• Welcome! The TrekBBS is the number one place to chat about Star Trek with like-minded fans.
    If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

What is the purpose of the Prime Directive?

Just how absurd is it to claim that you won't help someone because by saving them, you'd be playing God - when, by refusing to save them, you've done just that?

Because it's what would have happened if you didn't intervene. Refusing to help doesn't change the outcome, it just keeps it going along the way it would have gone if you weren't there.

You have no proof of what is going to happen in 500 years. In making all those assumptions and basing your decision on hypothetical future scenarios, you're, in fact, playing God.

No, you're just letting a event that was already occurring continue on the course it was heading on before you arrived. That's not playing God. That's just letting something run its course.

What was certain - not just an assumption - is that people were dying, in the present, and they had the means to help. Helping save lives, if you can, is not "playing God". It's what civilized humans are expected to do. And it's what ever medical doctor or medic does that whenever he/she treats someone. It's what their profession is all about. If giving people cures that they did not invent themselves is "playing God" and averting the course of nature, well, why don't we just abolish the medical profession? :rolleyes:

Well, that episode didn't have the PD in it so really the "Dear Doctor" events shouldn't apply to PD situations. But Phlox and co were not of that civilization and were not bound by their laws and oaths so he still was within his rights to not aid them. But like I said, it's not a PD situation.


So, I bet you think that, when you see a person drowning, you should never try to save them? When you see a person on the street getting raped or beaten to death, you should just walk away and ignore the whole thing?

Difference being that we DO have laws about that sort of thing, and punishments for ignoring crimes. Because its' OUR society and such that we have to live in. Such things aren't comparable to the PD and tampering with alien cultures.

Driver you see on the street has built their own car. :rolleyes:

No, but they did earn the money performing services to buy said car. No one just gave it to them.




Praxius has a point, we endure from our own will to live and our own creativity/ingenuity, not from some greater power just handing us everything on a silver platter. If we never faced adversity we'd all be pansies.
 
That's how I had to do it. I moved out on my own after high school knowing very little about living on my own, nor did I get much information from my parents except "Pay your bills."

I learned it all on my own, I gained my own
independence, I learned how to live my own life as I deemed it to be..... I learned how to survive, keep my things in order, etc. etc.... as far as I am aware, what you described above is the norm..... or should be.

Tell me, Praxius, do you think that finding out during high school that you'll have to "pay your bills" or "keep your things in order" would inevitably lead to your suicide?
According to the PD, a pre-warp species finding out about any warp-capable one would lead to a species-wide suicide/extinction - see TNG:Homeward.

Do you think someone saving your life during high school is immoral because it means that you're not allowed to face life on your own?
According to the PD, it is immoral - again, TNG:Homeward

Be given a car or build it yourself?

Sure, being given a car is quick and easy and you'll know how to use it..... but if you take the time and effort to build it yourself, you not only know how to use it, you know how it was built, how it works and be able to fix it yourself when you need to..... not to mention improve and evolve it a lot easier.

Praxius, you did not build your car yourself. I doubt you even know how your car works - beyond generalities.

The people who actually invented your car are complete strangers to you. They could just as well be aliens.

Your argument may be that they were humans and you take pride in your species for inventing cars. You overestimate this abstract "pride" if you think it has any importance on how you use your car.
In truth, the most important fact is that you have your car.
 
Last edited:
No, you're just letting a event that was already occurring continue on the course it was heading on before you arrived. That's not playing God. That's just letting something run its course.

That's social darwinism at its purest, Anwar.
So, you not saving someone you see drowning is OK because "That's just letting something run its course". It's not disgusting or immoral, according to you, yes?


Well, that episode didn't have the PD in it so really the "Dear Doctor" events shouldn't apply to PD situations. But Phlox and co were not of that civilization and were not bound by their laws and oaths so he still was within his rights to not aid them. But like I said, it's not a PD situation.

Phlox and Archer are bound by denobulan and human morality, Anwar - and, according to it, what they did is IMMORAL - unless they are the mirror universe versions of the characters.

Phlox/Archer effectively condemned an entire species to extinction so that another one has a chance (as in, not even close to certain) to live/flourish.

