Deconstructing Star Trek Humans [Archive] - Giant in the Playground Forums

GenericGuy

2012-06-04, 02:51 AM

On the other hand the Prime Directive was meant to be a moving away from the idea of the White Man's Burden train of thought.
Also, their citizens seemed happy, life was basically post scarcity, medicine was hideously advanced. Like the Culture, sure, they were smug smugnuts of smugness, but they, at least thought, they pretty much had good reason to be.

But nearly every episode that ever dealt with the prime directive always had the crew decide it was okay to violate it, except Enterprise’s Dear Doctor episode (where Star Trek once again demonstrates it has no idea what evolution is).

I believe it was Eddington of DS9 who said “it’s easy to be a saint in paradise,” the average Federation citizen hasn’t known war, hunger, and being denied things you want. As Quark of DS9(can you tell which trek series was my favorite:smallbiggrin:) said of humanity, “Let me tell you something about hew-mans, nephew. They’re a wonderful, friendly people, as long as their bellies are full and their holosuites are working. But take away their creature comforts, deprive them of food, sleep, sonic showers, put their lives in jeopardy over an extended period of time… And those same friendly, intelligent, wonderful people, will become as nasty and as violent as the most bloodthirsty Klingon. You don’t believe me? Look at those faces, look at their eyes.” The people of the federation aren’t more “evolved,” they haven’t gotten past these things; they’ve just insulated themselves from them with help of technology, they have more in common with the eloi of the Time Machine if anything (essentially children and ignorant).

Ninjadeadbeard

2012-06-04, 02:59 AM

I believe it was Eddington of DS9 who said “it’s easy to be a saint in paradise,” the average Federation citizen hasn’t known war, hunger, and being denied things you want. As Quark of DS9(can you tell which trek series was my favorite:smallbiggrin:) said of humanity, “Let me tell you something about hew-mans, nephew. They’re a wonderful, friendly people, as long as their bellies are full and their holosuites are working. But take away their creature comforts, deprive them of food, sleep, sonic showers, put their lives in jeopardy over an extended period of time… And those same friendly, intelligent, wonderful people, will become as nasty and as violent as the most bloodthirsty Klingon. You don’t believe me? Look at those faces, look at their eyes.” The people of the federation aren’t more “evolved,” they haven’t gotten past these things; they’ve just insulted themselves from them with help of technology, they have more in common with the eloi of the Time Machine if anything (essentially children and ignorant).

+2 Internets to you, sir. One for being right, and another for having taste :smallamused:.

Yeah, Gene's concept of Evolution (cultural or otherwise) left a bit to be desired.

Ravens_cry

2012-06-04, 03:03 AM

But nearly every episode that ever dealt with the prime directive always had the crew decide it was okay to violate it, except Enterprise’s Dear Doctor episode (where Star Trek once again demonstrates it has no idea what evolution is).

At least Dr. Phlox doesn't.
Bonus points for dismissing the 'Evolution is "just a theory"' statement, negative 1000 points for getting evolution so. Damn. Wrong.:smallsigh:
DS9 was all about deconstructing Star Trek premise, which was one reason it was so polarizing I suppose. That and being far less episodic.
It had my favourite Star Trek love story in canon and for that I thank it..:smallsmile:

Avilan the Grey

2012-06-04, 03:19 AM

I believe it was Eddington of DS9 who said “it’s easy to be a saint in paradise,” the average Federation citizen hasn’t known war, hunger, and being denied things you want. As Quark of DS9(can you tell which trek series was my favorite:smallbiggrin:) said of humanity, “Let me tell you something about hew-mans, nephew. They’re a wonderful, friendly people, as long as their bellies are full and their holosuites are working. But take away their creature comforts, deprive them of food, sleep, sonic showers, put their lives in jeopardy over an extended period of time… And those same friendly, intelligent, wonderful people, will become as nasty and as violent as the most bloodthirsty Klingon. You don’t believe me? Look at those faces, look at their eyes.” The people of the federation aren’t more “evolved,” they haven’t gotten past these things; they’ve just insulted themselves from them with help of technology, they have more in common with the eloi of the Time Machine if anything (essentially children and ignorant).

