And absolutely, Archer and Phlox's decision making process and result was morally wrong, but these two instances each represent the opposite side of the non-interference argument, ie if the move to stay away from assisting the Valakians was correct, then Picard should* have steered clear of the Ba'ku situation, and if it was right to interfere in the Ba'ku situation, Archer should have helped the Valakians.
*and by the previous examples I have cited, Picard was more than happy to hide behind the Prime Directive and not intervene in events, even when he was personally morally obligated to do so (Gowron) when it suited him to not get involved...
I must have read this wrong, because it reads as though you're suggesting the Ba'ku and the Valakians were identical situations.
Picard got involved with the Ba'ku because the Federation was about to forcibly relocate a sentient species without their knowledge or consent; an action which contradicts the Prime Directive and Federation Law on a species' right to self-determination. In fact, Picard was only on Ba'ku because he was trying to capture and investigate Data's 'malfunction' (which we quickly learn was caused by a Son'a disruptor blast).
If you meant to say that the Federation should have left the Ba'ku alone, then I see and agree with the analogy, but if you did mean Picard specifically, then I don't understand the similarities or how Picard's actions with the Ba'ku are in any way applicable to Archer's actions with the Valakians.
In my opinion, the Prime Directive is a good thing; it stems in part from the idea of national self-determination. If Starfleet interferes with a culture, they can't truly determine their own future.
This is different. The Valakians had that capability - they already knew of other life in the galaxy. Now, Phlox wasn't legally obligated to give the Valakians the cure, but Archer did have the right to share the cure with the Valakians. Phlox wanting to withhold the cure is his right, but Archer could (and considered) have ordered him to do so anyway. Archer had made first contact - he was UE's diplomatic representative to the Valakians at the time - he had the authority to give them the cure.
There is a moral argument to be made for withholding the cure (which I do not agree with, for the record). If the Valakians were wiped out, it would mean freedom and self-determination for the Menk, while giving the Valakians the cure would mean the Menk remained as they were. Giving the Valakians the cure would mean robbing the Menk of a chance for true self-determination. The obvious flaw there is it suggests that the Menk could only improve their situation if the Valakians went extinct. A better argument is that Archer was confronted with saving one species and allowing another to remain persecuted, or dooming one to allow the other to flourish, which would have been playing God. You can argue that Archer simply chose not to make that choice.
Myself, I'm not sure what I would have done in his place, but I don't think I would have allowed the Valakians to die.
Arguably, one could question if the Menk would be capable of 'stepping up' and giverning themselves... One would hope that they could, but I think it's a valid question...
And yet they never took the simple approach of simply bathing in metaphasic radiation without blowing the planet to heck....
It's funny that you raise that point... From MA...
In an earlier version of the script, reflected in the early editions of the novelization, Ru'afo escapes into space before the collector explodes. He is protected from the vacuum by a personal shield, but he drifts into the planet's rings, where the metaphasic radiation is so intense that it doesn't just reverse his aging, but also disintegrates him completely.
Seriously... the Ba'ku had no way to stop them from simply parking their ships in orbit and staying there. The Son'a chose self-exile over living with their kinfolk.... or even NEAR them.
I forget who said it, if it was Dr Crusher, Picard, Dougherty or even Ru'afo, but it was stated that sone of the Son'a didn't have long enough to live before that kind of ambient exposure would restore them...
They could have lived on the other side of the planet, but CHOSE not to. Galatin suggested that it was due to hurt feelings over getting told "do things our way or leave".
Which would be the same as telling your parents you're moving out, only to set up camp in the back yard... They chose to leave, because they wanted to experience life beyond the Briar Patch. I wouldn't go so far as to put it as nobly as wanting to 'seek out new life, and new civilisations', but they certainly didn't want to remain living in the Briar Patch. Wether they had been told the truth about their immortality at that point, may or may not have been a subject raised when they first said they wanted to leave...
And yet they never took the simple approach of simply bathing in metaphasic radiation without blowing the planet to heck....
It's funny that you raise that point... From MA...
In an earlier version of the script, reflected in the early editions of the novelization, Ru'afo escapes into space before the collector explodes. He is protected from the vacuum by a personal shield, but he drifts into the planet's rings, where the metaphasic radiation is so intense that it doesn't just reverse his aging, but also disintegrates him completely.
Seriously... the Ba'ku had no way to stop them from simply parking their ships in orbit and staying there. The Son'a chose self-exile over living with their kinfolk.... or even NEAR them.
I forget who said it, if it was Dr Crusher, Picard, Dougherty or even Ru'afo, but it was stated that sone of the Son'a didn't have long enough to live before that kind of ambient exposure would restore them...
They could have lived on the other side of the planet, but CHOSE not to. Galatin suggested that it was due to hurt feelings over getting told "do things our way or leave".
Which would be the same as telling your parents you're moving out, only to set up camp in the back yard... They chose to leave, because they wanted to experience life beyond the Briar Patch. I wouldn't go so far as to put it as nobly as wanting to 'seek out new life, and new civilisations', but they certainly didn't want to remain living in the Briar Patch. Wether they had been told the truth about their immortality at that point, may or may not have been a subject raised when they first said they wanted to leave...
Second Paragraph: It was Dougherty. I have a really good memory (and I'm probably in the minority in that Insurrection is my 2nd favourite Star Trek film).
Third Paragraph: This is a non-point. The fact is we don't know either way whether the Son'a were aware of the nature of their immortality or not when they left Ba'ku. Although, given all the Ba'ku we saw onscreen were aware (including the children) we can surmise that the Son'a were also. In that case, the fact that they lost their immortality upon leaving is their own fault. Again, I stress that we don't know for sure if they were aware or not. Evidence points to the former, but the uncertainty factor is ever-present. The difference is the former is based on limited evidence and is thus speculation. Suggesting the Ba'ku kept the knowledge from the Son'a and were thus responsible is simply conjecture without evidence. Either way, it would be foolhardy to act as though we know the facts on this situation.
What we do know, however, is that the Federation conspired with the Son'a to relocate the Ba'ku without their knowledge or consent, in violation of Federation principles on self-determination. Given that the Federation at the time thought the Ba'ku were not warp-capable, it was also a violation of the Prime Directive, the Federation's highest law. When Dougherty called off the mission, Ru'afu decided to trump that by committing attempted genocide. We can't really argue that the Son'a are the victims here.
Now, I'd like to close by saying that I still don't see how this applies to the Valakian situation (see my last post). The Ba'ku situation is far more complicated and mirky than the situation addressed in the OP and this debate has taken on a life of its own; it's quite frankly starting to get off-topic, so maybe you guys should take a debate over the plot of Insurrection into a new thread and return the focus to the question in the OP...?
In my opinion, the Prime Directive is a good thing; it stems in part from the idea of national self-determination. If Starfleet interferes with a culture, they can't truly determine their own future.
This is different. The Valakians had that capability - they already knew of other life in the galaxy. Now, Phlox wasn't legally obligated to give the Valakians the cure, but Archer did have the right to share the cure with the Valakians. Phlox wanting to withhold the cure is his right, but Archer could (and considered) have ordered him to do so anyway. Archer had made first contact - he was UE's diplomatic representative to the Valakians at the time - he had the authority to give them the cure.
