When Did The Prime Directive Change And Why?

[DonIago]

I don't think the Kazon are a valid example...they weren't asking for assistance, they were asking for technology.

Giving them food and water is very different from giving them the technology to create food and water. Nevermind that given their culture you'd effectively be giving one cabal a significant advantage over the others and changing the balance of power in that portion of the galaxy.

 

[Destructor]

Lemme get this straight... We're talking about leaving billions of people to die even though you could help them, and you're arguing that comparing that to letting someone get raped is too extreme?

No, I'm saying that making analogies in which siding with 'don't interfere with the development of other cultures' is equivocated with 'let someone be raped' is arguing in bad faith. It's like saying that because Hitler invaded France we shouldn't take our holidays there.

The analogy is flawed not just because it's a ridiculous comparison, but also because it's inaccurate. The Prime Directive refers to systems you're not already a part of. That offensive and pointless analogy refers to a system you ARE already a part of, so it's inapplicable and f*cking moot. I'm sick to death of rape (and Hitler) being used to prove hypothetical points, give it a god-damned rest.

 

[ProtoAvatar]

Lemme get this straight... We're talking about leaving billions of people to die even though you could help them, and you're arguing that comparing that to letting someone get raped is too extreme?

No, I'm saying that making analogies in which siding with 'don't interfere with the development of other cultures' is equivocated with 'let someone be raped' is arguing in bad faith. It's like saying that because Hitler invaded France we shouldn't take our holidays there.

The analogy is flawed not just because it's a ridiculous comparison, but also because it's inaccurate. The Prime Directive refers to systems you're not already a part of. That offensive and pointless analogy refers to a system you ARE already a part of, so it's inapplicable and f*cking moot. I'm sick to death of rape (and Hitler) being used to prove hypothetical points, give it a god-damned rest.

Actually, comparing what happened in 'Homeward' and 'Dear doctor' with you watching a girl get raped or killed while doing nothing is quite accurate.
Make this girl a foreign citizen if you have problems with the "systems you're not already a part of" distinction.

'Pointless'? - actually, the analogy is quite relevant.
'Offensive'? - it may be; it doesn't change the fact that the comparison is accurate. You have no one to blame but yourself if the point you're supporting turns out to be so obviously immoral.

 

[The Badger]

Thus, from then on they'd have to go around doing the same for any threatened world no matter how devastating this would be for the Fed's resources and economy.

Anwar, this is a point you've raised many times, and seems to be the crux of your argument. I am afraid though that I do not understand your insistence upon this matter. Could you please explain why taking action in one case automatically obligates someone to take action in every case, irrespective of practical concerns?

 

[Anwar]

It wouldn't have been practical to save the Boraalans in the first place, you can't evacuate a planet like that and resettle them with only one ship. You'd need thousands. And it's been done, the precedent for such actions would have taken place and whenever any other world is found to be in similar dangers the Feds would have to intervene because they did before for the Boraalans. If they didn't, then there'd be an outcry of "You can't pick and choose, and you saved those others no matter how impractical and resource-consuming it was. What makes these others different?".

 

[sonak]

First off, I'm not sure those kinds of scenarios in which the UFP would have knowledge of and be in a position to intervene would be all that common. Secondly, if they DO have the resources to carry out such rescue operations, why wouldn't they? And if they DON'T, then there's your justification right there-lack of resources.


Just as in our time, there are limits and guidelines to intervention in other countries, or for military operations, etc. It's not like there's a "God of cosmic interventionism" that would make them intervene or something, the decision would still be theirs.

 

[Gojira]

Forgive me if this has already been answered but one of my questions about the PD is when did it become not allowed to contact pre-warp civilizations? In TOS it seems they are in contact with pre-warp civilizations on numerous times but in TNG that is not allowed.

 

[Anwar]

In TOS they were contacting civilizations that already knew about alien lifeforms to begin with. They didn't have warp but they had already been contacted either pre-PD or by some other spacefaring race. In TNG they dealt with races they didn't know about aliens NOR had Warp Drive.

 

[Anwar]

First off, I'm not sure those kinds of scenarios in which the UFP would have knowledge of and be in a position to intervene would be all that common. Secondly, if they DO have the resources to carry out such rescue operations, why wouldn't they? And if they DON'T, then there's your justification right there-lack of resources.

But if they saved the Boraalans, despite said lack of resources, then there'd still be the precedent. And said resources would have to come from somewhere, which would be their exploratory and defensive arms. They'd be too stretched thin saving primitives to bother defending themselves in war or their own emergencies.

 

[DonIago]

I still think the Prime Directive is on some levels a CYA for Starfleet Captains. There are so many questions regarding whether or not it's "proper" to get involved with an alien society that TPTB probably felt it was necessary to establish a base policy explicitly stating "Don't Get Involved".

