• The Prime Directive: Star Trek’s doctrine of moral laziness

    The Prime Directive is not just a set of rules. It is a philosophy, and a very correct one. History has proven again and again that whenever mankind interferes with a less developed civilization, no matter how well intentioned that interference may be, the results are invariably disastrous. —Jean-Luc Picard, Symbiosis

    The utopian future of Star Trek (most specifically, that of The Next Generation [TNG]) is sometimes described as an idealized liberal world. We’re told early and often in the series that mankind has “evolved” beyond its former pettiness and brutality, demonstrating that such problems as war, economic iniquity, and factionalism can simply be socially engineered away. Ultra-liberal idealism and optimism have appealed to a surprisingly wide audience, as documented in the films Trekkies and Trekkies 2. There is much to applaud in Roddenberry’s vision: multiculturalism, reasonably decent treatment of sex and gender for the 90’s, and an uncompromising secularism. Unfortunately, TNG also encodes some of the utter failures of 20th century liberal thought. The consequences of adopting them, whether in fiction or real life, can be pretty horrifying, not to mention morally disgusting.

    In the future, there is no hunger, war, or poverty. Unless you’re not a member of the Federation’s Country Club, then fuck you. Fuck off and die.

    To be clear, I’m a fan. Not the convention-going sort, but I loved TNG and some of the subsequent series as well. TNG really shines in moments as a sci-fi Aesop’s fables where virtues and ideals are compared and explored. The most important virtue in the Trek universe is the Prime Directive. Why else would it have that name? On the surface, it sounds like a good idea: don’t screw around with other cultures.

    The Prime Directive is almost surely a reflection (see quote above) on the tragedies of the imperial age in which western European nations invaded, destroyed, and exploited many peoples of the rest of the world as well as the proxy wars fought by the United States against communism. This imperialism & warfare was largely justified by an ethnocentric bigotry, an assertion of racial superiority and the judgment of indigenous peoples as inferior. The Prime Directive articulates one form of liberal response to this: stop interacting entirely, and stop using judgment of any kind. The latter sentiment is known as moral relativism, the notion that nothing is inherently good or bad and can only be judged from inside a culture and not from without or between. This response is intellectually lazy, refusing to consider that intervention can have a mix of effects, and in fact can’t always be avoided no matter the intention. It is nothing we should celebrate. It leads, even in fiction, to immediate horrors and tragedies and is demonstrably impossible to uphold even by those fictional virtue warriors who swear by it.

    The short road from good intention to blind dogmatism
    When we first hear about the Prime Directive in the original series (TOS), it seems like a helpful guideline, something to bear in mind. However, as so often happens in real life, it becomes an edict, and finally an inviolable rule which is upheld by force and not reason.  In Trek, arguments about the Prime Directive in which principled disagreement are a part are generally shot down by force, by the pulling of rank, as if thoughtful consideration of consequences is irrelevant even to matters of an entire race’s survival. This criticism of the Prime Directive is well discussed in the following video. I found it at WIMP.com and at Firecold, but I do not know its author.

    Video: Looking at Star Trek’s Prime Directive

    Bewildering moral indifference to suffering, genocide, and all manner of tragedies
    The Picard quote at the top comes from a season 1 episode called Symbiosis. The story pertains to two worlds in which both were ravaged by a plague in the distant past. One appeared to recover from the plague, and also began selling a “treatment” to the other which turned out to be an addictive narcotic. In short, one world consists entirely of rich drug dealers, and the other world drug addicts hopelessly dependent upon them. After Dr. Crusher tells the captain that it would be relatively easy to ease the population -of millions- off of the drug, Picard is not moved to intervene, citing the Prime Directive. He refuses even to tell them that they’re not diseased or dying. The suffering and exploitation of millions of people is simply not his problem.

    By the end of the episode, Picard refuses to help repair ships needed for the drug-dealing to take place, also citing the Prime Directive. Some say this is his solution to the non-interference dilemma, but two problems: First, he is, in fact, abiding the Prime Directive and shows no sign his actions are retributive. Second, this “solution” means that the population of the addicted planet will go through a planet-wide time of horrible Heroin-like drug withdrawal. They will not be given the benefit of even information about their condition that Picard could easily supply. They will think that they will all die soon, even though they aren’t dying. Clearly, the society, fearing the end of their civilization, will quickly descend into panic, violence, and wide-scale suicides. But hey.. at least we didn’t interfere. Right? Because then things could have gone badly.

    In Homeward, an entire planet populated with unknown numbers of people is suffering environmental collapse. Lt. Worf’s brother Nikolai, in a rogue action, moves to save a village of a couple hundred people. Nikolai is repeatedly chastised for doing so (see video below). Picard was more than content to let every person on the planet, including the village, perish. Having been told by Data that the planet will be “uninhabitable within 38 hours” meaning, everyone dies, Picard gives instructions to Worf, who is going to investigate Nikolai’s apparent disappearance. His bizarre orders illustrate the sociopathic dogmatism of the Prime Directive:

    You must observe the Prime Directive. I want to minimize the risk of contact with the inhabitants. You will go down alone, Mr. Worf, and I want to have you surgically altered so that you can pass for a Boraalan.

    Picard is expressing concern for upsetting the natives, which would just ruin their whole “everyone dies” party happening in 38 hours.

    From Homeward: Picard’s chilling response to Nikolai’s request that the lives of hundreds of villagers be spared using readily available technology & Crusher’s sane objection

    In contrast, the episode Pen Pals revolves around Lt. Commander Data’s communication with a child on a doomed planet. Data wants to help the child, and this prompts a meeting with the entire senior staff where they discuss the philosophy of the Prime Directive. The Enterprise does try to save the planet, by putting their best man on the job, a 14-year-old acting ensign.  It’s pretty clear that if their non-invasive attempt at preventing volcanic calamity failed, no further effort would be made to save the populace because Data’s contact with a single person is constantly met with regret and resistance. Initially, Picard orders Data to break off contact with the child, sealing her fate. He changes his mind only after inadvertently hearing her plea for help. Data ultimately rescues the girl, and Ensign Crusher boy-wonder saves the planet.

    In the Trek universe, the planet Bajor’s invasion, oppression and genocide at the hands of the Cardassians are a thin metaphor for those of Nazi Germany. Throughout TNG and Deep Space Nine, The Federation turns a blind eye, in the name of the Prime Directive. Unlike the real Nazi Germany, where the allies could somewhat claim ignorance, Star Fleet knows that the Bajorans are being massacred and subjugated by the brutal Cardassian invaders. It is dismissed as an “internal affair”. This must be stated: The Prime Directive literally means you can’t move against the Nazis, no matter what they do, short of attacking you.

    Failed analysis: intervention has no intrinsic moral valence
    In the real world, imperialism was, or perhaps is, horrific. The alternative was not isolationism, though. Our planet has been made small by communication and transportation technologies.  This means that everyone has to adjust to the rest of the world. I don’t mean by being exploited by it, but I do mean by keeping up with what else is happening. It isn’t enough for just Europe to fight global warming, for example- everyone has to.

    What about, say, Japan, in which the end of isolation and the start of modernization lead to a ferocious war machine? Certainly that was awful, but it’s also 70 years gone and today Japan is an upstanding member of the community of nations: modern, sophisticated, and scientifically advanced. Will we really argue that we’d prefer a feudal Japan, kept in an isolationist jar to the one that exists today?

    What about aid practices? The US and Europe provide underdeveloped countries with billions in aid each year. Charity and nonprofits provide relief efforts and help governments respond to devastating health problems like HIV, Polio and Malaria. A “Prime Directive” would forbid all of this (and in the Trek universe, has done so).

    Even in the fictional universe, the Prime Directive doesn’t make any long-term sense. The Klingons, once cited as the reason why the Directive is necessary, became decisive in the victory over the Dominion. Generally, “first contact” with a civilization is permitted when it has or is very close to having warp drive. Why should this matter? Even non-warp civilizations are likely to be visited by non-federation space-faring societies, thus contaminating them anyway. Why not prevent them from being exploited ala Bajor? Also, such planets could easily have advanced radio and optical telescopes (and other sensor technologies) allowing them to notice the apparently common starship traffic around the stellar neighborhood.

    No one really believes in it— not even Picard
    The saving grace of TNG and the original series (TOS), is that its characters ignore most of the dumb rules they claim to subscribe to. Case in point, in Symbiosis and in Homeward, Dr. Crusher finds Picard’s astonishing disregard for human suffering unconscionable and says so. In Pen Pals, Dr. Pulaski calls the rigid application of the Directive “callous and maybe cowardly”. The compassion of both doctors is cast aside with rank-pulling and blow hard-y speeches about ideals of non-interference which challenge nothing about their reasoning.

    Super-deluxe special edition blu-ray commentary explains why fans of a utopian cashless society without hunger should keep spending their money on Star Trek crap instead of giving it to charity

    Captain Kirk essentially blows his nose with the Prime Directive when he feels like it. He violates it, usually without remark, here,  here, and notably, here, where Kirk gives his interpretation of the Prime Directive that allows him to apply it rather loosely: “…the Prime Directive was intended to apply only to living, growing civilizations and felt it was appropriate to interfere where societies had been enslaved or were in a state of total stagnation.” (source  Memory Alpha).

    Picard is often a psychotic ideologue when it comes to the Prime Directive, which makes his frequent breaks with it worth a closer look. In The Drumhead, a Star Fleet Admiral notes that Picard has violated the Prime Directive nine times in just three years. Picard waves this off with a remark about justifiable “circumstances”. It’s worth noting that Picard is never punished or apparently reprimanded in any way for these nine violations, which goes to show even Star Fleet isn’t terribly hung up about the Prime Directive. When and why does Trek’s biggest Prime Directive fan act against it? It seems to be the case when he is upholding some other ideal equally detached from human suffering, or when it impacts him personally.

    In the episode Justice, Wesley Crusher has inadvertently broken a trivial law on a world called Edo, and is to be put to death. Picard & co will not permit this, even though they know powerful god-like beings are threatening to destroy the entire Enterprise if they interfere. In this episode, Data asks Picard if he would sacrifice a life to save a thousand. Picard answers, quite honestly, that he’ll not let arithmetic answer those questions. It seems he’d rather let slavish devotion to an abstract ideal decide them. Picard favors justice for Wesley over the Prime Directive. This sounds reasonable, until it’s clear that, actually, Wesley’s life means nothing, only the injustice of his punishment. As Picard attempts to beam up with Wesley, he knows that the Enterprise, Wesley, and everyone aboard will probably be killed as a result. But that’s okay, they’ll all die martyrs for the ideal of justice. Thanks for the virtue lesson, captain.

    In Pen Pals, as mentioned, Picard is moved (thanks to android Data’s constant requests) to save a single child on the basis that she apparently has a radio that can transmit on Federation frequencies. Picard explicitly justifies saving her on the basis that she’s made a “plea for help”. Well, I guess it sucks to be anyone else on that planet who shall perish because they don’t have a radio. Ditto for untold thousands or millions on Boraal II. Meanwhile, planets like Bajor who have been invaded and subjected to torture and genocide do plead with the Federation to help, which coldly turns them down— maybe they should have tried being a little girl with a radio.

    When the anthropomorphic toaster is the most compassionate member of your crew, maybe it’s time to reevaluate your priorities.

    In the Trek film Insurrection, Picard stages an.. well an insurrection against Star Fleet admirals and works to help an alien race in total violation of the Prime Directive. This seems to be okay, because they’re attractive hippies that appeal to Picard and his crew. Picard is willing to sacrifice his career and his life, for pretty white folks who believe things that he believes, too.


    Do you look like a GAP ad? Then Picard will save you.

    In the film Nemesis, which ends the TNG saga, all pretense to concern for the Prime Directive is gone, because dune buggies are fun:

    The list of Picard’s obtuse, stochastic treatments of the Prime Directive is long and this post is long enough. Not to pick on Picard or TNG,  all of the Trek captains routinely break the rule.

    Memory Alpha, the de facto wiki of Star Trek, attempts to explain exceptions to the Prime Directive. To do so, the authors try to shoehorn all of the examples into twelve categories. It is further explained that there are two specific Star Fleet regulations suspending the Prime Directive. It is granted that every law has mitigating circumstances and there are exceptions to every rule, but maybe if your rule needs 14 classes of exceptions, it’s a bit too simple and naive to hold as “general order number 1”. Maybe Picard’s certainty that it is “a philosophy and a very correct one” is a bit stronger than it ought to be.