There is a moral argument to be made for withholding the cure (which I do not agree with, for the record). If the Valakians were wiped out, it would mean freedom and self-determination for the Menk, while giving the Valakians the cure would mean the Menk remained as they were. Giving the Valakians the cure would mean robbing the Menk of a chance for true self-determination. The obvious flaw there is it suggests that the Menk could only improve their situation if the Valakians went extinct. A better argument is that Archer was confronted with saving one species and allowing another to remain persecuted, or dooming one to allow the other to flourish, which would have been playing God. You can argue that Archer simply chose not to make that choice.
Myself, I'm not sure what I would have done in his place, but I don't think I would have allowed the Valakians to die.
Arguably, one could question if the Menk would be capable of 'stepping up' and giverning themselves... One would hope that they could, but I think it's a valid question...
I'd say that question's purely academic. If the Menk were suddenly the dominant species of their own planet, it makes no difference whether they can govern themselves, because there'd be no alternative. Though I do see your point in that it could be a worse situation than the one they were already in. My point was merely that there would've been a better chance of self-determination without the Valakians than with them.
Personally, I'm inclined to believe all cultures have the capacity to organise and govern themselves given time and cause.
I must have read this wrong, because it reads as though you're suggesting the Ba'ku and the Valakians were identical situations.
Ultimately, I believe that at the core, they are... Both involve Federation (ish in Archer's case) involvement in an internal issue, with people who are not constrained to thinking they are the only sentient life in the universe.
Picard got involved with the Ba'ku because the Federation was about to forcibly relocate a sentient species without their knowledge or consent; an action which contradicts the Prime Directive and Federation Law on a species' right to self-determination.
Yet which he had no issue doing when ordered to so in the DMZ... And not undertaken at all, in the Nikolai Rozhenko incident, had Nikolai not forced Picard's hand... Picard got involved (plot aside) because of his feelings for Anij...
In fact, Picard was only on Ba'ku because he was trying to capture and investigate Data's 'malfunction'.
Indeed. Equally, the exchange could have gone thusly:
"Captain, I'm sorry to interrupt you," Geordi said, holding up a PADD. "But Admiral Dougherty is requesting Data's schematics..."
Picard frowned, and looked out at the diplomatic engagement which the Council had ordered him to host. "Transmit Data's schematics, Commander," he decided.
(which we quickly learn was caused by a Son'a disruptor blast).
Had Data not been following some children like some kind of pederast, the Son'a would not have had to shoot him... And at the end of the mission, Admiral Dougherty could simply order him to eternal silence on the matter... But as above, that scenario is hardly going to pad out a ninety minute movie...
If you meant to say that the Federation should have left the Ba'ku alone, then I see and agree with the analogy, but if you did mean Picard specifically, then I don't understand the similarities or how Picard's actions with the Ba'ku are in any way applicable to Archer's actions with the Valakians.
I mean that Picard should have refused to get involved, which was what he tended to do in similar situations...
I can understand why the Federation were going along with the Son'a plan (although that was likely never to have gone to what the Council thought was the plan...)
I must have read this wrong, because it reads as though you're suggesting the Ba'ku and the Valakians were identical situations.
Ultimately, I believe that at the core, they are... Both involve Federation (ish in Archer's case) involvement in an internal issue, with people who are not constrained to thinking they are the only sentient life in the universe.
True, but the Ba'ku situation is vastly more complex.
Picard got involved with the Ba'ku because the Federation was about to forcibly relocate a sentient species without their knowledge or consent; an action which contradicts the Prime Directive and Federation Law on a species' right to self-determination.
Yet which he had no issue doing when ordered to so in the DMZ... And not undertaken at all, in the Nikolai Rozhenko incident, had Nikolai not forced Picard's hand... Picard got involved (plot aside) because of his feelings for Anij...
I'm inclined to disagree. He got involved in the overall situation because of his loyalty to Data and made a very strong point that what the Federation was doing was a contradiction of its highest law. Now, I don't know how some countries do it, but I was always under the impression that if an order is against the law, then it is illegal to carry that order out, regardless of who gave it. And, again, one of his officers was shot to stop them from revealing this fact.
In fact, Picard was only on Ba'ku because he was trying to capture and investigate Data's 'malfunction'.
Indeed. Equally, the exchange could have gone thusly:
"Captain, I'm sorry to interrupt you," Geordi said, holding up a PADD. "But Admiral Dougherty is requesting Data's schematics..."
Picard frowned, and looked out at the diplomatic engagement which the Council had ordered him to host. "Transmit Data's schematics, Commander," he decided.
Story over...
Yep, he could have done that, and the movie would have lasted 10 minutes as you say. Of course, it is implied that this would have led to Data's destruction to protect an illegal operation.
(which we quickly learn was caused by a Son'a disruptor blast).
Had Data not been following some children like some kind of pederast, the Son'a would not have had to shoot him... And at the end of the mission, Admiral Dougherty could simply order him to eternal silence on the matter... But as above, that scenario is hardly going to pad out a ninety minute movie...
Let me fix that for you:
Had Data not stumbled upon a holoship intended to illegally and unethically relocate a believed-to-be pre-warp civilisation from their planet without their knowledge or consent, the Son'a would not have had to shoot him...
As for Dougherty, ordering someone to silence on an illegal order is in itself an illegal order and Data's ethical subroutines would have made it impossible for him to obey that order, so that would be pointless.
If you meant to say that the Federation should have left the Ba'ku alone, then I see and agree with the analogy, but if you did mean Picard specifically, then I don't understand the similarities or how Picard's actions with the Ba'ku are in any way applicable to Archer's actions with the Valakians.
I mean that Picard should have refused to get involved, which was what he tended to do in similar situations...
I can understand why the Federation were going along with the Son'a plan (although that was likely never to have gone to what the Council thought was the plan...)
In similar situations, it was never the Federation trying to relocate an entire species (albeit only 600 people) against their will. Picard is a Federation Officer and is thus already involved in that he has a legal obligation to stop an illegal operation. Moving the Ba'ku was a violation of their rights to self-determination; a right safeguarded by Federation Law. End of Argument.
Given that you've declared the discussion over, I will not respond to any of your points, only to say that I do not agree with many points.
Fair enough. It's just, as I pointed out earlier, this debate is starting to run off-topic to the original post. I'm not going to claim Insurrection didn't have its flaws, because it definitely did, but the differences between the scenario in it and in the ENT episode being discussed are so great I don't think it's really all that applicable especially since this has started to become a debate over the ethics of Insurrection instead of those in the ENT episode.
Now, I think it's fair to point out that holding Phlox to the standards of his own people (as some have suggested) is a poor excuse; he was an exchange officer with Starfleet; he has to abide by Starfleet's rules and Earth's medical codes. It's even worse given in another episode Archer berates him again for refusing to perform a life-saving operation on a patient after the patient refuses to have the operation under Phlox. In this case, it was Archer being out of line! Under most medical codes on Earth (in particular the Hypocratic Oath) a Doctor can not conduct an operation on a patient if the patient refuses to be operated on! And Phlox ends up doing the procedure anyway! Seriously, Ent: S4 is among one of my favourite seasons of any Trek show, but S1-2 were badder than sin at times...