That's similar to a doctor ripping the heart from the chest of a healthy person and giving said heart to another person, who might survive and become healthy.
You find this doctor right, his actions moral?
Then, perhaps, you won't mind being the person left to die on the operating table, after you were chopped up for spare parts, Anwar.
 
That's social darwinism at its purest, Anwar.

I guess I'm a social darwinist then.

So, you not saving someone you see drowning is OK because "That's just letting something run its course". It's not disgusting or immoral, according to you, yes?

Well, I know how to swim so that's not really a danger. But if you want to go there, it would depend on whether said person can help me or not, because a lifeguard is duty-bound to help me. And I'm pretty sure we have laws about abandoning people to die, so it's also a legal matter.


Phlox and Archer are bound by denobulan and human morality, Anwar - and, according to it, what they did is IMMORAL - unless they are the mirror universe versions of the characters.

Phlox/Archer effectively condemned an entire species to extinction so that another one has a chance (as in, not even close to certain) to live/flourish.

That's similar to a doctor ripping the heart from the chest of a healthy person and giving said heart to another person, who might survive and become healthy.
You find this doctor right, his actions moral?
Then, perhaps, you won't mind being the person left to die on the operating table, after you were chopped up for spare parts, Anwar.

It's more comparable to one person keeping a bunch of slaves who have the capacity to be more than slaves but only without the owner, and not even considering allowing their freedom. Then the doctor is left with either letting a slaveowner live and continue to keep them as slaves, or let him die so the others can have better lives.
 
Tell me, Praxius, do you think that finding out during high school that you'll have to "pay your bills" or "keep your things in order" would inevitably lead to your suicide?
According to the PD, a pre-warp species finding out about any warp-capable one would lead to a species-wide suicide/extinction - see TNG:Homeward.

Do you think someone saving your life during high school is immoral because it means that you're not allowed to face life on your own?
According to the PD, it is immoral - again, TNG:Homeward

Just to clarify, the Feds don't think that contact will lead to their extinction. Just irreparable damage. That one guy committing suicide was an extreme personal case. Other PD episodes like "Watchers" didn't mention anything about extinction. Also you have to take into consideration that there was no way to save all the Boraalans anyways.

Someone saving a life of a high schooler depends on greater context. Was it a cop or a doctor doing their legal job or not?
 
According to the PD, a pre-warp species finding out about any warp-capable one would lead to a species-wide suicide/extinction - see TNG:Homeward.

The PD can go skrew itself with a Phillips, that's like saying we can't handle the annoucement of alien life.

PD should go back and crawl into the 1940's hole it came out of.
 
So, you not saving someone you see drowning is OK because "That's just letting something run its course". It's not disgusting or immoral, according to you, yes?

Well, I know how to swim so that's not really a danger. But if you want to go there, it would depend on whether said person can help me or not, because a lifeguard is duty-bound to help me. And I'm pretty sure we have laws about abandoning people to die, so it's also a legal matter.

Anwar, I expect a clear answer, not some evasive nonsense - "I know how to swim", "let the law decide".


and Archer are bound by denobulan and human morality, Anwar - and, according to it, what they did is IMMORAL - unless they are the mirror universe versions of the characters.

Phlox/Archer effectively condemned an entire species to extinction so that another one has a chance (as in, not even close to certain) to live/flourish.

That's similar to a doctor ripping the heart from the chest of a healthy person and giving said heart to another person, who might survive and become healthy.
You find this doctor right, his actions moral?
Then, perhaps, you won't mind being the person left to die on the operating table, after you were chopped up for spare parts, Anwar.

It's more comparable to one person keeping a bunch of slaves who have the capacity to be more than slaves but only without the owner, and not even considering allowing their freedom. Then the doctor is left with either letting a slaveowner live and continue to keep them as slaves, or let him die so the others can have better lives.

Anwar, you're describing the Federation's behaviour towards pre-warp species via the PRIME DIRECTIVE.

Where your decription doesn't apply is to "Dear Doctor" - the Valakians are't even close to mistreating the Menk.
Slaves? Well, then I guess we're all slaves, since we have jobs which we need in order to live.