    Hard work: Where few have gone before
    This essay is not about Star Trek. Star Trek is just a reflection of a particular sort of moral and political philosophy which exists in our culture, the kind that inspired Gene Roddenberry to dream of a future without inequality and starvation. His optimism was striking and his vision compelling, but he also wasn’t a philosopher or a social scientist. He didn’t really know how to bring about these changes, so he did it with a rule book and writer’s magic wand. We can keep the optimism, but we must buttress it with a more sophisticated moral framework. We can not regulate away hard moral problems, like when and how to intervene in the affairs of other societies. When a hurricane rocks Haiti, almost everyone agrees that we should help, and we did. When Germany invaded Poland, almost everyone agrees they should not have done that because Poland is a sovereign nation. Now, most of the choices we make fall between these extremes. Which governments do we support? Where should our aid go? What sort of aid? is it okay to buy things from third world countries, or to sell thing there?

    These are hard questions which we might never know the correct answers to. I posit only that the correct answer is never to abdicate consideration, to turn our backs and toss up our hands and say, sorry, Prime Directive! To the Prime Directive, the war in Vietnam and the war against Hitler are identical and equally wrong. We can’t afford such mindless, irrational dogma. Our world is an interconnected one with no truly isolated peoples. Our moral world should be even more connected. We should carefully consider our actions and inactions, and we should try to make life better for those who share the planet with us. We should do this, even when the issues are complicated and solutions imperfect. We should do this even knowing we will fail sometimes. The answer to unsavory ethnocentric judgement of the past is not no judgement, it’s better judgement.

    No bright future is rightly expected by those inextricably tethered to intellectual & moral disregard.

    Category: Critical ThinkingFeatured Incphilosophyskepticism

  • Article by: Edward Clint

    Ed Clint is an evolutionary psychologist, co-founder of Skeptic Ink, and USAF veteran.

    11 Pingbacks/Trackbacks

    • zenspace

      Oof! Long lead-in to an important point. ; )

      Ultimately, the question really comes down to one of motivation: what are the real reasons for involvement with the foreign party/country. There are many good reasons, such as trade and cultural exchange, and there at least as many bad reasons, colonialism and political power mongering. Historically, the latter seems to have been the prevalent model, although there are exceptions.

      Good, thought provoking post.

    • Hmmm – that’s a different interpretation of the Prime Directive than I
      got from watching the various Star Trek series. My understanding is
      that the PD applies to pre-Warp Drive worlds that would be considered
      “primitive” by the standard of space-faring civilizations, and are hence
      spared what could be deleterious contact. And really, there are clear
      parallels in today’s world:


      For all we know, the Sentinelese may have some very backwards, even
      harmful, cultural practices and are certainly have no access to things
      like modern medicine. On the other hand, the Sentinelese have made it
      very clear through hostile gestures that they don’t want outsiders in
      their world. Should modern India violate its “Prime Directive” and bring
      these people into the modern world regardless?

      Back to the subject of Star Trek, I had thought the reason the Federation had
      not intervened with Bajor was not based on the Prime Directive, which
      certainly would not apply to the Cardassians in any event, but as an analogy to great
      power politics – the United States has expressed sympathy with the
      Tibetan people who have been brutally conquered and subjugated by China,
      but since the normalization of relations with China would never support
      them militarily nor claim that China doesn’t have sovereignty over
      Tibet. The lack of intervention simply has to do with power politics and
      economic relations rather than any “Prime Directive” type policy toward
      China or Tibet. Indonesia and East Timor, Fascist Italy and Ethiopia,
      and any number of other situations where the world pretty much stood by
      and allowed the swallowing up of a weak nation are all analogous. Presumably, Star Trek is creating an allegory of that kind situation with the Cardassian occupation of Bajor plotline.

      • Hello iamcuriousblue, thanks for your thoughtful reply.

        Deliberate first contact seems to apply to warp-emerging peoples, but the Prime Directive clearly applies to everyone who isn’t human/Federation. The episode Symbiosis is about 2 warp-capable worlds. The justification for staying out of the Bajor conflict is explicitly given as the Prime Directive multiple times; the same is true of the Klingon civil war.

        re: the Sentinelese
        No, India should not force anything upon them. To do so against their will would clearly be damaging, and perhaps deadly. Or maybe I’m wrong about that. Maybe they should be gently approached with unobtrusive measures because their fear of outsiders might simply be generations-old fear of violent invasion from other islands. Either way, the choice is not made based on some inviolable rule or heavy-handed dictate. We have to think of every consequence we can, and make as good a choice as we’re able. In this case, maybe the cultural value of the people is worth more than having a few vaccines. I could be persuaded.

        re: Bajor
        At the end of TNG, I think you’re right in how the struggle is portrayed. The Federation seems most concerned with preserving a hard-won peace treaty. (However, the storyline at Wiki says it was the PD: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bajor#Storyline) As DS9 rolls we (the viewers) learn the Cardassians are more like the Nazis, hell-bent on domination of the world, genocidal, driven by a racist ideology etc.., Knowing this, the Federation’s peace treaty itself becomes morally repugnant, akin to the worthless treaties signed by Hitler prior to his invasions.

        Throughout DS9, Bajorans are portrayed as bitter over the cold shoulder and blind eye of the Federation. In the episode “The Circle” in which Cardassians are providing weapons fueling a Bajoran civil war, Star Fleet explicitly cites the Prime Directive and refuses to intervene yet again, even knowing that Cardassia is supporting the faction which will oust the Federation so that Cardassia can reinvade without resistance.

        Granted though, the metaphor has been swapped.

        • IAF101

          It is curious how NONE of the people who are commenting here are from cultures that have been colonized like India.

          As an Indian, I find everything about the idea of interfering with less developed societies by cultures who “claim” superiority based on technical, economic or military superiority to be ludicrous at best. This is a sentiment not only brought because of the history of India that was subject to numerous invasions for numerous sources but also due to the lingering problems and divisions created by those foreign “interventions”. In the age of colonialism, the “scientific” opinion and the argument of philosophers was that the “enterprise” of colonialism was a vehicle of civilizing the “savage”. To introduce the “savage” to the Kingdom of God and other such ludicrous mumbo-jumbo and arcane philosophical ramblings that were in vogue in those times. During the 18th century, the men of those times considered themselves to be the height of civilization and intelligence and their moral and philosophical arguments for colonization and interference beyond reproach! Yet by todays standards they are worse than the “savages” they sought to better.

          The Sentinelese are left in isolation not only because they desire it but also because the government has consciously made every effort to isolate them and strictly enforce a quarantine of their lands from the general population for the benefit of ALL involved. This is not only to preserve their “value” as a people but also to preserve their “right” of self-determination and evolution. Introducing them to new vaccines, new education, new cultures is not only disruptive but would also permanently damage their culture in incalculable ways, destroying their languages, their values and contaminate their very perceptions. Further anybody who claims to have thought of “every consequence” to justify interference is clearly lying and delusional as to their own capabilities since it is impossible to definitively predict future events when even a single individual can cause drastic changes that can have monumental repercussions(eg: Gandhi, Mandela, King etc) , Thus, if the Sentinelese were to contract cholera or some other deadly disease naturally that decimated their population, the Indian government would help but only in a very limited capacity and with minimal amount of invasiveness despite the lives lost because any “miracle cure” would significantly harm their local beliefs and adversely impact their religious and cultural way of life. Further as calamities like disease, flood etc are often harbingers of change, any significant intervention would prevent the natural development and evolution by preventing them from adapting naturally.

          • Has anyone in this thread advocated for imperialism? I certainly have not. You’re replying to me, but I’ve said none of these things. Interesting you bring up India, it’s a good example. The imperialists who colonized India were morally repulsive, in my opinion, and that isn’t at all what I have been talking about.

            Time and again (post-independence) India has asked other countries for help such as with technologies or agricultural knowledge (most recently with nuclear technology). Norman Borlaug’s work in India was amazing, which is why he was awarded the Padma Vibhushan. I also believe that as a friend and ally, the United States should intervene if India were invaded by another state. The person I am arguing with, is the fictional Prime Directive upholder who would say that all of that is a violation and an interference with a culture’s development.

            As for the Sentinelese, well we already intervene, don’t we? It’s just a question of how. In the pre-modern world, they might have been invaded by other peoples. Now they’re protected from that. Nothing “natural development” about being protected by a modern state’s laws and military power.

            Their culture and beliefs are valuable and unique and that should factor into any discussion about them. But all cultures are fleeting, no matter what you do- every ancient culture is extinct and most are forgotten or unknown. This was true even before the imperialist age because cultures had already been rising and perishing constantly for tens of thousands of years.

            Also, cultural exchanges can be enriching and wonderful. Ancient Persia/SW Asia imported hellenistic culture and philosophy, and it reigned as the pinnacle of scientific and intellectual thought for centuries. What we call “Italien food” is largely based on a new world plant (the Tomato) and Germany & Belgium’s famous chocolate is also a new world import. India’s government (ugly as the imperialist past was) is based on centuries of advancement of social and political thought developed elsewhere and at the same time Bollywood is having a global impact on culture.

            Would you really prefer every group of people have stayed in their own impregnable bubble, cut off from everyone else, to spare “culture”?

            • Kahula

              You’re being pedantic & I guess you know. How about the fact that no one interfered when the Srilankan government butchered the Tamil minority in the name of getting rid of militancy? There are lots of instances when the Western World chose to turn a blind coz they didn’t give a damn. And I don’t need to tell how Old World diseases decimated native american populations simply because they never developed the resistance. So the PD is much more complicated than what you making it out to be.

            • Your replies are so strange that I wonder if you read my essay. My argument is that it is complicated, and because it is complicated, a simple rule is not adequate. Each case and action must be considered conscientiously and as thoughtfully as possible.

              You mention Sri Lanka. I share your disgust over the inaction of the west. I do think intervention would have been appropriate. The PD would mean that that would be unthinkable, not even an option that could be considered. I think those sorts of options need to be considered. That is why the PD in not adequate.

              I am unsure why you mention the old world diseases. It’s a historical tragedy that at the time of exploration we did not yet understand disease very well. But it’s not really feasible, or, overall, warranted that the continents should remain permanently isolated forever. I don’t see any way in which those illnesses were going to remain permanently bottled up in Europe.

            • Kahula

              Uh… you’re unsure why I mention old world diseases? That was in response to your suggesting the isolated tribes around the world be introduced to the rest of us… Yes, our understanding of disease has progressed. But do we know that isolated tribes with no modern human contact have developed immunities to common viruses like the rhinovirus, which we find annoying but not life-threatening.

              The PD as someone suggested here has been twisted around by various television writers as a plot device… But in its essence – it can play a very good role in keeping us from screwing up other cultures.

              Though, in TNG I found it weird that the PD was applied to even cultures within the UFP. Very lazy on the part of writers who simply wanted to throw in the Bajoran/Cardassian storyline.

            • I have made no such suggestion.
              I think Kirk’s attitude toward the PD is useful. For Kirk it’s a rule of thumb and reminder to bear in mind possible harm. But even there the PD isn’t all that helpful. It’s too simple to guide decisions in difficult areas and alternative approaches have all the PD virtues without the needless and over-simplified “shut off your morality, and follow the rule because it’s the rule” logic.

            • Kahula

              I should have been clearer, a commenter here suggested….

              And the PD is a moral guideline… The episode where Riker goes undercover to a planet that discovered warp technology but the population and/or its leaders don’t want to keep exploring… those are the kind of storylines that show us why a PD like concept is useful.

              On the other hand, the Cardassian treaty…..

            • Ah well I don’t speak for other commenters.

              Bajorans, sure, but not the Boraalans? They’re all going to die. And the people of the Delos system? They already are warp-capable. The Ornaran planet is about to be full of terrified panicking people who are sure they’re about to die while suffering horrible withdrawal and all after their technological and presumably other social systems have already been badly eroded by generations of being dependent drug addicts. We’re not told the size of the planet, but it’s safe to assume that civilization is going to crumble, its governments will perish… a large portion are going to die and die horrible, violent, anguished deaths.

              These cases are all dismissed without discussion by Picard’s prim observance of the PD.

            • Dave Kinard

              minor geek quibble: The Prime Directive did not apply to Federation members. Not sure where you are getting this impression. Also,you are correct, the PD didn’t apply in the case of Bajor because of foreign occupation. The PD means no contact with cultures who have not contacted aliens, no technological exchange with pre-warp civs, and no intervention in the internal affairs of civs (although that gets bent alot.)

            • I agree with you re: PD and Federation members, but you are not correct about Bajor. The PD is specifically cited as the reason that Star Fleet can’t interfere with the occupation. Plus, the Federation has a treaty with the Cardassians. Which makes bringing up the PD even stranger, because that treaty makes the Federation de facto involved, and in my opinion, accessory to the horrible crimes of the Cardassian Union.

