#264: Non-Interference, Part I

[Phil]

I’m going to have to ride the middle ground here. Though I agree with much of what Phil, Badger, and Thot said. I have some problems with the Prime Directive especially when it is touted as the LAW. I think that is where the contention is here, letter of the law vs. spirit of the law. Picard is a letter of the law vs. spirit of the law kinda guy. He tries to weigh the best of the situation. OTOH, Kirk is an I am the law kinda guy.

Kirk treats the Prime Directive as guidelines at best and suggestions when deemed necessary. I always thot of the Prime Directive as a nice ideal for the bureaucrats back home while the grunts had to face real life out in the field.

Kirk made plenty of decisions that broke the Prime Directive to safeguard the lives of his crew and his ship. Those decisions are judged and convicted by the Almighty Prime Directive. IMO, you mess with the bull you get the horns.

I wish we had more discussion of specific PD episodes. I’m trying to remember the specifics of the OS episode involving the red skinned white hair people who kept on having to feed the dragon cave god thingy. If memory serves there was a big debate around the PD in that episode, but Kirk thought it was better to kill the ‘god’ and free the people from their servitude. What I can’t remember is was the ‘god’ thingy indigenous to the planet or an outsider. If it is the later, then Kirk was actually following the PD by allowing the people to continue in their natural development.

Actually, the one aspect where I’m most conflicted is cases where one group of the society is mistreating another subgroup. In the ST example is easy to say that it is none of our business, but I have a hard time thinking that sounds too much like saying women’s rights really isn’t our concern in places like Afghanistan and Saudi Arabia because its an issue for their own culture to resolve. However, I don’t really believe that because human rights are human rights. Then again do aliens on other planets have an inherent right to human rights?

[frakkintalos]

I wish we had more discussion of specific PD episodes. I’m trying to remember the specifics of the OS episode involving the red skinned white hair people who kept on having to feed the dragon cave god thingy. If memory serves there was a big debate around the PD in that episode, but Kirk thought it was better to kill the ‘god’ and free the people from their servitude. What I can’t remember is was the ‘god’ thingy indigenous to the planet or an outsider. If it is the later, then Kirk was actually following the PD by allowing the people to continue in their natural development.

You’re thinking of Vaal, AI who was powered by fruits and veggies. Go figure. It’s been around for 10,000 years. It’s reasoning: unknown. The episode was called ‘The Apple’.

[Omra]

During the original series I had always felt that the Prime Directive was more of an ‘ideal’ that one strives for rather than an actual law.

It was not until TNG that things seemed to get very bogged down in political correctness and an over reaching desire to not ‘contaminate’ other planets cultures and development. I think the original series was closer to reality, it is just not possible to avoid contamination of another’s culture.

As many a Anthropological researcher will testify, just the knowledge that something beyond their cultural boundaries exists is enough to cause change. You do not need to actually interact with them to cause a change in behavior, just your observation of them is enough to cause them to behave differently.

Not a real fan of the Prime Directive…

Now the Optimus Prime Directive however!

[Tom]

I Then again do aliens on other planets have an inherent right to human rights?

It’s interesting how the great analogies to humanity break down when the alien being’s rights come into question. They don’t have any rights! they are literary devices to explore our humanity.
We were all moved when Kirk Eulogizes Spock. “Of all the souls I’ve ever met, his was the most…human”. Did we ever stop to think that Spock would have found that insulting?
The question becomes, is there a universal moral law? Is there a reason why a race should respect the rights of any other race?, or does Evolutionary progress include survival of the more technologically advanced and more heavily armed?

[WV_Lou]

I’d just like to add to your description of a 1960’s view of the world and remorse over past actions. The 60’s presented America with a whole generation of 40ish/45ish year old men that had served for 1 to 4 years abroad in the military during WWII. Among other issues that generation brought back with them first hand knowledge of seeing a mass technology infusion into previously “isolated” communities and societies. This was particularly true in the Pacific Theater of Operations were tribal inhabited islands were transformed into massive mechanized battlezones or staging points. Even a large part of Japan herself could be considered like that and the last US Calvary charge was attempted in the Philippines in early 1942. So this 1960’s thought process was by no means limited in scope to Native Americans, but more the result of an entire world spoiled and tainted by war.

~Shooter Out

That’s fascinating, Shooter. And Roddenberry was a pilot in the South Pacific during World War II. It’s easy to imagine him thinking through the prime directive while flying bombing missions over those islands or interacting with islanders back at the base.

