to destroy the Enterprise. Had it not done that, it's too easy to fathom how they'd all leave the planet and not be bothered. The evil snake caused its own destruction, snarf snarf, and now the inhabitants will have to make children that you know they will call "evil". There's a sequel just not waiting to be made from that episode...
"The Omega Glory" was easily Trek's best attempt at the "fountain of youth" trope, well-written. Being a potential pilot script, that's where the "on the nose" stuff (which is expected what with the cold war and everything else in the early/mid-1960s) come in but some of that content isn't exactly bad, it's just a big left turn for plot tone. The fountain stuff and the biological disease and how the inhabitants could live longer being normal because it's their genetics is all really well done. And creepy as hell due to the opening. Getting Morgan Woodward was icing on the cake.
"Justice"'s original draft may or may not have worked out, but revising it into random death zones and being put to death for falling into a bed of PVC petunias on what appears to be an idyllic planet with good weather all the time was the first time the prime directive came across like a steaming pile*. Picard's speech at the end tries hard to make up for 39 preceding minutes of oiled-up drivel...
"Pen Pals", which plays with science terms interestingly if not potentially flawed, is one of the better examples - especially for getting audiences to warm up to Data as being more than a soulless automaton. Ironically, the prime directive discussion seems moot as, if these planets don't last long, Plus, if they live fast and die hard, where's John McClane citing one-liners, not like "if these planetary systems have fast, short lives, thanks to the large structures of dilithium causing a piezo effect that causes them to shatter, how did sentient life develop so fast? Is it somehow relative, did someone spew a genesis torpedo, is Q's distant brother, Y, snapping his fingers for a cheap thrill, or what? Now where's that stick of dynamite?" (okay, the science lesson bit is not uninteresting, but doesn't quite fit...) That said, bringing it up on occasion to debate it has some interest.
After the highly cynical tale-with-Troi-getting-it-on posited in "The Masterpiece Society", TNG was jumping the shark.
I don't remember any of the other episodes revolving around it, though. Apart from a vague trope where Starfleet demands Kirk make contact with various species, regardless of cost. Sounds like a prime directive yellow flag from the get-go...
"The Omega Glory" was easily Trek's best attempt at the "fountain of youth" trope, well-written. Being a potential pilot script, that's where the "on the nose" stuff (which is expected what with the cold war and everything else in the early/mid-1960s) come in but some of that content isn't exactly bad, it's just a big left turn for plot tone. The fountain stuff and the biological disease and how the inhabitants could live longer being normal because it's their genetics is all really well done. And creepy as hell due to the opening. Getting Morgan Woodward was icing on the cake.
"Justice"'s original draft may or may not have worked out, but revising it into random death zones and being put to death for falling into a bed of PVC petunias on what appears to be an idyllic planet with good weather all the time was the first time the prime directive came across like a steaming pile*. Picard's speech at the end tries hard to make up for 39 preceding minutes of oiled-up drivel...
"Pen Pals", which plays with science terms interestingly if not potentially flawed, is one of the better examples - especially for getting audiences to warm up to Data as being more than a soulless automaton. Ironically, the prime directive discussion seems moot as, if these planets don't last long, Plus, if they live fast and die hard, where's John McClane citing one-liners, not like "if these planetary systems have fast, short lives, thanks to the large structures of dilithium causing a piezo effect that causes them to shatter, how did sentient life develop so fast? Is it somehow relative, did someone spew a genesis torpedo, is Q's distant brother, Y, snapping his fingers for a cheap thrill, or what? Now where's that stick of dynamite?" (okay, the science lesson bit is not uninteresting, but doesn't quite fit...) That said, bringing it up on occasion to debate it has some interest.
After the highly cynical tale-with-Troi-getting-it-on posited in "The Masterpiece Society", TNG was jumping the shark.
I don't remember any of the other episodes revolving around it, though. Apart from a vague trope where Starfleet demands Kirk make contact with various species, regardless of cost. Sounds like a prime directive yellow flag from the get-go...
* 
♨
♨
Could Picard's stance on the directive be affected by his interest in archaeology? Being all too aware that societies rise and fall on a regular basis for various reasons and seeing it as the normal course of things.
Even Picard himself says he broke the Prime Directive on several occasions because he felt 'it was the right thing to do'. The way he treats the PD in Homeward is therefore (partially) inconsistent.
I think Homeward is a case of lazy writing. They made Picard so rigid in this episode apparently mostly to create extra tension (ultimately between Worf and Nicolai), but this probably could have been achieved just as well with putting a bit more thought in it and without character assasinating Picard.
Certainly possible.
Another possible reason (and I can't believe I'm defending something from PICARD season 2)... his view is shaped by the interference with his mother and what happened there. He knows firsthand that interfering, even with the best of intentions, can lead to disastrous results.
Has there ever been a "Frenemy" (Organization / Species / Society) that is on par with the UFP, but literally follows behind StarFleet's trail of exploration and screws up any Prime Directive interaction they would've done?
So if StarFleet would do X action, they intentionally do the the opposite of X action?
So if StarFleet would do X action, they intentionally do the the opposite of X action?
In Homeward, Picard seemed to truly believe that by doing nothing to save any of the remaining inhabitants (at the beginning of the episode) that they all would die. He could have return to the planet and beamed the survivors to the dead surface, but that would paint Picard as a fanatic.
I don't think that's why the Federation was created.
Yeah, he did leave his change of heart a bit late that time!
It's still basically the same thing as always though. The captain believes that the Prime Directive is right and they should leave everyone to die, despite people trying to convince them otherwise. Then something happens to change the situation; they get a distress call, or someone beams the aliens up without permission, or they discover they're the cause of the problem and have to fix it.
Once the situation changes it's now a good thing that the people are saved and anyone arguing otherwise is talked around. The heroes save the day, happy ending.
There isn't one single episode I can think of where the situation doesn't change and the people aren't saved. The Prime Directive is never shown to be right when it says they should let people go extinct... with the possible exception of Dear Doctor.
Similar threads
