Then you have Section 31 which does not even take into consideration the Prime Directive. In one of the Section 31 novels, they are sabotaging an alien race's efforts to achieve Warp Travel because they are a very aggressive race. I know not canon, but still is something Section 31 would do.
The Prime Directive seems pretty inconsistent since a world destroying disaster would end the normal progression of a species and Picard had to violate the Prime Directive in order to save them.
So what?
People die, you cannot stop that because its a natural element of life and were do you stop? sentient beings?
You are not responsible for the universe, you are not God and just because you have the means does not give you the right, you are pushing your values into others at the expense of their entire society and culture.
So we should not have firemen, policemen, doctors, etc nor invest in treatments and all the things that provide means to prevent the fact that "people die".
What do you mean you are not responsible? Everytime your actions may alter something, it IS your responsability (by doing or deciding not to do). And helping others is not pushing anything. You help if they allow you to help. It's that simple. If they don't want your help, then you don't do it.
No, there is no possibility ... any action will take will have a repercussion as I mentioned if Vulcans come around and helped up with the Black Plague the last 5 centuries of human culture would have never existed.
This is not a possibility, this is a certainly.
They would have been different. Better? Worse? Who knows? Some elements would possible have occured jut the same. Just because you know it WOULD be different, it does not mean you know HOW it will be different.
Question is responsibility, you are shrugging it off with morality that to me just shows your "help" is nothing but self-serving ... its about you feel good about yourself by pushing your values into everyone else.
If that is your definition of help, then I will never be able to exchange arguments with you. To me help is not about feeling good with myself, is using something I have, whatever it is and it's form to create possibilities (again, of whatever) in others. For instance, when I donate food or money is not to feel I'm goody good. Is to use part of the money I can part with which is provided by a rather good life I'm fortunate to have with others that do not have the same opportunities. And I don't "let the Universe swirl around" until they magically get them. If I feel good about it? Most definitely, but I don't do it for the feeling. The feeling comes as a fortunate consequence.
Its quite different what we do, we come with those solutions on our own ... we do not get then from more evolved beings that is very much you are doing for self-gratification because then you just leave and dont deal with the results of your actions.
Excuse me? It's different? Are you telling me that the difference in just about anything between a developed country and a poor country is not on par with the issue we are discussing? Do you know how long it would take for these poor countries to reach the level of everything they need immediately solely on their own?
There are 7 billion humans, the Black Death did not wiped us out, a plague does not necessary means extinction.
Doing nothing means you allow the species to handle that on its own, will many die ... yes but then why arent you asking Q to destroy all threats to the Federation and make everyone immortal?
Because helping out is not providing final solutions. Is assisting on a path, not a destination.
I didnt consider?
I did, its just you rather assume RAINBOWS AND UNICORNS instead of the other cases, you have no validation to come to that conclusion, it MIGHT happen but its just a possibility, a very unlikely possibility because the Chinese invented gunpowder and they quickly used it for weapons, its very easy to see were things would be headed.
It is as likely or unlikely as you conjecture. That's precisely what I am saying. I'm not overlooking the bad outcomes, I'm saying that it can go either way. Nuclear weapons were also terrible inventions, but nuclear power is good, is it not? Knowing that something may end up bad is not in itself a reason not to act.
Then you have Section 31 which does not even take into consideration the Prime Directive. In one of the Section 31 novels, they are sabotaging an alien race's efforts to achieve Warp Travel because they are a very aggressive race. I know not canon, but still is something Section 31 would do.
The Prime Directive seems pretty inconsistent since a world destroying disaster would end the normal progression of a species and Picard had to violate the Prime Directive in order to save them.
Yes, the concept was always a Mcguffin really... Also it's poorly worded. When it says "Warp Drive" it really means interstellar travel. We know of multiple races that can travel without Warp Drives.... the Bajorans are simply an easy example. The Xindi and Iconians are others.
That 'live with the consequences' thing is a big part of it. What's worse, failing to save a species because you couldn't do anything about it, or trying to save them and failing or even worse, trying to save them and in doing so doom them?
Regardless of the outcome staying the same, (they all die) doing nothing, by the Prime Directive, absolves the Captain of blame. Where if the Captain does not abide by it then he is responsible for his actions which means that he is responsible for taking part in the destruction of a species. Even if he was trying to help.
Yes it is cowardice but it is a necessary cowardice.
see, the major problem here is that it's not about trying to help when no help can be offered, but refusing to help even when you could. And your argument of "trying to save them and dooming them." is BS. They are going to die if you don't intervene, you have the abilities to save them (otherwise, there is nothing to do.). Worse case scenario, they die anyway. You can't doom a people more when they are facing extinction.
And no moral civilization would just sit around a let people die, just because they are afraid of getting involved. We routinely condemn countries around the world, when they let atrocities happen and don't intervene, this includes the U.S. We blame the German people for not getting involve with resisting the TRIBBLE regime, even though they weren't directly involved in the holocaust, so the prime directive does not absolve some one of their moral obligations.
But here's a quick question. You are walking through a park and you see a woman being assualted, what do you do? Try to intervene, call the cops, or just keep on walking, because it's not you problem and you don't want to get involved? Which one is the morally correct thing to do?
Correct and regardless of the possibility, by not lifting a finger then the Captain had no part in their destruction. For good or ill. At all.
But they are. Through in action, you have allowed atrocities to unfold. Think of the Bajorins and their gripes with the federation. They are all about helping them after the Cardasiains leave, and yet they still blame the federation for not stepping in, and ending their suffering sooner. Whether the politics of fighting the Cardasians was right or wrong, the Federation is still responsible for the Bjajorins suffering, And the Bajorins know it. They may reconcile, but the Federation is viewed by them as cowards, and they don't put alot of faith in the federation defending them from future attacks.
