Don't forget to keep it civil.
This thread is for discussion and opining and soapboxing of the Prime Directive. This thread is only for airing opinions and should not be assumed in any way to have future impact on Argo policy or decision-making, hence why it is in 'general discussion'.
Don't forget to keep it civil.
Don't forget to keep it civil.
4 Likes
I'll be honest... I'm not a huge fan of the Prime Directive and how it stands so high on the list of things Starfleet upholds, I understand why it exist, but to me it feels like it counters the whole 'Explore Strange new Worlds' concept when you can't actually do anything but watch from above high orbit.
1 Like
Prime directive is many things.
From writer's perspective it is a convenient plot element to represent universe's variables and how characters in same interact with it. For that, it is rather useful, if slightly primitive tool.
From operational perspective, it is an instrumental way of resource management. It sets a bar of where interaction with universe begins and in what way. And it stops the adherents (starfleet) from overstretching their resources and power. I am pretty sure the Federation would not be materialist utopia if it stopped to help every random sentient they see, or stop all the natural disasters that happen. This way, there is some higher motive to keep it on manageable level.
From emotional perspective, it is very hard to keep to it. Because when one is not in bad straits, its natural to try and be altruistic. But in same venue, see above. Universe is hardly big enough or with enough resources for everyone.
Personally looking at it? I love the concept for sake it puts both hard and soft limitation to one's actions. Hard because it will not be easily broken. Soft because if you really wish to martyr yourself, then the sacrifice will have some merit and result. Even if such is not perhaps for the greater good, just good of the beleaguered.
It also stops our own characters in the universe from being too heroic. Want to save the planet but sacrifice career? Yeah, its one time thing. You do not get to be undying, endless hero of thousand life or death situations. And trough that it makes universe bit more believable.
From writer's perspective it is a convenient plot element to represent universe's variables and how characters in same interact with it. For that, it is rather useful, if slightly primitive tool.
From operational perspective, it is an instrumental way of resource management. It sets a bar of where interaction with universe begins and in what way. And it stops the adherents (starfleet) from overstretching their resources and power. I am pretty sure the Federation would not be materialist utopia if it stopped to help every random sentient they see, or stop all the natural disasters that happen. This way, there is some higher motive to keep it on manageable level.
From emotional perspective, it is very hard to keep to it. Because when one is not in bad straits, its natural to try and be altruistic. But in same venue, see above. Universe is hardly big enough or with enough resources for everyone.
Personally looking at it? I love the concept for sake it puts both hard and soft limitation to one's actions. Hard because it will not be easily broken. Soft because if you really wish to martyr yourself, then the sacrifice will have some merit and result. Even if such is not perhaps for the greater good, just good of the beleaguered.
It also stops our own characters in the universe from being too heroic. Want to save the planet but sacrifice career? Yeah, its one time thing. You do not get to be undying, endless hero of thousand life or death situations. And trough that it makes universe bit more believable.
4 Likes
I think it works well as a "soft" rule, a guideline if you will; a default position, if you can't trust that you know the whole story. Note that TOS allowed intervention, at least in the context of potential extinction of the society in question; the main rule there was "don't get caught."
Where it gets silly is where it's taken up to the levels seen in TNG and beyond, and put in the context that Fate/Destiny has this grand unknowable PLAN for everything and everyone, in which we dare not interfere lest we be punished for our hubris! (So much for putting all our childish superstitions behind us, eh?) Not only is this the worst sort of bullshit and religion masquerading as pseudoscience, under this interpretation, the most moral thing any civilization could do would be to immediately retreat to their homeworld(s) and/or dig a big hole, climb in, and pull the hole in after you. Congratulations! You are now having no impact or influence on the rest of the universe at all, and it is as if you never existed! (I imagine there are those in the 24th and 25th century Fed who earnestly believe and advocate for this, much like we have people today arguing, apparently in good faith, that humanity should voluntarily go extinct for the good of what remains of the planet.)