This is so true, and also, thank you for posting my favorite Star Trek quote of all time :smallsmile:

Man on Fire

2012-06-04, 07:12 AM

You know, I often wonder why robots are frequently depicted as unemotional?

Because we are creating AI to be able to solve problems in the basis of various methods, translate language and pass Turing test, really only that last part required anything related to emotions and AI can just retend to have them.

It's the same thing with mathematics, why would robots be super good at maths? Sure, they have a computer for a brain, but DNA can be used (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DNA_computing)to preform certain kinds of complex equations; it doesn't mean we are.

Robots are programmed to, AI is made to solve problems, including mathematical ones, and is better at thinking schemas we use to solve our problems.

Avilan the Grey

2012-06-04, 07:39 AM

Because we are creating AI to be able to solve problems in the basis of various methods, translate language and pass Turing test, really only that last part required anything related to emotions and AI can just retend to have them.

Of course if we have learned anything it's this: We have a 50-50 chance of either being exterminated by our own creations, or being forced to teach extremely beautiful androids what love is.

Hmm...

Water_Bear

2012-06-04, 08:21 AM

The thing that always bothered me about TNG and Voyager was that the Humans just seemed hopelessly naive and pampered. They had these massive powerful warships, filled to the brim with hyper-advance technology, and they never really took advantage of it. Their biggest enemy was their own ideology.

That, and the fact that I never understood their ban on Transhumanism. It's not like they're afraid of having stronger smarter longer-lived people around, that's what the Vulcans are. Plus, how sad is it that a faster-than-light ship depends on the reflexes of an ordinary human to pilot it. Even a few small modifications like brain-computer interfaces would have solved 50% of the problems they ran into. Look at how awesome Seven of Nine was, and she had most of her cool implants stripped out!

I want to see a series where Captain Khan Noonien Singh, Science Officer Seven of Nine, and Dr Julian Bashir tool around the galaxy beating up Gorn and stopping genocidal wars on alien planets. Occasionally we can cut to engineering so that Data can tell us '[he's] giving her all she's got cap'n!' or Gary Mitchell can get framed for murder by Jack the Ripper's ghost. That would be a utopia. :smallcool:

Tavar

2012-06-04, 12:19 PM

To be fair, its pretty hard to write someone like that without making them sound like a horrendous prig.
Wesley, well, Wesley was another issue.
Star Trek wasn't just Rodenberry's baby. Like Lucas, he is the most well known name attached to it on the production end, but like any production of this size and type it had many fathers, and mothers.

True, but many of the problems seem to be rooted in Gene: the First Motion Picture was the one Gene had the most part in, and it's a pretty bad movie.

Wesley was Gene's favorite character, and the one he put quite a bit of time into. Yeah.

He's the one who rejected scripts with human emotions, because in his view ST humanity had evolved beyond that. It's not the writers or others, it's him.

Not all the blame can be laid at his feet, no. Certainly not all of TNG's flaws, especially the latter seasons, or possibly the horrible implications that the Prime Directive lead to, but there's some that can. It's not conjecture if you have quotes saying how the Writers wanted to do something, but Gene directly stopped it.

Oh, and on the Prime Directive, it was twisted long before Enterprise. I'd suggest looking at the this video (http://blip.tv/sf-debris-opinionated-reviews/prime-directive-analysis-5638650). Basically, it went from a good idea to a dogmatic belief.

The transhumanism bans stemmed from the in-universe Eugenics wars. Essentially, transhumanism turned out exceedingly badly in most situations, and thus it was just banned. When left vague it kinda worked, but as it was explored it fell flat.

Ravens_cry

2012-06-04, 03:28 PM

Huh, I always thought the lesson of the Eugenics Wars was meant to be "Don't try to 'fix' humanity, but let it change at its own pace".
For me the Eugencis Wars novels were . . .less than satisfying. :smallyuk:

Robots are programmed to, AI is made to solve problems, including mathematical ones, and is better at thinking schemas we use to solve our problems.
Oh sure, they can be programmed to, my objection is the idea that it is the default assumption. I can imagine robots being a little cantankerous about it. "What, do I look like a calculator to you, meatbag?!"