And really, we know the PD has a propensity for being bent, but how often do we see captains actually face disciplinary action for it? Even when Data knowingly broke the PD he didn't get anything more than a slap on the wrist...and given what Data's constructed of that probably hurt Picard more than Data (zing!).

 

[ProtoAvatar]

First off, I'm not sure those kinds of scenarios in which the UFP would have knowledge of and be in a position to intervene would be all that common. Secondly, if they DO have the resources to carry out such rescue operations, why wouldn't they? And if they DON'T, then there's your justification right there-lack of resources.

So - if you can't save everyone, don't bother saving anyone?

This position is NOT morally defensible.
If medics can't save every viction of an accident, they shouldn't bother saving any victim - even the ones they can save?

 

[sonak]

So - if you can't save everyone, don't bother saving anyone?

This position is NOT morally defensible.
If medics can't save every viction of an accident, they shouldn't bother saving any victim - even the ones they can save?[/QUOTE]



Wow, you get an "F" for reading comprehension. I never made any such argument. I responded to Anwar who wrote that any intervention would establish a precedent for near-constant intervening that would sap resources. I pointed out that obviously resources are a factor in the first place when to make such a decision, BUT THAT IF THEY DID HAVE THE RESOURCES THEY SHOULD HELP.

So.... to disagree with that, you're saying that NOT HAVING THE RESOURCES TO HELP is not an excuse to not intervene?


So if a poor person is struggling to pay their bills and support their family, they should still be expected to give away a huge chunk of their income to charity? That doesn't strike you as asinine?

 

[ProtoAvatar]

sonak

"Secondly, if they DO have the resources to carry out such rescue operations, why wouldn't they? And if they DON'T, then there's your justification right there-lack of resources."

Yes, what you wrote could be interpreted that they didn't have the resources to save anyone and this is why they didn't help anyone.
An interpretation I dismissed because in the case of "Homeward', Enterprise alone had the resources to save thousands, in the case of 'Dear doctor', they had the resources to cure the disease, etc. All this is painfully obvious - obviously, despite this, you still managed to miss it.

The other interpretation of your post is that you fully support Anwar's position - they didn't have the resources to save everyonne and that's why they didn't bother saving anyone.
To which my reply is:
"So - if you can't save everyone, don't bother saving anyone?

This position is NOT morally defensible.
If medics can't save every viction of an accident, they shouldn't bother saving any victim - even the ones they can save?"

 

[sojourner]

First off, I'm not sure those kinds of scenarios in which the UFP would have knowledge of and be in a position to intervene would be all that common. Secondly, if they DO have the resources to carry out such rescue operations, why wouldn't they? And if they DON'T, then there's your justification right there-lack of resources.

But if they saved the Boraalans, despite said lack of resources, then there'd still be the precedent. And said resources would have to come from somewhere, which would be their exploratory and defensive arms. They'd be too stretched thin saving primitives to bother defending themselves in war or their own emergencies.

OK, that's fine. Nothing wrong with saving the ones you know about and disasters aren't so common that it would break the bank. The problem with your argument is you seem to think the federation would be required by law or something to immediately go outside it's borders with every ship it has and start trying to save everyone it can find from ever imaginable catastrophe that might happen. Not going to happen. Hell, it doesn't happen now.

 

[sonak]

Protoavatar, why would I be defending anwar's argument? I was the one who STARTED this thread to make the point that the Post-TOS PD has been interpreted in an indefensible manner. I argued that the crews' inaction in "Homeward" and "Dear Doctor" was wrong FROM MY FIRST POST. So, you're either lazy and haven't been paying attention in the thread or have SERIOUS reading comprehension problems.

 

[The Badger]

It wouldn't have been practical to save the Boraalans in the first place, you can't evacuate a planet like that and resettle them with only one ship. You'd need thousands. And it's been done, the precedent for such actions would have taken place and whenever any other world is found to be in similar dangers the Feds would have to intervene because they did before for the Boraalans. If they didn't, then there'd be an outcry of "You can't pick and choose, and you saved those others no matter how impractical and resource-consuming it was. What makes these others different?".

I'm sorry, perhaps I'm being terminally dense here, but I still can't see how 'trying to save some civilizations when it is practical to do so' would automatically lead to 'trying to save everyone even if this would inevitably lead to our own destruction'. If I give to charity, I'm not obligated to sell all my possessions and give everything to a worthy cause. If I see someone injured in the street and use my rudimentary first aid skills to help, I'm not obligated to spend the rest of my life wandering the streets with a box of sticking plasters.

Could you please explain your reasoning further? I am having difficulty seeing why you believe so passionately why a single justified intervention would lead so inevitably to the destruction of the Federation.

As a personal note, were I a citizen of the UFP, I'd be much happier with a 'try to save lives when possible, if not possible it's a tragedy' approach than a 'don't even try, the unworthy will perish' one. But maybe that's just me.