Fair enough. It's just, as I pointed out earlier, this debate is starting to run off-topic to the original post. I'm not going to claim Insurrection didn't have its flaws, because it definitely did, but the differences between the scenario in it and in the ENT episode being discussed are so great I don't think it's really all that applicable especially since this has started to become a debate over the ethics of Insurrection instead of those in the ENT episode.
That's a fair point, although I would say that regardless of it is an episode if Enterprise or Insurrection, the actual core of the discussion is cultural impacts, and in that regard, I think both are equally relevant, Insurrection more so, because it shows Picard acting in an extremely out of character manner compared to previous similar missions, for reasons no better than 'because Plot says so'. As a viewer I say that is not good enough (given the plot's faults). To touch momentarily back onto Data: When Picard asked him for a report following his reactivation, his recollection upon being reactivated, was not of investigating strange readings, but of "following some children..." I quite agree, yes, the Son'a shot him because he was about to discover the holoship, but going purely by plot dialogue, Data was unaware of its presence, and his following the children (given his later obsession with befriending Artim) quite frankly, always came across as predatory and creepy... All the time the plot has this kind of clearly unintentional, but clearly observable and citable morally different alternate interpretation, I can't simply accept the positions the film presented...
Now, I think it's fair to point out that holding Phlox to the standards of his own people (as some have suggested) is a poor excuse; he was an exchange officer with Starfleet; he has to abide by Starfleet's rules and Earth's medical codes. It's even worse given in another episode Archer berates him again for refusing to perform a life-saving operation on a patient after the patient refuses to have the operation under Phlox. In this case, it was Archer being out of line! Under most medical codes on Earth (in particular the Hypocratic Oath) a Doctor can not conduct an operation on a patient if the patient refuses to be operated on! And Phlox ends up doing the procedure anyway! Seriously, Ent: S4 is among one of my favourite seasons of any Trek show, but S1-2 were badder than sin at times...
He was. But, as Archer said, there was no regulation to cover the situation... In that regard, it's easy to see how Phlox would default back to his own cultural standards. (Upon first arriving aboard Voyager, Seven had almost zero inclination of following Starfleet codes and practices...) However, in The Future, when there is the Prime Directive, in almost all situations, Picard refused to get involved, unless coerced or forced to do so by external sources. And yet people argue that the 'hands off' approach toward the Valakian situation is morally wrong... My argument is that one cannot only intervene in the cases one chooses to, and to stand by when one wishes to. (and that with regard the Ba'ku situation, the benefits which the Council had been sold on and ordered the mission based upon, which would benefit billions of people, over-weighs the impact to the Ba'ku, and that weighing the Ba'ku against those billions, is even more unethical. Again, that's purely my opinion however...)
Fair enough. It's just, as I pointed out earlier, this debate is starting to run off-topic to the original post. I'm not going to claim Insurrection didn't have its flaws, because it definitely did, but the differences between the scenario in it and in the ENT episode being discussed are so great I don't think it's really all that applicable especially since this has started to become a debate over the ethics of Insurrection instead of those in the ENT episode.
That's a fair point, although I would say that regardless of it is an episode if Enterprise or Insurrection, the actual core of the discussion is cultural impacts, and in that regard, I think both are equally relevant, Insurrection more so, because it shows Picard acting in an extremely out of character manner compared to previous similar missions, for reasons no better than 'because Plot says so'. As a viewer I say that is not good enough (given the plot's faults). To touch momentarily back onto Data: When Picard asked him for a report following his reactivation, his recollection upon being reactivated, was not of investigating strange readings, but of "following some children..." I quite agree, yes, the Son'a shot him because he was about to discover the holoship, but going purely by plot dialogue, Data was unaware of its presence, and his following the children (given his later obsession with befriending Artim) quite frankly, always came across as predatory and creepy... All the time the plot has this kind of clearly unintentional, but clearly observable and citable morally different alternate interpretation, I can't simply accept the positions the film presented...
Now, I think it's fair to point out that holding Phlox to the standards of his own people (as some have suggested) is a poor excuse; he was an exchange officer with Starfleet; he has to abide by Starfleet's rules and Earth's medical codes. It's even worse given in another episode Archer berates him again for refusing to perform a life-saving operation on a patient after the patient refuses to have the operation under Phlox. In this case, it was Archer being out of line! Under most medical codes on Earth (in particular the Hypocratic Oath) a Doctor can not conduct an operation on a patient if the patient refuses to be operated on! And Phlox ends up doing the procedure anyway! Seriously, Ent: S4 is among one of my favourite seasons of any Trek show, but S1-2 were badder than sin at times...
He was. But, as Archer said, there was no regulation to cover the situation... In that regard, it's easy to see how Phlox would default back to his own cultural standards. (Upon first arriving aboard Voyager, Seven had almost zero inclination of following Starfleet codes and practices...) However, in The Future, when there is the Prime Directive, in almost all situations, Picard refused to get involved, unless coerced or forced to do so by external sources. And yet people argue that the 'hands off' approach toward the Valakian situation is morally wrong... My argument is that one cannot only intervene in the cases one chooses to, and to stand by when one wishes to. (and that with regard the Ba'ku situation, the benefits which the Council had been sold on and ordered the mission based upon, which would benefit billions of people, over-weighs the impact to the Ba'ku, and that weighing the Ba'ku against those billions, is even more unethical. Again, that's purely my opinion however...)
I think what most people have a problem with is the fact that the Valakians were aware of interstellar races and had specifically asked for help, so even if the Prime Directive did exist, it wouldn't apply (see 'Pen Pals' where Picard uses a child's pleas for Data to speak to her to justify violating the Prime Directive to save her world on the grounds it qualified as a distress call). I should also point out that 3-out-of-4 times Picard cited the Prime Directive as prohibiting interference, he ended up interfering anyway (or twisting it to fit the moral solution, as in 'Symbiosis' where instead of giving a ship's crew the parts to repair their vessel and continue a trade that left them subservient to another race, as the PD would normally have him do, he used it to state he couldn't give them the parts, thus ending that trade; albeit not to Crusher's satisfaction - I know it's S1, but it still counts! :P).
Well, the Prime Directive is about space ethics, so pretty much every discussion of it involves real-world ethics.
The situation of the Menk and Valakians is one where the script writers managed to come up with a scenario that does not exist in the real world(fortunately). And honestly, I can see why Archer would take the easy way and go "I'm not getting involved". I wouldn't want to help the Valakians either.
Well, the Prime Directive is about space ethics, so pretty much every discussion of it involves real-world ethics.
The situation of the Menk and Valakians is one where the script writers managed to come up with a scenario that does not exist in the real world(fortunately). And honestly, I can see why Archer would take the easy way and go "I'm not getting involved". I wouldn't want to help the Valakians either.
True, and like I said, I wouldn't have wanted to make that call either. I don't honestly know that I'd have done anything different. On the one hand, if he helps the Valakians he's leaving the Menk to suffer. On the other hand, freeing the Menk means letting the Valakians die. Either way, he's doing something morally reprehensive. So, I can see why he'd leave it alone.