Choosing not to act is in fact choosing to allow the evil act to proceed, and that is just as bad. Again, prime example is the German people during WWII.
The Prime Directive's only moral standing is that interference with other cultures is wrong. Even for saving them. A sort of 'only do this if you know you can get away with it' warning in that sense.
Yes, and by that logic, there should be no involvement in any culture, pre or post warp. Because any action, even by citizens is involvement in other cultures. Star fleet should be spending it's time keeping it's own citizens in their territory then out exploring. That is wahts' wrong with the Prime Directive, it's actually at odds with a moral and just Society of peaceful explorers.
However now diplomacy and politics can come into play. Reasons can be provided for why no action was taken and ultimately the species died because of natural or internal causes. Because there was no action taken by the Captain/Federation, it's the species own fault for dying out. (Being unable to cure the plague/engineering it themselves.)
I'm sure that comforts many people at night. But, if you compare it to real politics in our own world, that's not the case. There have been quite a few major atrocities that have been allowed to happen because no one wanted to get involved. NO amount of negotiating will ever make up for those decisions of inaction, and we must work harderto work around that stain on our reputation.
Frankly, If I was a Star Empire watching what the Federation is doing and wondering if I should ally with them, I wouldn't. They would just as easily let me and my people die when the Borg attack, because it doesn't directly affect them, simply because of a piece of paper.
The only issue with this option is if you don't have time to contact Starfleet (say the plague spreads exponentially and mutates rapidly) and there is a particularly extreme situation that would be hard to research (the plague is actually a part of the planet's life cycle and curing it would kill the planet forever.) But overall this is the type of outside intervention that a Captain can get away with ignoring the Prime Directive.
If bad things still happen then at least the Captain did his best with the plague.
You see, this is where your black and white thinking comes into play. If the plague is that fast acting, with not time to research or contact star fleet, then how can you help them at all. It's not like you have cures for alien disease just lying around. And If it's that fast acting, at least you looked into what help you could offer, and while you didn't save anyone, you at least made the effort. Some situations are futile. And if the cure would destroy them anyway, EI, your "cure would destroy their ecosystem" then maybe you should get a hold of star fleet and see if there are any other alternatives then just let them die. Maybe recolonize them could be an option?
But lets back track here a moment. You said the plague is apart of planet's life cycle, assuming you don't mean that it shows up every hundred years, (which would mean that their is no way this society would have evolved and survived here if they are that susceptible.) The you are arguing that diseases should not be cured because they are natural. By that logic, AIds, Cancer, and other disease afflicting us now should not be cured. After all, many of these disease are living organisms, which we are purposefully destroying to save ourselves. And Yet, I doubt you would find any one that would say not curing these disease is the only moral thing to do.
The problem with your argument is that you make the assumption that trying to save a species outweighs what actually happens to them. It is a 'do or do not, there is no try' state. You either did something in which case you are responsible for whatever happened, or you didn't do something in which case whatever happens isn't your fault. Which would boil down to:
1. 'You saved and had minimal influence on them so we can play politics around the Prime Directive.'
2. 'You saved them but now they've changed forever, you've abused your power as a Captain of a Starfleet Vessel.'
3. 'You tried to save them and failed, so you've taken part in their destruction.'
4. 'You didn't do anything and upheld the Prime Directive, so it's not your fault.'
Scenarios 2 and 3 would indeed be grounds for a Captain to be removed from duty.
again, this is where you are creating a false dichotomy. You assume that by doing nothing you are not responsible, and that by doing something, you are now completely responsible for every thing they do. You do not realize that there are many step in between.
See you incorrectly believe that doing nothing is a moral and proper response. Scenerio 1 is what is hoped for. 2 has some issues, but any good captain would first try to get the approval from star Fleet command, just like any other responsible organization. The captain shouldn't be making decisions alone, but at least he is doing the moral thing. It's better to change a society, then to allow it to die. Scenario 3 while sad, is not partaking in their destruction. If you are trying to disarm a bomb as part of a bomb squad and fail, are you responsible for the bomb? Is a doctor responsible for a death in which he did every thing he could and was still unable to save the patient. (barring malpractice here.) You are only responsible if your actions facilitate the destruction of a society, like say making that volcano explode, or choosing to let them die. Scenerio 4 you chose to let them die, despite being bale to help them. While upholding the prime directive, as flawed as it is. you actually made the least moral decision possible, but hey, at least a few words dissolves you of responsibility. I'm sure that's a comfort to the civilization you let die. I'm sure that's what many Germans also argued for not standing up to the Third Reich, how very moral of them. (sarcasm)
It's far more likely that either Starfleet would stop them (it violates a treaty relating to borders/colonization etc.) or since the Ferengi have decided to make that species problem their problem, they're responsible for it in terms of intergalactic politics.
The Prime Directive is after all only for Starfleet.
and thus the problem. The prime directive basically says that involvement in other species, especially pre warp species is wrong, and yet it also allows for the federation to ignore other civilizations abuse and enslavement of lesser species. It is a document that doesn't stop evil acts, but allows them to exist while tying the hands of moral good people to act. That is not to say that captains should be acting on their own, but they are entrusted with these decision by star fleet, and given the possibility that Star Fleet won't be able to communicate in time to give guidance on these situations, that the Captain acts in accordance to what star Fleet entails.