 

[lstyer]

So what about a scenario in which resources aren't a major concern? Someone talked about a planet in the path of an extinction-level asteroid. Lets assume that planet is full of pre-warp sentients who don't know about aliens, and that it would take negligible effort for a Federation star ship to divert or destroy the asteroid.

Is the decision whether to take that action a moral question? If so, is the morally correct answer to stop the asteroid, thus "interfering," or to allow it to hit the planet and wipe out the population, thus not "interfering"?

Does that depend on the intent of the actor? If an extinction-level asteroid is on a path to wipe out a planet full of sentients, and Starfleet has some other reason to move the asteroid, is that too, interference, since the otherwise-doomed populace will now live? Lets say the asteroid's path will hit a Starfleet Starbase, and then keep going and hit the planet. Surely Starfleet is justified in saving its own Starbase, but after doing so, does it have an obligation to put the asteroid back on its path of destruction and give it a little push so that the planet full of sentients is wiped out as The Fates intended?

 

[ProtoAvatar]

sonak

You may have started this thread, but your latter posts show that you either have trouble expressing yourself correctly or you have trouble seeing obvious information or both.

 

[Anwar]

I'm sorry, perhaps I'm being terminally dense here, but I still can't see how 'trying to save some civilizations when it is practical to do so' would automatically lead to 'trying to save everyone even if this would inevitably lead to our own destruction'.

It's shown in Trek that catastrophes like in "Homeward" do keep happening and aren't some rare event. Once you saved one random world outside your own border from destruction in a manner that involved thousands of ships working around the clock and several years of continued work to make sure the saved people properly recover it sets a precedent of what to do when inhabited worlds are threatened. A total foreign policy changeover. As such, Starfleet now has a duty to actively seek out endangered worlds (since they know this stuff keeps happening) and save them all. If they don't, they just end up hypocrites who heartlessly pick and choose to save some and not others while the pro-interventionalists just keep pushing for further intervention.

If I give to charity, I'm not obligated to sell all my possessions and give everything to a worthy cause.

You give to one charity, you keep giving to all others until you can't give anymore because you gave up too much and left nothing for yourself.

If I see someone injured in the street and use my rudimentary first aid skills to help, I'm not obligated to spend the rest of my life wandering the streets with a box of sticking plasters.

And others who know of your act will ask you for help or point you to others and then just call you out for your hypocrisy when you don't help even though you helped out the first guy.

Could you please explain your reasoning further? I am having difficulty seeing why you believe so passionately why a single justified intervention would lead so inevitably to the destruction of the Federation.

The pro-interventionalists/Anti-PD folk would use Boraal as the pretext to create the Galactic Nanny State, which would grow so bloated and out of control that it would bankrupt the Federation, drain their defensive arms and either result in total economic chaos or the conquest of the weakened Federation.

As a personal note, were I a citizen of the UFP, I'd be much happier with a 'try to save lives when possible, if not possible it's a tragedy' approach than a 'don't even try, the unworthy will perish' one. But maybe that's just me.

As a common citizen, sure. But as a Starfleet official who has to think of the big picture I'd realize "Well, it'll only bone us in the end and those guys will just end up conquered or dead themselves ANYWAYS..."

EDIT: You can't use Doctors in this scenario, Doctors have an oath to do no harm and help anyone. The Feds do not.

 

[The Badger]

I'm sorry Anwar, I really am, but I just can't make any sense of your argument whatsoever.

You give to one charity, you keep giving to all others until you can't give anymore because you gave up too much and left nothing for yourself.

Errr, no. I do give to charity. I do not give everything I own to charity. It's not an 'all or nothing' situation. Am I a hypocrite?

And others who know of your act will ask you for help or point you to others and then just call you out for your hypocrisy when you don't help even though you helped out the first guy.

Occasionally you may see on the news or in the local papers stories about ordinary people who do act selflessly to help others. As far as I am aware, they are not required by society to continue their acts, nor are they punished for choosing not to do so.

The pro-interventionalists/Anti-PD folk would use Boraal as the pretext to create the Galactic Nanny State, which would grow so bloated and out of control that it would bankrupt the Federation, drain their defensive arms and either result in total economic chaos or the conquest of the weakened Federation.

One could just as easily argue that, the moment the UFP got involved in it's first military action, however small, this would be the pretext to create the Galactic Military Dictatorship.

I concede that there is no evidence to support this allegation of mine. But, and please forgive me for I mean no disrespect, I have yet to see any evidence for your claims, either.


In a war, those in command must exercise sound judgement. They must decide how much force to use on a certain objective, how to gain the greatest results with the minimum resources. Above all a commander must know which battles are worth fighting, and which are lost causes. These decisions may not always be popular ones, but with sound judgement great things are possible. Surely it is not beyond the realms of possibility that such decisions, such insight, can be made during peacetime too? Surely we can all agree that saving innocent lives is a noble cause, even if we are pragmatic enough to know that it may not always be possible?