THE PRIME DIRECTIVE

MAIN DISCUSSION

INCONSISTENT APPLICATION OF THE PRIME DIRECTIVE

An argument against the Prime Directive is that it is inconsistently applied. That is an invalid argument. If the premise (the Prime Directive) is itself in error it should be abolished (or at least amended). The inconsistency of application does not invalidate a principle. Likewise, a principle is not valid just because it is applied (whether applied consistently or inconsistently). In 'civilised' societies on 21st century Earth, murder was illegal but records demonstrate that by no means all murderers were apprehended, and that sometimes a murderer was acquitted on a technicality or because the jury was swayed by emotional reasons contrary to the apparent weight of evidence; but does that mean that murder should have ceased to be illegal? The inconsistency is merely a problem and matters should be corrected so that the principle is applied consistently. Inconsistency of application, however, is an argument for amending the premise itself.

But it is all in the detail. If the Prime Directive is inconsistently applied always based on, say, humanitarian grounds, that is one form of inconsistency (one whose inconsistency should be correctable by the implementation of guiding definitions of priority humanitarian situations). But the Prime Directive is inconsistently applied based on a variety of considerations - humanitarian, and/or a planet's strategic importance and/or the circumstances in which a starship crew finds itself; and that is where the real difficulty lies since the number of factors to be taken into consideration multiply and the variables might be many. Since no one can predict the future, the variables produced by envisaging the outcome to the multiplicity of scenarios might even be infinite. How then can any single authority (e.g. Starfleet) or any single individual (the Starfleet captain in the field) be expected to be certain of making the correct decision. The answer of course is that in life usually there is rarely a decision that can be considered to be absolutely definitely the 'correct' decision - it is usually a matter of judgement. Irritating as it seems, "use your best judgement" is probably the most that can be expected. As Data tells Dr Crusher in [TNG: Homeward]: "There are no guarantees."

As Riker says in [TNG: Pen Pals]: "What a perfectly vicious little circle." Ultimately, a way to deal with issues of the Prime Directive is to watch the episodes and ask, "How do I feel about this situation?" albeit that the television viewer knows the scriptwriters are manipulating feelings by the way they have written the story. In [TNG: Homeward], for instance, we want the surviving Boraalians to go on surviving. In [TNG: Pen Pals], we want Sarjenka (and her people) to survive. Humanitarian feelings, and seeing/hearing the potential victims, as with Picard in [TNG: Pen Pals] on hearing Sarjenka's appeal broadcast to the staff meeting, is what counts. Whatever action is taken, to save or not to save, has an effect on the future as neutrality, i.e. non-interference, is not an option because that would mean (as Nikolai points out in [TNG: Homeward]) letting people die. Whether Starfleet crews should actively go around seeking people to save is another issue.