I think what most people have a problem with is the fact that the Valakians were aware of interstellar races and had specifically asked for help, so even if the Prime Directive did exist, it wouldn't apply (see 'Pen Pals' where Picard uses a child's pleas for Data to speak to her to justify violating the Prime Directive to save her world on the grounds it qualified as a distress call). I should also point out that 3-out-of-4 times Picard cited the Prime Directive as prohibiting interference, he ended up interfering anyway (or twisting it to fit the moral solution, as in 'Symbiosis' where instead of giving a ship's crew the parts to repair their vessel and continue a trade that left them subservient to another race, as the PD would normally have him do, he used it to state he couldn't give them the parts, thus ending that trade; albeit not to Crusher's satisfaction - I know it's S1, but it still counts! :P).
Technically, Picard was not going to get involved in that situation until Data 'put Sarjenka on speakerphone'... And absolutely, twisting it to fit the moral situation as he saw fit. (IMHO that is an unacceptable stance to take, for the reason I am about to detail in another post...
Well, the Prime Directive is about space ethics, so pretty much every discussion of it involves real-world ethics.
The situation of the Menk and Valakians is one where the script writers managed to come up with a scenario that does not exist in the real world(fortunately). And honestly, I can see why Archer would take the easy way and go "I'm not getting involved". I wouldn't want to help the Valakians either.
So it comes down to if you want to help them or not... This is why I previously cited the Geneva Conventions, which you immediately tried to dismiss... The point of them (and in Star Trek the notion of distress calls) is that one gives aid to whomever needs it regardless of 'side' or personal prejudice... There's a story in the UK press at the moment about a Royal Marine who is imprisoned because he murdered an enemy combatant rather than assisting him (and acknowledged at the time that he broke the Geneva Convention in doing so) Janeway was decorated as a Lieutenant when she was ordered to help a wounded Cardassian who would have been previously willing to have killed her. She initially disagreed with the order, but later took pride in her action, seeing that it was the decent thing to do... Distress calls are answered... The Valakians were actively seeking help, ergo it was a 'distress call', and should have been answered. Archer could easily have followed that up with "You treat the Menk appallingly, and we'll have no more to do with you until you sort yourselves out..." or some other sanctimonious lecture, as he was so keen on delivering, while reminding them that his dad built the warp five engine...
I think what most people have a problem with is the fact that the Valakians were aware of interstellar races and had specifically asked for help, so even if the Prime Directive did exist, it wouldn't apply (see 'Pen Pals' where Picard uses a child's pleas for Data to speak to her to justify violating the Prime Directive to save her world on the grounds it qualified as a distress call). I should also point out that 3-out-of-4 times Picard cited the Prime Directive as prohibiting interference, he ended up interfering anyway (or twisting it to fit the moral solution, as in 'Symbiosis' where instead of giving a ship's crew the parts to repair their vessel and continue a trade that left them subservient to another race, as the PD would normally have him do, he used it to state he couldn't give them the parts, thus ending that trade; albeit not to Crusher's satisfaction - I know it's S1, but it still counts! :P).
Technically, Picard was not going to get involved in that situation until Data 'put Sarjenka on speakerphone'... And absolutely, twisting it to fit the moral situation as he saw fit. (IMHO that is an unacceptable stance to take, for the reason I am about to detail in another post...
I will be honest, I'm not entirely sure Picard wasn't aware that Data stopping contact with Sarjenka would lead to a 'plea for help'. Either way, Sarjenka's response hardly qualifies as a distress call, but Picard used it to justify violating the PD anyway (changing your mind doesn't make you a hypocrit). As for the 'Symbiosis' decision... I think Crusher had the more humane solution, I'm just giving Picard credit where it's due for 'helping' the addicts without directly violating the PD (and in fact using the PD to justify his actions). My point is, for everytime 3 times out of 4 Picard invokes the Prime Directive in a situation, he ends up disregarding it anyway - as opposed to Janeway who either uses it as an impenetrable wall or takes a molotov cocktail to it depending on whether Dumb or Dumber is writing her .
I will be honest, I'm not entirely sure Picard wasn't aware that Data stopping contact with Sarjenka would lead to a 'plea for help'. Either way, Sarjenka's response hardly qualifies as a distress call, but Picard used it to justify violating the PD anyway (changing your mind doesn't make you a hypocrit).
That is true. Something which I feel should be noted, is that when Data put Sarjenka 'on speaker', he was not doing so in a private debate with Picard, but publicly doing so in a briefing with his senior officers, essentially guilting him into the course of action he (Data) wanted.
As for the 'Symbiosis' decision... I think Crusher had the more humane solution, I'm just giving Picard credit where it's due for 'helping' the addicts without directly violating the PD (and in fact using the PD to justify his actions). My point is, for everytime 3 times out of 4 Picard invokes the Prime Directive in a situation, he ends up disregarding it anyway - as opposed to Janeway who either uses it as an impenetrable wall or takes a molotov cocktail to it depending on whether Dumb or Dumber is writing her .
Depending upon his personal feelings in the matter... (ie Gowron) As noted upthread, it can be argued that the PD does not even apply to the Ba'ku because they are neither i) indigenous to the planet ii) pre-warp iii) evolutionarily immortal. Wether one agrees with the morals of relocating the Ba'ku or not, one cannot ignore that Picard's decision to take action (to help the Ba'ku) was due to his feelings for Anij, but more significantly, contrary to his beliefs of an almost identical situation when applied to the Boraalans or the DMZ colonists... The only difference from Picard's was his personal feelings, and the direction Plot wanted him to go in...
And of course, the least said about Mad Kathy the better But I couldn't ignore the point that she had previously behaved in a manner toward the enemy, consistent to the Geneva Conventions, during a time of war, suggesting that such conventions must still exist into at least the 24th Century, and that rendering aid is not simply a matter of a captain's personal feelings as to if they like the person or group in need...
I will be honest, I'm not entirely sure Picard wasn't aware that Data stopping contact with Sarjenka would lead to a 'plea for help'. Either way, Sarjenka's response hardly qualifies as a distress call, but Picard used it to justify violating the PD anyway (changing your mind doesn't make you a hypocrit).
That is true. Something which I feel should be noted, is that when Data put Sarjenka 'on speaker', he was not doing so in a private debate with Picard, but publicly doing so in a briefing with his senior officers, essentially guilting him into the course of action he (Data) wanted.
As for the 'Symbiosis' decision... I think Crusher had the more humane solution, I'm just giving Picard credit where it's due for 'helping' the addicts without directly violating the PD (and in fact using the PD to justify his actions). My point is, for everytime 3 times out of 4 Picard invokes the Prime Directive in a situation, he ends up disregarding it anyway - as opposed to Janeway who either uses it as an impenetrable wall or takes a molotov cocktail to it depending on whether Dumb or Dumber is writing her .
Depending upon his personal feelings in the matter... (ie Gowron) As noted upthread, it can be argued that the PD does not even apply to the Ba'ku because they are neither i) indigenous to the planet ii) pre-warp iii) evolutionarily immortal. Wether one agrees with the morals of relocating the Ba'ku or not, one cannot ignore that Picard's decision to take action (to help the Ba'ku) was due to his feelings for Anij, but more significantly, contrary to his beliefs of an almost identical situation when applied to the Boraalans or the DMZ colonists... The only difference from Picard's was his personal feelings, and the direction Plot wanted him to go in...