Gnoman

2012-06-04, 03:43 PM

McStabbington

2012-06-04, 05:51 PM

The Prime Directive warped between TOS and TNG. As seen in the original series, it was designed to prevent cargo cults and conquistador behavior on the part of the captains. More than one TOS episode shows the Enterprise being ordered to interfere in another culture in some way, usually in an attempt to prevent it's destruction (the two I'm recalling at the moment are Sarpedion's sun going nova, and asteroids attacking the planet inhabited by Indians). In at least one case, they were expected to interfere in a manner that held no stealth in an effort to save at least part of the society.

TNG changed that, with it being considered a crime to save a doomed race even when it would be possible to do so with said race having no idea anything had happened. In a way, this represents the spirits of the different shows. TOS was much more of an idealistic cowboy era, while TNG was much more of a bureaucratic, formalized setting. It is interesting to note that the former lacks most of the arrogance and condescension seen in the later series.

+1.

Moreover, I would add that Gene's view of "humanity" changed between TOS and TNG, and the change in the PD simply reflects this alteration. The humans on TOS tend uniformly to be decent, self-sacrificing and motivated to excel. But they were by no means perfect. In "Conscience of the King", we find out that Kirk survived an ethnic cleansing attempt on a colony world he lived on: the colony faced a shortfall of food and, rather than letting half the colony starve to death, the human governor of the planet instead executed half of the populace based on his own ideas of genetic superiority. In "Balance of Terror", the helmsman, whose family has a deep personal history with the Romulans, finds out that Romulans and Vulcans share a common genetic ancestry. As a result, he acts towards Spock in a way that Kirk himself labels "bigotry." And in "Errand of Mercy", Kirk himself reacts with absolute rage that the super-powerful Organians would prevent him from fighting the Klingons. The leader of the Organians, in fact, even gives Kirk a Picard speech about the value of war:

"We have the right –"
"To wage war, Captain? To kill millions of innocent people? To destroy life on a planetary scale? Is that what you're defending?"

So it's fairly clear that in any fair analysis, TOS treated humans as heroic, but not perfected. While they no longer fall prey to the evils of racism that plagued the late 60's, they clearly have their flaws and their blind spots. Where they've changed from modern humans is that they recognized that they had blind spots and worked to overcome them.

But in the years between TOS and TNG, I think Gene changed, and as a result his notion of what a "TNG human" changed with it. Like Lucas, he'd spent a decade or so being told that he was a visionary, rather than a guy who stumbled across a brilliant formula, and all those laurels poisoned him. Worse even than Lucas, Gene bought into the fan notion about how vastly improved his humans were, and he spent the rest of his career catering to that impulse. Unfortunately, all that really accomplished was nearly strangling the rebirth of Star Trek in the cradle.

Cikomyr

2012-06-04, 06:29 PM

One of the largest and brightest theme in TOS, which seemed to have went right over Roddenburry's head, is that the TOS humans are flawed, but they want and strife to overcome their flaws.

Having a de-facto flawless society means anybody not following the norm is a bigot/close minded/petty individuals. It's socially-enforced monolithic ways of thinking.

One of Gene's main rules about Star Trek behavior was "no conflict between the crew". Because, apparently, everybody always thought alike, and dissent from the Party Federation doctrine was passively frowned upon and fought.

Ravens_cry

2012-06-04, 06:41 PM

Good thing they didn't follow that rule all that closely. The id, ego, superego triangle of McCoy, Kirk and Spock was very much what gave the show a measure of cohesiveness.

Cikomyr

2012-06-04, 06:47 PM

Good thing they didn't follow that rule all that closely. The id, ego, superego triangle of McCoy, Kirk and Spock was very much what gave the show a measure of cohesiveness.

that was before Gene had an iron-grip on the IP of Star Trek.

Just like George Lucas, as long as he had people challenging and reining him in from being overly stupid, his vision was quite awesome. But when they are given god-like power over their creation, they just screw it up.

