THE PRIME DIRECTIVE

MAIN DISCUSSION

PRIME DIRECTIVE = CRIME DIRECTIVE?

Does the existence of the Prime Directive amount to a crime?

It could be argued that the Prime Directive, especially as it evolved to be such a blanket non-interference directive, is unreasonable and as such, given its seriousness, is a crime, as it requires Starfleet officers to swear in an oath, and uphold it, that if necessary they would sacrifice their lives and starships to comply with the Prime Directive - is it morally right that there should ever be such absolute circumstances? Is it morally right to require people to sacrifice their lives in circumstances they believe are wrong? (one could argue that only those prepared to do so should apply to become Starfleet personnel). How far is a Starship Captain entitled to decide that his crew should be sacrificed, for instance should he always consult them first, would they have a vote, would the decision be by majority vote, would there be time to consult them, in what circumstances should he consult them, etc? Or at the other extreme, should 'circumstances alter cases' always be considered? What if the captain decides unilaterally to destroy his ship in order to uphold the Prime Directive and there is no time for all or even some escape pods to leave the ship, and there are non-Federation personnel on board? Taking the example of killing (let us use this fairly neutral term rather than the emotive word 'murder'): there are instances throughout Earth's history including in the 21st century where mass killing is viewed as more desirable than not doing so, and mass murder was even favoured against certain sovereign states as a pre-emptive strike due to the fear of weapons of mass destruction (if or how politicians present the case for carrying out military action is another issue; much is said about politicians, some of it complimentary but most of it accurate).

It might be argued that the non-interference principle is moral cowardice, providing an excuse not to intervene or even render aid. Dr Pulaski in [TNG: Pen Pals] says as much: "I have a problem with that kind of rigidity. It seems callous and even a little cowardly." The Enterprise staff discussion, from which that is a quote, is worth reading in full - see the episode entry. Above, in the section APPLYING THE PRIME DIRECTIVE TO SPACEFARING SOCIETIES, is described the Federation's citing of the Prime Directive as grounds for its policy of declining to aid the Bajorans during the brutal Cardassian occupation of Bajor. Non-interference (the term "interference" is unfortunate as it assumes that interference is a crime or at least something that by default should be avoided) really means refusing to get involved, and that can be considered morally wrong i.e. a crime, in certain circumstances. A possible way of gauging whether the Prime Directive is viable as a principle is to compare Star Trek situations with similar humanitarian crises experienced on Earth in the 20th and 21st centuries (and of course several Star Trek stories deliberately invite the comparison). For instance, on Earth, if a country suffers a famine (for whatever reason, natural or political), do we sit back and let the population starve? No, we try to help (whether or not we succeed, or whether by doing so we bolster a possibly tyrannical regime or whether villains siphon off aid money into their pockets - these are not at issue here). The argument for refusing to render aid to victims of planets who suffer large-scale catastrophes seems to be: we dare not act because they would learn about extra-terrestrials when they do not already know about them. For millennia, Mankind dreamt of visitors from space, of travelling into space, of meeting them. Why should inhabitants of other planets not be the same? Would it be too disastrous for them (or us?!) to meet aliens and learn that interstellar flight was available to other species? Even if sociologists believe it might harm a species' thinking processes and thus affect a society's development, why is that so to be avoided, to the extent of allowing a species to die? An argument in favour of non-interference is that prevents foreign contamination of native unique language and customs, but is it justifiable to allow mass death or species extinction in order to prevent foreign contamination? Language and customs are always developing (except maybe in stagnant societies such as that of the Vaalians and Landru's people in [TOS: The Apple] and [TOS: The Return Of The Archons] respectively) - does it matter to that extent where they receive the influence? Norman French influence on Anglo-Saxon was imposed in England (sometimes by law) from 1066 onwards and the English language developed accordingly - who is to say that lack of such influence would have been better? Indeed, it could be argued that variety and evolution of language and customs from any influence add to the 'life's rich tapestry'. The adherence to Starfleet's principle of non-interference means that by 2364 Starfleet had allowed six races to die out. Extinction means that language and customs do not, of course, survive either.

Another argument in favour of the Prime Directive is that there must be rules i.e. a definition of the point at which a society can be contacted, this being when they achieve space travel on their own. This can be countered by asking, again, why does it have to be that point? It does assume that societies evolve in generally the same way, and basically also implies that they are humanoid not just in appearance but in thinking. The 'silver blood' lifeform(s) on the Demon planet seems unlikely to evolve in the 'normal' way i.e. primitive communities leading to industrial towns and the development of technology, ref. [#92 Demon]. Whilst warp-capable societies making first contact with primitive societies which could not cope with the concept of interstellar travel is understandably forbidden as any viable exceptions would be few and far between (we should not assume there would not any exceptions at all), what is actually wrong with contacting a pre-stellar society that knows the concept and wants to reach out to the stars? The Boraalian Vorin, in [TNG: Homeward], comes from a primitive society, but upon accidentally leaving the holodeck and entering the rest of the Enterprise-D, Picard explains his true circumstances. Vorin quickly understands. Picard regrets, upon Vorin's suicide, that he could "not bridge the gap", but actually what Vorin could not cope with was having to live with his people again and keep his newfound knowledge a secret. Maybe the rest of the Boraalians would eventually understand about stellar travel in the same way that Vorin does. The proto-Vulcans in [TNG: Who Watches The Watchers] understand stellar travel readily enough, and may have understood it before Nuria their leader was even taken aboard the Enterprise-D.