And of course, the least said about Mad Kathy the better But I couldn't ignore the point that she had previously behaved in a manner toward the enemy, consistent to the Geneva Conventions, during a time of war, suggesting that such conventions must still exist into at least the 24th Century, and that rendering aid is not simply a matter of a captain's personal feelings as to if they like the person or group in need...
In fairness, in the case of Gowron (I assume you refer to the KCW in 'Redemption 1-2' - if not, completely disregard everything I'm about to say), that wasn't just interfering with Klingon society, but an internal, full-scale, civil war. And Picard was also the one encouraging Starfleet Command to embargo the Klingon-Romulan border to keep Duras from getting supplies. As for Sarjenka, I can see cases for interpreting it either way. Keep in mind that both Riker and Worf also advised against violating the PD in that very same scene.
In fairness, in the case of Gowron (I assume you refer to the KCW in 'Redemption 1-2' - if not, completely disregard everything I'm about to say), that wasn't just interfering with Klingon society, but an internal, full-scale, civil war.
Ahhh, yes, but but but but but... Picard was a part of Klingon society, because he was Gowron's arbiter of succession... (a point he was willing to use as leverage, when he wanted a Klingon ship to get him to Romulus...) He had a personal duty to stand at Gowron's side in his hour of need, and, if that conflicted with his duty as a Starfleet officer, he should have (as he did in Insurrection) pulled his pips and resigned his commission as Worf did. The actions he took, were not only inadequate to his personal responsibility to Gowron, but set the precedent which he then did the opposite of in Insurrection, for no reason other than he wanted a piece of Anij... As Lily would say, so much for his evolved sensibility...
As for Sarjenka, I can see cases for interpreting it either way. Keep in mind that both Riker and Worf also advised against violating the PD in that very same scene.
Exactly... Following the regulations, rather than allowing personal feelings to cloud their judgement, and I would say 'ironic that an emotionless android be the one to be the moral voice', but I'm sure that like the T-101 in Rise of the Machines, psychology is among his subroutines
In fairness, in the case of Gowron (I assume you refer to the KCW in 'Redemption 1-2' - if not, completely disregard everything I'm about to say), that wasn't just interfering with Klingon society, but an internal, full-scale, civil war.
Ahhh, yes, but but but but but... Picard was a part of Klingon society, because he was Gowron's arbiter of succession... (a point he was willing to use as leverage, when he wanted a Klingon ship to get him to Romulus...) He had a personal duty to stand at Gowron's side in his hour of need, and, if that conflicted with his duty as a Starfleet officer, he should have (as he did in Insurrection) pulled his pips and resigned his commission as Worf did. The actions he took, were not only inadequate to his personal responsibility to Gowron, but set the precedent which he then did the opposite of in Insurrection, for no reason other than he wanted a piece of Anij... As Lily would say, so much for his evolved sensibility...
As for Sarjenka, I can see cases for interpreting it either way. Keep in mind that both Riker and Worf also advised against violating the PD in that very same scene.
Exactly... Following the regulations, rather than allowing personal feelings to cloud their judgement, and I would say 'ironic that an emotionless android be the one to be the moral voice', but I'm sure that like the T-101 in Rise of the Machines, psychology is among his subroutines
My point is that half of his officers agreed with him, so Data wasn't really guilt-tripping him. Besides, I'm not even sure if Data can manipulate people like that. I always figured he had to open the frequency in order to terminate it properly.
As for Picard and Gowron, he'd fulfilled his duties as Arbiter of Succession once Gowron became Chancellor. Besides, his obligation as arbiter was to K'mpek, the Chancellor who appointed him to arbitrate his succession, not to Gowron. Also, again, Insurrection was a case of the Federation running roughshod over its own laws. (Didn't we agree to stop arguing about Insurrection? )
Well, the Prime Directive is about space ethics, so pretty much every discussion of it involves real-world ethics.
The situation of the Menk and Valakians is one where the script writers managed to come up with a scenario that does not exist in the real world(fortunately). And honestly, I can see why Archer would take the easy way and go "I'm not getting involved". I wouldn't want to help the Valakians either.
True, and like I said, I wouldn't have wanted to make that call either. I don't honestly know that I'd have done anything different. On the one hand, if he helps the Valakians he's leaving the Menk to suffer. On the other hand, freeing the Menk means letting the Valakians die. Either way, he's doing something morally reprehensive. So, I can see why he'd leave it alone.
Also, his actions did not preclude helping either or both sides at a later date.
Well, the Prime Directive is about space ethics, so pretty much every discussion of it involves real-world ethics.
The situation of the Menk and Valakians is one where the script writers managed to come up with a scenario that does not exist in the real world(fortunately). And honestly, I can see why Archer would take the easy way and go "I'm not getting involved". I wouldn't want to help the Valakians either.
So it comes down to if you want to help them or not... This is why I previously cited the Geneva Conventions, which you immediately tried to dismiss... The point of them is that one treats Prisoners of War humanely regardless of 'side' or personal prejudice...
Fixed that for you. I am curious why you seem to think the Valakians are Prisoners of War. They do not seem to fit into any of the categories as defined in the treaty.
The problem with discussing the Prime Directives ethics is the simple fact that it was conceived as a protest against war and colonialism. The idea that countries shouldn't become involved in the conflicts of other lands or stomp around barking orders at their neighbors. It was never intended to be anything more than that.
However, TNG became much more dogmatic, and quite frankly arrogant, with the Federation suddenly refusing to provide even basic humanitarian aid to disasters. With the way the show was written we the audience were expected to take that as being how an "enlightened" society should act.
I personally feel it became less about ethics and more about apathy. With Picard looking at a disaster and just shrugging his shoulders and saying "not my problem".
Indeed. Equally, the exchange could have gone thusly:
"Captain, I'm sorry to interrupt you," Geordi said, holding up a PADD. "But Admiral Dougherty is requesting Data's schematics..."
Picard frowned, and looked out at the diplomatic engagement which the Council had ordered him to host. "Transmit Data's schematics, Commander," he decided.
Story over...
You know, the more I think about it the more I think Insurrection could have worked better as a mystery story.
Have Data arrive back at the Enterprise after a vague mission with Admiral Dougherty. During the VIP banquet Geordi could notice something wrong with Data, damage that had recently been repaired, but Data refuses to explain what happened. Picard would then go to the location of Data's mission and find the Baku planet devastated from the Son'a collector ship. They then follow some bread crumbs, get into some action, clash with Dougherty and the Son'a, and then rescue the Baku and reveal the truth of what happened to the Federation Council.
I have to say that I can understand why Picard was reluctant to relocate that one race... there was nothing he could do to stop the disaster, and there isn't enough room on the ship for even 1% of the population. He did end up saving a single village though.
The situation of the Menk and Valakians is one where the script writers managed to come up with a scenario that does not exist in the real world(fortunately).
It would appear that chimpanzees have been in the Stone Age for approximately 4300 years now. Should humanity then permit our next massive plague to go ahead and kill us all, and leave the stage open for the next dominant species?
Besides, I'm not even sure if Data can manipulate people like that.