[BadgerSpoon]

The question becomes, is there a universal moral law?

But that’s the point exactly. Even if we assume that a universal moral code exists, the very real possibility that such a code isn’t truly universal precludes us from forcing our concept of morality upon another culture.

Is there a reason why a race should respect the rights of any other race?

Simple: so their own rights will be respected in return.

or does Evolutionary progress include survival of the more technologically advanced and more heavily armed?

That’s Shadow talk!

Possibly true, but there will always be a bigger fish, as it were. Consider the Borg. From their POV, they’re sharing their technology and the relative immortality of the Collective, the exact opposite of the Prime Directive, really. To those who are not part of the Borg, though, they consume societies whole, something the Borg genuinely don’t seem to understand.

[Tom]

But that’s the point exactly. Even if we assume that a universal moral code exists, the very real possibility that such a code isn’t truly universal precludes us from forcing our concept of morality upon another culture…

True, look at all the atrocities commited here on earth in the name of religion, but that is not because a universal moral code does not exist, or is not truly universal. It’s because we are collasal f*ck ups.

Simple: so their own rights will be respected in return…

Careful, that sounds dangerously close to a universal moral code.

Possibly true, but there will always be a bigger fish, as it were. Consider the Borg. From their POV, they’re sharing their technology and the relative immortality of the Collective, the exact opposite of the Prime Directive, really. To those who are not part of the Borg, though, they consume societies whole, something the Borg genuinely don’t seem to understand.

Good point. The Borg are a pristine example of evolutionary progress, which btw was doing fine for billions of years before concepts of morality and ethics came on the scene.

[Starbuccaneer]

Careful, that sounds dangerously close to a universal moral code.

Not really–respecting other sentient species’ rights so that they will respect yours is more a philosophy for survival and self preservation. One that does not always work, sure. But it’s not a moral issue, except insofar as behavior that perpetuates your survival is right.

[Siboney]

Me too.

So, here’s my question to those that are anti-Prime Directive:
What would your policy be for dealing with new races?

I’m trying to imagine an interstellar civilization, lets call it “The United Chuck Federation” (not picking on you Chuck just making an example) and that civilization was expanding and exploring and encountering new planets all the time. Not the Star Trek verse per se, but any space verse with a richness of planets to explore.

Would your policy be “Do whatever you want”? “Take or give or whatever technology you feel like”?

Civilizations thrive in terms of trade and culture etc when there is the rule of law. Take anti-pollution laws for example in our country (and our world).
If we didn’t have such laws any corporation could do what ever it wanted and pollute and exploit to their heart’s content. And the companies that polluted and exploited the most would make the most profits and put the “nicer” companies out of business. But with government enforced anti-pollution laws all companies can play on the same playing field and any costs or lost profits they incur by being environmentally good citizens are the same as those of their competitors.

How about something like the UN? You are welcome to interact and trade with any other nation (race). We all agree to certain inalienable rights, such as codes against slavery or naked aggression. You can buy or sell anything you want. Governments and NGOs can conduct humanitarian or educational missions.

It seems as if interaction with other races in the galaxy could easily be called “the natural evolution” of a species. After all, we’re as natural as they are.

[Tom]

Not really–respecting other sentient species’ rights so that they will respect yours is more a philosophy for survival and self preservation. One that does not always work, sure. But it’s not a moral issue, except insofar as behavior that perpetuates your survival is right.

What you have stated is a cost/ benefit analysis of the golden rule. Keeping the golden rule may include going against one’s instinct for self preservation and survival.
Would I risk my life by diving into freezing water to save someone from drowning? Probably not, but whether I should or not is a question of morality.

[Pike]

What you have stated is a cost/ benefit analysis of the golden rule. Keeping the golden rule may include going against one’s instinct for self preservation and survival.
Would I risk my life by diving into freezing water to save someone from drowning? Probably not, but whether I should or not is a question of morality.

While difficult to determine, it’s not a conflict. Would you want someone to save you? Sure. Would you want someone to die in the futile attempt to save you? No.

The trick is determining where the tipping point is. How long have you been in the water? What’s my chance of pulling off a rescue? Are we being shelled? Etc.

[Phil]

Would you want someone to die in the futile attempt to save you?

I’m willing to give an A for effort…

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk