Star Trek: The Prime Directive: Philosophy Forums

Philosophy Forums » Philosophy of the Arts » Star Trek: The Prime Directive » Star Trek: The Prime Directive

Page: 1 2

Star Trek: The Prime Directive

the_visionary
Assistant Professor

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Apr 18, 2002
Total Topics: 21
Total Posts: 359

Posted 05/01/02 - 01:27 PM:	#1
Suppose we could boldly go where no man has gone before and travel to other worlds where life exists. What ethical issues of concern do you see in our visiting of other alien societies? Here is the Federation's Prime Directive from Star Trek: Agree with it? Disagree? Changes? General Order 1: The Prime Directive As the right of each sentient species to live in accordance with its normal cultural evolution is considered sacred, no Starfleet personnel may interfere with the normal and healthy development of alien life and culture. Such interference includes introducing superior knowledge, strength, or technology to a world whose society is incapable of handling such advantages wisely. Starfleet personnel may not violate this Prime Directive, even to save their lives and/or their ship, unless they are acting to right an earlier violation or an accidental contamination of said culture. This directive takes precedence over any and all other considerations, and carries with it the highest moral obligation.

Paul
Tenured Poster

Usergroup: Administrators
Joined: Mar 10, 2002
Location: Sacramentoish
Total Topics: 451
Total Posts: 11794

Last Blog: Blog welcomes giant check in Happy Dry Spot

Posted 05/02/02 - 01:41 AM:	#2
I think something like a prime directive would be a good ideal, but not practical. Once a place is known, someone is going to interfere. How many times did Kirk violate it, about a million? What I have real problems with is a situation like in the episode of Enterprise where they were dealing with an advanced (although pre-warp) people who were dying off from genetic problems. To have a cure for them in hand, and then refuse to give it to them because of some idea of not interfering with evolution, is wrong. If we discover tomorrow that humans have a genetic defect and that left alone another species of ape will come to replace us in time, I doubt anybody would react by saying "well, we can't interfere with evolution, so let's all die." Saving lives should be the priority, and to intentionally withhold a cure because you think a species isn't supposed to live is hardly better than genocide.

the_visionary
Assistant Professor

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Apr 18, 2002
Total Topics: 21
Total Posts: 359

Posted 05/02/02 - 08:35 AM:	#3
I don't think they are holding the cure to let them die. It's a matter of principle. Which species do you choose to let die or not? It's similiar to getting involved in another planet's war. If there are two species fighting amongst each other on a planet, which side do you choose to save lives for? No involvement means no involvement. Any ideal or directive usually has some type of controversy around it. It's just like many of our own current laws. I presume that the Prime Directive is the point where they draw the line. Obviously they must pick a point where they can and can't interfere. They chose to use warp capability as the prerequisite for being allowed to interfere or not. Achieving warp capability is like a coming of age for that planet. In effect, it joins the other warp civilizations out there and becomes one of them. If you recall at the beginning of the series, Archer has much animosity towards the Vulcans because they didn't help mankind achieve warp capabilities. In fact, he thinks they did everything to slow down their progress towards warp technology. This is probably somewhat true as the Vulcans considered Earthlings to be immature and reckless.

Paul
Tenured Poster

Usergroup: Administrators
Joined: Mar 10, 2002
Location: Sacramentoish
Total Topics: 451
Total Posts: 11794

Last Blog: Blog welcomes giant check in Happy Dry Spot

Posted 05/02/02 - 12:31 PM:	#4
Originally posted by the_visionary Which species do you choose to let die or not? That's how they draw the question, but I disagree. To me the real issue is people... individuals are what matter, and currently living individuals are the ones who suffer and feel pain and die. If you have an easy way to save an enormous number of living people, without harming any other living people, you should do it... period. To cure the suffering species in that episode would not have caused the death of anyone... the currently living people in the other species would have much the same lives either way. To argue that a cure would be depriving the descendents of the other species of right to dominate the planet is kind of like prosecuting people for murder simply for not having as many children as they're biologically capable of. Not have sex 24 hours per day is depriving theoretical future people of their "right" to exist and evolve, but that should not matter at all compared to the rights of currently living people. The rights of the living should take precedence over the rights of those not currently living. It's similiar to getting involved in another planet's war. If there are two species fighting amongst each other on a planet, which side do you choose to save lives for? No involvement means no involvement. No, in a war there are lives of current people to choose between. If it's a choice of who lives and dies right now in an alien war, then no involvement is the best policy. I think choosing warp capability as the cutoff point is just a matter of pragmatics. Once a species has warp drive you can't ignore them, because they'll be coming to bother you at any time. Thus, non-interference can no longer apply since it isn't practical.

the_visionary
Assistant Professor

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Apr 18, 2002
Total Topics: 21
Total Posts: 359

Posted 05/02/02 - 01:20 PM:	#5
Paul: Wouldn't your argument of saving lives no matter what then claim that God (if you believe there is one) should not allow people to die because it saves them from dying? Or is that too much of a stretch compared to another alien race saving another one from extinction? In both instances, one has the power to save another? What if you have the secrets to immortality? Do you instantly give that to all people based on your own assumption that you are helping them? Should an alien race that has the cure for AIDs then give it to us if it will save lives? Cure to cancer? etc. etc.