Phlox/Archer choose to let the Valakians die in order for the Menk to have an uncertain chance to flourish in some nebulose future:

"That's similar to a doctor ripping the heart from the chest of a healthy person and giving said heart to another person, who might survive and become healthy.
You find this doctor right, his actions moral?
Then, perhaps, you won't mind being the person left to die on the operating table, after you were chopped up for spare parts, Anwar."

Again, you didn't answer me, Anwar.
Would you have a problem or not with being the one chopped up for spare parts?

Tell me, Praxius, do you think that finding out during high school that you'll have to "pay your bills" or "keep your things in order" would inevitably lead to your suicide?
According to the PD, a pre-warp species finding out about any warp-capable one would lead to a species-wide suicide/extinction - see TNG:Homeward.

Do you think someone saving your life during high school is immoral because it means that you're not allowed to face life on your own?
According to the PD, it is immoral - again, TNG:Homeward

Just to clarify, the Feds don't think that contact will lead to their extinction. Just irreparable damage. That one guy committing suicide was an extreme personal case. Other PD episodes like "Watchers" didn't mention anything about extinction.

Define "irreparable damage". What exactly does it mean to "irreparaby damage" a culture?

Also you have to take into consideration that there was no way to save all the Boraalans anyways.

If Picard/The Federation couldn't save all Boraalans, then Picard should save as many as possible - Enterprise alone had the capacity to save, at the very least, tens of thousands, and the ship had absolutely nothing else to do during the entire time.

Someone saving a life of a high schooler depends on greater context. Was it a cop or a doctor doing their legal job or not?

It was someone who definitely had the ability to save the high schooler's life, Anwar - with no risk to himself. And who let the high schooler die anyway, because, "if the kid can't save himself, he's not worthy to live".
 
Last edited:
Alright, a clear answer would be "it's not the same" because we laws for dealing with peopel in peril as opposed to the PD situations. The PD forbids Starfleet from messing around with internal affairs of pre-warp cultures. That means if they are at war or suffering a plague natural to their world, then that's that. It's their adversities to overcome. Earth survived theirs, meaning it's not impossible.

So if I saw someone drowning, I'd have to assume it wasn't a natural thing because a person who can't swim wouldn't be in the water unless it was via external cause (someone threw them in there or it's an accident) and I would save them. Different circumstances than stopping some plague on another planet inhabited by people who aren't in space yet.

And no, the Federation's treatment of non-warp cultures is not that of master-slave. They aren't dictating how to live their lives to them, exactly the opposite really.

Again, the Dear Doctor scenario had nothing to do with the PD.

Chopped up? That's not what happened in Dear Doctor anyways, Phlox didn't create a virus to kill off a healthy race to make room for the other one. He just didn't cure a natural disease they were suffering from that was exterminating them. It's not comparable to a doctor killing a perfectly healthy person to save someone else.

Irreparably damage them in that they now look to you for further guidance, rely on you and your technologies rather than develop their own, form devotion groups to worship you that otherwise would not exist (which also damages their own uniquely developed spiritual life). Basically change them entirely into something else due to your making your presence known, which is what was happening in "Watchers" and would have happened in "Homeward" if they let them know what was happening.

They didn't have the time to save them, transport the several thousand needed to repopulate the species, or contact the logistics needed for such a transport.

And also, they'd have had to set up a resettling operation to make sure they totally adapted to their new home which would have taken decades to perhaps a century.

The backlash from this would cause a change in policy and now the Feds would have to waste their resources on searching out for all endangered worlds to save them. Where are the ships, infrastructure and personnel for this major "Galactic Nanny State" to come from? It would ruin the Federation economy and depower Starfleet's defensive capabilities leaving them open to attack.

As for the High schooler, you're simplifying it too much. It can't be just "Save or no Save", the greater context of the danger must be known, how much was their own fault for their predicament and responsibility they hld to themselves, etc. You want a straight answer, give me better than "Save this person or not".
 
As depicted, I think it's best to look at the Prime Directive as Starfleet's 'clean conscience clause.' The Federation doesn't want to play God, not because they're unfeeling jerks, but rather because they're not comfortable with dealing with the negative consequences of their actions. Sometimes when you're not capable of dealing with the consequences of an action it's easier to say 'well, it was nature's course' rather than trying and failing and then feeling that it was all your fault that a planet died.

