The morality of the Prime Directive

[Cranyx]

In Star Trek, the Prime Directive is the belief that Starfleet is to not interfere with the progress of less advanced civilizations, specifically ones who have not achieved FLT travel. The connections with modern day society are obvious.

If the crew of the Enterprise, or the Federation in general, were to come across a civilization that was ruled by a malevolent dictator and it was universally accepted that they could improve the lives of the inhabitants via liberation, should they?


Please don't turn this into a political debate about modern day policies.

 

[OrenjiJusu]

Nope, Every civilisation must run it's course and reach their advancements on their own. Think about it, If you are given a really complex mathematical equation and then given then answer by someone, you have not learned anything. If you work it out you have figured out how to solve it.

 

[Cranyx]

True, but when you look at it from the view of the people in question, it doesn't become an issue of what the proper course is, but a way to end the suffering and death. I don't think the average person living on the planet cares how they were able to survive, just that they did.

 

[Blue_vision]

At a social scale, one entity shouldn't give help to another without asking. This should apply whether you're talking about communities, countries, or species. But, if that entity does ask for help and you have the capacity to provide help, then you basically have an imperative to do so. So if a planet's being ruled by a malevolent dictator, or is being overrun by plague or pollution or something, then other species have an imperative to assist. But it has to be at the inhabitant's free will. No "for your own good" kind of thing.

In the broader idea of the zoo hypothesis, I think that's the proper way to go about business with other alien species. Wait until a civilization has become adequately developed before making contact, or perhaps wait until they call you first.

 

[LetoTheTyrant]

to go from one sci-fi to another, I think mass effects shows what can happen if they don't follow that. The Krogan, agressive war-like species, uplifted by the council races to help them fight the racnii, an invading space-bug army. Krograns with their new technologies win the day for the council.

What happens next? Krogans go to war against the council and almost win? Why? Well the short anwser is they weren't ready for the technology they had, the rest of their civ. hadn't reached that level. Long version? They breed fast, population kept in check by harsh environment of planet, remove from that one planet, population boom. So they invaded near-by inhabited planets and so rebelled against the council.

In any situation you give people (collective or invidiual) a sudden increase in power that they haven't achieved on their own, something will go wrong.

 

[LordOmnit]

Considering that most people don't understand the theory behind new technologies and political changes they are given/live through giving small help here and there- so long as it isn't an earth-shattering change- seems fine to me. Of course they should only do spot things like leave behind a piece of technology that will be studied and enhance the current technology, but not just give them a big spaceship or hyperdrive or whatever. In the malevolent dictator example deposing him would be acceptable, but no help can be given after that.

 

[Nuke_em_05]

So if a planet's being ruled by a malevolent dictator, or is being overrun by plague or pollution or something, then other species have an imperative to assist.

But what if the malevolent dictator is the one asking for help against the insurgents?

How do you know who is "bad" and who is "good"?

What if you supply weapons to the "good" guys, but then the "bad" guys gain access to that technology, and use it against you? What if the "good" guys are really just bad guys on the decline and you helped them regain power, or they turn on you?

Yeah, as far as (space) politics go, hands-off is generally the best course of action.

To the original post:

As far as just technology against disease or disaster; I'm of the nature to help those who need help. However, giving someone something that they didn't have to earn generally leads to less responsibility with it (in space in the future, or right now today).

Just take a look at youth, for a moment. Young people do not have the experience to appreciate many adult things, and take them for granted, treat them with less respect. Give a 12 year old a car without any driver training and just watch what happens. Give the same child a gun. Give the child a bottle of penicillin. You can try to explain the uses, benefits, dangers, and potential consequences of all these things, but they still aren't going to understand.