Of course, in terms of drama - both television and roleplaying/storytelling - that's a non-starter, completely impractical. In that context, I think it works best as a confirmation box that takes up your entire field of view: "This will have MAJOR AND PERMANENT CONSEQUENCES, for you and your crew and millions if not billions of people. Are you REALLY REALLY SURE?" And if you go ahead and click the (OK) button, you do so with the expectation that you will have to explain and defend yourself later to a review board. (That last part, IMO, is where nuKirk really messed up in Into Darkness - he thought he could just lie and charm his way out of the personal consequences as usual, pretend that it all just conveniently happened that way, and his friends would have his back. But it doesn't work like that in Starfleet.)
Based on what we see in the shows, and conversations I've had with friends, I think that any captain of "PC" grade will have a few PD violations under their belt - all of them formally reviewed and eventually and officially determined to have been the right choice given the situation on the spot/in the field (though perhaps with some notes in the "could have done better" column). The alternative is a career like blueshirt Picard in "Tapestry" - a competent officer, surely, but one who hardly ever takes risks, and as such, is not likely to be put in a position where they would be expected or trusted to. The sort who follows orders and regs, and otherwise tends to blend into the wallpaper. "And he never got noticed for anything."
tl;dr - The best kind of rules, IMO, are those that don't bind our hands absolutely, but say "if you break this one, you'd better have a damn good reason and be ready to back it up."
Where it gets silly is where it's taken up to the levels seen in TNG and beyond, and put in the context that Fate/Destiny has this grand unknowable PLAN for everything and everyone, in which we dare not interfere lest we be punished for our hubris! (So much for putting all our childish superstitions behind us, eh?) Not only is this the worst sort of bullshit and religion masquerading as pseudoscience, under this interpretation, the most moral thing any civilization could do would be to immediately retreat to their homeworld(s) and/or dig a big hole, climb in, and pull the hole in after you. Congratulations! You are now having no impact or influence on the rest of the universe at all, and it is as if you never existed! (I imagine there are those in the 24th and 25th century Fed who earnestly believe and advocate for this, much like we have people today arguing, apparently in good faith, that humanity should voluntarily go extinct for the good of what remains of the planet.)
Of course, in terms of drama - both television and roleplaying/storytelling - that's a non-starter, completely impractical. In that context, I think it works best as a confirmation box that takes up your entire field of view: "This will have MAJOR AND PERMANENT CONSEQUENCES, for you and your crew and millions if not billions of people. Are you REALLY REALLY SURE?" And if you go ahead and click the (OK) button, you do so with the expectation that you will have to explain and defend yourself later to a review board. (That last part, IMO, is where nuKirk really messed up in Into Darkness - he thought he could just lie and charm his way out of the personal consequences as usual, pretend that it all just conveniently happened that way, and his friends would have his back. But it doesn't work like that in Starfleet.)
Based on what we see in the shows, and conversations I've had with friends, I think that any captain of "PC" grade will have a few PD violations under their belt - all of them formally reviewed and eventually and officially determined to have been the right choice given the situation on the spot/in the field (though perhaps with some notes in the "could have done better" column). The alternative is a career like blueshirt Picard in "Tapestry" - a competent officer, surely, but one who hardly ever takes risks, and as such, is not likely to be put in a position where they would be expected or trusted to. The sort who follows orders and regs, and otherwise tends to blend into the wallpaper. "And he never got noticed for anything."
tl;dr - The best kind of rules, IMO, are those that don't bind our hands absolutely, but say "if you break this one, you'd better have a damn good reason and be ready to back it up."
8 Likes
Personally, I feel like we tend to see Prime Directive violations through the rose colored glasses of well intentioned crews of ships usually named Enterprise. Saving a planet from a volcano is all well and good, but there's always the chance you end up with gangsters, Nazis, or a radioactive hellscape. If you're lucky they might just think you're a god. And of course there's the entire plot of Insurrection, when the Federation decided it was okay to relocate a native species because maybe magical immortality particles.
So yes, maybe correcting the odd seismic instability without alerting the natives might not warrant summary court martial, but it's not like the Prime Directive exists entirely to make Captains wax poetic on their bridge while regulations force them to watch a species go extinct. Interfering with pre-warp cultures has been shown to risk altering belief systems, destroying cultures, and even driving species extinct, and violating it even when it seems like there is no risk at all should probably not be taken lightly.