Good to know that the moral thing is to let people die because we are to afraid of might be to stop what is. It must be real hard to drive, not knowing if or when your car might be involved in the loss of some one else's life. After all, not driving is the only way to insure that you can be held responsible for their death. (it's the same moral equivalent)
Imperial Secret Order. "we are the ones that maintain the balance of power in the universe. May our shadow never fall upon you."
You do realize there are mutations, also there is the Transmission Vector that in the "Black Death" case seem to have been the Oriental rat flea.
Immunization is not a solution, not to say how do you Immunize millions of people ... even if you do that, you have to set up centers because you cannot just beam it down, do you trust people into actually distribute the cure instead of just hogging it or segregate who receives it and who doesnt it? How people are going to view you?
Regardless you are taking responsibility for their entire culture because you saved them, you interfered with their natural evolution ... we survived the Black Death despite it killed millions, if the Vulcans come and given us the cure it would mean we would likely skipped the entire Renaissance, the US would have never been formed either and everything we did from the last 5 centuries would not had happened.
If they weren't all going to be wiped out, then maybe getting involved is not required, but that is something that maybe Star Fleet command should decide. if they are all gong to get wiped out, maybe saving them is better then letting them all die, there could be some circumstances where that isn't true, but in most cases death is the least preferred option.
Also, if you saved a child from a burning car, are then then responsible for raising it? No, you're not. The parents or guardians still retain that responsibility, and while it would be very generous of you to help them out till they got back on their feet, they are not required to. Same is true for situations like this.
And if the vulcans did give us a cure, then the next 5 centuries would have happened differently, including maybe skipping over so much destruction and despair. Anyways, you can not control how people are going to act, just what you can do.
but let's get over to you main point, which is how are people going to view us? Frankly, this is true for any first contact situation, which is why under normal circumstances you want to do some research to see if they have developed socially enough to accept the presence of other species. Other wise, do your best to minimize your influence over the society, and let them keep their autonomy.
Much of the fears, is that we are going to be so advanced compared to them, that we would just come down and start handing out edicts about how they should live. But that isn't the federation. They come down, talk, open up trade (maybe), but let the people decide, and the federation some times chooses not to interact based solely on the fact hat they don't like the direction the culture chooses.
We don't need to station embassies there after we help them out, and many cures don't have to be directly injected, some could be disseminated through the water supply. But if you had to inject, try getting the locals to do it, and if they don't, then step in.
We give food to many Africans, and yet some times that aid gets caught by War lords, and abused in their power grab. Does that mean we stop sending aid, or do we find a better way of getting that food to people so that it isn't abused.
Imperial Secret Order. "we are the ones that maintain the balance of power in the universe. May our shadow never fall upon you."
i probably didn't explain my point well but remember there was no prime directive in Enterprise, it didn't exist yet and this episode is why it exists in the future. Archar shouldn't have gotten involved in the first place But because he got involved tried to help and then this issue of the primitive species species came up, he then had 2 choices both of which was him playing god by having a major impact on the future events on that planet.
Plus he never told them they had found a cure, so i doubt the evolved ones knew why they probably just figured they failed like they had to come up with a cure.
In the Future the Prime directive isn't just one rule its a series of rules and guidelines that every starfleet officer must follow some are clear cut and there's no way to get around it, Others were subject to interpretation, with commanding officers in Starfleet being given great discretion regarding how and whether the Prime Directive would apply to specific situations and even then If a decision was made by a commanding officer that could potentially be a violation of the Prime Directive, They would need to be recorded and justified to Starfleet through the ship's or station's log, and then after starfleet could consider that said action wasn't just and could result in a court martial
so my point is that if a planet illness comes into question you have to consider weather helping them may be the right thing or if doing so could make things worse and yes, as a captain you have some leeway on how you act but in the end you have to justify those actions and saying "i did it to help them" or "i did what i thought was right" isn't enough.
You essentially made my point. And I am aware there was no Prime directive during Archers Era. As a set of guidelines, the prime directive is great. It prevents captains from just making decision willy nilly. But the application of it over the years, and what most people argue is that it's such an ironclad document that it's more preferably to let species die then to even think of getting involved.
I'm all for captain accountability. It's what make honest, goods captains, and keeps a captain honest and good. They do have to answer for their decision, but they still need to be able to think, not just blindly adhere to a doctrine.
Imperial Secret Order. "we are the ones that maintain the balance of power in the universe. May our shadow never fall upon you."
Worse case scenario, they die anyway. You can't doom a people more when they are facing extinction.
Dooming them in this case means that through the actions taken they still die. It's a direct responsibility rather than an implied one from failure to save them.
And no moral civilization would just sit around a let people die, ...
Except they do and often have to. Morals are too ambiguous and a civilization's government has responsibilities to it's citizens first and foremost. The act of 'condemning' that you bring up is mostly one of politics and indirect actions against. Actually stepping in to enforce those condemnations directly would be an invasion, one which would be questioned by other powers and one which 'morals' would not suffice for a sole explanation. Reasons have to be provided.
But here's a quick question. You are walking through a park and you see a woman being assualted, what do you do? Try to intervene, call the cops, or just keep on walking, because it's not you problem and you don't want to get involved? Which one is the morally correct thing to do?
That's a loaded scenario and not relevant to the Prime Directive. Of course the morally correct thing would be to call the authorities. (Even then you'd be shocked at how many people wouldn't recognize assault being done.)
A more fitting scenario would be if you were traveling by a reservation and you hear loud noises and see people engaging in destructive behavior on it (drinking, brawling etc.) What would be the right thing to do then?