Humans apparently dominate, if not the Federation, then Starfleet Command. (The reason is due to television drama reasons; one of the series' main functions is to hold up a mirror to the human condition, which cannot be done if most of the movers and shakers are aliens; but if the Federation were more plausibly represented on television, humans would probably be the minority.) This means that, consciously or subconsciously, it seems implicitly believed that a species contacted and helped into the space age should not be so contacted as it would resent it, in the way that Mankind felt caged by and rather resentful toward the caution of the Vulcans between first contact in 2063 and the Vulcans reluctantly giving permission for Man's first deep space mission carried out by the NX-01 Enterprise in 2151 ref. [Enterprise] stories such as the premiere [Enterprise: Broken Bow]. But Mankind is only one species. Why should other or even all other species react the same way as Man?

It could be argued that the Prime Directive contradicts Gene Roddenberry's own beliefs as regards an international and interstellar community whose members help each other. This argument arises especially in the [TNG]-era definition of non-interference in any society especially one less advanced than the Federation (though that qualification is not always applied), and it is possible that Roddenberry did not realise fully what the implications would be of extending the Prime Directive that far. One reason, among others often cited by Trekkies, for loving Star Trek is that it is optimistic, upbeat. It began with [TOS] in which Starfleet heroes represent the best qualities - courage, integrity, honour, intelligence, confidence, derring-do, the flawed characters acknowledging this and learning from it often thereby overcoming it, wanting to help others, facing interesting problems and coming up with interesting solutions, and also vulnerability and the willingness to accept help..... Essentially this has not changed. In the future depicted in Star Trek, common sense triumphs over evil, Mankind co-operates with each other and with other species; no more travails of disease, war or poverty. In this future everyone is allowed to be the best they can be, plus they know they can rely on others to help and are also ever willing to help in return - everyone in the Federation whether on an individual scale or scaled up to planets helping other planets. Roddenberry's message, via a multi-racial crew, may have been forward-thinking for his time but is still relevant today, however idealistic or romanticised. Therefore, with an emphasis on people helping each other and bonding and together creating a better future......er, there is the Prime Directive. Probably there would be little quibble with the Prime Directive as espoused in [TOS] or in other Star Trek such as [TNG] and [Voyager] in which pre-spacefaring societies are not interfered with, because one has to draw a limit somewhere and, as regards television entertainment, there are plenty of pre-warp society stories in Star Trek and further back along the evolutionary scale does not seem to matter so much. But is the Prime Directive a benevolent or simply a practical policy? Stating no interference in any society, as by the [TNG] era, is too sweeping and, for spacefaring civilisations seems uncharacteristic of what the Federation stands for. When the Enterprise-D stands by and allows the Boraalians to be wiped out in [TNG: Homeward], could not the Enterprise crew have begun some evacuation at least; when Rozhenko explains his holo-simulation plan we wonder why that could not have been used. Of course, it is precisely to rein in emotional responses and unpredictable consequences that the Prime Directive exists. But we think, as Picard does with regard to making a decision that would, one way or another, affect a future timeline - living is making choices, their past is my future and as far as I am concerned it has not been written yet; and also as Data says in [TNG: Homeward] - there are no guarantees, we must do the best we can. Faced with a dilemma of whether to help people or follow a Prime Directive-style rule, I would feel, as Dr Crusher does in [TNG: Symbiosis]: "It's hard to be philosophical when faced with suffering." If one had the choice between donating towards helping victims of a famine or war, should or would one ignore it citing the Prime Directive? Historians, even historians of the future Star Trek universe, try not to view things too much through the eyes of their home-era culture, yet even if human attitudes change by the 23rd century, as a tv show Star Trek portrays its characters as 20th/21st century humans, so the dilemma remains, and it would seem to be the greatest dilemma of the Prime Directive.

Of course, on Earth of the 21st century anyway, one would opt to help the victims, from compassion and because not to do so would feel wrong, and let the future write itself as it will ('après moi le deluge'; translation: "Me first in the shower", sorry, please search the Internet for definitions). As per the line in the film 'Southern Comfort': "Comes a time when you have to abandon your principles and do what's right." A consequence of this, however, on Earth of the 21st century as well as in space in the 24th century onwards, is that it might require continual interference thereafter in an attempt to get back to the status quo or to one particular ideal situation, like Annorax with regard to interference in timelines in [#76 and #77 Year Of Hell]. One knows the kind of situations when faced with them, just as our heroes know, but ultimately it is a matter of degree, and it is in deciding that thorny question that conundrums occur.