So yes, maybe correcting the odd seismic instability without alerting the natives might not warrant summary court martial, but it's not like the Prime Directive exists entirely to make Captains wax poetic on their bridge while regulations force them to watch a species go extinct. Interfering with pre-warp cultures has been shown to risk altering belief systems, destroying cultures, and even driving species extinct, and violating it even when it seems like there is no risk at all should probably not be taken lightly.
6 Likes
tl;dr - The best kind of rules, IMO, are those that don't bind our hands absolutely, but say "if you break this one, you'd better have a damn good reason and be ready to back it up."
This is largely the view of certain big rules in RL militaries if I'm completely honest. If that is we were to compare Starfleet to such (not opening /that/ debate today, lol). That doesn't make it ok to disobey them even if the reason is good though. There is always a consequence. To that end...
As far as Star Trek stories go though... we are debating the merits of the rule itself and whether it is important and thus if it matters so much how well Captain's adhere to it. We are missing an important factor though. It doesn't entirely matter what the rule is, it could be a different rule being broken but it is still a Captain deciding to take their view of things over the law they were trained and swore to uphold.
Every Captain in Starfleet has their own reason for doing what they are doing and can have a wide variety of personal reasons to care different about what the correct or proper thing to do is, but at the end of the day that is not the most important thing. Being a Starfleet Captain is first and foremost a job. All other concerns come second. If they are allowed to disobey and reinterpret a specific rule because it seemed appropriate for them or right and aren't facing some sort of consequences, it undermines the efficacy of Starfleet as an institution. It doesn't matter whether the prime directive is the correct way to do things, it is in this story, and in this time of history in universe the law, and Starfleet Captains are obligated to uphold it as part of their job. If they aren't they shouldn't be employed as such. Realistically no one should make it to the Captain's chair if they don't understand this.
It has nothing to do with the moral justification of the rule. That is for the Federation government to decide. It's all about whether Starfleet is a group of officers competent enough to do their job correctly in service to that government.
3 Likes
We are, all of us, driving around in potential time machines and weapons of mass destruction, and are often days, weeks or even months out of "easy reach". Starfleet must, as a matter of course, place a great deal of trust in its commanders to use that immense power responsibly and appropriately for the situations they encounter, out in the black, beyond the edge of the map... and so it screens them thoroughly and prepares them as best it can at every stage, and sanctions them as best it can when they fail, which is hopefully rare.
No offense meant to the synthetics among us, but Starfleet does not seem to want crews of simple robots, which would follow rules to the letter, without question, and which would probably get blown up, stuck in a logic loop, fly blindly into a black hole, etc etc given Trek's generally humanistic focus. I don't think anyone would blame someone, per se, for always rigorously following the PD ... but again, I think there would be a perception from their peers that they might have found some way to make things better while still abiding by its spirit, and from command that while they're capable of following orders, they're not to be given positions which require much personal initiative.
The simpler a rule is made - simple enough for a computer to follow, or be written down as the rhetorical flourish at the start of a document, for example - the quicker it goes out the airlock when any more complex situation arises (which it will in any sort of real-world application, and often before it even leaves the classroom). Simple rules, by definition, cannot contain nuance. Either you must attempt to cover all eventualities (and almost certainly fail) or leave it up to the judgment and interpretation of those you've handed the hundred-thousand-ton antimatter-powered starship to.
No offense meant to the synthetics among us, but Starfleet does not seem to want crews of simple robots, which would follow rules to the letter, without question, and which would probably get blown up, stuck in a logic loop, fly blindly into a black hole, etc etc given Trek's generally humanistic focus. I don't think anyone would blame someone, per se, for always rigorously following the PD ... but again, I think there would be a perception from their peers that they might have found some way to make things better while still abiding by its spirit, and from command that while they're capable of following orders, they're not to be given positions which require much personal initiative.
The simpler a rule is made - simple enough for a computer to follow, or be written down as the rhetorical flourish at the start of a document, for example - the quicker it goes out the airlock when any more complex situation arises (which it will in any sort of real-world application, and often before it even leaves the classroom). Simple rules, by definition, cannot contain nuance. Either you must attempt to cover all eventualities (and almost certainly fail) or leave it up to the judgment and interpretation of those you've handed the hundred-thousand-ton antimatter-powered starship to.