            • mike4ty4

              It’s not just the “West” — why didn’t anyone else (not India) with a suitable military kick in to help, too? They should be held to the same requirement: if you have the ability to help, you have the responsibility to help. You’ve said it, this is a global community. It shouldn’t be up to the US alone to shoulder it’s weight.

            • I agree.

            • IAF101

              Why should they ? And who says you have a “responsibility” to help? That is arrogance – you only have a duty to “do no harm” . What you consider “help” would actually be a disservice and harm somebody. This moralistic black-and-white mentality is ignorant and muddle headed policy. The PD premise is simple – the Federation doesn’t exist to play God or act as a galactic police force. It has no “duty” to interfere – it has only an obligation to help those who ASK for it . The basic principle being “do no harm” .

            • mike4ty4

              Answer to the Sentinelese question is simple: let _them_ be the ones to decide to initiate more contact.

            • I don’t think it is that simple. They are not aware of the consequences for their choices because of their total ignorance of the outside world, and, importantly, things like global warming which might destroy their island one day. Or it could cause species they depend upon to go extinct due to extreme weather or climate change. Or, a parasitic disease easily treated with modern medicine could ravage their tiny population.

              Would they understand their lives and culture could depend on help and cooperation with outsiders? I really doubt it. How then are they making a real choice? They’re not informed.

              I am not suggesting we force informity on them. I am suggesting it is a hard question that requires careful consideration, not draconian rules of noninterference which already make no sense because it is literally impossible not to interfere in one way or another.

            • mike4ty4

              “They are not aware of the consequences for their choices because of their total ignorance of the outside world,”

              How do their choices affect the outside world as much as the outside world’s choices affect theirs? What consequences of *their* choices do they need to be aware of? Or do you really mean consequences “for” and not “of”?

              Though the global heating, etc. points do make more sense. It may come that they would need to be evacuated from the islands if something goes wrong.

            • mike4ty4

              What I’d say is that one particular culture (the West) should not be held up as being the one which is the center of “rightness” and everyone else considered “wronger”. That the “best” laws, policy, etc. are always Western ones. That doesn’t mean the others are then the “best” all the time, either — rather it simply means recognizing that all human cultures have both merits and demerits. Like China’s culture of mutual obligation vs. Western individualism. Individualism is good insofar as freedom of thought, which is better than Chinese notions of unquestioningness toward authority, but inferior when it comes to breeding things like narcissism. There, the Chinese model is superior to the Western one, and China should not be discouraged from it. For a global code of morals, it should combine every culture’s insights into the problem of making a better quality of life for people, equally.

              Another problem is, say, trying to push for “democracy” first all the time. Democracy requires education to be effective. People have to know how to vote wisely. The US even fails in this regard — see how much science denial is current in its population. So you need education BEFORE you can get “democracy”, and you need a fair material standard of living before that.

              With regards interventionism, yes, a friend should try to save its friends.

            • I don’t think I disagree with any of this. I’m just not sure why you are offering it here.

            • Oddworld

              I know this an old thread but I couldn’t help putting in my two cents. I’m almost certain the PD is based off of the Vulcan philosophy “The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few or the one”. It sounds very cruel
              when you consider how much we value the importance of the individual.
              I believe Gene Roddenberry may have created this dictum to challenge various human values by using real life models. The Vulcan philosophy smacks as a kind of collectivism much like Communism with one major difference, they are pacifistic non-interventionists. In ST canon, it was the Vulcans who helped shape the Federation. In doing so they also had a huge influence in shaping Earth’s politics. There lies Gene’s brilliance, creating a conflict of conscience between emotional humans trying to adhere to the PD and the Vulcan stoicism that helped create the PD.

            • Don Ford

              “The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few or the one” is actually from Marx

          • Kahula

            BTW you should also mention the native americans who died to Old World Diseases introduced by the ‘great’ explorers

          • Greg Price

            I think it’s informative to look at the real world and how international communities then to respond to the idea of intervention:

            whenever there is a natural disaster, the inevitable cry is for us (as a world, and especially the US) to “do something”. “Where is the world? Where are the Americans? Why do they permit this to happen?”

            Yet when the disaster is caused by the actions of evil men, the response when there IS “something done” is “Why can’t people stop meddling?” “Mind your own business!”

            Unless the victims and/or evil men are from some place or group considered insignificant, then it’s back to “Where is the world…?” etc.

            Seems to me you don’t get to demand the 1st World’s help with your famine, your flood, then tell it to get lost when it also takes it upon itself to put an end to your warlord problem, or your fake elections, etc.

            At least not if you want to be regarded as anything other than rank hypocrites.

            • IAF101

              You are conflating issues. As have many responses before.

              In a natural disaster – the countries involved ASK for help, aid, equipment, funds . In case of “political intervention” – where the US decides “Saddam has to go” or Iran has to become a democracy or “Castro’s gotto go” – that is where the philosophy of the Prime Directive would come in – PREVENTING the powerful and the technologically advanced from imposing their change on others.

              When there is a natural disaster – Cuba asks for American help or Haiti Asks for American help – then America is most justified in helping . Just as the Federation is shown helping across the Galaxy in numerous ways when it has been called on to help. Where as – the Federation does not respond to “rigged elections” or “dictators” or decide to act as a police to prevent “war crimes” or uphold selective “human rights”. These are not its job and that is a philosophy that is logical and ethical.

              Conflating the response of helping those who ASK for it and interfering where you are not asked or there is no unanimous call for involvement are different things. Even then – taking sides in a civil was as the US did in Vietnam, Korea were wrong policies – that killed more people in pointless wars than would have occurred otherwise.

            • CanofSand

              Refusing to prevent war crimes and the like is “logical and ethical”? It might be logical if you don’t have unlimited resources, but it’s certainly not ethical if you DO have the means and the situation allows for it. Even if you have to be “unfair” and respond only to some crises, that’s better than responding to none of them.

            • I agree. IAF probably will not respond because that comment is 5 years old. Then again, that’s their excuse for everything.

            • IAF101

              What is a “war crime” ? And who are you or me to decide what constitutes a “war crime” ??? Our morality is NOT superior or the ultimate arbiter of “truth and justice”. The ancient Mayans considered the decapitation and human sacrifice of their defeated to be “normal” – was that a “war crime” ? The Mayans didn’t sign the Geneva Convention – that concept is meaningless to them. And similarly your understanding of what “constitutes” a war crime today may seem antiquated and barbaric 2000 years from now.

              The arrogance that underlines the entire mentality that says “this is a war-crime, I am obligated to help” is ignorant, arrogant and small-minded especially when it is taken to an intergalactic scale. This is why the PD served as a legal cover to prevent interventionists who employ “morality” and “good-intentions” to mask their imperialism and closet racial/ethnic/moral superiority.

        • IAF101

          Coming to Star Trek – you say that the Federation’s treaty with the Cardassian Empire is repugnant since you find the moral philosophy of the Cardassian people to be “morally repugnant” comparing it to Nazi Germany’s philosophies.
          Yet you don’t see how it was the United States numerous peace treaties and diplomatic attempts with the “morally repugnant” Communist state of the USSR (which brutalized its citizens equally) that prevented nuclear armageddon and save not only the USA/USSR but also the rest of humanity from destruction!

          Same goes with the treaties signed between the PRC (Mao) and the USA under President Nixon, the treaties signed between the “morally repugnant” North Vietnamese and South Vietnam like the Paris treaty which allowed the US to exit Vietnam. Those treaties were no more repugnant than the treaty signed between Hitler and Chamberlain to grant Germany Czechoslovakia.

          Similarly, your criticism the Federation remaining a mute spectator while the Cardassians covertly fund and aid a faction inside the Bajoran government to destabilize Bajor can find numerous parallels in our REAL history, where the USA “intervened” in civil wars and fought proxy wars through third parties like in Afghanistan, Vietnam, Libya, Iran, dozens of South American countries, Cuba etc – all of which ended in some form of disaster. Sure you can claim the US aid to the various militias and resistance movements during WW2 but those only took place once the US had decided to enter a conflict. The negative effects of interfering in civil wars and ethnic conflicts is all too clearly visible in today’s world with the Conflicts in the Middle East.

          • “Yet you don’t see how it was the United States numerous peace treaties and diplomatic attempts with the “morally repugnant” Communist state of the USSR ”

            Er, we were fighting the Cold War with the USSR. A war which lead to its collapse. That’s a moral win for the US whose only alternative was full scale, perhaps nuclear war. So no, I don’t see the problem here.

            re: treaties
            You assume a couple things which are not correct. One is that I would defend any treaty or military action of the US. Not true. There’s plenty or morally repugnant actions that the US government (and all governments I know of) have taken. Number 2, the reason I find the PD morally repugnant is because of its unwillingness to consider the moral elements. The PD says “don’t interfere, I don’t care what the details are LALALLAICANTHEARYOU”. I say, the details & moral elements matter. Now, you sometimes have to accept a shitty situation because the alternative is worse: war with China might just destroy us both and resolve nothing. OK, that’s a cogent argument why we have to make peace with them. It’s also NOT the argument “because it would be interference” which I find foolish and sickening where large scale human suffering is involved.

            • Kahula

              Most of the Eastern World will disagree

            • With what?

            • IAF101

              Human existence itself can be considered by some (namely Buddha) to be “large scale suffering” .

              The basic foundational logic of the PD is its recognition that the Federation purpose is not alleviating suffering (as understood by humans) nor is it imposing federation ideals, morals, values or law. It is also recognized that “interference” can often lead to disastrous and unforeseen consequences which are impossible to predict or account for despite the best of intentions. Further the very act of “interference” would alter the characteristics of a society or a people against their undisturbed evolution – a choice that the Federation has no moral authority to do so. Finally, it recognizes the truth that death or extinction is often the ultimate end of evolution and the possibility of extinction, death or destruction are not morally reprehensible but a natural order of the universe .

            • Because anything you do or don’t do can lead to unforeseen, bad consequences, this observation is useless. All you can do is try your best to decide which actions or inactions lead to ethically preferable outcomes.

              There’s no such thing as the “natural course” or evolution of a society as a moral good. This is another failing of the prime directive. The natural course of human affairs is the promiscuous transmission of ideas and goods. Cultures have always bumped against each other, traded knowledge and technology, and subsequently grown and changed. There’s nothing natural or good about thinking the “proper” state of a society is to be kept isolated in some sort of hermetically sealed bubble never to interact with anyone or be affected in any way.

              If you don’t think that preventable death and destruction are bad, then our conversation can end because we have no shared basis for what morality even is. I think suffering and destruction are bad. You do not, if it is “natural”. I say, fuck nature. Antibiotics are artificial and good. Hurricanes are natural and bad. To think otherwise is to commit the naturalistic fallacy and perhaps to be a sociopath.

            • IAF101

              The consequence of inaction is often times far superior to self righteous action. This observation is not useless – it is quite salient in the simple fact that even today – primitive tribes and people are allowed isolation and the right to preserve their way of primitive life despite the hardship, disease, death and violence it may lead to. Primitive tribes committing murder, rapine, pillage or other violence on their neighbors is not subject to the liberal crescendo of “Geneva Conventions and human rights” tantrums. Cannibalistic societies still exist in papua new guinea, why ? The very idea that “your/our ethical preference” guides our decision on intervention is born of arrogance and self centered supermacism predicated on perceived morality. But this is not what guides even human society where the right to “natural evolution” and “natural development” is seen as an inherent right for primitive societies even if they offend our “moral standards” .

              There’s no such thing as the “natural course” or evolution of a society as a moral good.

              200 years of anti-colonial movements across the Globe would prove how terribly WRONG your statement is.
              The right for societies to grow, develop and follow their “NATURAL” course without outside directives, dictates and moral sermons is what BILLIONS of human beings have fought and died for . The idea that Western imperialists who imposed their “morally superior” rule or fulfill their mission of “civilizing the unwashed masses” has been repudiated over and over again.

              I am surprised that this argument is being trotted out in the 21st century that the “natural course” of a society is immaterial . That argument has been thoroughly repudiated and is foundational ideology in large parts of the world which battled against

              The idea that YOU or I have a right to dictate morality or interfere in another country because our “morality commands” us to do so is inherently ILLEGAL even according to the UN. Only a UNSC vote can enact any “intervention” and even then in most rarest of rare cases does this happen.

              You have a right to disassociate yourself from actions you deem immoral or unethical or in a bid to encourage what you consider morally acceptable behavior but direct intervention is indeed immoral in itself if not outright criminal.