But they are. Through in action, you have allowed atrocities to unfold. Think of the Bajorins and their gripes with the federation. They are all about helping them after the Cardasiains leave, and yet they still blame the federation for not stepping in, and ending their suffering sooner. Whether the politics of fighting the Cardasians was right or wrong, the Federation is still responsible for the Bjajorins suffering, And the Bajorins know it. They may reconcile, but the Federation is viewed by them as cowards, and they don't put alot of faith in the federation defending them from future attacks.
Wrong, the Cardassians are responsible for the Bajorans suffering. The Bajorans blame the Federation for not ending it sooner. I imagine that they would blame whomever ended their suffering for not doing so sooner. Again, the Federation has responsibilities to it's citizens first and foremost. They are not the galactic police force and taking direct action with the Bajorans while the Cardassians were there would have been an invasion of Cardassian space and grounds for a war.
Or to put it in other terms, this would be the same as saying that the Allied Powers in WWII are responsible for the Holocaust because they didn't invade Germany and stop it sooner. They can certainly be blamed for that but they cannot be held responsible for actions they didn't do.
That is wahts' wrong with the Prime Directive, it's actually at odds with a moral and just Society of peaceful explorers.
The Federation is a Society of peaceful explorers yes. Whether they are Moral and Just however is subjective. After all to a Klingon they are weak, to a Cardassian they are stupid, and to a Romulan they are easy to exploit. Different peoples, different values, all valid. What right does the Federation have to interfere with those and still claim to be peaceful exploerers?
Frankly, If I was a Star Empire watching what the Federation is doing and wondering if I should ally with them, I wouldn't. They would just as easily let me and my people die when the Borg attack, because it doesn't directly affect them, simply because of a piece of paper.
Frankly I'd say you are a stupid Emperor for choosing that reason to not ally with the Federation. In fact I think that piece of paper would be an enticement because it would mean that they wouldn't depose you as Emperor of your Star Empire unless you took actions that would jeopardize the terms of your Alliance. Even if your citizens petition them to do so. You don't have to be afraid that one day they'll show up and say 'because your citizens don't like you and they asked us to depose you, we'll do that because we are taking the moral high ground with them.'
That's not very peaceful explorer-like of them is it?
Some situations are futile. ... Maybe recolonize them could be an option?
Knowing a situation is futile isn't always obvious and regardless taking action means being responsible for those actions. Also recolonization would be an obvious move, if not exactly moral. But that's what archeological expeditions and museums are for, to preserve the memories of that species. That's a bit more moral.
By that logic, AIds, Cancer, and other disease afflicting us now should not be cured. After all, many of these disease are living organisms, which we are purposefully destroying to save ourselves. And Yet, I doubt you would find any one that would say not curing these disease is the only moral thing to do.
The difference is that we are doing it by ourselves, not that some space aliens appear one day and give/help us develop those cures. Morally, what right do they have to solve our problems for us?
Again they can use methods that don't aggravate that issue but even then their interference weakens us and makes us beholden to them.
How would you feel if said aliens showed up and claimed that they helped us defeat the Bubonic Plague and thus in doing so influenced centuries of our medical knowledge?
The captain shouldn't be making decisions alone, but at least he is doing the moral thing.
Except that the Captain is empowered by the Federation to do so and in fact should do so.
As the Captain of the Starship is the ultimate authority on board and that the Starship in question is an extension of the Federation, so the Captain has both wide powers and responsibilities. Only when the Federation at large will be affected by his actions should he in fact contact Starfleet for recommendations/updates etc.
One species on one planet who aren't citizens isn't something that will affect the Federation at large and contacting Starfleet would undermine their faith in him.
If you are trying to disarm a bomb as part of a bomb squad and fail, are you responsible for the bomb? Is a doctor responsible for a death in which he did every thing he could and was still unable to save the patient.
They are often blamed for it which can lead to investigations to discover if they in fact were responsible for doing so.
Because such investigations take time and in some cases unfeasible (say planet is blown up) the Prime Directive expedites things by absolving the Captain of blame if they uphold it and if they don't, confirming his responsibility. Regardless of what actually happened (unless politics can be played around it.)
I'm sure that's a comfort to the civilization you let die. I'm sure that's what many Germans also argued for not standing up to the Third Reich, how very moral of them. (sarcasm)
They're not around to blame the Captain, but everyone else is. If they ever find out about it, of which I doubt many would care in the first place. Governments have to be selfish or else be self-defeating.
Also why would the Germans have stood up to the Third Reich? It offered hope and prosperity for a people who had been censured, fined, and economically sanctioned against after World War I. How moral is it for the winners of a conflict to demand from the loser reparations and harsh penalties without offering any aid or taking into account the fact that they just lost a war when issuing those demands?
It is a document that doesn't stop evil acts, but allows them to exist while tying the hands of moral good people to act.
Because the Federation is only allowed to say what is evil and wrong within the Federation. Regardless of what anyone else thinks or believes differently. You might think that eating cats is a reprehensible and evil act, but people in China do so. Are they evil?
People in India think that eating beef is a reprehensible and evil act, but you may have eaten a hamburger or steak in your life. Are you evil?
Good to know that the moral thing is to let people die because we are to afraid of might be to stop what is. It must be real hard to drive, not knowing if or when your car might be involved in the loss of some one else's life. After all, not driving is the only way to insure that you can be held responsible for their death. (it's the same moral equivalent)
In order to drive a vehicle legally you must have proven the ability to follow the Rules of the Road which exist to protect the lives of everyone who might be harmed by those driving a vehicle.
In order to be the Captain of a Starfleet vessel you must have proven the ability to abide by the Charters and Laws of the Federation, one of which is that every society has the right to their own cultural identity.
Members of the Federation must have shown that their cultural identity is in line with the Federation's in order to be a member of it.