3 Likes
I could talk about this subject all day but I'll try to keep this short(ish).
The Prime Directive, as a principle, is moral cowardice masquerading as mystical fatalism. The stated rationale that there is some natural progress -- a divine plan -- for each species in the universe. Setting aside the theistic presumptions of this rationale (keep it short, keep it short...), it is just logically inconsistent. If there was such a divine plan, then the Federation, Starfleet, etc. would be part of that plan. It would not be possible for Federation interference to disrupt that plan because the Federation, too, would be following its "natural progress". The logical inconsistency is this: for this divine plan rationale to work, the Federation/Starfleet requires agency (in this case, the ability to choose to interfere or not interfere) while the potential targets of that interference are afforded no agency, as their natural progress is taken as some predestined path.
My interpretation, however, is that this inconsistent fatalism is just window dressing for the true reason for the Prime Directive, which is abdication of moral accountability. To use the trolley problem example that I alluded to previously in the shoutbox, Starfleet's position seems to be that so long as it does not the touch lever that switches the tracks, it is not responsible for the outcome. Starfleet prefers to keep its hands clean, even if the outcome of that decision is objectively worse than the alternative. This perspective neglects to acknowledge that choosing not to act is, itself, a choice. If you are in a position to move that lever, then regardless of whether you touch it, you are choosing what position it will occupy whether by action or inaction. You decide the outcome, and you are therefore responsible for that outcome.
Starfleet tries to dress up this unwillingness to take responsibility with half-reasoned rhetoric about the natural course of history and so forth. But to me, it seems clear that the true rationale is fear. If you touch it, you own it, and Starfleet doesn't want the responsibility.
All that said... the Prime directive, as a rule, might actually be a good idea. Because the situations we're talking about, where the course of a species' evolution or civilization's progress might be altered, truly are an awesome responsibility, and never one to take lightly. A Starfleet officer should absolutely fear for their career (or worse) if they screw that up.
It is my belief that no individual should ever take an immoral action (and I would consider inaction in the trolley scenario immoral) just because the moral action would violate a rule. I don't care what oaths an officer has taken, you should do the right thing. But you also need to submit yourself to judgment afterward, defend your reasoning and, if necessary, face the consequences. That's how bad rules change for the better.
The Prime Directive, as a principle, is moral cowardice masquerading as mystical fatalism. The stated rationale that there is some natural progress -- a divine plan -- for each species in the universe. Setting aside the theistic presumptions of this rationale (keep it short, keep it short...), it is just logically inconsistent. If there was such a divine plan, then the Federation, Starfleet, etc. would be part of that plan. It would not be possible for Federation interference to disrupt that plan because the Federation, too, would be following its "natural progress". The logical inconsistency is this: for this divine plan rationale to work, the Federation/Starfleet requires agency (in this case, the ability to choose to interfere or not interfere) while the potential targets of that interference are afforded no agency, as their natural progress is taken as some predestined path.
My interpretation, however, is that this inconsistent fatalism is just window dressing for the true reason for the Prime Directive, which is abdication of moral accountability. To use the trolley problem example that I alluded to previously in the shoutbox, Starfleet's position seems to be that so long as it does not the touch lever that switches the tracks, it is not responsible for the outcome. Starfleet prefers to keep its hands clean, even if the outcome of that decision is objectively worse than the alternative. This perspective neglects to acknowledge that choosing not to act is, itself, a choice. If you are in a position to move that lever, then regardless of whether you touch it, you are choosing what position it will occupy whether by action or inaction. You decide the outcome, and you are therefore responsible for that outcome.
Starfleet tries to dress up this unwillingness to take responsibility with half-reasoned rhetoric about the natural course of history and so forth. But to me, it seems clear that the true rationale is fear. If you touch it, you own it, and Starfleet doesn't want the responsibility.
All that said... the Prime directive, as a rule, might actually be a good idea. Because the situations we're talking about, where the course of a species' evolution or civilization's progress might be altered, truly are an awesome responsibility, and never one to take lightly. A Starfleet officer should absolutely fear for their career (or worse) if they screw that up.