              You seem to mistake the “natural” contact between civilizations that border each other or discover each other through trade, exploration etc with the “pre-meditated” intervention guided by ideology and moral grandstanding . IT is natural to meet and share ideas and trade with your neighbors if you are able to do so – though this is not always the case due to geography even on Earth. Then there is the idea that one culture interfere’s with another based on the idea that they are morally superior and it is their obligation to do so – that is the nefarious facade of imperialists, invaders and criminal enterprises seeking personal profit.

              The idea that it is “virtuous” to prevent death and destruction is a VERY insular Judaeo-Christian viewpoint. Even on Earth, destruction and death are not “bad things” to be “avoided” but many cultures accept them as necessary and welcome stages of life. Many cultures not only celebrate death but also embrace the idea of voluntary suicide. The idea that if you have the ability to “prevent” death and destruction it somehow gives you moral authority to do so – regardless of any invitation, regardless of the long term consequences is outright Judaeo-Christian dogma masquerading as compassionate morality.

              The simplistic narrative you have that “antibiotics are good and artificial, hurricanes are natural and bad” is so one dimensional it borders on infantile logic. Antibiotics were created to alleviate “suffering” – not death . And Hurricanes serve a vital natural purpose like provide rainfall, replenish island ecosystems and inland plant life, serve as an effective system to control thermal imbalances in our atmosphere.

              FYI – the arrogance of proclaiming others who don’t subscribe to your narrow minded “Sanctity of life” Judeao-Christian ideology as sociopaths shows EXACTLY why the Prime Directive is such a powerfully MORAL instrument for good devised by a society far removed from parochial notions of self righteous moral maxims. People who were humble and were broad minded enough to recognize that their ways are not the right ways.

    • rg57

      I enjoyed reading the Prime Directive being shredded.

      There seem to be somewhat different Prime Directives based on which series is discussed. That may be OK, as different Federations will probably permit different things to happen. (Look at our own laws: We have speed limits on nearly every road, seemingly important, but not one of them is currently enforced as a limit.) TNG goes overboard with the Prime Directive, absurdly applying it even to societies that regularly interact with the Federation, or are even part of it.

      Chronologically, in the Star Trek universe, Enterprise is the first series. What most disappointed me was Archer’s return of a refugee alien into sexual slavery, using a similar argument of “oh well, that’s how they do things” (episode “Cogenitor”). He actually reprimanded Trip for trying to save this person, who went on to commit suicide after being denied asylum. Further, Archer even blamed Trip for the suicide. I can’t remember if it was made explicit, but the sequence of episodes suggests these aliens were where the federation got its upgraded photon(ic) torpedoes, prior to sending the Enterprise into the expanse.

      Last, if the captains seem a little less than consistent, it could be that the episodes are written by different writers, and the whole enterprise is mainly designed to funnel cash to the owners of the copyright, while putting ads for pizza in front of couch potatoes. It doesn’t have to make sense. (Not saying it shouldn’t, just that it doesn’t have to).

      • Kahula

        Don’t bother quoting Enterprise. By the time Voy was on air, the producers were on automatic spewing out storylines in their sleep with even less thought put into them.

      • Dave Kinard

        Cogenitor was a more complex situation then you are describing. In fact this is EXACTLY an example where imposing human values on aliens could lead to disastrous results.

    • Silver Rattasepp

      Good article. Except for its intellectual laziness expressed in the statement “The latter sentiment is known as cultural relativism, the notion that nothing is inherently good or bad and can only be judged from inside a culture and not from without or between.” To this lazy and casual dismissal one can reply either by quoting Rorty:

      “‘”Relativism” is the view that every belief on a certain topic, or perhaps about any topic, is as good as every other. No one holds this view. Except for the occasional cooperative freshman, one cannot find anybody who says that two incompatible opinions on an important topic are equally good. The philosophers who get called ‘relativists’ are those who say that the grounds for choosing between such opinions are less algorithmic than had been thought.'”

      Or, even more simply by noting that perhaps before engaging in casual dismissals one could do something as simple as reading the SEP entry on moral relativism, the first sentence of which is: “Moral relativism has the unusual distinction—both within philosophy and outside it—of being attributed to others, almost always as a criticism, far more often than it is explicitly professed by anyone.”

      • Thanks, Silver. I think your criticism is a good one. I focused a bit more on details related to Star Trek knowing that fans would be moved to disagree if the case were not strongly made. This meant less space for discussion of the real world analogs. Maybe I will write a follow-up documenting more fully how this kind of reasoning appears in our culture.

    • I think The Sam Harris Directive – That which increases the well-being of sentient beings is good, while that which contributes to their suffering is bad – could be considered dogmatic but would be a much more reliable precept than the “Prime Directive.”

    • Great article, but the term you want is “moral relativism,” not “cultural relativism.” Cultural relativism is the idea that you can’t fully understand one aspect of a culture unless you understand how it interacts with other aspects of the culture.

    • I wouldn’t say Roddenberry was actually promoting the Prime Directive as a good moral standard; the number of episodes devoted to exploring its implications and applications suggest that he was simply employing it as a plot device to develop conflict around. A starting point for plot and character exploration, if you will.

    • Zardoz

      Just a quick point about the prime directive. It was a directive of Star Fleet and not the Federation (my information here is coming from Wikipedia). Private citizens were apparently not prevented at all from interfering with less developed civilizations. This is a bit like saying that the US military should not be interfering in foreign countries without explicit orders. There are examples of directives which override the prime directive so it was not applied uncritically. It was more of a default position which seems entirely sensible to me.

    • Outstanding drubbing, Edward. Outstanding.

    • Silver_web

      I can’t view the video because I don’t have flash on this computer, but is it the same one as this:


      If so, the author is sfdebris who does reviews of sci-fi / fantasy stories and you’d probably enjoy some of his other analysis of Star Trek.

      • Yes, that’s the one. Thanks! I wanted to properly cite the maker for his excellent work.

    • bluetortilla

      I never found the Prime Directive to be compelling, humane, nor courageous. it lacks essential the core compassion of being human or any evolved being for that matter. If contamination means genocide or bringing smallpox to civilizations with less technology, that was the last century, not a brave future. If technology gets into the hands of an aggressive species, that too is a natural dissemination of contact. The wrinkles will work out. The spread of technology would be a natural consequence of contact, not a stingy withholding. We humans would presumably not let whole words starve or die of plague. The Prime Directive is probably the only Star Trek humanistic concept that I completely disagree with.

    • Pingback: Fail-orama: Futurama Feeds Anti-GMO Paranoia | Skeptic Ink()

    • Daniel Burke

      Star Trek as a whole is lazily written and subscribes to a deluded socialist philosophy. Babylon 5 kicks its arse all over.

    • Timothy Chambers

      I agree with most of what you say but in general I still believe that the Prime Directive is a necessary and ethical thing to do. If you disagree with the Prime Directive, then what is the alternative? Should Starfleet help every endangered species they encounter? Should Starfleet mediate or more appropriately “install Federation values” to every belligerent species they meet? Should Starfleet use force to save every citizen who breaks the law within the alien society? These acts would be the end of the “peaceful and benevolent” Starfleet. They would now become the galactic firefighters and police. Similar to the old English credo the new mission statement for the Starfleet would be “Make the universe Starfleet.” That’s not exploration. That’s imperialism.

      • Why do you think the only alternatives on the table are “do nothing” and “imperialism”?

        The alternative is to be a conscientious member of a community (of star systems). To have a policy of humanism (or humanoidism, rather) which allows leaders to weigh actions based on likely outcomes, on available resources, and based on humanistic values like freedom and autonomy. If it’s unclear, we should err on the side of non-interference. But lots of times, it isn’t unclear. The planet where everyone will die within 2 days? Not unclear. The Nazi-Cardassians? Not unclear.

        • Timothy Chambers

          Setting up a utopian society as you described is not what the Prime Directive is about. There are essentially two parts to the PD. (1)Do not impeded in the natural evolution of a pre-warp society and (2) do not interfere in the internal struggles of any non-Federation society. You said it yourself “if it is unclear we should err on the side of non-interference.” That’s the PD. A primitive planet is going to blow up? Maybe it is supposed to blow up. Maybe things are supposed to die. In “The Inner Light” everyone on the planet dies. Picard gets to live an entire life because of their probe. Imagine that some hoity-toity space do-gooders secretly saved that planet. Picard would never have had that experience and we would not have such a great episode. The Cardassians took over the Bajorans? Maybe that’s supposed to happen. Had the Cardassians not taken over, maybe Sisko would have never found out he was the Emissary and saved the Alpha Quadrant? You are using your human cultural bias and vanity to assume you know what is best for the galaxy.

          • You say a few things that are tacitly false, and another is self-contradictory.

            Setting up a utopian society as you described

            Nothing I described is utopian. It’s a program, like the PD, to help make decisions. Not perfect ones that instantly solve everything or are guaranteed to be right.

            You are using your human cultural bias and vanity to assume you know what is best for the galaxy.

            I am using cultural bias, but then it’s culture we are talking about. If a doctor were talking about medicine, he’d be medically biased- I hope so anyway.. that’s kinda the point of being a doctor. But vanity is not required because I do not assume we can ever know for sure what is best. What I do know is that some choices are better than others. All else held equal…. It’s better that people not be slaves. It’s better that people be in control of their own lives. It’s bad for people to be victims of murder or genocide. If we have a goal, like reducing global warming, then some steps will take us closer to that and others we might take will send us backward.

            Since these observations are true, then we may conclude that good judgement allows us to make better choices- not perfect ones, just better than others.

            The Cardassians took over the Bajorans? Maybe that’s supposed to happen. Had the Cardassians not taken over, maybe Sisko would have never found out he was the Emissary and saved the Alpha Quadrant?

            I think we make our own “supposed-to’s” in life. Besides, why would Cardassian interference “supposed” to have happen, but never, ever Star Fleet interference? Since you’re plea is to ignorance, then any choice we make is part of any magical destined “supposed-to” and we’re back to square one.

            Imagine that some hoity-toity space do-gooders secretly saved that planet. Picard would never have had that experience and we would not have such a great episode.

            So a race should perish so that one person can have an interesting experience? This is the part where you let your troll card show a bit too much. Had me going for a while. This has been drole and all, but I don’t care much for trolls around here, so why don’t you go somewhere else.

            • Timothy Chambers

              You can call me a troll if you want. You can delete this message if you want. It hurts when someone finds the invalidity of your argument. Your emotions are now hindering your logical thought.

              You say the PD is moral laziness. In this you assume your definition of morality is proper. You assume everyone should have the same morality as you. You failed before you even began. Like you said in another post let’s stick to Star Trek stuff.

              The PD prevents Starfleet from interfering in the natural evolution of a species, including its own natural extinction. If by this you mean it is immoral to allow a species to die then it follows that it would be a moral obligation to save every species. Every ship and crew would now become “supernova hunters” or the like. I wouldn’t mind being on this savior ship and am not saying it wouldn’t be a good thing to do. What I am saying is without the PD, that is what all Federation ships would have to do all the time.

              The PD prevented Starfleet from interfering in the Cardassian occupation of Bajor because it was an internal incident. You are saying it is immoral to allow a people to be conquered by another people so what must follow is that it is a moral obligation to stop any and all civil wars or occupations. Once again I don’t like violence or seeing people hurt so I wouldn’t mind being on this mediator ship but that is not what Starfleet is about. The mission of Starfleet is to “explore strange new worlds, to seek out new life and new civilizations, to boldly go where no one has gone before.”

              You’ve already contradicted yourself when you said “if it is unclear we should err on the side of non-interference.” This means you support the PD in general. That’s what a law is. It is a general statement to curb behavior. Picard, Kirk, and every other captain has violated this law many times without severe consequences. That means that even the top people at Starfleet understand the virtue and necessity in breaking the PD. That still doesn’t mean it should be considered immoral and eliminated.

              Try imagining a Federation without the PD. Captains and officers can influence a primitive people to see them as deities as it could have happened in “Who Watches the Watchers.” Starfleet could have set up a puppet-dictator as almost happened in “Redemption 1 & 2.” A Federation without the PD would become the Dominion.

              Your use of Picard’s quote to Beverly from “Symbiosis” already show how much you don’t understand what he meant. You want leaders to make good decisions based on likely outcomes. Does this include a knowledge of history? Picard knew this but you disagree and dismiss him.

              I think had you titled your article “The Prime Directive: Moral argument for and against” and then given a few more examples supporting the PD instead of the meager 3-4 quick quips about it, you would have had an exceptional article. You write very well and gave some great examples to support your argument. Its unfortunate you let your bleeding-heart liberalism cloud your judgement.

            • It hurts when someone finds the invalidity of your argument. Your emotions are now hindering your logical thought.