He can, and he did, in both that particular situation and others... He took advantage of Tasha when she was under the influence of the alien virus... His behaviour before revealing the construction of Lal was also extremely shifty... I believe he manipulated his way off the Enterprise with the Borg, when under the influence of Lore's emotion projector... He manipulated Samuel Clements into dropping the doohickey and thus revealing his presence... He manipulated the Zaktorn strategist into entering a game which he had not intention of winning outright, thus forcing him to throw the match in frustration... He manipulated the Borg Queen... He manipulated Artim into being his friend (another term for that, is 'grooming') Data was extremely manipulative when he chose to be.
and Gowron, he'd fulfilled his duties as Arbiter of Succession once Gowron became Chancellor. Besides, his obligation as arbiter was to K'mpek, the Chancellor who appointed him to arbitrate his succession, not to Gowron.
And yet when he wanted a Klingon ship, he was quite happy to identify himself as Gowron's arbiter of succession to use political clout... The point is if he was prepared to use the title and Gowron's name when he wanted something, he had the obligation to assist when Gowron requested it...
Also, again, Insurrection was a case of the Federation running roughshod over its own laws. (Didn't we agree to stop arguing about Insurrection? )
And I would argue doing so for a much greater good. Arguing maintaining the lifestyle of six hundred people, compared to the benefits to billions, is frankly a disgusting lack of perspective...
[Fixed that for you. I am curious why you seem to think the Valakians are Prisoners of War. They do not seem to fit into any of the categories as defined in the treaty.
I don't think they are prisoners of war, and I never said they were... You did that when you reworded my post so you could create a strawman... Rather than thinking you're clever by changing things, perhaps you would care to address the actual point I made, which is that ultimately, your point comes down to only extending assistance if you want to help them or not... You want to act the Big Man by changing posts? Have the stones to stand behind your convictions and defend them like a man, rather than acting like a child... The Geneva Conventions may not directly apply, but as I said before, they were cited as an example of codes of conduct to assist those in need, regardless of 'which side' they are on... As lordrezeon observed, the PD has become an excuse for apathy, and from your comment that you wouldn't want to help the Valakians, you are truly apathetic...
The problem with discussing the Prime Directives ethics is the simple fact that it was conceived as a protest against war and colonialism. The idea that countries shouldn't become involved in the conflicts of other lands or stomp around barking orders at their neighbors. It was never intended to be anything more than that.
However, TNG became much more dogmatic, and quite frankly arrogant, with the Federation suddenly refusing to provide even basic humanitarian aid to disasters. With the way the show was written we the audience were expected to take that as being how an "enlightened" society should act.
I personally feel it became less about ethics and more about apathy. With Picard looking at a disaster and just shrugging his shoulders and saying "not my problem".
Indeed. Equally, the exchange could have gone thusly:
"Captain, I'm sorry to interrupt you," Geordi said, holding up a PADD. "But Admiral Dougherty is requesting Data's schematics..."
Picard frowned, and looked out at the diplomatic engagement which the Council had ordered him to host. "Transmit Data's schematics, Commander," he decided.
Story over...
You know, the more I think about it the more I think Insurrection could have worked better as a mystery story.
Have Data arrive back at the Enterprise after a vague mission with Admiral Dougherty. During the VIP banquet Geordi could notice something wrong with Data, damage that had recently been repaired, but Data refuses to explain what happened. Picard would then go to the location of Data's mission and find the Baku planet devastated from the Son'a collector ship. They then follow some bread crumbs, get into some action, clash with Dougherty and the Son'a, and then rescue the Baku and reveal the truth of what happened to the Federation Council.
I completely agree with you... (well, other than the rescuing the Ba'ku part) That would have been a much better introduction of Picard to the situation than simply turning up and forcing himself into the situation, but the rest of the film would still have the same issues...
The situation of the Menk and Valakians is one where the script writers managed to come up with a scenario that does not exist in the real world(fortunately).
It would appear that chimpanzees have been in the Stone Age for approximately 4300 years now. Should humanity then permit our next massive plague to go ahead and kill us all, and leave the stage open for the next dominant species?
Only if we can ensure that the Statue of Liberty is buried up to the waist in the process.
and Gowron, he'd fulfilled his duties as Arbiter of Succession once Gowron became Chancellor. Besides, his obligation as arbiter was to K'mpek, the Chancellor who appointed him to arbitrate his succession, not to Gowron.
And yet when he wanted a Klingon ship, he was quite happy to identify himself as Gowron's arbiter of succession to use political clout... The point is if he was prepared to use the title and Gowron's name when he wanted something, he had the obligation to assist when Gowron requested it.
We do not know in fact that he had any obligation - be it by Klingon or Federation law - to help Gowron.
We can however assume that, since the Klingons and the Federation were in an alliance, that he was allowed to ask the Klingons for help in a matter pertaining the Romulans. Him bringing up his role of an arbiter was just a way to expedite an entirely legal request, nothing more.
Helping Gowron however in a civil war might was certainly against Federation regulation, and it might even be against the specific terms of their alliance. I would assume that members of the Klingon Council wanted the risk of the Federation to side with the wrong side.
And of course, there is also the aspect that Picard actually helped Gowron already in the war. In his role as arbiter, he refused Duras' TRIBBLE as viable candidate for chancellorship at the time. Any decision he could have made there would probably have ended in a civil war, but it was somethnig that helped Gowron's position.
Star Trek Online Advancement: You start with lowbie gear, you end with Lobi gear.
We do not know in fact that he had any obligation - be it by Klingon or Federation law - to help Gowron.
We can however assume that, since the Klingons and the Federation were in an alliance, that he was allowed to ask the Klingons for help in a matter pertaining the Romulans. Him bringing up his role of an arbiter was just a way to expedite an entirely legal request, nothing more.
Oh come on! Regardless of how you dress it up, it's calling in a personal favor!
Helping Gowron however in a civil war might was certainly against Federation regulation, and it might even be against the specific terms of their alliance.
Disobeying his superior officer was also certainly against regulations, but Picard pulled his pips off and resigned his commission... Had he wanted to do so to assist Gowron, he could have done the same thing...
And of course, there is also the aspect that Picard actually helped Gowron already in the war. In his role as arbiter, he refused Duras' TRIBBLE as viable candidate for chancellorship at the time. Any decision he could have made there would probably have ended in a civil war, but it was somethnig that helped Gowron's position.
And he them used up that favor by getting the Klingon ship... Given his willingness to drop Gowron's name, he should still have helped him out, even if it meant the resignation of his commission, which he then did for some woman he had only just met... For someone who's always held up as some paragon of virtue, and who lorded his Federation Morality over others, Picard sure knew how to flipflop when the situation called for it...
Comments
I must have read this wrong, because it reads as though you're suggesting the Ba'ku and the Valakians were identical situations.
Picard got involved with the Ba'ku because the Federation was about to forcibly relocate a sentient species without their knowledge or consent; an action which contradicts the Prime Directive and Federation Law on a species' right to self-determination. In fact, Picard was only on Ba'ku because he was trying to capture and investigate Data's 'malfunction' (which we quickly learn was caused by a Son'a disruptor blast).
If you meant to say that the Federation should have left the Ba'ku alone, then I see and agree with the analogy, but if you did mean Picard specifically, then I don't understand the similarities or how Picard's actions with the Ba'ku are in any way applicable to Archer's actions with the Valakians.
Trials of Blood and Fire
Moving On Parts 1-3 - Part 4
In Cold Blood
Arguably, one could question if the Menk would be capable of 'stepping up' and giverning themselves... One would hope that they could, but I think it's a valid question...