Ravens_cry

2012-06-04, 07:06 PM

that was before Gene had an iron-grip on the IP of Star Trek.

Just like George Lucas, as long as he had people challenging and reining him in from being overly stupid, his vision was quite awesome. But when they are given god-like power over their creation, they just screw it up.
Luckily, they quickly realized this, and TNG improved pretty quickly in my opinion.

Lord Seth

2012-06-04, 07:27 PM

Not all the blame can be laid at his feet, no. Certainly not all of TNG's flaws, especially the latter seasons, or possibly the horrible implications that the Prime Directive lead to, but there's some that can.The problems with the Prime Directive after TOS can indeed be laid at least partially on him, because "Pen Pals" had those issues and that aired back in season 2, when he still had a lot more direct influence on the show. Granted, it got worse later on (especially in Voyager), but it still started under his tenure.

It was just as inconsistent back then also. As I've said before, based on what we've seen on the show, it's tough to see how the Prime Directive isn't "never interfere with other cultures unless the plot needs you to."

Man on Fire

2012-06-04, 07:28 PM

Oh sure, they can be programmed to, my objection is the idea that it is the default assumption. I can imagine robots being a little cantankerous about it. "What, do I look like a calculator to you, meatbag?!"

Well, the thing is, AI is a part of CI, Computational Intelligence, whose main purpose is to solve problems via calculations. Sure, in practice AI and Ci doesn't overlap so much, but technically we're making Artifical Intelligence to make perfect calculator. Sure, in Strong Definition o AI this perfect calculator, or rather logic machine, is equal to human brain and can have all cognitive states it can, but it still doesn't change the fact that we made it to make solving our problems easier. That involves mathematics. And computers already are better than us at it, it's only natural to assume that in future they'll become even more better.

Oh, and on the Prime Directive, it was twisted long before Enterprise. I'd suggest looking at the this video (http://blip.tv/sf-debris-opinionated-reviews/prime-directive-analysis-5638650). Basically, it went from a good idea to a dogmatic belief.

Watching this I had realized the brillance of Warren Ellis' Switchblade Honey comics book - it took that Dogmatism present in Voyager and build a story showing how Federation based on following orders so blindly would really look like. Ellis made that comics because he didn't liked Voyager.

Cikomyr

2012-06-04, 08:24 PM

Watching this I had realized the brillance of Warren Ellis' Switchblade Honey comics book - it took that Dogmatism present in Voyager and build a story showing how Federation based on following orders so blindly would really look like. Ellis made that comics because he didn't liked Voyager.

If you ever have the chance, check out Babylon 5's "Act of Sacrifices". The Lumati displayed there are a very interesting expy of the Federation. They believe they should never mingle with inferior species, and never help them in any way, because helping another species' weaklings might damage and corrupt the overall gene pool, thus preventing a specie's true evolutionary path from ever being achieved.

[Dr. Franklin takes exception to the Lumati's disdain for medical treatment of the infirm.]
Correlilmerzon [through Taq]: It does not serve evolution.
Stephen Franklin: Well, my job isn't serving evolution — it's serving humanity, even when the patient isn't human.
Correlilmerzon [through Taq]: Yes, but what happens when the inferior, saved from the process of natural selection, begin to outnumber the superior?
Susan Ivanova: You know, I think we should all be moving on by now…
Franklin: I don't believe that any form of sentient life is inferior to any other.
Correlilmerzon [through Taq]: Yes. We often hear that argument from inferior species and their sympathizers.

Tavar

2012-06-04, 08:28 PM

Luckily, they quickly realized this, and TNG improved pretty quickly in my opinion.

From what I've heard, he had diminishing influence due to illness, not because they realized that he wasn't that great.

@Lord Seth: Huh. Didn't realize that, and considering how much worse it got latter on, didn't want to read to much into when it aired.

Gnoman

2012-06-04, 09:19 PM

From what I've heard, he had diminishing influence due to illness, not because they realized that he wasn't that great.

@Lord Seth: Huh. Didn't realize that, and considering how much worse it got latter on, didn't want to read to much into when it aired.