Paul
Tenured Poster

Usergroup: Administrators
Joined: Mar 10, 2002
Location: Sacramentoish
Total Topics: 451
Total Posts: 11794

Last Blog: Blog welcomes giant check in Happy Dry Spot

Posted 05/02/02 - 03:11 PM:	#6
If your system includes a god, then it probably also includes an afterlife. The afterlife, made sufficiently appealing, can seem to justify god slaughtering as many people as he wishes... in fact, god would be cruel to force people to live long lives, he'd take the ones he likes better to paradise at a younger age. Of course, extending that could seem to justify any sort of mass murder or genocide by people as being a nice way to help fellow people to the afterlife quicker. Anyhow, if I believed in a god then I would have to say that god forced me to value life and so forced me to dislike his plan of having everyone die, because for whatever incomprehensible reason he wants me to fight against his plan. I value life, mainly because I'm a living thing, while the universe doesn't value that. If an alien race comes down to Earth and sees millions of humans suffering from a deadly plague, and can save us at virtually no cost to themselves, I would far prefer they help out rather than telling me I should die because it's "natural." If you want "natural" evolution, perhaps you want to eliminate all medical care. Perhaps what I'm suggesting is consistency. If you don't want the help given to you, then you have no reason to give it to others... but if (as I suspect most humans would) you'd want to be helped if the roles were reversed then you should consider giving aide. If anyone you know has died of cancer or AIDS, wouldn’t you have liked it if aliens had popped in with a cure? If you yourself had cancer or AIDS, and a flying saucer visited you, would you say “No! Go away! You can’t interfere with natural evolution, we humans need to die so that another species can take over.” So, an alien species that wouldn't sacrifice itself in the name of evolution shouldn't sacrifice a fellow intelligent species in the name of evolution. Any species that would sacrifice itself... well, if it somehow survived by accident it would have no obligation to help others.

the_visionary
Assistant Professor

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Apr 18, 2002
Total Topics: 21
Total Posts: 359

Posted 05/02/02 - 03:38 PM:	#7
But don't you, in a sense, contaminate that isolated society by tampering with their own development? You have, in effect, had a hand in their own creative self-development or diversity. I take it you would prefer that aliens sculpted us in their own image? Because eventually that's what might happen if you interfere in societies not your own. Sometimes saving lives will affect it. Sometimes it won't. I believe some other implications might be that by an alien race tampering with another alien race's society, the tamperer could use their influence on that alien society as an advantage to themselves. Thus perhaps the best policy was taken to not interfere all...except during those cases where it can be ethically proven correct to do so.

Baron Max
Tenured Poster

Usergroup: Sponsors
Joined: Apr 01, 2002
Total Topics: 176
Total Posts: 4119

Posted 05/03/02 - 04:32 AM:	#8
Originally posted by Paul If an alien race comes down to Earth and sees millions of humans suffering from a deadly plague, and can save us at virtually no cost to themselves, I would far prefer they help out rather than telling me I should die because it's "natural." Paul, I've read this several times and see it as a system of placing "value" on Earth and its inhabitants. In your posts, you've placed humans at a high value in the system. I.e., save humans at any and all cost. But what if the alien race can see value in other things on Earth? I.e., the rivers, forests, animals, air, ....? Humans are, as far as I can tell, ruining almost all of it. Should the aliens sacrifice the Earth in order to save the humans? ...so humans can destroy the Earth later? So, an alien species that wouldn't sacrifice itself in the name of evolution shouldn't sacrifice a fellow intelligent species in the name of evolution. I'm not so sure that I understand your logic in that statement? For one thing, aren't you qualifying "intelligence" somehow? Intelligence is relative, isn't it? Like the difference in the aliens knowing the "value" of Earth versus humans who place more value on themselves than on their own planet? The "intelligent" aliens realize that humans aren't AS INTELLIGENT as themselves, then decide to save Earth by allowing humans to die. Isn't that also "intelligent"? Baron Max

the_visionary
Assistant Professor

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Apr 18, 2002
Total Topics: 21
Total Posts: 359

Posted 05/03/02 - 08:20 AM:	#9
Paul: I think you just opened up a whole new issue. And it's interesting to say the least. WHY DO YOU VALUE LIFE AGAIN? I believe this is an important question any person should ask and find the answer to. One's philosophy and way of life is dependent upon these beliefs and reveals why some of us have different belief systems from one another. You said you value life, mainly because you are a living thing. And then go on to project your own beliefs on what the universe does or does not value saying that it doesn't value life. Or more precisely, you are probably stating that the universe does not value anything, life, death, or the lack of either. Maybe you are stating that the universe is Neutral. From your own belief systems it seems, and being an atheist, the universe (nature) would be essential in working towards bringing you to Life, but also working towards your Death. Since you despise suffering, pain, misery and death, you have adopted the belief that others should despise seeing others experience it as well. If you could end it for yourself you would, therefore if you could end it for others, you would as well. Since that is true, any suffering that can be ended should be ended by anyone that can provide the means to do so. Am I correct? I am not making a judgement on this point of view, but rather attempting to ascertain if that is correct in your mind. Also, how you deal with the suffering and get rid of it makes a big difference. There are different ways to treat a disease or overcome a problem. How you do it is determined by how you live your life and the choices you make. My main focus is on WHY YOU VALUE LIFE and that will answer much on your disagreement with the Prime Directive in certain matters. The 'why you value life' post can be posted so that people can go more in to depth on it in the General forum.

The_Thinker
Assistant Professor

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Apr 18, 2002
Total Topics: 23
Total Posts: 388

Posted 05/19/02 - 11:41 AM:	#10
I believe one should stop thinking about morality or ethics when dealing with this issue. I agree with the previous posts, there really is nothing you can do once one has discovered a species. It is right to interfere. The earth has an ecology in which the species interfere with each other all the time. The universe itself has its own "ecology," and so everything will interfere with everything else.

Page: 1 2

You don't have permission to post.

Please login or register.