              Nah, I’m an academic. I get my arguments trashed almost daily. It’s just part of the life. This exchange here hardly compares. In fact, it’s far more profitable for me to be wrong than it is to be right. But I do not see that I am, yet. You continue to mischaracterize me in bizarrely stark terms:

              You say the PD is moral laziness. In this you assume your definition of morality is proper. You assume everyone should have the same morality as you.

              The PD isn’t really morality per se. It, as defined by JLP, is a policy that describes when you are or are not allowed to enter into moral considerations. The PD says that you never, ever are when the subject is other cultures. Refusing to even begin to consider moral aspects of possible actions/inactions strikes me as laziness, and maybe cowardice (as the Doctor said on TNG, actually). But in no way do I believe something as silly as “everyone should have the same morality as you”.

              The PD prevents Starfleet from interfering in the natural evolution of a species, including its own natural extinction. If by this you mean it is immoral to allow a species to die then it follows that it would be a moral obligation to save every species.

              I do consider it a moral obligation to save every sentient humanoid species. However, that is not the only moral obligation that exists. Nor must we ignore the obvious outcomes of any particular actions. Even Star Fleet is constrained in its resources. It can’t do everything that might be a moral good. Trade-offs have to be made. So no, it is not the case that this one mission would become SF’s only goal.

              The mission of Starfleet is to “explore strange new worlds, to seek out new life and new civilizations, to boldly go where no one has gone before.”

              But we know this isn’t all Star Fleet does. They do mediate disagreements, including those involving war and violence. They do provide aid to planets, helping them to grow stronger to unknown ends (true whether they are part of the Federation or not). It does fight in wars. And frankly, if it turns a blind eye to genocide as the victims desperately ask for help, then it doesn’t really have any honor or virtue. Discovery for the sake of self satisfaction is no noble end.

              This means you support the PD in general. That’s what a law is

              I would support Kirk’s formulation of it, but not JLP’s. The fact that Star Fleet ignores numerous violations of its “general order number one” means that there is something wrong with it, or with Star Fleet. The expression “general order number one” is a military term. It is not given to a rule-of-thumb. It is given to something that is absolutely inviolable under immediate penalty. And etymology aside, JLP makes it clear numerous times that it is not to be abridged. He watches a world die, feeling righteous the entire time. The later violations of it are part of the gradual death of the PD; by Nemesis, the PD no longer exists for any practical purposes.

              Federation without the PD would become the Dominion.

              Nah. The ideals that, presumably, undergird the PD in the minds of the writers are do not harm/disrupt/exploit. It’s really very easy to make regulations about that. In fact, universities that conduct human subjects research all have Institutional Review Boards and review all proposed research on humans (include hunter gatherer societies in remote regions of the globe). They evaluate the proposed research to consider the ways in which it could harm, disrupt, or exploit the people. I know this because I am involved in that sort of research. What would NOT help an IRB is one monolithic “never interact, ever” policy. It would mean the end of most of anthropology as a discipline.

              Does this include a knowledge of history? Picard knew this but you disagree and dismiss him.

              Yes, let’s talk about history, shall we? The PD was formulated after the Federation gave the Klingons warp technology, leading to war. But, as you know, the Klingons were critical to the successful war against the Dominion, as allies of the Federation. Had the Federation followed the PD earlier in its history, it would later have been annihilated by the Dominion.

              I think had you titled your article “The Prime Directive: Moral argument for and against” and then given a….You write very well and gave some great examples to support your argument. Its unfortunate you let your bleeding-heart liberalism cloud your judgement.

              I don’t think there is a good “pro” argument to be made. And I like for the titles to be a little spicey. I’ll take the compliment and one more thing. Your insinuation of my “bleeding-heart liberalism” is most amusing because elsewhere in this comment section I’ve essentially been charged with crass disregard. Funny how people see the same thing different ways.

            • Timothy Chambers

              “I would support Kirk’s formulation of it, but not JLP’s.” I had to read this several times to make sure I read it right. Wow. Do you really believe that Kirk’s response to the PD is in anyway more moral than Picard’s? I suppose if you think the PD is “moral laziness” then you would support Kirk who has violated it more than any other captain on the show. Check out the Star Trek poll concerning who has the most respect for the Prime Directive. Staggering numbers.

              The biggest violation of all time is Kirk’s decision to bring Dr. Gillian Taylor from 1986 to their present in “The Voyage Home.” That is just a crapload of wrong. Not only is he violating the “pre-warp evolution” aspect of the PD, he also violated the Temporal Prime Directive which is the rule not to alter the course of history. Did he not even think of the consequences to the timeline when he did this? That’s just pure recklessness. He went from letting Edith Keeler get hit by a car and die in “The City on the Edge of Forever” to plucking a woman out of her own time. That’s just pure recklessness. In this situation I would agree with you that there is something fundamentally wrong with how Starfleet treats violations of the PD. They should have thrown him out of Starfleet.

              I do not however believe that every decision Picard makes concerning the PD is good either. One of his grossest miscalculations is rescuing Wesley Crusher during “Justice.” He should have let Wesley be executed. Wesley entered into their community. He broke one of their rules. He has to answer for his crime with their punishment. Picard should have worked out some kind of “diplomatic immunity” before he sent his people down. One of the citizens of the planet said “ignorance of the rule can not be used as a defense.” Picard got lucky that the Edo “God” was a rational guy.

            • As I said in the essay, Kirk’s formulation is diametrically opposed to Picard’s, “the Prime Directive was intended to apply only to living, growing civilizations and felt it was appropriate to interfere where societies had been enslaved or were in a state of total stagnation.”

              Kirk made exceptions even for mere “stagnation”, because he was thinking about consequences and balancing those against the expected harm of interference. Whereas Picard refused to do such reasoning. For him, a rule is a rule and must be blindly followed on principle, without consideration of any consequences. For Kirk, it’s a mere heuristic, which makes it poorly named and not especially critical to ethical thinking, but not objectionable at all.

              This is not to say I agree with everything Kirk ever did (or disagree with all of Picard’s calls). “The Voyage Home” was an all-around badly written screenplay. Much worse than taking Gillian is thoughtlessly giving “transparent aluminum” to 1986 people. But it’s a silly film where whales talk to aliens.

              re: “Justice” The whole episode is very strange. They just discover the world in this episode, it’s pre-warp, so naturally, send down an away team and make contact immediately because they’re “unusually attractive”. Er, PD? Not even mentioned. The very next consideration is how suitable it is for shore leave. Picard sends this second away team down, including a 14 year old boy, not knowing anything about its culture, laws, diseases, or ecology. Later after they want to execute Wesley Picard suggests capital punishment is immoral, the Edo are offended and sarcastically remark on how backward and barbaric their world must seem. As this leads into Picard’s first mention of the PD, is the viewer supposed to sympathize with the Edo, who wish to execute a boy for accidentally breaking a greenhouse, or anyone for breaking any rule? I mean, they are barbaric.

              A bit later, Picard brings an Edo woman to the Enterprise to identify God. Again, PD? In this episode it seems like the PD only applies to criminal law, which nobody had bothered to look into before sending people to socialize.

            • Timothy Chambers


            • Dave Kinard

              Sigh, again. The federation DID NOT turn a blind eye to Bajor’s occupation. Read my post above.

    • The spirit of the prime directive, IMO, was in avoiding colonial/imperial style exploitation and subsummation of independent/indigenous societies/cultures by a self-righteous [if well-meaning] foreign culture.

      The criticism of “moral relativism” strikes me as short-sighted. It seeks to validate passing judgment on other cultures as an exercise in cultural ego. Even if some foreign society has rules & norms you abhor the world is far better when more powerful nations exercise diplomacy and lead by example than when they seek “regime change”. All that really does it create temporary artificial change and engender a new generation with increasingly legitimate grievances & hatred towards that foreign power.

      • …spirit of the prime directive, IMO, was in avoiding colonial/imperial style exploitation

        Except when it was specifically cited in situations where it assures imperial conquest, like with Bajor; or the total annihilation of a people, like in Homeward.

        But regardless I can think of another way to prevent imperialism besides sticking your head in the sand: don’t be imperialistic. Reason about consequences. Consider the moral value of a given culture’s autonomy and liberty. The prime directive actually prevents you from doing any of that but the first bit.

        better when more powerful nations exercise diplomacy and lead by example than when they seek “regime change”.

        There is no reason to think these are the only possibilities, or that they are mutually exclusive. I think you have black&white ideas about foreign policy. Either we send diplomats to hand out hugs and candy, or else missiles? Those aren’t the options.

        And your conclusion just doesn’t follow. In North Korea, there are death camps. Camps for people to be exterminated, usually after some torture. (link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hoeryong_concentration_camp). The North Korea people have gotten shorter over a generation due to famine. It threatens its neighbors with nuclear weapons.
        In South Korea, they make multi-billion watched pop songs, electronics, and video games. The reason these two Koreas are different, is the US showed up with guns and bombs and resisted the conquest of the south. Would you prefer the south be more like the north, since all that meddling we did was wrong?

        Would you really argue that the US (or the UN, or NATO or any country with the strength) should not have intervened while hundreds of thousand of men, women, and children were being butchered in Rwanda? We didn’t, nobody did. Should we feel good about that? 20% of the population killed in a conflict we could have easily halted, but hey, that would have been meddling and imperialistic.

        All that really does it create temporary artificial change and engender a new generation with increasingly legitimate grievances & hatred towards that foreign power.

        Yeah, sort of how Germany is our mortal enemy. And France, South Korea, Japan, the Philippines, and Italy. Oh wait, they’re not. They’re our allies, friends, and economic partners. What you say can be true, but the details matter. That’s the problem with the Prime Directive. It handcuffs your judgement and says the details don’t matter, interference is always wrong no matter what. No, it isn’t. That’s just not true, it’s not even close to being true.

        • Dave Kinard

          Bajor was NOT about the Prime Directive. If you actually follow the history, The federation was at war with cardassia. Part of the treaty that ended that war WAS the withdrawal of Cardassian forces from bajor.

          • No, the Federation was not at war with Cardassia prior to the withdrawal. They had a peace treaty. The Federation did pressure Cardassia to withdraw, but it was not a part any armistice treaty.

            Also, see DS9 2×02 “The Circle”. When Sisko learns the Cardassians are supplying weapons to a violent political dissident group in order to facilitate re-invasion of Bajor by the Cardassians, Admiral Chekote tells Sisko civil war, even facilitated by Cardassia, is an “internal matter” and “the prime directive applies”. The Admiral therefore has every reason to think Cardassian subterfuge will lead to the brutal re-conquest of Bajor, by genocidal sociopaths… but that the Federation is required to turn a blind eye. Not because of the treaty, but because of the PD.

        • Eric Otness

          I know this is over 6 years old, but I digress:

          Agreed overall with your premise of the Prime Directive (and quite frankly, it only existed because of a far left view on Vietnam which was self-serving at best, especially when the whole reason why we were even IN Vietnam was specifically to PREVENT the Soviets from forcing it to become Communist, meaning that, ironically, our reasons for even going into Vietnam was to prevent interference.), but there is one minor quibble I need to address:

          “And your conclusion just doesn’t follow. In North Korea, there are death camps. Camps for people to be exterminated, usually after some torture. (link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wik…. The North Korea people have gotten shorter over a generation due to famine. It threatens its neighbors with nuclear weapons.
          In South Korea, they make multi-billion watched pop songs, electronics, and video games. The reason these two Koreas are different, is the US showed up with guns and bombs and resisted the conquest of the south. Would you prefer the south be more like the north, since all that meddling we did was wrong?”

          Well, technically, the reason North Korea has those aspects was also due to meddling… by the Soviets and Red Chinese. Let’s not forget, before World War II, Korea used to be a unified country, yet Stalin after the war decided to do a victory lap and try to implement Communism all across the globe (and, heck, there’s even sufficient evidence that the United Nations, which acted as the inspiration for Star Trek in fact, was deliberately modeled after the Soviet Union, literally having its charter copy and pasted from that of the Soviet Constitution, so if you really think about it, the UN ITSELF promoted Communists interfering with the rest of the world via imperialism), so it’s not clear cut regarding interference, but that sort of thing is ultimately what makes the Prime Directive useless (if we were to follow it to the letter, we’d have to just sit back and let Vietnam be invaded back in the 1960s).

          I’m a person who adheres to black and white views myself, a moral absolutist in other words, yet even I realize the Prime Directive is just stupid and poorly thought out (and is a bit closer to relativism than true black-and-white adherence.). I honestly think people adhering to Nietzsche’s “he who fights monsters becomes them” so absolutely was a mistake.

          • If you blame the UN for the fate of North Korea, then the PD doesn’t apply, it ceases to be a purely internal matter of some other culture as you’ve already interfered, giving the Korean War moral legitimacy (as well as giving us some culpability for the whole situation). I don’t really buy all that. The UN wasn’t and isn’t a world government pulling the strings in Moscow, or anywhere really. It’s edicts are largely toothless and ineffective, except where nations were already going to do a thing.