If you look at a lot of the stuff Roddenberry tried to slip into the universe, but was blocked from, it becomes clear that reining him in was a pretty common thing. The preface to the novelization of TMP, for example, shows Star Fleet members as atavistic throwbacks, while the majority of humanity lives in a hive-mind utopia.

hamishspence

2012-06-05, 01:54 AM

Might The Way to Eden (the one with the space hippies) have been a prototype for these "new humans"?

Ravens_cry

2012-06-05, 02:00 AM

If you look at a lot of the stuff Roddenberry tried to slip into the universe, but was blocked from, it becomes clear that reining him in was a pretty common thing. The preface to the novelization of TMP, for example, shows Star Fleet members as atavistic throwbacks, while the majority of humanity lives in a hive-mind utopia.
I really hope that isn't how we end up. Hive Minds scare the <expletive redacted/> out of me.

hamishspence

2012-06-05, 02:19 AM

Even grimdark tyrannical empires like the Imperium of Man, or the early version of empire in the Deathstalker books (specifically, in the time travel scenes in Deathstalker Coda tend to be scared of gestalts- humans become a hive mind.

On the other hand, sometimes they do turn out to be benevolent. Still intimidating though.

Scowling Dragon

2012-06-05, 02:28 AM

SF debris made a really good video about how the Prime Directive becomes more and more Dogmatic in later series culminating in genocide.

Avilan the Grey

2012-06-05, 02:28 AM

I really hope that isn't how we end up. Hive Minds scare the <expletive redacted/> out of me.

Mind Hives are better, though. Although I prefer my body, thank you very much.

Cikomyr

2012-06-05, 07:50 PM

Mind Hives are better, though. Although I prefer my body, thank you very much.

You mean...

Our body :smallamused:

McStabbington

2012-06-05, 09:37 PM

From what I've heard, he had diminishing influence due to illness, not because they realized that he wasn't that great.

@Lord Seth: Huh. Didn't realize that, and considering how much worse it got latter on, didn't want to read to much into when it aired.

He was quite explicitly kicked upstairs twice, albeit both times were done behind the scenes because of the fans' love of Gene. The first time was in the preliminary phases of Star Trek II. Gene couldn't handle a low budget or any of the story ideas, so he was quietly kicked into a desk job where he could sharpen pencils while Harv Bennet took over the actual work as Executive Producer.

This turned out to be great for two reasons. First, Bennet brought in Nicholas Meyer to write and direct, and it was his outsider status that provided such a breath of fresh air in the script for WoK. Second, Meyer even managed to turn some of the lemons Gene threw at him into lemonade. It's almost certain that Gene was the one who leaked to the fans that Spock would be killed in the film, which is remembered now as a brilliant move, but at the time of pre-production for Star Trek II was the "Greedo shot First" of its day. So Meyer head-faked by claiming to re-write the script to appease the fans, and changing the film to a) give Spock a fake death in the now-infamous Kobayashi Maru, and b) changing his death from the mid-show stunner taken over by Peter Preston to the heroic sacrifice we see in the finished film. It was a really weird occasion where Executive Meddling actually improved the story, albeit entirely inadvertantly.

The second time was in the early part of Season 3 in TNG. Roddenberry had made some very questionable moves behind the scenes in TNG: his friend Maurice Hurley has been accused of sexually harassing Gates McFadden and then chasing her off the show, as well as completely re-writing scripts in a . . . less than satisfactory manner. As evidence of Hurley's skills with a script, or lack thereof, I refer you to SF Debris' must-watch review of The Child (http://sfdebris.com/videos/startrek/t127.asp). Between that and his declining health, he was eventually removed. And while causation is not correlation, it coincided with a massive increase in script quality.

Omergideon

2012-06-06, 05:37 AM

The problems with the Prime Directive after TOS can indeed be laid at least partially on him, because "Pen Pals" had those issues and that aired back in season 2, when he still had a lot more direct influence on the show. Granted, it got worse later on (especially in Voyager), but it still started under his tenure.