It is my belief that no individual should ever take an immoral action (and I would consider inaction in the trolley scenario immoral) just because the moral action would violate a rule. I don't care what oaths an officer has taken, you should do the right thing. But you also need to submit yourself to judgment afterward, defend your reasoning and, if necessary, face the consequences. That's how bad rules change for the better.
6 Likes
All the likes for Sivath here. He gets what I'm really getting at I think. I wasn't so much advocating for officers to never question the status quo, just that they shouldn't expect to get away with it simply because their reasoning is good. They will be punished for violating regulation. The institution needs to be accountable. A tad hypocritical in that as Sivath points out strict adherence is pretending you aren't responsible. Legally it works out, but yeah it is still morally bad. There is a legitimate point to be made that Federation government just wants a legal excuse to blame someone else when things go wrong. I say even if things go well due to interference the officer in question should still be punished even if everything is working for the better. That is both consistency and accountability.
My entire post was written, and I said this, with the point of ignoring the moral implication of the prime directive as a debate for higher people ICly. I was not advocating officers to act without thought like mindless drones (though maybe my writing before made that somewhat unclear, I won't be editing it so that is up for review if ya like). I simply want it made clear whether the PD is good or not violating it is violating a regulation and should be treated as such regardless of the results.
My entire post was written, and I said this, with the point of ignoring the moral implication of the prime directive as a debate for higher people ICly. I was not advocating officers to act without thought like mindless drones (though maybe my writing before made that somewhat unclear, I won't be editing it so that is up for review if ya like). I simply want it made clear whether the PD is good or not violating it is violating a regulation and should be treated as such regardless of the results.
1 Like
Sivath has just reminded me of one of the most jaw-droppingly broad interpretations of the PD in the TNG era - no, not "Pen Pals" - using it to justify not picking any sides in the Klingon Civil War. The Klingons, of course, being an enthusiastically post-warp society and Federation allies up to that point. It's truly remarkable how sometimes, the practical/observable results of slavishly and blindingly following principle are indistinguishable from cynical, pragmatic realpolitk... such as here, where the PD is used as a fig leaf to avoid getting involved in a conflict that might actually be "fair", "messy", less than perfectly morally clear, and require spending actual lives and treasure.
Here and elsewhere, it's shown that the 24th century Federation - and by analogy, late 20th century America - cares more about maintaining a claim to the moral high ground, and standing around smugly complimenting ourselves on how odorless our farts are, than taking action and bearing the costs of that, including no longer being able to assert that our hands are perfectly clean - something which is clearly far more important than the hypothetical suffering of other people far away.
(The highest of principles can be twisted to the lowest of motives.)
Here and elsewhere, it's shown that the 24th century Federation - and by analogy, late 20th century America - cares more about maintaining a claim to the moral high ground, and standing around smugly complimenting ourselves on how odorless our farts are, than taking action and bearing the costs of that, including no longer being able to assert that our hands are perfectly clean - something which is clearly far more important than the hypothetical suffering of other people far away.
(The highest of principles can be twisted to the lowest of motives.)
2 Likes
Sivath has just reminded me of one of the most jaw-droppingly broad interpretations of the PD in the TNG era - no, not "Pen Pals" - using it to justify not picking any sides in the Klingon Civil War. The Klingons, of course, being an enthusiastically post-warp society and Federation allies up to that point.
I almost wonder how much trouble Worf got into when he killed Gowron and put Martok up as the new Chancellor.
Well, by then the Federation was engaged in an actual war for survival, which tends to leave little time for the aforementioned smug pontificating about how self-evidently morally superior and evolved your society is. When DS9 goes to that well, it's not nearly so cut-and-dried ("In the Pale Moonlight", "Inter Arma Enem Silent Leges", et al)... which is for the better, IMO.
2 Likes
You could say the events of DS9 were a slap in the face for the Federation that told them to wake up and stop ignoring the problem simply because they couldn't anymore... While the Klingons were actively trying to subvert the Dominion influence years before the war (granted the Dominion instigated that as well by copying Martok so it was really just the bad guys plan).
My perspective on the PD... on second thought will require more time to flesh out. I have a lot to say about it and well... my original post was too accusatory for my taste.