Heck, throw money at your average high school or college student; they have been given a standard of living by their parents; house owned (with payments), tons of food and entertainment, cars paid, etc. They go out into the world, find out the cost of all those things vs their income and say "I don't make enough money to live"; they don't consider (at first) that how they are used to living may need to be adjusted; studio apartment or roomates, basic cable, Ramen, and the heel-toe highway or bus. They didn't "earn" the lifestyle to which they were accustomed, their parents gave it to them, so their view of money is skewed "I need money to match how I want to live", rather than, "I need to match how I live to how much money I have". This is a part of life, and eventually (usually and hopefully) it is overcome, but it is overcome by learning, it is earned with experience.

Give an alien species a cure for a certain disease, they learn "have disease, take shot, better"; they may not understand it is just for that certain disease. They may think the medicine cures everything and they end up overdosing, or using it to "treat" a disease that it in actuality would actually accelerate the disease.

Then, they get resentful against you because they don't fully comprehend what you have done for them. They expect you to help some more, and become malcontent should you refuse to provide "unnecessary" help.

That's another problem, what is "necessary" intervention? It is something you'd have to define.

The problem is you can't just help and walk away. Once you've interfered, you would need to monitor and guide them from there on out, or else you'll just need to help again later on.

Many of these concerns are addressed in the Star Trek series; Starfleet has allowed civilizations to die off because of the prime directive.

It is a pretty interesting concept.

 

[s0m3th1ng]

Direct involvement would be a bit overboard...but helping them out along the way seems like a good alternative. For instance...nudging that 100 mile wide asteroid out of the way or preventing other rampaging alien civilizations from wiping them out.

 

[mduncan50]

It comes down to what the alternatives are once you do get involved. You could just dispose of the dictator, which would create a power vacuum which would be filled by another dictator, possibly a worse one, because the this civilization will not learn to be a democratic society simply because one dictator has been disposed of, or because they were told to do so. You look at any true democracy (or as close as exists, anyways), and they have all come about due to rebellion against oppressive authority, because that society has come to a point where the lower/middle class have developed a sense of individuality and importance. If on the other hand, you stick around and enforce such democracy, you have not aided a civilization, you have conquered it, forcing your beliefs while wiping out those of the inhabitants.

Direct involvement would be a bit overboard...but helping them out along the way seems like a good alternative. For instance...nudging that 100 mile wide asteroid out of the way or preventing other rampaging alien civilizations from wiping them out.

What if that asteroid has a deep religious significance, and it's coming was foretold as being the gateway to that civilization's "heaven"?

 

[synobal]

Messing in an alien society is stupid so would judging it from a human perspective. As a rule I'd have to agree, contact with aliens who are on par with you is fine because you can't meddle much but going in and doing your own thing is at best unintentionally harmful. Now if you want to go in and conquer the aliens and rule them yourselves at least you're being honest.



Also Damn Captach Ads

 

[Broken Blade]

There are many many problems with the Prime Directive, and in principle it is sound. However, I lost any and all respect for the Prime Directive when Star Trek: Enterprise used it to justify genocide on a planetary scale, in addition to a horrific misunderstanding of evolution plus the fact that these characters were interpreting their actions based on a policy that would not exist for several more decades. Long story short, the Prime Directive started as a drama device and became a horrible vile thing responsible for the easily preventable extermination of a species that was aware of the existence of other civilizations in the universe and warp travel.

Yes, I am bitter.

 

[Jamboxdotcom]

True, but when you look at it from the view of the people in question, it doesn't become an issue of what the proper course is, but a way to end the suffering and death. I don't think the average person living on the planet cares how they were able to survive, just that they did.

But what if through their suffering under that dictator, they learn a better way in the future? Yes, what they're experiencing is terrible, but quite often those atrocities are an opportunity for a people to evolve. It's kinda like the old "Hitler time-travel assassination" paradox. Would you or should you kill Hitler, not knowing how things would turn out without him?

There are many many problems with the Prime Directive, and in principle it is sound. However, I lost any and all respect for the Prime Directive when Star Trek: Enterprise used it to justify genocide on a planetary scale, in addition to a horrific misunderstanding of evolution plus the fact that these characters were interpreting their actions based on a policy that would not exist for several more decades. Long story short, the Prime Directive started as a drama device and became a horrible vile thing responsible for the easily preventable extermination of a species that was aware of the existence of other civilizations in the universe and warp travel.