It was just as inconsistent back then also. As I've said before, based on what we've seen on the show, it's tough to see how the Prime Directive isn't "never interfere with other cultures unless the plot needs you to."

I quite liked the episode Pen Pals. It dscusses and investigates the reasons behind the Prime Directive, it's good intentions and how there become some circumstances when simple humanity will not allow you to follow such a rule. In the episode "The Drumhead" it mentions Picard having violated the Prime directive on a number of occasions (9 I think) and how each one was documented and justified. Clearly starfleet has considered reasons when it might be justified to break this rule, with it being implied by that ep that preventing genocide is one of them.

The debate about the prime directive in Pen Pals seems to me to be about examining it from a number of perspectives (from evolutionary logic and "the natural order" to compassion and the difficulties in drawing a line, thus requiring hard rules) and allowing us to see how things go. And the ultimate failure of such reasoned logic behind a strict position to stand up to compassion and a need to help others. A much deeper look than the later dogma became. So if Pen Pals was Gene's perspective on the PD then honestly it is more nuanced than we think.

Muz

2012-06-07, 03:31 PM

I really hope that isn't how we end up. Hive Minds scare the <expletive redacted/> out of me.

Shh! Don't let Zuckerberg and the ghost of Steve Jobs hear you saying that! :smallwink:

Tavar

2012-06-07, 08:28 PM

The debate about the prime directive in Pen Pals seems to me to be about examining it from a number of perspectives (from evolutionary logic and "the natural order" to compassion and the difficulties in drawing a line, thus requiring hard rules) and allowing us to see how things go. And the ultimate failure of such reasoned logic behind a strict position to stand up to compassion and a need to help others. A much deeper look than the later dogma became. So if Pen Pals was Gene's perspective on the PD then honestly it is more nuanced than we think.

The issue is that the first two arguments really boil down to "God has a plan, and we must not interfere with it." I urge you to go watch the SF debris video I linked. It talks about the flaws in the argument in great detail.

I really like SF debris analogy:
You see an Infant trapped in a car that will catch fire soon, but you have the means to save it. Do you do so?

And, if you don't, do you expect to be congratulated on doing the moral thing?

Lord Seth

2012-06-07, 10:53 PM

I urge you to go watch the SF debris video I linked. It talks about the flaws in the argument in great detail.Actually he reviewed that episode in question here (http://sfdebris.com/videos/startrek/t141.asp). The relevant portions are at 5:48 and 11:15 if you don't want to see the whole thing (though I recommend it, it's funny!)

Omergideon

2012-06-08, 04:42 AM

The issue is that the first two arguments really boil down to "God has a plan, and we must not interfere with it." I urge you to go watch the SF debris video I linked. It talks about the flaws in the argument in great detail.

I really like SF debris analogy:
You see an Infant trapped in a car that will catch fire soon, but you have the means to save it. Do you do so?

And, if you don't, do you expect to be congratulated on doing the moral thing?

Seen it months ago, liked it, thought it was interesting. Did not agree with every point in the video. Though in the episode itself I do think it was part of the point to raise every possible objection to taking action possible, and since the "hubris" arguement was dismissed quickly it should never be seen as the be all and end all. When conducting a debate you should examine every viewpoint, even if you do not personally agree with it.

I also do think he glossed over and did not fully engage with Picard's comment on "what about a war?" Granted he makes a solid point, about how it is possible to be more nuanced than black and white absolutes of all or nothing. But Picard had a point about non-interference. That is, once you make allowances in certain smaller circumstances then doing so for other ones is much easier. Similar to the viewpoint Vimes expresses regarding bribes for prisoners......that is if you let a man off for a small crime you are the sort who would do so for a bigger crime it is "just a matter of haggling". Now of course a price may be absurdly high for some crimes, but the principle has been established.

To be clear I am not arguing for or against the PD in any given scenario*. I just think we must remember that for all the decisions and bluster made about it in the episode they do decide to help. Even if you granted the arguements aginst action by the PD were perfectly valid, they still did not convince people once they came face to face with those who suffered. This is a very important detail I think is often overlooked.