I forget who said it, if it was Dr Crusher, Picard, Dougherty or even Ru'afo, but it was stated that sone of the Son'a didn't have long enough to live before that kind of ambient exposure would restore them...
Which would be the same as telling your parents you're moving out, only to set up camp in the back yard... They chose to leave, because they wanted to experience life beyond the Briar Patch. I wouldn't go so far as to put it as nobly as wanting to 'seek out new life, and new civilisations', but they certainly didn't want to remain living in the Briar Patch. Wether they had been told the truth about their immortality at that point, may or may not have been a subject raised when they first said they wanted to leave...
Second Paragraph: It was Dougherty. I have a really good memory (and I'm probably in the minority in that Insurrection is my 2nd favourite Star Trek film).
Third Paragraph: This is a non-point. The fact is we don't know either way whether the Son'a were aware of the nature of their immortality or not when they left Ba'ku. Although, given all the Ba'ku we saw onscreen were aware (including the children) we can surmise that the Son'a were also. In that case, the fact that they lost their immortality upon leaving is their own fault. Again, I stress that we don't know for sure if they were aware or not. Evidence points to the former, but the uncertainty factor is ever-present. The difference is the former is based on limited evidence and is thus speculation. Suggesting the Ba'ku kept the knowledge from the Son'a and were thus responsible is simply conjecture without evidence. Either way, it would be foolhardy to act as though we know the facts on this situation.
What we do know, however, is that the Federation conspired with the Son'a to relocate the Ba'ku without their knowledge or consent, in violation of Federation principles on self-determination. Given that the Federation at the time thought the Ba'ku were not warp-capable, it was also a violation of the Prime Directive, the Federation's highest law. When Dougherty called off the mission, Ru'afu decided to trump that by committing attempted genocide. We can't really argue that the Son'a are the victims here.
Now, I'd like to close by saying that I still don't see how this applies to the Valakian situation (see my last post). The Ba'ku situation is far more complicated and mirky than the situation addressed in the OP and this debate has taken on a life of its own; it's quite frankly starting to get off-topic, so maybe you guys should take a debate over the plot of Insurrection into a new thread and return the focus to the question in the OP...?
Trials of Blood and Fire
Moving On Parts 1-3 - Part 4
In Cold Blood
I'd say that question's purely academic. If the Menk were suddenly the dominant species of their own planet, it makes no difference whether they can govern themselves, because there'd be no alternative. Though I do see your point in that it could be a worse situation than the one they were already in. My point was merely that there would've been a better chance of self-determination without the Valakians than with them.
Personally, I'm inclined to believe all cultures have the capacity to organise and govern themselves given time and cause.
Trials of Blood and Fire
Moving On Parts 1-3 - Part 4
In Cold Blood
Yet which he had no issue doing when ordered to so in the DMZ... And not undertaken at all, in the Nikolai Rozhenko incident, had Nikolai not forced Picard's hand... Picard got involved (plot aside) because of his feelings for Anij...
Indeed. Equally, the exchange could have gone thusly:
"Captain, I'm sorry to interrupt you," Geordi said, holding up a PADD. "But Admiral Dougherty is requesting Data's schematics..."
Picard frowned, and looked out at the diplomatic engagement which the Council had ordered him to host. "Transmit Data's schematics, Commander," he decided.
Story over...
Had Data not been following some children like some kind of pederast, the Son'a would not have had to shoot him... And at the end of the mission, Admiral Dougherty could simply order him to eternal silence on the matter... But as above, that scenario is hardly going to pad out a ninety minute movie...
I mean that Picard should have refused to get involved, which was what he tended to do in similar situations...
I can understand why the Federation were going along with the Son'a plan (although that was likely never to have gone to what the Council thought was the plan...)
True, but the Ba'ku situation is vastly more complex.
I'm inclined to disagree. He got involved in the overall situation because of his loyalty to Data and made a very strong point that what the Federation was doing was a contradiction of its highest law. Now, I don't know how some countries do it, but I was always under the impression that if an order is against the law, then it is illegal to carry that order out, regardless of who gave it. And, again, one of his officers was shot to stop them from revealing this fact.
Yep, he could have done that, and the movie would have lasted 10 minutes as you say. Of course, it is implied that this would have led to Data's destruction to protect an illegal operation.
Let me fix that for you:
As for Dougherty, ordering someone to silence on an illegal order is in itself an illegal order and Data's ethical subroutines would have made it impossible for him to obey that order, so that would be pointless.
In similar situations, it was never the Federation trying to relocate an entire species (albeit only 600 people) against their will. Picard is a Federation Officer and is thus already involved in that he has a legal obligation to stop an illegal operation. Moving the Ba'ku was a violation of their rights to self-determination; a right safeguarded by Federation Law. End of Argument.
Trials of Blood and Fire
Moving On Parts 1-3 - Part 4
In Cold Blood
Fair enough. It's just, as I pointed out earlier, this debate is starting to run off-topic to the original post. I'm not going to claim Insurrection didn't have its flaws, because it definitely did, but the differences between the scenario in it and in the ENT episode being discussed are so great I don't think it's really all that applicable especially since this has started to become a debate over the ethics of Insurrection instead of those in the ENT episode.
Now, I think it's fair to point out that holding Phlox to the standards of his own people (as some have suggested) is a poor excuse; he was an exchange officer with Starfleet; he has to abide by Starfleet's rules and Earth's medical codes. It's even worse given in another episode Archer berates him again for refusing to perform a life-saving operation on a patient after the patient refuses to have the operation under Phlox. In this case, it was Archer being out of line! Under most medical codes on Earth (in particular the Hypocratic Oath) a Doctor can not conduct an operation on a patient if the patient refuses to be operated on! And Phlox ends up doing the procedure anyway! Seriously, Ent: S4 is among one of my favourite seasons of any Trek show, but S1-2 were badder than sin at times...
Trials of Blood and Fire
Moving On Parts 1-3 - Part 4
In Cold Blood
He was. But, as Archer said, there was no regulation to cover the situation... In that regard, it's easy to see how Phlox would default back to his own cultural standards. (Upon first arriving aboard Voyager, Seven had almost zero inclination of following Starfleet codes and practices...) However, in The Future, when there is the Prime Directive, in almost all situations, Picard refused to get involved, unless coerced or forced to do so by external sources. And yet people argue that the 'hands off' approach toward the Valakian situation is morally wrong... My argument is that one cannot only intervene in the cases one chooses to, and to stand by when one wishes to. (and that with regard the Ba'ku situation, the benefits which the Council had been sold on and ordered the mission based upon, which would benefit billions of people, over-weighs the impact to the Ba'ku, and that weighing the Ba'ku against those billions, is even more unethical. Again, that's purely my opinion however...)
I think what most people have a problem with is the fact that the Valakians were aware of interstellar races and had specifically asked for help, so even if the Prime Directive did exist, it wouldn't apply (see 'Pen Pals' where Picard uses a child's pleas for Data to speak to her to justify violating the Prime Directive to save her world on the grounds it qualified as a distress call). I should also point out that 3-out-of-4 times Picard cited the Prime Directive as prohibiting interference, he ended up interfering anyway (or twisting it to fit the moral solution, as in 'Symbiosis' where instead of giving a ship's crew the parts to repair their vessel and continue a trade that left them subservient to another race, as the PD would normally have him do, he used it to state he couldn't give them the parts, thus ending that trade; albeit not to Crusher's satisfaction - I know it's S1, but it still counts! :P).