That's a loaded scenario and not relevant to the Prime Directive. Of course the morally correct thing would be to call the authorities. (Even then you'd be shocked at how many people wouldn't recognize assault being done.)
A more fitting scenario would be if you were traveling by a reservation and you hear loud noises and see people engaging in destructive behavior on it (drinking, brawling etc.) What would be the right thing to do then?
No it is relevant but just on a much smaller scale since the point been argued (or at least as I can gather) here is whether interference is always wrong. Similar question: A child is burning to death in car but you have the power to save her (even if that power is as simple as calling 911). Not knowing what she might do in the future do you save her? By what I think is your interpretation of the prime detective it's better to let her burn to death. After all she or one of her children might grow up do something horrific like join a cult and commit some kind of atrocity or not. Since you don't know what the outcome of your actions will be do you just stand there and do nothing?
So how is this related to the prime directive? Well obviously I'm not taking about the crew of the Enterprise beaming down a 5 man security team to stop an alien from been mugged (since for one thing the end result would be one mugged alien and five dead red-shirts) or sending a rescue party every time it is detected that an alien from a pre-warp civilization is in a car crash. I do get the point of not want to get bogged down constantly in every civilizations problems.
The black death example given earlier is interesting but one point I would raise against it is that the black death was never in any real danger of wiping us out (it reduced the human population from an estimated 450 million down to 350?375 million significant yes but not enough to put us on the endangered species list). So if a captain of a starship decides not to intervene in similar situation I can understand and accept the decision to some extent although I would also understand why not helping would bother some people. And if an alien race did come along and say we helped cure that my first response would be "prove it" and my second would response if they did would be "thanks very much"
This however is were the dogmatism related to the almighty PD comes up. See if a captain discovers a situation were a disease is about to wipe out a species and does NOTHING (even alerting Starfleet command because his ship isn't capable of helping) to help then that captain is guilty of mass murder for the same reason that anyone who didn't help that child is guilty of murder (yeah it was a loaded and frankly rhetorical question as it was meant to help illustrate the ludicrousness of arguing it is right to allow a species to die out needlessly).
The reason I think he would be guilty of genocide is because of a concept in law know as Depraved indifference (To constitute depraved indifference, the defendant's conduct must be 'so wanton, so deficient in a moral sense of concern, so lacking in regard for the life or lives of others, and so blameworthy as to warrant the same criminal liability as that which the law imposes upon a person who intentionally causes a crime. Depraved indifference focuses on the risk created by the defendant?s conduct, not the injuries actually resulting.)
Source: http://definitions.uslegal.com/d/depraved-indifference/
And yes of course there would be consequences but thats life I mean how do you even manage to take a shower or get in a car if your so paralyzedly by the consequences of your actions? How do you do it is by remembering that you live in the here and now and in the case of a Starfleet captain not be so afraid of responsibility as to be paralyzedly to inaction. Oh, and one other thing allowing people to die because you did nothing is still a consequence.
By the way if you don't agree with me thats fine were talking about fiction here so it allows for a level of detachment just try to understand that some of us aren't dogmatic zealots to the the concept of the prime detective and don't think the it is always moral to uphold the PD nor do I think you are bad person for wanting too, however, if a character in a work of fictions only response to the suffering of millions or billions is to point a piece of paper then he is at the very least, not the hero of your story.
Now if you will excuse me now that I have answered the call of the geek I feel I must do something manly to balance it out. Like making love to a beautiful woman on the corpse of a T-rex I just slayed (which isn't to say I didn't enjoy writing this). http://sfdebris.com/inprint/essays/deardoctor.asp
No it is relevant but just on a much smaller scale since the point been argued (or at least as I can gather) here is whether interference is always wrong. Similar question: ...
No it's not relevant because of that smaller scale. Stop framing the Prime Directive in terms of personal average-joe vs. life-or-death crisis situations because that's not what it's about and if you do frame it like that then of course it's not 'moral' or 'just.'
The Prime Directive is about not influencing the development of cultures. That's it.
This however is were the dogmatism related to the almighty PD comes up. See if a captain discovers a situation were a disease is about to wipe out a species and does NOTHING (even alerting Starfleet command because his ship isn't capable of helping) to help then that captain is guilty of mass murder for the same reason that anyone who didn't help that child is guilty of murder (yeah it was a loaded and frankly rhetorical question as it was meant to help illustrate the ludicrousness of arguing it is right to allow a species to die out needlessly).
Again, the Captain is responsible for his actions and by Federation law he is blameless of their destruction. He can curse himself all he wants for letting them die but he is merely a witness. If they were Federation Citizens then he would be required to do all he could to help them but if not then they are not his responsibility until he makes them so.
The reason I think he would be guilty of genocide is because of a concept in law know as Depraved indifference
By this logic then, any eyewitness to a death is guilty of that death. There's a load of qualifications and requirements that have to be proven/shown for this concept to take effect for that reason.
... if a character in a work of fictions only response to the suffering of millions or billions is to point a piece of paper then he is at the very least, not the hero of your story.
The Federation, like all governments, has it's flaws. That makes it more realistic and interesting as it allows the plot to flesh out why those flaws are there and how the people of it overcome them.
Comments
The Prime Directive seems pretty inconsistent since a world destroying disaster would end the normal progression of a species and Picard had to violate the Prime Directive in order to save them.
So we should not have firemen, policemen, doctors, etc nor invest in treatments and all the things that provide means to prevent the fact that "people die".
What do you mean you are not responsible? Everytime your actions may alter something, it IS your responsability (by doing or deciding not to do). And helping others is not pushing anything. You help if they allow you to help. It's that simple. If they don't want your help, then you don't do it.