            I appreciated the point though, that on Earth, few nations are completely isolated from each other and having no interactions. Particularly today. This is another reason why the PD is a bad idea: the non-interference ship sailed long ago. It many ways, it just isn’t possible anymore.

            • Eric Otness

              No, the UN wasn’t responsible for North Korea’s fate. Not directly, anyways. But I AM blaming the USSR and Red China for its fate.

              And technically, when has there ever been such a purely internal matter in other cultures? Even our own country of America was ultimately founded with some help with the French and Spanish as one of their power games with Great Britain (don’t get me wrong, the American Minutemen definitely were fierce fighters with a sincere desire for independence, and they definitely put up quite a fight, but the French and Spanish also deserve some credit for America becoming an independent nation). If we put the Prime Directive to its most literal and logical conclusion, America itself would never exist in the first place, not as an independent nation, anyways, heck, maybe not even as a colony. In fact, we probably won’t even have ANY civilizations whatsoever (that’s also one reason why I think making a community purely isolationist like with, say, that village from Disney’s Beauty and the Beast, whether depicting it in a positive or negative light, is completely stupid, since the village wouldn’t even exist if it was as isolationist as, say, Cambodia under Pol Pot as that movie seemed to imply with their putting down Belle for being worldly.). The Prequel Trilogy of Star Wars also had that exact problem with their Republic and the Jedi Order, as well as their usage of something similar to the Prime Directive, though at least there, the story acknowledged the Prime Directive-type rule there was completely useless (too bad Lucas seemed to infer even something as useless as that was preferable to the Galactic Empire.).

              As far as the United Nations, I never said it was a world government, if anything, I indicated it was a front organization, and there’s sufficient evidence to point to it being a front organization for the Soviets, including its Charter being blatantly plagiarized from the Soviet constitution, or how a few of its key founders, including especially Alger Hiss, were Soviet spies. And the United Nations bit was mostly relevant because Gene Roddenberry specifically modeled Star Federation on the United Nations, or at least, the licensed product Star Fleet Technical Manual made it pretty clear it was meant to be based on the United Nations charter.

    • Jason G

      I agree with most of your arguments of the Prime Directive. It was a rule set in place to protect civilizations from people who would subjugate and abuse the technological gap. However, i always saw it as a rule that is more of a deterrent then a dogmatic philosophy. Starfleet has made it clear there are moral circumstances which calls in question the Prime Directive and it is up to the morality of the Captain to fill in the grey. There is and will never be a rule or law that can cut something into black and white sections. Look at murder. Seems cut and dry, however what if i am being attacked. What if someone jumps in front of my car on purpose or by not paying any attention. At those times it is up to the Judge and Jury to try and point the moral compass in the grey fog of morality, but we keep the giant moral signpost Killing another Human being is wrong, and for good reason but it happens. The “Greatest” Captains in Star Trek are the ones that have made those decisions in those times of grey and it is only after facing those circumstances numerous times do any of them realize this. If it is made clear it is only a deterrent then no one would abide by it and some might try to find loopholes to feed there own agenda. Like selling guns to a less advanced culture in return for raw materials with no regard to the social unbalance and corruption they have just created, that could one day bite them back. The idea to me of the Prime Directive is to always keep, foremost in your mind that any little action you do in regards to another civilization could cascade irrevocably. As a planet we would most likely not be where we are today medicinally if the Black Death never happened and if World War 2 never happened we wouldnt have the Geneva convention. It is an unfortunate fact of social and Human nature that great changes will only occur after great travesty and that by overcoming these terrible things we grow for the betterment of all. It is this sad, unfortunate truth that has spurred the quote “The world is changed with rivers of blood.” Who is anyone to say that someone would be better one way or another.
      The Prime Directive shouldn’t be followed dogmatically, but it should be kept in high regard. It should be your prime thought during those situations in which it applies. They taught Kirk’s missions in the Academy and Picard learned there are times when a Captain is morally obligated to break it. Now Picard’s initial extremism of the Prime Directive is another matter entirely, but you can not judge a belief on one or even a few people’s interpretation.

      Quick note on the Japan comparison. In Japan’s early history it was constantly under attack. One circumstance was the Mongols. Japan survived due to a hurricane destroying their fleet that they ended up calling the Kamekazi “Divine Wind”. Europeans went to Japan in the 1500’s and they were expelled for trying to force their beliefs on them. The Portuguese first arrived at Nagasaki and it was where Europeans were expelled. This painted them a pretty good picture. Japan didn’t become the contributing member of nations that it is today until 2 Atomic bombs were detonated on its cities causing millions of deaths. One of which was Nagasaki. Constant foreign influence caused very negative feelings towards the rest of the world. One must wonder, maybe if other nations hadn’t interfered with Japan’s development those bombs would have never happened.

      • In the softer non-dogmatic form, it just doesn’t add anything. Don’t exploit. Consider the consequences. Yeah, thanks, never would have occurred to us. I’ve addressed these points elsewhere already.

        But I will say this about Japan: actually they enjoy historically low levels of invasion. Since the dawn of humankind you see tribes then chiefdoms then states constantly at war. That’s the norm, it happened everywhere all the time. Japan was permitted isolation by the imperial powers, it had no means of resisting invasion and domination by Europe. It simply had the luxury of being incredibly far away and maybe not worth the effort. That gave Japan centuries to respond to changes in the world with very little outside interference. What they chose to do is on them, not anyone else.

        But whatever the reasons, whatever the why, I don’t think I would prefer Japan sealed in a feudal time capsule in the name of “noninterference”.

        There’s no reason to be particularly impressed with the casualties of the nuclear weapons, save perhaps their efficiency. You are not correct that they caused “millions” of deaths. Combined, they killed 150-246 thousand. At the very most, that’s just 14% of the casualties Japan suffered during all of the war. The non-nuclear firebombing of Tokyo killed 125 thousand. These numbers are also a pittance compared to the estimated 5 to 30 million civilians Japanese forces slaughtered in southeast Asia. But I guess they’re not all that memorable, not having been killed by a really big bomb.

      • Dr. Kim

        Hahahaha ok this is real simple (The Prime Directive) is really (WE are rich) and (THEY are poor) don’t give them help money, food, medicine, education, support, technology, anything that will improve there life to make it better…..if we did the in the real World we would be heartless bastards…so the (The Prime Directive) really is a uppity, arrogant way of saying sorry but we don’t help the poor, slow, not so bright people let them suffer… simple common sense….

    • Earth Visitor

      Do extraterrestrials have a Prime Directive? It might look something like this: http://earthcrazy.wordpress.com/2014/06/30/the-prime-directive/

      • Greg Price

        Many theorists have speculated that they in fact DO have a version of the PD, and that’s why they aren’t simply showing up and saying “Hi” on national TV.

    • Pingback: Boycotting FIFA Sponsors: What Does Your Conscience Tell You? - Football 2.0()

    • Tim

      I’ve always believed the Prime Directive only applied to Starfleet. After all, it is general order one for Starfleet. It kept Captains from playing God in the field. There is no reason not to assume the Federation as a whole can’t act to save pre-warp societies from destruction.

      Picard admitting his nine violations were supported would lend credit to that. It seems likely to me that it’s in place to allow the Federation to debate an issue and consult its experts on how to proceed rather than just trust each Captain to simply know the best course for any given planetary culture.

      • Picard wasn’t prosecuted for his violations, which is different from his choices being supported. Consult its experts? There’s no room for that in Picard’s view. He simply declares it as clearly morally correct. He says in no uncertain terms that interference would be wrong. Not wrong for a captain, wrong, period. In cases where there is no time for a Federation committee to debate matters (like in Symbiosis or Homeward), he makes snap choices and shuts down any discussion whatsoever… even knowing that is the only discussion on the matter that will ever occur.

        I wouldn’t mind a PD or a version of it that is meant to foster careful consideration and emphasize the use of judgment and circumstance. That just isn’t the kind that we see in the show when it is described and discussed.

        • Tim

          Then the real debate is Picard’s interpretation of the Prime
          Directive, and not the directive itself.

          The fact that Captains get away with breaking it tells me it isn’t as
          absolute as Picard describes.

          I agree Picard’s record is pretty poor. In Pen Pal’s he was content to let her die until he heard her voice, then claimed they couldn’t just abandon her.

          My view of it isn’t directly expressed in the episodes, beyond it being said it is a general order to Starfleet. What we see in the shows is Starfleet’s views, rarely to we get anything outside that because it’s what the shows are based on. To be fair, an episode of the Council deliberating on a matter of contacting or rendering aid to a species that Starfleet isn’t allowed to interfere with wouldn’t make good television for the audience they want.

          That being said I understand your essay isn’t about Star Trek itself and I agree that a blanket rule like the Prime Directive is a poor policy for an entire empire or nation to adhere to.

          • I doubt there is much difference between Star Fleet and UFOP values.
            1. Picard’s role in the series as the heroic leader is frequently articulating the virtues of the entire Federation. He gives speeches clearly speaking to that, “we’ve evolved beyond XYZ..” he isn’t talking about Star Fleet.

            2. In The Drumhead Norah Satie brings up Picard’s spotty record, saying something like “would it surprise you to learn [you violated the PD 9 times]… it surprised the hell out of me.” Why would she have been so surprised? She doesn’t personally know about Picard’s dogmatic love of the PD. Even if it were a rhetorical device, it would not have been a very effective one, if the people listening to her knew that the PD was just a general order that SF captains interpret away whenever it suits them.

            3. Star fleet by their basic mission and purpose have to represent the Federation and its values. From Memory Alpha:

            “As per its mandate of deep-space exploration, its personnel were frequently brought into contact with cultures and sentient species whose existences were unknown to the Federation. Starfleet officers therefore acted as official representatives of the Federation in these cases.”

            • Tim

              It’s easy to feel there is no different because we are frequently, almost solely, seeing things from a Starfleet point of view.

              1. Picard’s view of those virtues doesn’t mean they apply everywhere. Section 31 would certainly not fit the role of what he describes. Picard is an idealist whose ideals very much depend on the writer for any specific episode. Some of what he says has been contradicted in other episodes, so it seems he often speaks of how he would like things to be rather than how they are.

              2. Sitting behind Norah Satie was Admiral Thomas Henry who didn’t appear shocked or concerned. In that episode Satie was basically on a witch hunt and the matter she was pursuing was dropped after her outburst. Even Admiral Henry, who is said to have worked closely with her in the past, got up and left the room without comment.

              She points out it is Starfleet General Order Number One. Her surprise doesn’t require an understand of Picard’s beliefs, only that he managed to have reason to go against that general order nine times since assuming command of the Enterprise. He had only been in that
              command for four years (if episode seasons are the measure) so it could be surprising there were nine different times he had reason not to follow it.

              And as you said, he wasn’t prosecuted, so that likely means that, like other general orders, it can be waived.

              3. Starfleet may represent the values of the Federation, but that doesn’t mean Starfleet has free will to act with every bit of authority of the Federation. It’s a pseudo-military (debatable) wing of the Federation, and as such it would have limitations.

              Because Starfleet is frequently brought into contact with “cultures and sentient species whose existences were unknown to the Federation,” wouldn’t that necessitate the need for general orders to govern how they can proceed?

              In Star Trek II, Kirk ignored General Order 12, he nearly lost his ship and crew because of it. There is no reason to assume he wasn’t called on the carpet to explain why. And even though general order one, the Prime Directive, carries more weight, there is no reason to assume it can’t be violated with permission from those in position to offer that permission.

            • re: Picard I meant the role of his character on the TV show, not as a person within the Trek-verse. He was the voice articulating Roddenberry’s vision of a better future to the viewer. The Picard character is designed to embody some of those ideals.

              Admiral Henry, as chief of security would have already known all about Picard’s run-ins with the PD. Satie was on a witch hunt, but she was not discredited until her outburst, which came after this bit about Picard’s record on the PD. Satie would not have mentioned it if it would have surprised nobody. She meant it to discredit Picard, to show that he wasn’t as loyal to Star Fleet and its principles as he seemed, that his character might be questionable. But that could only be true if, in Satie’s reckoning, it was damaging and not-common for a captain to have such a record. She was an admiral, she would know that it is not and that bringing it up is damaging (even if it isn’t damning by itself).

              re: 3. I said nothing at all about authority. I said that they represent the UFOP to newly contacted aliens. I have also not said there should be no general orders. But general orders aren’t really helpful in many situations. They’re general. Situations can be unique, with circumstances that no set of orders can ever predict or include. That’s why an order to suspend judgment is the worst possible general order imaginable. Judgment, based on values not rule sets, is all that you have in those situations.