A situation like that, however, would be an exception.

 

[manythings]

Well in Mass Effect terms I give you the Krogan. A species can't just be thrown 200 years into it's own technological future since. Hell here we've been just advancing at what could be considered a fairly consistent rate for the past 100-ish (it's not exact since you can't average the entire planet well) years and it's been really fraught with terrible problems.

 

[Your Fearless Captain]

Direct involvement would be a bit overboard...but helping them out along the way seems like a good alternative. For instance...nudging that 100 mile wide asteroid out of the way or preventing other rampaging alien civilizations from wiping them out.

What if that asteroid has a deep religious significance, and it's coming was foretold as being the gateway to that civilization's "heaven"?

I would still move the asteroid. That would throw them for a loop.

 

[mduncan50]

Direct involvement would be a bit overboard...but helping them out along the way seems like a good alternative. For instance...nudging that 100 mile wide asteroid out of the way or preventing other rampaging alien civilizations from wiping them out.

What if that asteroid has a deep religious significance, and it's coming was foretold as being the gateway to that civilization's "heaven"?

I would still move the asteroid. That would throw them for a loop.

And just like that you destroy their civilization. Way to go.....jerk.

 

[FalloutJack]

Not unless it was a threat to the rest of the galaxy. Keep an eye on them, see if they're going to advance into a culture that is going to screw Starfleet up. Once they're out and about in space, tell 'em it's time to grow up a little.

 

[spartan231490]

In Star Trek, the Prime Directive is the belief that Starfleet is to not interfere with the progress of less advanced civilizations, specifically ones who have not achieved FLT travel. The connections with modern day society are obvious.

If the crew of the Enterprise, or the Federation in general, were to come across a civilization that was ruled by a malevolent dictator and it was universally accepted that they could improve the lives of the inhabitants via liberation, should they?


Please don't turn this into a political debate about modern day policies.

No. Freedom is mankind's greatest gift, there is no excuse for interfearing with it.

 

[Hungry Donner]

it was universally accepted that they could improve the lives of the inhabitants via liberation

Universally?

The Federation is not a universal authority, and the Prime Directive is in part their admittance of such. They do not want to be in the position of declaring who is good and bad, or right and wrong.

But let's say for the moment that this planet is controlled by a ruthless government that represents less than 1% of the population but is able to maintain power despite everyone else hating them. At this point the Federation isn't deciding that the government is bad so much as supporting the 99%+ of the population that are under its thumb and would remove it if they had the power.

But if the Federation steps in and removes the government, what then? It's unlikely a new and fully functional government will spring into existence - and now that the Federation is involved how involved should they be?

 

[Your Fearless Captain]

Direct involvement would be a bit overboard...but helping them out along the way seems like a good alternative. For instance...nudging that 100 mile wide asteroid out of the way or preventing other rampaging alien civilizations from wiping them out.

What if that asteroid has a deep religious significance, and it's coming was foretold as being the gateway to that civilization's "heaven"?

I would still move the asteroid. That would throw them for a loop.

And just like that you destroy their civilization. Way to go.....jerk.

Gone either way.

 

[aegix drakan_v1legacy]

Direct involvement would be a bit overboard...but helping them out along the way seems like a good alternative. For instance...nudging that 100 mile wide asteroid out of the way or preventing other rampaging alien civilizations from wiping them out.

What if that asteroid has a deep religious significance, and it's coming was foretold as being the gateway to that civilization's "heaven"?

I would still move the asteroid. That would throw them for a loop.

And just like that you destroy their civilization. Way to go.....jerk.

Gone either way.

Yeah, pretty much. I mean, the meteor will kill everyone. If the meteor doesn't hit, however, there will be massive religious/social upheaval that the civilization might survive.

I say move the damn meteor.