They would have been different. Better? Worse? Who knows? Some elements would possible have occured jut the same. Just because you know it WOULD be different, it does not mean you know HOW it will be different.
If that is your definition of help, then I will never be able to exchange arguments with you. To me help is not about feeling good with myself, is using something I have, whatever it is and it's form to create possibilities (again, of whatever) in others. For instance, when I donate food or money is not to feel I'm goody good. Is to use part of the money I can part with which is provided by a rather good life I'm fortunate to have with others that do not have the same opportunities. And I don't "let the Universe swirl around" until they magically get them. If I feel good about it? Most definitely, but I don't do it for the feeling. The feeling comes as a fortunate consequence.
Excuse me? It's different? Are you telling me that the difference in just about anything between a developed country and a poor country is not on par with the issue we are discussing? Do you know how long it would take for these poor countries to reach the level of everything they need immediately solely on their own?
Because helping out is not providing final solutions. Is assisting on a path, not a destination.
It is as likely or unlikely as you conjecture. That's precisely what I am saying. I'm not overlooking the bad outcomes, I'm saying that it can go either way. Nuclear weapons were also terrible inventions, but nuclear power is good, is it not? Knowing that something may end up bad is not in itself a reason not to act.
My character Tsin'xing
see, the major problem here is that it's not about trying to help when no help can be offered, but refusing to help even when you could. And your argument of "trying to save them and dooming them." is BS. They are going to die if you don't intervene, you have the abilities to save them (otherwise, there is nothing to do.). Worse case scenario, they die anyway. You can't doom a people more when they are facing extinction.
And no moral civilization would just sit around a let people die, just because they are afraid of getting involved. We routinely condemn countries around the world, when they let atrocities happen and don't intervene, this includes the U.S. We blame the German people for not getting involve with resisting the TRIBBLE regime, even though they weren't directly involved in the holocaust, so the prime directive does not absolve some one of their moral obligations.
But here's a quick question. You are walking through a park and you see a woman being assualted, what do you do? Try to intervene, call the cops, or just keep on walking, because it's not you problem and you don't want to get involved? Which one is the morally correct thing to do?
But they are. Through in action, you have allowed atrocities to unfold. Think of the Bajorins and their gripes with the federation. They are all about helping them after the Cardasiains leave, and yet they still blame the federation for not stepping in, and ending their suffering sooner. Whether the politics of fighting the Cardasians was right or wrong, the Federation is still responsible for the Bjajorins suffering, And the Bajorins know it. They may reconcile, but the Federation is viewed by them as cowards, and they don't put alot of faith in the federation defending them from future attacks.
Choosing not to act is in fact choosing to allow the evil act to proceed, and that is just as bad. Again, prime example is the German people during WWII.
Yes, and by that logic, there should be no involvement in any culture, pre or post warp. Because any action, even by citizens is involvement in other cultures. Star fleet should be spending it's time keeping it's own citizens in their territory then out exploring. That is wahts' wrong with the Prime Directive, it's actually at odds with a moral and just Society of peaceful explorers.
I'm sure that comforts many people at night. But, if you compare it to real politics in our own world, that's not the case. There have been quite a few major atrocities that have been allowed to happen because no one wanted to get involved. NO amount of negotiating will ever make up for those decisions of inaction, and we must work harderto work around that stain on our reputation.
Frankly, If I was a Star Empire watching what the Federation is doing and wondering if I should ally with them, I wouldn't. They would just as easily let me and my people die when the Borg attack, because it doesn't directly affect them, simply because of a piece of paper.
You see, this is where your black and white thinking comes into play. If the plague is that fast acting, with not time to research or contact star fleet, then how can you help them at all. It's not like you have cures for alien disease just lying around. And If it's that fast acting, at least you looked into what help you could offer, and while you didn't save anyone, you at least made the effort. Some situations are futile. And if the cure would destroy them anyway, EI, your "cure would destroy their ecosystem" then maybe you should get a hold of star fleet and see if there are any other alternatives then just let them die. Maybe recolonize them could be an option?
But lets back track here a moment. You said the plague is apart of planet's life cycle, assuming you don't mean that it shows up every hundred years, (which would mean that their is no way this society would have evolved and survived here if they are that susceptible.) The you are arguing that diseases should not be cured because they are natural. By that logic, AIds, Cancer, and other disease afflicting us now should not be cured. After all, many of these disease are living organisms, which we are purposefully destroying to save ourselves. And Yet, I doubt you would find any one that would say not curing these disease is the only moral thing to do.
again, this is where you are creating a false dichotomy. You assume that by doing nothing you are not responsible, and that by doing something, you are now completely responsible for every thing they do. You do not realize that there are many step in between.
See you incorrectly believe that doing nothing is a moral and proper response. Scenerio 1 is what is hoped for. 2 has some issues, but any good captain would first try to get the approval from star Fleet command, just like any other responsible organization. The captain shouldn't be making decisions alone, but at least he is doing the moral thing. It's better to change a society, then to allow it to die. Scenario 3 while sad, is not partaking in their destruction. If you are trying to disarm a bomb as part of a bomb squad and fail, are you responsible for the bomb? Is a doctor responsible for a death in which he did every thing he could and was still unable to save the patient. (barring malpractice here.) You are only responsible if your actions facilitate the destruction of a society, like say making that volcano explode, or choosing to let them die. Scenerio 4 you chose to let them die, despite being bale to help them. While upholding the prime directive, as flawed as it is. you actually made the least moral decision possible, but hey, at least a few words dissolves you of responsibility. I'm sure that's a comfort to the civilization you let die. I'm sure that's what many Germans also argued for not standing up to the Third Reich, how very moral of them. (sarcasm)
and thus the problem. The prime directive basically says that involvement in other species, especially pre warp species is wrong, and yet it also allows for the federation to ignore other civilizations abuse and enslavement of lesser species. It is a document that doesn't stop evil acts, but allows them to exist while tying the hands of moral good people to act. That is not to say that captains should be acting on their own, but they are entrusted with these decision by star fleet, and given the possibility that Star Fleet won't be able to communicate in time to give guidance on these situations, that the Captain acts in accordance to what star Fleet entails.