Is it necessarily 'right'? Maybe not. But I can certainly understand it.
 
Hell, I'd LOVE to see our cultures be 'contaminated'. Cause, let's face it, life on Earth, right now, is BORING. All the things we're doing now on this rock will mean nothing to the rest of the cosmos.

So, contaminate me as much as possible. If aliens abducted me today, I'll tell the aliens not to put me back, I'd tell them, "Show me what's out there, or show humankind how to finally grow up. :cool: "
 
And if "To Serve Man" is a cookbook?
:D

Rather than viewing the PD as a license to be laissez faire about the suffering in the universe, it's more of a "Don't raise children on the Big Brother show". It's called Observer Effect. Revealing yourself to a culture that has not had a chance to define itself, thereby skewing their entire future - and yes, possibly even your own, in time - when you had the choice, is supremely arrogant. Not recognizing your cultural contamination - is irresponsible in the extreme. Assuming your culture is the natural culmination of their development - is delusional. Not Federation qualities.

The fact is, you don't know where they will be in 1000 years. You don't know if your aid today will in fact destroy them tomorrow. Riding in to the rescue is not as simple and cut-and-dried as solving all their problems for them.

But these strident arguments that automatically choose interference as the obvious moral choice - is simplistic and irresponsible. Do you patch up a battered wife so she can go home and get beaten again? Or do you swoop in and kill her husband, leaving her to raise her children alone? Do you try him in your court or even try to navigate the local legal system - and what if there is no provision in place that suits your moral outrage at it? And what if she is in fact the bully and he just snapped? You don't know all the facts, and you're not likely to know all the facts.

And now you've got to make a policy to guide whole fleets of people in charge of planet-destroying power, starships. Do you give them license to just fly in and do whatever they think is right at the moment?

Hey, this captain believes in female circumcision, that captain believes in nazism, another captain believes in the Bajoran prophets, another captain believes in military solutions.

Sounds like a recipe for self-destruction, you ask me.

But you helped those people. Maybe. Maybe destroyed their species, but you helped that one population that one time.
 
It's called Observer Effect. Revealing yourself to a culture that has not had a chance to define itself,

Pardon me, but how ethnocentric is that idea -- that a set of cultures (no planet would have only one culture) hasn't had the chance to define itself just because they haven't met one particular set of foreign cultures (i.e., those not native to their world)?

Are you going to claim that the Arawaks hadn't had the chance to define themselves before the arrival of Christopher Columbus? That the Aztecs hadn't had a chance to define themselves before the arrival of Hernán Cortés? Did the Powhatan Renape not have a chance to define themselves before the arrival of the English?

Assuming your culture is the natural culmination of their development - is delusional.

The problem with this idea is that no culture naturally exists in a vacuum; cultures exist in interaction with other cultures. That's normal and healthy. Further, contact with aliens wouldn't be the "culmination," because cultural evolution doesn't have a "peak" or "apex" against which a culture's "maturity" can be judged. Cultures just are.

The issue isn't "interference or isolationism." The issue is, treating these other cultures as equals.
 
Phlox/Archer effectively condemned an entire species to extinction so that another one has a chance (as in, not even close to certain) to live/flourish.
Rubbish. It's incredibly condescending of you to state unequivocally that that species wouldn't be able to discover a cure itself.

That's similar to a doctor ripping the heart from the chest of a healthy person and giving said heart to another person, who might survive and become healthy.
You find this doctor right, his actions moral?
Suppose that the heart of a German Shepherd could be safely installed in (and thus save the life of) a human. Would it be moral to kill the dog to save the human? In this specific case, yes, because dogs are a lesser species than humans. There's shades of gray at work for sure; but to reduce every PD-related argument to hypotheticals involving only humans is worse than unhelpful.