Also, Kid in a car is an analogy. Man on Spaceship that can effectively control the fate of planets IS in a very different situation. He has a wider range of influence that adds shades of grey to his decisions. To the haggling aspects I mentioned earlier. Not saying they should/n't have acted in PenPals, making that clear. Only that the analogy is not perfect and there are other aspects to consider.

*A debate on the actual morality of the PD as a whole is one I think best served by another thread, and not here as it is a very big debate.

Brother Oni

2012-06-08, 05:38 AM

Oh sure, they can be programmed to, my objection is the idea that it is the default assumption. I can imagine robots being a little cantankerous about it. "What, do I look like a calculator to you, meatbag?!"

I can just imagine the shenanigans if Data's personality was replaced with HK-47's from Star Wars.
It would be like early Seven of Nine, but with even less regard for human social mores and more condescension. :smallbiggrin:

Ashen Lilies

2012-06-08, 05:44 AM

And every encounter with the alien/monster of the week would begin and end with "Ready all torpedo bays, phasers to maximum." :smallbiggrin:

Brother Oni

2012-06-08, 06:39 AM

And every encounter with the alien/monster of the week would begin and end with "Ready all torpedo bays, phasers to maximum." :smallbiggrin:

Naah, that's Worf's job. Data's the science officer, so any Macguffin he whips up to solve the Problem of the Week will have built in weaponry capability (and probably serve well as a bludgeoning weapon in a pinch).

"Statement: Captain, I have taken the liberty of upgrading all the Away Team's combadges homing capabilities, so that more accurate fire support may be offered by the Enterprise.
"Warning: The Enterprise's phasers are still lethal to unprotected meatbags out to 20 metres, thus in line with Star Trek safety protocols, they will not fire any closer than that to our away team, unfortunately.
"Amusement: However I believe Commander Worf is part of this mission, therefore I have reduced this range to 10 metres for him. Klingons are surprisingly durable for meatbags and their physiology recovers extremely quickly from second degree burns and with only minimal scarring."

The Glyphstone

2012-06-08, 08:26 AM

Data's chassis with HK-47's personality would be...an interesting combination.

Wardog

2012-06-08, 09:21 AM

But nearly every episode that ever dealt with the prime directive always had the crew decide it was okay to violate it, except Enterprise’s Dear Doctor episode (where Star Trek once again demonstrates it has no idea what evolution is).

Maybe Star Trek is set in a parallel universe where evolution follows Lamarkian principles.

It would be the only way to explain... pretty much anything and everything involving evolution or biology in the show.

Tavar

2012-06-08, 11:25 AM

Seen it months ago, liked it, thought it was interesting. Did not agree with every point in the video. Though in the episode itself I do think it was part of the point to raise every possible objection to taking action possible, and since the "hubris" arguement was dismissed quickly it should never be seen as the be all and end all. When conducting a debate you should examine every viewpoint, even if you do not personally agree with it.
And in the videos, he notes that the hubris argument is dismissed quickly. But the Hubris argument is made at several other points, most notable in Dear Doctor and Voyager.

I also do think he glossed over and did not fully engage with Picard's comment on "what about a war?" Granted he makes a solid point, about how it is possible to be more nuanced than black and white absolutes of all or nothing. But Picard had a point about non-interference. That is, once you make allowances in certain smaller circumstances then doing so for other ones is much easier. Similar to the viewpoint Vimes expresses regarding bribes for prisoners......that is if you let a man off for a small crime you are the sort who would do so for a bigger crime it is "just a matter of haggling". Now of course a price may be absurdly high for some crimes, but the principle has been established.
Right. This is also why every sentence automatically invokes the death penalty, because if you don't it for small crimes, you aren't going to do it for large ones...

Wait, no, that's a slippery slope fallacy. Or, at least, applying it in this way is. It would be relatively easy to give clear definitions that would allow response to natural events, disallow interference in internal politics, and provide a grey area for possible debate(man-made plague, for example).