Good to know that the moral thing is to let people die because we are to afraid of might be to stop what is. It must be real hard to drive, not knowing if or when your car might be involved in the loss of some one else's life. After all, not driving is the only way to insure that you can be held responsible for their death. (it's the same moral equivalent)
If they weren't all going to be wiped out, then maybe getting involved is not required, but that is something that maybe Star Fleet command should decide. if they are all gong to get wiped out, maybe saving them is better then letting them all die, there could be some circumstances where that isn't true, but in most cases death is the least preferred option.
Also, if you saved a child from a burning car, are then then responsible for raising it? No, you're not. The parents or guardians still retain that responsibility, and while it would be very generous of you to help them out till they got back on their feet, they are not required to. Same is true for situations like this.
And if the vulcans did give us a cure, then the next 5 centuries would have happened differently, including maybe skipping over so much destruction and despair. Anyways, you can not control how people are going to act, just what you can do.
but let's get over to you main point, which is how are people going to view us? Frankly, this is true for any first contact situation, which is why under normal circumstances you want to do some research to see if they have developed socially enough to accept the presence of other species. Other wise, do your best to minimize your influence over the society, and let them keep their autonomy.
Much of the fears, is that we are going to be so advanced compared to them, that we would just come down and start handing out edicts about how they should live. But that isn't the federation. They come down, talk, open up trade (maybe), but let the people decide, and the federation some times chooses not to interact based solely on the fact hat they don't like the direction the culture chooses.
We don't need to station embassies there after we help them out, and many cures don't have to be directly injected, some could be disseminated through the water supply. But if you had to inject, try getting the locals to do it, and if they don't, then step in.
We give food to many Africans, and yet some times that aid gets caught by War lords, and abused in their power grab. Does that mean we stop sending aid, or do we find a better way of getting that food to people so that it isn't abused.
You essentially made my point. And I am aware there was no Prime directive during Archers Era. As a set of guidelines, the prime directive is great. It prevents captains from just making decision willy nilly. But the application of it over the years, and what most people argue is that it's such an ironclad document that it's more preferably to let species die then to even think of getting involved.
I'm all for captain accountability. It's what make honest, goods captains, and keeps a captain honest and good. They do have to answer for their decision, but they still need to be able to think, not just blindly adhere to a doctrine.
Except they do and often have to. Morals are too ambiguous and a civilization's government has responsibilities to it's citizens first and foremost. The act of 'condemning' that you bring up is mostly one of politics and indirect actions against. Actually stepping in to enforce those condemnations directly would be an invasion, one which would be questioned by other powers and one which 'morals' would not suffice for a sole explanation. Reasons have to be provided.
That's a loaded scenario and not relevant to the Prime Directive. Of course the morally correct thing would be to call the authorities. (Even then you'd be shocked at how many people wouldn't recognize assault being done.)
A more fitting scenario would be if you were traveling by a reservation and you hear loud noises and see people engaging in destructive behavior on it (drinking, brawling etc.) What would be the right thing to do then?
Wrong, the Cardassians are responsible for the Bajorans suffering. The Bajorans blame the Federation for not ending it sooner. I imagine that they would blame whomever ended their suffering for not doing so sooner. Again, the Federation has responsibilities to it's citizens first and foremost. They are not the galactic police force and taking direct action with the Bajorans while the Cardassians were there would have been an invasion of Cardassian space and grounds for a war.
Or to put it in other terms, this would be the same as saying that the Allied Powers in WWII are responsible for the Holocaust because they didn't invade Germany and stop it sooner. They can certainly be blamed for that but they cannot be held responsible for actions they didn't do.
The Federation is a Society of peaceful explorers yes. Whether they are Moral and Just however is subjective. After all to a Klingon they are weak, to a Cardassian they are stupid, and to a Romulan they are easy to exploit. Different peoples, different values, all valid. What right does the Federation have to interfere with those and still claim to be peaceful exploerers?
Frankly I'd say you are a stupid Emperor for choosing that reason to not ally with the Federation. In fact I think that piece of paper would be an enticement because it would mean that they wouldn't depose you as Emperor of your Star Empire unless you took actions that would jeopardize the terms of your Alliance. Even if your citizens petition them to do so. You don't have to be afraid that one day they'll show up and say 'because your citizens don't like you and they asked us to depose you, we'll do that because we are taking the moral high ground with them.'
That's not very peaceful explorer-like of them is it?
Knowing a situation is futile isn't always obvious and regardless taking action means being responsible for those actions. Also recolonization would be an obvious move, if not exactly moral. But that's what archeological expeditions and museums are for, to preserve the memories of that species. That's a bit more moral.
The difference is that we are doing it by ourselves, not that some space aliens appear one day and give/help us develop those cures. Morally, what right do they have to solve our problems for us?
Again they can use methods that don't aggravate that issue but even then their interference weakens us and makes us beholden to them.
How would you feel if said aliens showed up and claimed that they helped us defeat the Bubonic Plague and thus in doing so influenced centuries of our medical knowledge?
Except that the Captain is empowered by the Federation to do so and in fact should do so.