To wit:
Where your decription doesn't apply is to "Dear Doctor" - the Valakians are't even close to mistreating the Menk.
Slaves? Well, then I guess we're all slaves, since we have jobs which we need in order to live.
A meaningless analogy. A much better one would concern dogs and humans. Are dogs our slaves? Yes, they are. We've removed them from their natural habitat and imprisoned them in small territories, and we severely restrict their contact with their peers. Is this immoral? That's a trickier question, because of the inherent difference between species. I wouldn't be surprised if the isolation and cramped confines imposed upon many pet dogs is, at some level, tortuous to their psyches.
 
And if "To Serve Man" is a cookbook?
:D

Rather than viewing the PD as a license to be laissez faire about the suffering in the universe, it's more of a "Don't raise children on the Big Brother show". It's called Observer Effect. Revealing yourself to a culture that has not had a chance to define itself, thereby skewing their entire future - and yes, possibly even your own, in time - when you had the choice, is supremely arrogant. Not recognizing your cultural contamination - is irresponsible in the extreme. Assuming your culture is the natural culmination of their development - is delusional. Not Federation qualities.

The fact is, you don't know where they will be in 1000 years. You don't know if your aid today will in fact destroy them tomorrow. Riding in to the rescue is not as simple and cut-and-dried as solving all their problems for them.

But these strident arguments that automatically choose interference as the obvious moral choice - is simplistic and irresponsible. Do you patch up a battered wife so she can go home and get beaten again? Or do you swoop in and kill her husband, leaving her to raise her children alone? Do you try him in your court or even try to navigate the local legal system - and what if there is no provision in place that suits your moral outrage at it? And what if she is in fact the bully and he just snapped? You don't know all the facts, and you're not likely to know all the facts.

And now you've got to make a policy to guide whole fleets of people in charge of planet-destroying power, starships. Do you give them license to just fly in and do whatever they think is right at the moment?

Hey, this captain believes in female circumcision, that captain believes in nazism, another captain believes in the Bajoran prophets, another captain believes in military solutions.

Sounds like a recipe for self-destruction, you ask me.

But you helped those people. Maybe. Maybe destroyed their species, but you helped that one population that one time.

If the aliens wanted to eat us, they'd do so already. Plus I doubt they'd want to eat a race with heart problems, diabeties and several pounds of toxic material plugged-up in their intestines. :P

Plus...what if, say an Asteroid was going towards Earth in the past...it should have missed, but say another astroid somehow came and changed the course....and the only way to stop it was for Starfleet to go back, but beng seen by the earlier humanity....I'd say go for it and let humans learn there's a better future to strive for themselves and their unborn.

The battered wife issue...been there...I knew a chick who got beat up by her boyfriend on a normal basis. So...I called the cops on his ass. She hated me, BUT, she's get less missing teeth to worry about. And the boy friend is probably getting butt fucked by some large, bald guy named Bruno right about now. I feel this boy scout has done his good deed.

If a person gets outside knowledge, they either do well or do bad. I mean if aliens landed here and offered us:

Cure for cancer, it puts the big name drug companies outta business....I'm fine with it. Fuck the drug companies.

We are shown new sources of energy...or even free energy where we need no fuels....we put the oil companies outta business... let the cowboys and shieks boil in their own juices.

We are shown how to travel faster than light, it makes Newtonian and Einsteinian physics nothing, no loss there. We simply not take theories as dogmatic facts in science. And we'd not be using primative rockets anymore....did you see what's gonna replace the shuttle...they want the Aeries...which is merely "Apollio on steroids", why are we using technolgy our grandfathers used rather than something better?

And the fact we got aliens on our door step pretty much would mean that NASA and other such agencies were lying the entire time to us.

You see, our world...from science to medicine to energy is more political than politics itself. Politics and money. You really think things like big oil and big pharmacuda will be cool with and allow things like the cure for cancer and energy that would put both of them out to pasture, willingly? I think not.

Also, look at the Voyager episodes where that one race was dumping billions of tons of contaminated anti-matter....in other world's systems....and those people refused to change things, simply for economic reasons...even if it envolves poisoning the surrounding worlds? I'd put those guys outta business if I were calling the shots. Same with that ship that kidnapped other beings and forced them to fight gladiatorial games for the sake of entertaining folks watching the Delta Quadrent equivlent of TV.