              As I wrote in the essay, the PD means something very different in Kirk’s time. In the films he does nonetheless get his wrist slapped (and loses rank) a time or two. But Kirk’s the dashingest hero in the universe, so no rules ever really apply to him anyway.

            • Tim

              Satie was a very letter-of-the-law sort of person, she probably felt more strongly for it being a duty to always hold firm on the directive. As no one else was shocked and it didn’t damage Picard’s credibility, she’s probably in the minority on that belief.

              Based on a few TOS episodes where previous Captains contaminated cultures, one becoming like Nazi Germany, I can see the council throwing their arms up and wanting Captains hand’s tied in the field. I know the Prime Directive wasn’t formed then, I just mean that I can see a political bureaucracy putting such a rule in place despite it’s obvious flaws.

              But, like I said, based on the number of times Captains ignore it and don’t get punished, it really sounds like something that isn’t nearly as carved in stone as Picard claims.

              I guess I honestly just see it as a general order, like the others. I can see Kirk being chastised for violating General Order 12 if he did it several times in a short period of time. Especially if the one chastising
              him is a rule-book-thumping admiral that grew up in a court room.

              Speaking of Kirk though, you are so correct! Lol Even the laws of physics bent to his will.

            • Psychoanalyzing Satie is perhaps too far on this tangent =)

              I don’t want to say who, but I once discussed this PD business with one of the TNG writers. The impression I got (not just from that conversation, but the show et al) was that the PD sounded good, and they made a few early episodes to focus on it and how great it was. But since the rule doesn’t really make sense, it wasn’t possible to make a good show where a sympathetic character actually abides the rule. A person of conscience and compassion has to break it semi-constantly. 14 classes of exceptions. 14. The writer laughed when I mentioned the PD, “we broke it all the time!” And, if memory serves said it was basically about Vietnam.

              The writing isn’t a science, and the evolution and mismash of contradictory treatments is a limitation of the creative process that no one person controlled (especially after Roddenberry’s passing). This is really common in Trek; like when Data tried to kill an unarmed man (“The Most Toys”) after which he positively rubs in the defeat of his adversary, going out of his way to do so. But he doesn’t have emotions and can’t murder, right? Sure, unless you want to write a show that is entertaining and make characters that are human enough to care about.

            • Greg Price

              Fajo had previously kidnapped Data, tried to force Data into slavery to himself, murdered one person, and threatened to murder even more people if Data did not comply with his orders. It is disingenuous to describe him simply as an “unarmed man”. And I would hardly call his refusal to address the transporters’ detection that he had fired the disruptor “rubbing in the defeat of his adversary”, esp considering Fajo LIVED.

              This is an excellent essay, but you hurt your case several times by not correctly describing what actually happened in the episode.

            • I don’t mention Fajo in the essay, only the comment above. And I only mentioned it there to illustrate that Data, and the stories that revolve around Data, are not limited by hard logical parameters of the character. This is an observation praising the writing for erring on the side of being engaging instead of exacting. It wasn’t meant to be a critique of Data.

              But as a matter of fact, Data does rub Fajo’s face in his defeat. This doesn’t happen in the transporter room. It’s when Data visits Fajo in his cell. Data has no official reason to be there. He goes to tell him he has lost everything that he values. When Fajo suggests it must give him pleasure, Data throws Fajo’s own insulting words back at him: No sir. I do not feel pleasure. I am only an android. (paraphrased). For someone not taking pleasure in Fajo’s downfall, Data sure did know exactly what to say to maximize Fajo’s comeuppance.

    • mahargg

      In my opinion, 2 different philosophies have become muddled: not interfering with the development of less technologically advanced societies, and isolationism.

      Self-determination is the guiding principle here – interference could compromise that principle. So I’m OK with having that principle enshrined in law in the Trek universe. Will there be extenuating circumstances, mitigating factors, controversy and moral ambiguity? You bet! But that can happen with most laws – we don’t say there shouldn’t be a law against murder because killing in self-defense can be controversial. That’s why we have courts and legislatures.

      Natural disasters can of course affect the development of a society. And getting run down by a truck could affect your personal development. However, in that case, you would welcome the interference of being pushed out of the way in the nick of time.

      So I disagree with some of Capt. Picard’s decisions because I don’t think natural disasters should be subject to the prime directive. (However, I concede this is highly speculative – it might be possible that a society wouldn’t want aid in such situation. One suspects this particular lesson would be learned the hard way.) I disagree with Timothy Chambers in the sense that this would compel the Federation to a moral obligation to save every species. There’s a difference between driving past an injured motorist without stopping and spending all of your time driving around looking for injured motorists. And it should not be supposed that we would have the capacity to render aid in every circumstance.

      Where things would get dicey / interesting is in situations where the disaster could not be prevented without interfering with the society’s development in ways that have nothing to do with the impending disaster. Or when an adversary is already interfering.

      However, this scenario may be rare based on the one planet for which we have any facts (our own). To the best of our knowledge, we’ve muddled through the last 5 billion years without interference, despite the occasional huge asteroid, the invention of thermonuclear weapons and the dumping of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere. The latter may raise an interesting point, though: how would we feel if aliens swooped in and told us to stop driving our cars because they knew there was no other way to prevent an ecological disaster that would kill millions? (It might be a dicey / interesting question for the aliens, but for us, not so much!)

      Now for the isolationism — the desire to avoid entanglement in other people’s problems, which may or may not be justified, depending on the circumstances. In my opinion, this should not be within the purview of the prime directive. If you’re in a war with someone, or about to be, it’s already affecting the development of both societies. This is where the discussion of the Allies’ response to Nazi Germany and the Federation’s response to the Cardassians belongs.

      As for analogies with our current world, discussion about the prime directive is academic because it is about 500 years too late. We now live on a small world, and know all about each other. In that sense, we’re continually “interfering” with each other. The prime directive won’t become relevant unless we devise a method of interstellar travel and then encounter societies less technologically advanced than our own.

      However, isolationism is very pertinent to us. In my mind, it’s an important distinction. It’s the difference on one hand of making a decision to rescue a neighbor’s child from a burning building. On the other, it’s deciding how to interfere when you know your neighbor is beating his wife. In neither situation do you dictate to your neighbors what school their children should attend.

      • tristen

        Nice. But i am not convinced that Self-determination should be The Guiding Principle as much as say ‘Innocent until proven Guilty’. Witness the uncontacted tribes of Peru that have been (allegedly) stealing from local outposts and their fellow tribes. Possible violence and abduction within and of other tribes have been speculated upon. Further, non-choice and near-slavery have been imposed on most female members and the perpetually uneducated children within the tribe (allegedly). Allow self-determination for ‘academic interest’/ conservation/ internal issues, etc., reasons? Minimum Human Rights should allow nearly any level of ‘thoughtful’ intervention/ interference/ disruption, provided it minimized collateral damage, etc., of course.

    • Wow, author must live in a straw man factory to have access to so many.

      • If you have an argument to make, then make it. Mere accusation is mighty hollow.

        • I agree, sorry, I am super busy, wife flooded the bathroom immediately as I said that, got distracted. Will provide momentarily.

    • Pingback: What Star Trek Taught Me About Leadership - Idealist Careers()

    • mike4ty4

      I want to point out something interesting I realized about the Prime Directive when it comes to aliens, because Star Trek is all about aliens.

      Aliens, having evolved in different worlds to have different brains, will likely have different structures of cognition than humans. As a result, any intervention becomes quite suspect since we can assume even less about a barely-known alien culture than about a human culture. With human cultures, that thread of “human nature”, however fungible it may or may not be, is still there. With aliens, it’s a whole different “nature”.

      This article:


      by Robert A. Freitas, deals with the idea of alien psychology. I wonder how this complicates/simplifies/changes/modifies the whole idea of intervention when it comes to aliens. Although I’d suspect there would still be some things that would probably be common with humans due to the universality of Darwinian evolution, such as the drive for survival, so it may still be justified to try and avert disasters, although we may have to be prepared to deal with some weird quirk of their psychology we didn’t expect.

      • I think that’s an interesting point, but Star Trek isn’t about reality. The aliens are just analogs for cultures. It’s a story-telling device.

    • tristen

      The phrase I like most in your post is “intellectually lazy”. This describes most reasoning for failed or under-performing attempts at any large scale or sensitive/controversial ‘project’. There is a concept in Engineering (as well as many other professions, I would imagine) referred to as ‘due diligence’ the idea of acting reasonably in trying to research, assess, and analyze as much data on the situation as is currently deemed reasonable by reasonably-intelligent people (not a quorum or democracy, you may note). Key word: ‘reasonable’. Not all the data. Not 100% confidence. Reasonable as defined by a professional (if appropriate) acting with a level of care and knowledge that reflects the actions of most similar professionals (if appropriate). Of course it helps if the actions under discussion has been undertaken enough in the past to establish reasonable.

      That all being said –the easy part- we, of course, cannot dismiss risk tolerance, acceptable collateral damage, and future circumstances foregone. These highly variable/sensitive ideas usually form the controversy that can label someone or something as having values ranging from ‘mad scientist’ to ‘impotent spectator and collaborator by absenteeism’. How do you argue with someone who simply says ‘it was worth it’ – a point-scoring system? a non-binding poll? the wishes of a committee of Ph.Ds or elected officials? the mass medias favourite: a ‘court’ of public opinion? historical precedent from 200 years ago? the values that align with the richest country? the strongest country? a professional that has been labelled as an ‘ethicist’? top world ‘expert’? a panel of ‘appointed’ supreme court judges?

      • tristen

        My point is that the argument starts to become ‘what kind of world do we want’ and how may people support that ‘path’ and/or ‘destination’. And this point is far beyond ‘moral laziness’. When a problem is less about ‘reacting correctly’ and is more about creating precedent for future solutions or creating/reinforcing a path that will set up a ‘type’ of world, then we get into some serious controversy that strays so far into the hypothetical that we get conceptually constipated in even how to approach it. A good example is on climate change. I consider myself very left on most of the common ideology spectrum tests, yet I believe that climate change, though real, is not important when compared to increasing growth, wealth, and technology, even at the cost of loss of habitat or the cultural homelands of some peoples. Am I a dangerous monster? Maybe. Until you understand my assumptions, expectations, and my rationale for acceptable losses/ sacrifices/ risks. I have extrapolated beyond the current prevailing values in considering by current approaches. For I believe that all norms and mores are fluid and tend to a rational future trajectory. I tend to place my value system in a place that will be more acceptable in the future in hopes that it will lead to a future that left-ish people would rather live in anyway. For I believe that one of the greatest hypocrisies of today is that people live/support a value system day-to-day that will not lead them to the type of world they will want to live/support in in 20 years time. Yet they will still complain now and will complain then.

    • tristen

      I believe that the major flaw with the Prime Directive as it is portrayed in ST is that there is almost never a situation where an instant decision has to be made. (Instant as defined by seconds or minutes not hours). I say this because it seems that the Enterprise is almost always in communication range of Starfleet, no? Picard’s first reaction in any case where he has more than 5 minutes to make a ‘society size’ decision would be to contact Starfleet and make use of their 100s of experts to create a sophisticated plan of action. I know this is contradictory to an entertaining future military federation with a free-wheeling gang of super-wise space-navy types seeking out new civilizations – it doesn’t interfere with my enjoyment of the show. Just sayin’. But seriously, hasn’t Starfleet always been contactable? Has there ever been a region of space or amount of ‘far-flungedness’ that prevents communication? I can recall several times where Starfleet was contacted for other non-grandiose reasons, but had they gone out of their way to be in range at those times? I suppose this is a similar argument that ‘cell phones’ would destroy many of the action/adventure, thriller, mystery, etc., movies/tv shows in the past due to the convenience of instant communication. Ho-hum.

    • Greg Price

      “In the Trek film Insurrection,
      Picard stages an.. well an insurrection against Star Fleet admirals and
      works to help an alien race in total violation of the Prime Directive. ”

      Uh, no. Picard is attempting to PREVENT Adm Dougherty and the Son’a from violating it by forcibly removing the Baku from their world to harvest the metagenic particles (and destroying the planet in the process). It is a complete abrogation of the PD and a severe violation of Federation law. (That it appears to have the tacit consent of the Federation Council is an indictment of the Council, not the PD in this case.)

      It is a situation similar to the US government forcibly removing Native Americans from their tribal lands so that gold mining can take place (which is happening right now in the real world, btw).

      Now if you want to argue that Insurrection’s script is flawed in that it forces a needless choice (Baku vs metagenic particles), I can agree there. It would be easy to establish a medical facility well away from the Baku village where the off-worlders could benefit from the planet’s regenerative effects without impacting the Baku.