Trials of Blood and Fire
Moving On Parts 1-3 - Part 4
In Cold Blood
The situation of the Menk and Valakians is one where the script writers managed to come up with a scenario that does not exist in the real world(fortunately). And honestly, I can see why Archer would take the easy way and go "I'm not getting involved". I wouldn't want to help the Valakians either.
My character Tsin'xing
True, and like I said, I wouldn't have wanted to make that call either. I don't honestly know that I'd have done anything different. On the one hand, if he helps the Valakians he's leaving the Menk to suffer. On the other hand, freeing the Menk means letting the Valakians die. Either way, he's doing something morally reprehensive. So, I can see why he'd leave it alone.
Trials of Blood and Fire
Moving On Parts 1-3 - Part 4
In Cold Blood
I will be honest, I'm not entirely sure Picard wasn't aware that Data stopping contact with Sarjenka would lead to a 'plea for help'. Either way, Sarjenka's response hardly qualifies as a distress call, but Picard used it to justify violating the PD anyway (changing your mind doesn't make you a hypocrit). As for the 'Symbiosis' decision... I think Crusher had the more humane solution, I'm just giving Picard credit where it's due for 'helping' the addicts without directly violating the PD (and in fact using the PD to justify his actions). My point is, for everytime 3 times out of 4 Picard invokes the Prime Directive in a situation, he ends up disregarding it anyway - as opposed to Janeway who either uses it as an impenetrable wall or takes a molotov cocktail to it depending on whether Dumb or Dumber is writing her
Trials of Blood and Fire
Moving On Parts 1-3 - Part 4
In Cold Blood
Depending upon his personal feelings in the matter... (ie Gowron) As noted upthread, it can be argued that the PD does not even apply to the Ba'ku because they are neither i) indigenous to the planet ii) pre-warp iii) evolutionarily immortal. Wether one agrees with the morals of relocating the Ba'ku or not, one cannot ignore that Picard's decision to take action (to help the Ba'ku) was due to his feelings for Anij, but more significantly, contrary to his beliefs of an almost identical situation when applied to the Boraalans or the DMZ colonists... The only difference from Picard's was his personal feelings, and the direction Plot wanted him to go in...
And of course, the least said about Mad Kathy the better
In fairness, in the case of Gowron (I assume you refer to the KCW in 'Redemption 1-2' - if not, completely disregard everything I'm about to say), that wasn't just interfering with Klingon society, but an internal, full-scale, civil war. And Picard was also the one encouraging Starfleet Command to embargo the Klingon-Romulan border to keep Duras from getting supplies. As for Sarjenka, I can see cases for interpreting it either way. Keep in mind that both Riker and Worf also advised against violating the PD in that very same scene.
Trials of Blood and Fire
Moving On Parts 1-3 - Part 4
In Cold Blood
Exactly... Following the regulations, rather than allowing personal feelings to cloud their judgement, and I would say 'ironic that an emotionless android be the one to be the moral voice', but I'm sure that like the T-101 in Rise of the Machines, psychology is among his subroutines
My point is that half of his officers agreed with him, so Data wasn't really guilt-tripping him. Besides, I'm not even sure if Data can manipulate people like that. I always figured he had to open the frequency in order to terminate it properly.
As for Picard and Gowron, he'd fulfilled his duties as Arbiter of Succession once Gowron became Chancellor. Besides, his obligation as arbiter was to K'mpek, the Chancellor who appointed him to arbitrate his succession, not to Gowron. Also, again, Insurrection was a case of the Federation running roughshod over its own laws. (Didn't we agree to stop arguing about Insurrection?
Trials of Blood and Fire
Moving On Parts 1-3 - Part 4
In Cold Blood
My character Tsin'xing
However, TNG became much more dogmatic, and quite frankly arrogant, with the Federation suddenly refusing to provide even basic humanitarian aid to disasters. With the way the show was written we the audience were expected to take that as being how an "enlightened" society should act.
I personally feel it became less about ethics and more about apathy. With Picard looking at a disaster and just shrugging his shoulders and saying "not my problem".
You know, the more I think about it the more I think Insurrection could have worked better as a mystery story.
Have Data arrive back at the Enterprise after a vague mission with Admiral Dougherty. During the VIP banquet Geordi could notice something wrong with Data, damage that had recently been repaired, but Data refuses to explain what happened. Picard would then go to the location of Data's mission and find the Baku planet devastated from the Son'a collector ship. They then follow some bread crumbs, get into some action, clash with Dougherty and the Son'a, and then rescue the Baku and reveal the truth of what happened to the Federation Council.
My character Tsin'xing
He can, and he did, in both that particular situation and others... He took advantage of Tasha when she was under the influence of the alien virus... His behaviour before revealing the construction of Lal was also extremely shifty... I believe he manipulated his way off the Enterprise with the Borg, when under the influence of Lore's emotion projector... He manipulated Samuel Clements into dropping the doohickey and thus revealing his presence... He manipulated the Zaktorn strategist into entering a game which he had not intention of winning outright, thus forcing him to throw the match in frustration... He manipulated the Borg Queen... He manipulated Artim into being his friend (another term for that, is 'grooming') Data was extremely manipulative when he chose to be.
Looks like he manipulated you too
*I suppose one has to turn on a digital radio to retune it, but Data didn't have to do so at that precise moment...
And yet when he wanted a Klingon ship, he was quite happy to identify himself as Gowron's arbiter of succession to use political clout... The point is if he was prepared to use the title and Gowron's name when he wanted something, he had the obligation to assist when Gowron requested it...
And I would argue doing so for a much greater good. Arguing maintaining the lifestyle of six hundred people, compared to the benefits to billions, is frankly a disgusting lack of perspective...
Only if we can ensure that the Statue of Liberty is buried up to the waist in the process.
We can however assume that, since the Klingons and the Federation were in an alliance, that he was allowed to ask the Klingons for help in a matter pertaining the Romulans. Him bringing up his role of an arbiter was just a way to expedite an entirely legal request, nothing more.
Helping Gowron however in a civil war might was certainly against Federation regulation, and it might even be against the specific terms of their alliance. I would assume that members of the Klingon Council wanted the risk of the Federation to side with the wrong side.
And of course, there is also the aspect that Picard actually helped Gowron already in the war. In his role as arbiter, he refused Duras' TRIBBLE as viable candidate for chancellorship at the time. Any decision he could have made there would probably have ended in a civil war, but it was somethnig that helped Gowron's position.
Disobeying his superior officer was also certainly against regulations, but Picard pulled his pips off and resigned his commission... Had he wanted to do so to assist Gowron, he could have done the same thing...
And he them used up that favor by getting the Klingon ship... Given his willingness to drop Gowron's name, he should still have helped him out, even if it meant the resignation of his commission, which he then did for some woman he had only just met... For someone who's always held up as some paragon of virtue, and who lorded his Federation Morality over others, Picard sure knew how to flipflop when the situation called for it...