One reason that I always looked up to The Doctor in Doctor Who was that he traveled the universes and involved himself against such power/money mad conspirators and bullies and even offered the oppressed ways to improve themselves. I dunno about you, but if aliens wanted to come and help us (Yes, I think there are many aliens out there that are more humane than humans ever can be.), I'd be all for it, and vice versa. If I was traveling the cosmos like the Doctor, and I saw a race that , for example could have potential to advance themselves, say a new energy source, but can't because say the makers of....Oiltonium...a non renewable energy source kept getting rich, as oppossed to simply accepting the fact that Castellanium, an energy source that either never goes out, or can last 50 times longer than Oiltonium, and keeping the public in the dark about this, or enfluencing markets by making Castellanium either contraband or insanely expensive via poltical connections....I'd go in, and do everything I can not just to make Castellanium available for anyone who wants it, but to also show that the Oiltonium companies were lying and bullying their way, just for the sake of their own profits....and I'd make sure the Oiltoniun company would get so buttfucked, they'd never be trusted by anyone and go under...or in the very least, make the market fair and competitive. Same if I travelled to a world where a nasty, horrible, debilitating illness...one that made one weak and wrapped in pain all the time....and there was a cure...a simple planet or a mineral....but either a company or a government either censored this information or banned it....cause the makers of a drug that only goes after symptoms...and poor at that....were getting rich....I'd do all I can to make sure those bad guys get it badly in the end. Same if I saw a world where slavery was legal and it was making the slave traders rich. I'd make Abe Lincoln and Moses look like amatuers....even if it caused a major economic/social dent in that world. Or if there was a world that worshipped a 'god' that demanded sacrifices of people's first borns every 2 years....and if it turns out that 'god' was just some ambitious priest who simply had a hard-on for power...I'd go in and show them the charlaton for what he is.

And if the Federation would have listed me as Galactic Enemy #1, simply because I went and did what I believe inside myself was right, having helped and saved the innocent, the ignorent, the poor, the oppressed, and the enslaved, I'd carry that mark on my name with pride. The Doctor was pretty much considered a menace by his own people, the Timelords, because of that...and, ironically, they got saved by that same rogue. :p



I feel a new fan-fic coming...... :D
 
It's called Observer Effect. Revealing yourself to a culture that has not had a chance to define itself,

Pardon me, but how ethnocentric is that idea -- that a set of cultures (no planet would have only one culture) hasn't had the chance to define itself just because they haven't met one particular set of foreign cultures (i.e., those not native to their world)?

Are you going to claim that the Arawaks hadn't had the chance to define themselves before the arrival of Christopher Columbus? That the Aztecs hadn't had a chance to define themselves before the arrival of Hernán Cortés? Did the Powhatan Renape not have a chance to define themselves before the arrival of the English?

Assuming your culture is the natural culmination of their development - is delusional.
The problem with this idea is that no culture naturally exists in a vacuum; cultures exist in interaction with other cultures. That's normal and healthy. Further, contact with aliens wouldn't be the "culmination," because cultural evolution doesn't have a "peak" or "apex" against which a culture's "maturity" can be judged. Cultures just are.

The issue isn't "interference or isolationism." The issue is, treating these other cultures as equals.

Where to begin, somehow I doubt you believe the Arawaks, Aztecs, and Powhatan Renape are better off because of the arrival of the Europeans. However you want to word it, they were not ready for contact. In these specific cases it was because they had not yet developed sufficiently efficient methods of defending themselves.

Second, in the case of planetary civilizations they literally do exist in a vacuum (of space). This also means they exist in a metaphorical one as well. It's not normal for them to interact with cultures not of their planet.

Third, it will be extremely rare that you would be able to treat a newly contacted culture as equals because it's very likely they will have social practices that you find abhorrent. Unless you think that the Spanish would have been morally right had they wanted to keep the Aztec civilization intact and not curb some of the rather bloody aspects of the civilization.
 
And if the Federation would have listed me as Galactic Enemy #1, simply because I went and did what I believe inside myself was right, having helped and saved the innocent, the ignorent, the poor, the oppressed, and the enslaved, I'd carry that mark on my name with pride.