      • Both are violating the PD. Now, we may find it a sensible choice because the outcomes are obviously stark. But that’s exactly why the PD is so useless- it prevents you from reasoning about consequences. Picard could have resigned his commission and protested Star Fleet publicly without breaking the PD himself. The Admiral’s law breaking doesn’t entitle Picard or anyone else to break laws (or moral directives like the PD).

        • Greg Price

          I’m afraid you still have it wrong. Picard’s intervention is authorized BY the PD as it is to prevent/correct a prior violation (Dougherty and the Son’a).

          The situation is akin to a police officer finding another police officer engaged ina kidnapping and is subsequently forced to shoot them. Ordinarily that would be murder (or at least attempted murder), but the action is authorized because it is in defence of a third party and to stop a violation of the law by another.

          Kirk faced a similar, if not more violent situation in “A Private Little War”. Ordinarily he could not have acted to aid the Hill People against the Village People, except that the Klingons had given them firearms. The PD authorized Kirk to restore the balance between the two tribes by arming the Hill People.

          You argue that the PD prevents reasoning about consequences. Picard’s intervention is all ABOUT preventing consequences. The consequences of not intervening against Dougherty and the Son’a are: the planet is destroyed, and the Baku are forcibly relocated.

          Your suggested route of resigning and publicly protesting would not work because there was no time as the collector was ready to activate. Thus Picard’s direct action is reasonable and defensible under the doctrine of emergency.


          Lastly, Picard’s actions are required of him under the soldier’s obligation to refuse illegal orders, and not permit others to carry them out.

          • Your correction is a cogent one. However, Picard’s considerations in Insurrection, that one form of interference and disruption is ethical because it prevents a graver one, is exactly the kind we don’t see from him in similar circumstances. In the next film, Picard dispenses with all concern for the PD entirely. It’s hard not to get the message that what matters is how much Picard likes the people, how similar they are to him, and how ultra white they are, and how heroic he looks in the screenplay.

            • Greg Price

              Except Picard HASN’T interfered with the Baku at all. They remain on their planet free to go about their lives as they wish. BECAUSE Picard stopped Dougherty and the Son’a.

              Picard had a positive duty under the PD to stop Daugherty and the Son’a. Starfleet officers are required, in the event of discovering a PD breach, to act to contain the breach and if possible to correct the damage. That’s in the PD itself. And that’s exactly what Picard did.

            • I don’t think it’s that clear. The Son’a and the Baku are the same race. That makes their scuffle essentially a civil war. In previous situations of civil war (Klingon, Bajoran) the Fed position is non-interference. Admiral Dougherty is clearly violating the PD by helping the Son’a. That means Picard’s duty is to stop Dougherty from meddling, but not to save the Baku. Technically, Picard is still violating the PD by getting involved.

              Now were I to use my own judgement, I’d say his actions are justified. But that’s the point of the whole essay here: we always need to use judgement and consider all the circumstances in a situation.. not apply some mindless draconian rule about not getting involved that could tie your hands while civilizations needlessly perish.

    • gbonkers666

      The only thing is that Kirk only violated it when the Trio or anyone of his crew were directly involved. From rescuing Sulu in The Return of the Archons or freeing his ship from the Vaal the Computer, Kirk and the crew intervened only to save his people.

    • Pingback: Unexpected Lessons from the USS Enterprise: How Star Trek Taught Me About Leadership - Idealist Careers()

    • Joe

      “We’re told early and often in the series that mankind has “evolved” beyond its former pettiness and brutality, demonstrating that such problems as war, economic iniquity, and factionalism can simply be socially engineered away.”

      ^You are thoroughly mistaken.
      Without the energy and technological revolutions on Earth to pave the way for unlimited resources, humanity may not have halted greed and hostilities. In “Time’s Arrow,” the character for Mark Twain says “I come from a time when men achieve power and wealth by standing on the backs of the poor, where prejudice and intolerance are commonplace and power is an end unto itself.” Those problems are eliminated with limitless resources from replication (and anti-matter reactors), with even the smallest amount of decency.

      I’m an engineer. I find it highly ironic that a self-proclaimed scientist would take the moral high ground, citing “Ultra-liberal idealism,” without immediately discussing the involvement of technology. You have ignored important facts to suit your agenda! They didn’t just will away wars with “social engineering.” When nearly all conflicts in human history stem from resources and land, creating a society of essentially limitless resources seems to eliminate the need for conquest.

      I find this article to be a jab at a political agenda more than a proper criticism of what the prime directive actually achieves. You say it yourself, but then why would it have anything to do with the prime directive if the analysis is flawed? The only proper argument you make is in saying that intervening in the Second World War was necessary. Does that have anything to do with the prime directive in the 24th century? Nah

      You look at this debate almost as a God given (as in uniformly just for all species and planets in the universe) moral code vs. respecting the Federation’s boundaries. To Klingons, an honorable death means more than most everything else, but humans consider ritualistic suicide immoral. Should we intervene in their society’s system of laws because we don’t like it? Using the Symbiosis episode as an example, where does that leave us after we intervene? Now we need to play moderator between the cultures? Now we need to occupy the situation? Must we give them our set of morals to live by? How long do we monitor the situation and involve ourselves? What if the subjugated race wants revenge and starts a war because they were being exploited? Now it looks like we are occupying the territory to maintain our moral code. What if we did this every time we came across what we would call moral injustice? How many smaller occupations across the entire Federation would we be involved in? Now doesn’t it seem like imperialism?

      When equating this to human history, it is not a fair assessment. We are all human here, of the same make up. Other cultures from other worlds would not be wired like we are, so why would we impose our moral structure on them? Cultures are admitted into the Federation if they are willing to abide by our system of laws and rules. There are many cultures that aren’t admitted because they don’t meet the criteria, but does that make them wrong? No, I would argue that they are just not similar minded, not objectively immoral. You’re trying to make this into an argument about how liberal Hollywood is, disagreeing with the logic inherently because it doesn’t conform to your political beliefs here on Earth.

      Calling it moral laziness is insulting your own intelligence. “We should carefully consider our actions and inactions, and we should try to make life better for those who share the planet with us.” <- No one would disagree with that, but you are refusing to look at this prime directive debate in the lens of different species from different worlds. In doing so, citing a planetary civil war (wars on Earth) as evidence that the prime directive is lazy is nonsense. Maybe there is a highly superior civilization that is watching our own wars and not involving themselves because that would cause chaos. Are you saying that the aliens not involving themselves in our own injustice is immoral? Maybe this hypothetical alien's system of laws states that subjugation is legal and they find us to be highly moral (Ferengi). The point is, they have no right to interfere with our natural development. The Federation is not looking to play God with civilizations on the grounds of "your actions are against our morals!"

      I cannot deny your logic of saying that the prime directive was (in part) intended to be metaphors for the US involvement in wars. Speaking directly about the show, however, this view is irrelevant.

      • Those problems are eliminated with limitless resources from replication (and anti-matter reactors), with even the smallest amount of decency.

        Sorry, but you’re just mistaken here. There is no point in a Trek series where abundance is given as the explanation for utopia. Go ahead, prove me wrong by citing the show. Your fictionalized Twain quote doesn’t really do the job, as even in the future and even in Star Fleet many people take power as an end unto itself (See The Pegasus, The Drumhead). Moreover, the fantastic technology is incredibly dangerous as an enticement to war or an implement of power. People who crave power are never satiated; they don’t care if nobody is starving. No Emperor ever said “well I control a million square miles; that’s enough, I’ll stop.” They kept going until they literally couldn’t go on. There’s no reason to think this wouldn’t happen with replicators and antimatter engines, either… unless there’s a parallel but different social evolution at the same time that is by no means guaranteed.

        Also, in the film First Contact, contact with aliens is listed as a prime reason why humanity unites and rises from the darkness. Not post-scarcity or super-abundance.. the humans of that time lived in crappy little shacks.

        Should we intervene in their society’s system of laws because we don’t like it?

        Maybe. Maybe not. It isn’t always clear. What is clear, is that we have to use our judgment and reason about causes and effects. Not mindlessly adhere to some unwavering “never intervene” principle that would have us literally ignore Nazi death camps.

        When equating this to human history, it is not a fair assessment

        Yes it is. in Trek, other species are intentional, direct narrative analogs of other cultures on Earth. Yes, this doesn’t literally make sense. It’s fiction. Fantasy. Story. If you reject that premise, there’s really no reason to be watching the show. That is the reason the stories exist. So we can explore moral/economic/etc aspects of culture and sociology.

        • joe

          Troi literally says that humanity eliminated currency. You think they just decided “lets give up on the whole economy idea because of social reform!!” Obviously it was abundance of resources. I don’t think it’s fair to say that we would know exactly what would happen if we achieved limitless energy because there is no equivalent in history. But in this show, they say that it had a peaceful impact. You’re drawing upon irrelevant historic details to make conclusions on possible futures and their societies. Why bring up dictators? Are there any dictators in the Federation that you could equate that idea with? If a group of scientists/engineers created means to generate limitless energy and end world hunger (among many problems) why are we assuming we would use it to conquer the world, rather than spread it to save the world? You have a hugely pessimistic view of the future.

          …We are only able to achieve contact with aliens with abundance of resources and a united species. Peace is much easier when you can feed, clothe, house, protect, and inspire everyone on the planet with new technology and limitless energy.

          Yes, as a story it is designed to discuss history and morality, but as a human trajectory for space travel, a non-interference policy seems necessary, no? You didn’t answer any of my questions of what to do and how far we would go if we disagree with another culture’s laws and treatment of it’s people. Saying “It depends” is lazy and hypocritical. You aren’t in the position of designing an interplanetary government and have no idea what decisions would need to be made to do so. You picked a bunch of examples and said to the effect of “those darn liberals” or “that darn doctrine.” You also didn’t address the God complex that you seem to posses in your argument of how it would be the Federation’s prerogative to (seemingly always, from your article) step in.

          Here’s an analogy:
          If you had a lake that was a public drinking source and needed to keep it clean, would you make a rule to prevent people to swim in it? Let’s say that rule was implemented, and now mostly everyone abides by it, but some still swim. Sure, the odd person swimming there won’t affect it much because it is still purified anyway, but it is a deterrent. Well, you might say, if it is purified anyway, why not remove the rule because it doesn’t seem like it matters. Now a lot of people swim there, and treat it as a public lake because it is not forbidden to swim there. Well, now you have too many people there putting their oils and pollution into the water, so that is no good either. Maybe you should make more specific rules? Maybe a number of people limit? Maybe a time limit? Maybe a cleanliness directive? Is all of this worth it? Maybe just saying “no swimming” gets the job done.

          You keep citing “mindless” decisions made by captains, admirals, and writers, but that leads me to believe you never actually watched the episodes because Picard, among other (fictional, yes) characters, had to make some serious decisions. You’re criticizing something on a very personal and deep level without properly giving credit to what it is/stands for, and using it to push you small agenda: liberals are stupid. You take such a moral high ground like it’s your duty to show up a dead film/show creator. I’m having a hard time wrapping my head around why you don’t use real history to make your argument of interference instead of picking situations out of context from a show placed in the 24th century. Not to mention, you say that they posses “slavish devotion” to the prime directive, but where is your evidence for their devotion? You show how often they break it, but where was the episode where it started with some sort of conflict, Picard decided not to do anything because of the prime directive, fly away, and it’s over? Because no one cares, doesn’t make for a good show, etc. Can you really disagree with the choices he has made? Do you honestly believe that a full blown war to prevent subjugation is always the better option than non-interference?

          What do you do, eh? Theorize why people are full of shit and lazy? I take it personally because I dream of a globally unified world that continues into space. It’s my job. I’m a spacecraft propulsion engineer. This show was a major influence in my career path.

    • Bradley Holliday

      For those who have never read the exact wording of 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, Federation citizen and/or representative 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/installation, 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.

    • Pingback: [Portal] Błękitny Świt | MEDITATION()

    • Pingback: CoBra ~ Alvorada Azul - O Evento e a Ascensão()

    • Pingback: Cobra Update: Blue Dawn, Rapport over de Age of Aquarius Activatie, 20 januari 2020 | Info-blog The Event-NL()

    • Pingback: طلوع آبی دوشنبه، ۲۰ ژانویه ۲۰۲۰ – اتحاد نور()

    • Pingback: Cobra Update 1-20-20… “Blue Dawn” | Kauilapele's Blog()

    • Pingback: Blaue Morgendämmerung (Blue Dawn) – Cosmic Vibrations()

    • Pingback: Spływ niebieskiego światła | Mistyka Życia()