As the Captain of the Starship is the ultimate authority on board and that the Starship in question is an extension of the Federation, so the Captain has both wide powers and responsibilities. Only when the Federation at large will be affected by his actions should he in fact contact Starfleet for recommendations/updates etc.
One species on one planet who aren't citizens isn't something that will affect the Federation at large and contacting Starfleet would undermine their faith in him.
They are often blamed for it which can lead to investigations to discover if they in fact were responsible for doing so.
Because such investigations take time and in some cases unfeasible (say planet is blown up) the Prime Directive expedites things by absolving the Captain of blame if they uphold it and if they don't, confirming his responsibility. Regardless of what actually happened (unless politics can be played around it.)
They're not around to blame the Captain, but everyone else is. If they ever find out about it, of which I doubt many would care in the first place. Governments have to be selfish or else be self-defeating.
Also why would the Germans have stood up to the Third Reich? It offered hope and prosperity for a people who had been censured, fined, and economically sanctioned against after World War I. How moral is it for the winners of a conflict to demand from the loser reparations and harsh penalties without offering any aid or taking into account the fact that they just lost a war when issuing those demands?
Because the Federation is only allowed to say what is evil and wrong within the Federation. Regardless of what anyone else thinks or believes differently. You might think that eating cats is a reprehensible and evil act, but people in China do so. Are they evil?
People in India think that eating beef is a reprehensible and evil act, but you may have eaten a hamburger or steak in your life. Are you evil?
In order to drive a vehicle legally you must have proven the ability to follow the Rules of the Road which exist to protect the lives of everyone who might be harmed by those driving a vehicle.
In order to be the Captain of a Starfleet vessel you must have proven the ability to abide by the Charters and Laws of the Federation, one of which is that every society has the right to their own cultural identity.
Members of the Federation must have shown that their cultural identity is in line with the Federation's in order to be a member of it.
No it is relevant but just on a much smaller scale since the point been argued (or at least as I can gather) here is whether interference is always wrong. Similar question: A child is burning to death in car but you have the power to save her (even if that power is as simple as calling 911). Not knowing what she might do in the future do you save her? By what I think is your interpretation of the prime detective it's better to let her burn to death. After all she or one of her children might grow up do something horrific like join a cult and commit some kind of atrocity or not. Since you don't know what the outcome of your actions will be do you just stand there and do nothing?
So how is this related to the prime directive? Well obviously I'm not taking about the crew of the Enterprise beaming down a 5 man security team to stop an alien from been mugged (since for one thing the end result would be one mugged alien and five dead red-shirts) or sending a rescue party every time it is detected that an alien from a pre-warp civilization is in a car crash. I do get the point of not want to get bogged down constantly in every civilizations problems.
The black death example given earlier is interesting but one point I would raise against it is that the black death was never in any real danger of wiping us out (it reduced the human population from an estimated 450 million down to 350?375 million significant yes but not enough to put us on the endangered species list). So if a captain of a starship decides not to intervene in similar situation I can understand and accept the decision to some extent although I would also understand why not helping would bother some people. And if an alien race did come along and say we helped cure that my first response would be "prove it" and my second would response if they did would be "thanks very much"
This however is were the dogmatism related to the almighty PD comes up. See if a captain discovers a situation were a disease is about to wipe out a species and does NOTHING (even alerting Starfleet command because his ship isn't capable of helping) to help then that captain is guilty of mass murder for the same reason that anyone who didn't help that child is guilty of murder (yeah it was a loaded and frankly rhetorical question as it was meant to help illustrate the ludicrousness of arguing it is right to allow a species to die out needlessly).
The reason I think he would be guilty of genocide is because of a concept in law know as Depraved indifference (To constitute depraved indifference, the defendant's conduct must be 'so wanton, so deficient in a moral sense of concern, so lacking in regard for the life or lives of others, and so blameworthy as to warrant the same criminal liability as that which the law imposes upon a person who intentionally causes a crime. Depraved indifference focuses on the risk created by the defendant?s conduct, not the injuries actually resulting.)
Source: http://definitions.uslegal.com/d/depraved-indifference/
And yes of course there would be consequences but thats life I mean how do you even manage to take a shower or get in a car if your so paralyzedly by the consequences of your actions? How do you do it is by remembering that you live in the here and now and in the case of a Starfleet captain not be so afraid of responsibility as to be paralyzedly to inaction. Oh, and one other thing allowing people to die because you did nothing is still a consequence.
By the way if you don't agree with me thats fine were talking about fiction here so it allows for a level of detachment just try to understand that some of us aren't dogmatic zealots to the the concept of the prime detective and don't think the it is always moral to uphold the PD nor do I think you are bad person for wanting too, however, if a character in a work of fictions only response to the suffering of millions or billions is to point a piece of paper then he is at the very least, not the hero of your story.
Now if you will excuse me now that I have answered the call of the geek I feel I must do something manly to balance it out. Like making love to a beautiful woman on the corpse of a T-rex I just slayed (which isn't to say I didn't enjoy writing this).
http://sfdebris.com/inprint/essays/deardoctor.asp
The Prime Directive is about not influencing the development of cultures. That's it.
Again, the Captain is responsible for his actions and by Federation law he is blameless of their destruction. He can curse himself all he wants for letting them die but he is merely a witness. If they were Federation Citizens then he would be required to do all he could to help them but if not then they are not his responsibility until he makes them so.
By this logic then, any eyewitness to a death is guilty of that death. There's a load of qualifications and requirements that have to be proven/shown for this concept to take effect for that reason.
The Federation, like all governments, has it's flaws. That makes it more realistic and interesting as it allows the plot to flesh out why those flaws are there and how the people of it overcome them.