But they wouldn't, would they? As TNG's "Angel One" showed, the Prime Directive only applies to Starfleet officers. There's nothing to keep *civilians* from doing what they like. So going by your example, you would be free to do all of those things under Federation law. Unless you are a Starfleet officer of course. The Prime Directive does not apply to private citizens, only Starfleet.
 
Last edited:
It's called Observer Effect. Revealing yourself to a culture that has not had a chance to define itself,

Pardon me, but how ethnocentric is that idea -- that a set of cultures (no planet would have only one culture) hasn't had the chance to define itself just because they haven't met one particular set of foreign cultures (i.e., those not native to their world)?

Are you going to claim that the Arawaks hadn't had the chance to define themselves before the arrival of Christopher Columbus? That the Aztecs hadn't had a chance to define themselves before the arrival of Hernán Cortés? Did the Powhatan Renape not have a chance to define themselves before the arrival of the English?

Assuming your culture is the natural culmination of their development - is delusional.
The problem with this idea is that no culture naturally exists in a vacuum; cultures exist in interaction with other cultures. That's normal and healthy. Further, contact with aliens wouldn't be the "culmination," because cultural evolution doesn't have a "peak" or "apex" against which a culture's "maturity" can be judged. Cultures just are.

The issue isn't "interference or isolationism." The issue is, treating these other cultures as equals.

Where to begin, somehow I doubt you believe the Arawaks, Aztecs, and Powhatan Renape are better off because of the arrival of the Europeans.

As I have argued several times in this thread, I think that whether or not a given culture benefits from contact with a more technologically advanced culture depends on the more powerful culture's attitudes. Europe benefited greatly from contact with the more technologically advanced cultures of Asia and the Middle East -- and then it set out to conquer the world, bringing ruin to less technologically-developed cultures.

In other words, I am arguing that inter-cultural contact is only harmful when the more technologically powerful culture engages in imperialism.

This is setting aside a far more legitimate concern when it comes to inter-cultural contact -- the spread of diseases to which the people exposed are not immune. I'm judging the idea of "cultural" damage rather than the issue of the spread of disease.

However you want to word it, they were not ready for contact. In these specific cases it was because they had not yet developed sufficiently efficient methods of defending themselves.

That's a ridiculously patronizing way of describing it. The Arawaks, Aztecs, and Powhatan Renape would all have been fine had the Europeans not adopted a hostile, imperialist policy. What if the Kingdom of Spain and the Kingdom of England had decided to treat them as equals and respected their sovereignty?

Second, in the case of planetary civilizations they literally do exist in a vacuum (of space). This also means they exist in a metaphorical one as well. It's not normal for them to interact with cultures not of their planet.

All of those cultures will have been exposed to wildly differing ideas for millennia on their own world. They would all have been thoroughly familiar with the processes of being exposed to new cultures and assimilating some ideas from them while disregarding others; that's what cultures do. They would all have strong senses of cultural identity.

The only difference is that this time, the new cultures would be from another planet rather than another continent. There is no reason at all to think that that would be inherently more harmful than contact with new cultures native to the same planet -- especially if the two cultures have been separated by so many millennia that neither culture has any clue the other exists; in such a situation, they are, effectively, the same thing as aliens to one-another.

Third, it will be extremely rare that you would be able to treat a newly contacted culture as equals because it's very likely they will have social practices that you find abhorrent.

That says more about you than about that culture.

To me, that is what the Prime Directive ought to be about -- not about saying that this culture is somehow unequal to our own because they have some sort of cultural practice we abhor, but instead saying, "We need this rule to fight the impulse we have to refuse to treat foreign cultures as equals and engage in cultural imperialism because we don't like something aliens do amongst themselves."

Unless you think that the Spanish would have been morally right had they wanted to keep the Aztec civilization intact and not curb some of the rather bloody aspects of the civilization.

No. But I think the Spanish would have been right to make contact with the Aztecs, minimize the spread of disease (to be fair to the Spanish, from what I understand, they didn't understand at first that they were spreading illnesses to which the Aztec had no immunity), and establish peaceful, egalitarian diplomatic relations with them while seeking to, peacefully, as equals, persuade the Aztecs to change policies they objected to while still respecting the Aztecs' right to make those decisions for themselves.