For nowt, I'll just put a tl;dr here: Really I agree with what Dae said in the shoubox about the PD. That's a good way to sum up what my rant said.
I hope to have a much more thought out, detailed, and hopefully more level headed discussion it in the coming days. Stay tuned...
For nowt, I'll just put a tl;dr here: Really I agree with what Dae said in the shoubox about the PD. That's a good way to sum up what my rant said.
Dae wrote:
Although I understand the perspective of the PD in Starfleet, I disagree. Starfleet shouldn't feel restrained in assisting developing cultures, esp those on the cusp of issues and esp if they could contribute to the galaxy. Personal opinion is all.
I hope to have a much more thought out, detailed, and hopefully more level headed discussion it in the coming days. Stay tuned...
Just to say that I believe that nailing down some sort of static and extremely precise meaning of the P.D. is probably impossible if it is to be functional in the role for which it has been designed--but this does not mean it is inordinately flexible, or even very capaciously understood by the officers who must follow it. Hence, it is expected that there will be disagreements, or even potential paradoxes.
For my part, the Enterprise episode "Dear Doctor" (s1.e13) manages to capture the essence of the P.D. well enough for me to follow in-character, and also presents reasonably well the kind of central conflicts that can arise.
For my part, the Enterprise episode "Dear Doctor" (s1.e13) manages to capture the essence of the P.D. well enough for me to follow in-character, and also presents reasonably well the kind of central conflicts that can arise.
I wonder what it says that fans are, in my experience, united in their vocal contempt for that episode - above and beyond others from that series(*) - and how it handles those same issues and conflicts.
* with the highest, or lowest, accolade reserved for "These are the Voyages", of course.
* with the highest, or lowest, accolade reserved for "These are the Voyages", of course.
Yeah it's a pretty horrible choice made by Phlox based on bad reasoning but I suppose that does actually capture the point of the PD, lol.
3 Likes
Exactly. It is not a matter of whether or not I agree with it as a principle (because it's not a 21st century principle) or think every fictional use of it is wise (because how tiresome would the characters be if their important decisions were perfectly beyond dispute?); but whether, for the purposes of RP, I can grasp the essence of how it is supposed to function as a sort of moral-quandary-generating plot device in the show. For that purpose, the episode serves well.
n.b. Caspius has no P.D. hearings on his record.
n.b. Caspius has no P.D. hearings on his record.
2 Likes
The PD is a good concept. The way I've always seen it as that it's more of a guideline to keep negative consequences at bay.
When it comes to Dear Doctor, I'm one of those people that hates it (it makes me think a lot less of Archer)- the difference to me is that they could intervene to assist the race without intervening in any other way of their development. What was happening wasn't really evolution because that isn't how evolution works ... it was more of a tragic situation. Tau likely would have intervened to prevent mass extinction because not preventing mass extinction when one can do so without the intervention being noticed is an act that morally, that character could not abide by. He'd just make some damn good justifications all set up in a row to lessen his punishment, if possible.
It's part of where Captain's prerogative that comes inherent with command to weigh the pros and cons, their direct orders at hand, and justification on moral grounds of intervening or not intervening. Every Captain seems to break the PD and in a way I think the PD is intended to be broken (on an IC level, because OOC and out of universe it's clearly just a narrative device) - but the threat of the punishment that could come from breaking said directive is meant just to keep people from doing things without fully placing the consequences at the front of their mind.
The threat of punishment can be enough to keep people from doing some really dumb stuff. :x
2 Likes
My full discussion is still pending, but I have just a bit more tp say about the PD for now.
The TNG interpretation of the PD seems to be what most people here ascribe to, but I much prefer the TOS interpretation where the PD was used to protect prewarp cultures, but was never used as an excuse to not help a dying culture, because if a culture is already doomed, then intervention can't make it amy worse as long as the intervention is done carefully.
The TNG interpretation of the PD seems to be what most people here ascribe to, but I much prefer the TOS interpretation where the PD was used to protect prewarp cultures, but was never used as an excuse to not help a dying culture, because if a culture is already doomed, then intervention can't make it amy worse as long as the intervention is done carefully.
1 Like