And, by the same token, the Aztec would have been right to make contact with the Spanish, minimize the spread of disease, and establish peaceful, egalitarian diplomatic relations with them while seeking to, peacefully, as equals, persuade the Spanish to change policies they objected to while still respecting the Spaniards' right to make those decisions for themselves.

And if the Federation would have listed me as Galactic Enemy #1, simply because I went and did what I believe inside myself was right, having helped and saved the innocent, the ignorent, the poor, the oppressed, and the enslaved, I'd carry that mark on my name with pride.

But they wouldn't, would they? As TNG's "Angel One" showed, the Prime Directive only applies to Starfleet officers. There's nothing to keep *civilians* from doing what they like. So going by your example, you would be free to do all of those things under Federation law. Unless you are a Starfleet officer of course. The Prime Directive does not apply to private citizens, only Starfleet.

Indeed; the Prime Directive is Starfleet General Order Number One. It's the rule that's in place when there are not contradictory orders from the Federation government.

However, according to DS9's "Inter Arma Enim Silent Leges," the Federation Charter strictly bans interference in the internal affairs of foreign states, so the Federation Charter seems to have a civilian government equivalent to the Prime Directive.

Given "Angel One"'s claim that Federation civilians were capable of interfering in the internal affairs of foreign states without the Federation stopping them, I would presume that the ban in the Federation Charter specifically applies to the Federation government, its agencies, and its constituent polities and their agencies, but not to individual citizens operating outside of Federation territorial jurisdiction.
 
Just how absurd is it to claim that you won't help someone because by saving them, you'd be playing God - when, by refusing to save them, you've done just that?

There is a distinction between actively preventing a disaster and passively letting it happen. The distinction is that the latter would happen regardless of whether or not you or your entire planet ever existed. It's the exact opposite of playing god.

The purpose of the PD is to eliminate, as much as possible, the kinds of dilemmas cited by both sides of this argument. It keeps SF focused on the interests of the UFP and keeps them from being legally and morally bound to every single preventable calamity in the galaxy. Without an absolute law like the PD you still have to draw the line somewhere. It's just a matter of where. Do you stop at stopping that doomsday asteroid? That Andromeda strain of global plague? That dictator and his war? That riot? That nasty habit of racism ruining everyone's bus ride? And even if you could, why are you so certain your way, your moral choice is better?

Never mind the practical side. A 23/24th century starship could stop a lot things. Being bound to fix (or even to to seek unfurling) all problems on all planets of all problems (assuming you could even fix them) would take forever. And you'd have to stick around to make sure your fix (which because it is artificial must be maintained) stays fixed. You've suddenly gone from a mission of exploration to the Universal Nanny, protecting people that didn't ask for and might not even want your help.

On the shows, in order to make everyone feel good (aside from "Dear Doctor") the crew usually do the warm and fuzzy thing, even in TNG "Pen Pals" where everyone discusses this very topic. This is a very murky topic and there is no clear answer that will satisfy everyone's morality.
 
There is a distinction between actively preventing a disaster and passively letting it happen. The distinction is that the latter would happen regardless of whether or not you or your entire planet ever existed.

But the distinction is irrelevant. You DO exist. The Federation DOES exist. So why should it not help out when it can? It has an OBLIGATION to help, simply by virtue of its existence.

I mean, if you saw somebody about to get run over by a car, and did nothing, you are effectively as responsible for that death as the offending driver. Because you could have done something, but chose not to.

Anyone remember Kitty Genovese?
 
There is a distinction between actively preventing a disaster and passively letting it happen. The distinction is that the latter would happen regardless of whether or not you or your entire planet ever existed.

But the distinction is irrelevant. You DO exist. The Federation DOES exist. So why should it not help out when it can? It has an OBLIGATION to help, simply by virtue of its existence.

I mean, if you saw somebody about to get run over by a car, and did nothing, you are effectively as responsible for that death as the offending driver. Because you could have done something, but chose not to.

Anyone remember Kitty Genovese?

Don't be silly. All those people who refused to help Ms. Genovese were doing the right thing. If they had defender her from her attackers, they would have been interfering in her natural development!
:rolleyes:

I'm with you on this.
 
If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

Sign up / Register


Back
Top