To be clear I am not arguing for or against the PD in any given scenario*. I just think we must remember that for all the decisions and bluster made about it in the episode they do decide to help. Even if you granted the arguements aginst action by the PD were perfectly valid, they still did not convince people once they came face to face with those who suffered. This is a very important detail I think is often overlooked.
Not really. They helped, but they made clear that this wasn't what was supposed to happen. If a law prohibits one from taking moral action, even if you take that action, the law is still immoral. The fact is that, in this case, the law clearly defines one course of action according to the characters, but they feel their morals dictate another.

Also, Kid in a car is an analogy. Man on Spaceship that can effectively control the fate of planets IS in a very different situation. He has a wider range of influence that adds shades of grey to his decisions. To the haggling aspects I mentioned earlier. Not saying they should/n't have acted in PenPals, making that clear. Only that the analogy is not perfect and there are other aspects to consider.
How is it a different situation? Where is the analogy flawed?

Man on Fire

2012-06-08, 11:25 AM

That is, once you make allowances in certain smaller circumstances then doing so for other ones is much easier.

I'll respond to this argument the same way I respond to it being used against superheroes killing supervilians - people are dying. People are dying and all you are thinking about is to stay true to your idealized image of yourself. People. Are. Dying. Your principles can go to hell.

Brother Oni

2012-06-08, 11:47 AM

I'll respond to this argument the same way I respond to it being used against superheroes killing supervilians - people are dying. People are dying and all you are thinking about is to stay true to your idealized image of yourself. People. Are. Dying. Your principles can go to hell.

Yes, but what if your principles are the only thing stopping you from turning into a bigger and nastier version of what you just killed?

Scowling Dragon

2012-06-08, 11:56 AM

The joker has killed over 2000 people alone because batman is a *****.

Man on Fire

2012-06-08, 12:24 PM

Yes, but what if your principles are the only thing stopping you from turning into a bigger and nastier version of what you just killed?

Can we wonder about it after the big, bad killer we have no way to stop will no longer be murdering innocent people on the streets?

Tavar

2012-06-08, 12:28 PM

There is the fact that if Batman kills out of hand, it'd at least be the same as if a police man killed someone without just cause. And he does turn them over to the justice system, the issue is that the system in DC/Marvel is quite possibly more broken than our own.

hamishspence

2012-06-08, 12:31 PM

It might be that they don't want to market a "vigilante execution is morally right" message to small children.

HeadlessMermaid

2012-06-08, 12:52 PM

There's a very relevant quote by Stephen Fry (here's the video (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mlpklo4VLak)), and I'd like to leave it here.

Most of human history and art can be expressed in Star Trek plots. It's true. Just to go on a slight side-thing, the finals of my Cambridge degree was on the subject of Nietzsche and tragedy, and I mostly wrote about Star Trek. And I have to tell you, I got a very good degree.

It's partly because (just in case you wanted to write an essay about Nietzsche and Star Trek), Nietzsche argued that all tragedy was based on an opposition between the Apollonian and the Dionysiac instincts, in ancient Greece and in particular Greek tragedies. In other words, the Dionysiac instinct was for wine and revel and feasting, the id as you might say it, the animal part of us. And against that was the Apollonian: harmonic, logic, reason, rhetoric. And that the Greek civilization was playing out in front of itself the story of its own beginnings, from blood feuds and trials and tribal wars and appetite and sexual lust and animal instincts, to this extraordinary thing of logic and reason that it founded: Aristotle and the philisophers and music and Pythagoras and everything else. And the two were constantly at war. As they are in all of us, of course, which is why tragedy is so fantastic a medium.

And oddly enough, that's what most Star Trek stories are about. You have the Captain in the middle, who is trying to balance both his humanity and his reason. And on his left shoulder, in the original Star Trek, you have the appetitive, physical Dr McCoy. And on his right shoulder you have Spock, who is all reason. And they are both flawed, because they don't balance the two, and they're at war with each other - Bones is always having a go at Spock. And Kirk is in the middle, representing the perfect solution.

And not only that, the planets they visit usually make the mistake of being either over-ordered and over-reasonable and over-logical (so they kill those who descend, and they do it calmly and reasonably), and they have to learn to be a bit human. "You! Will! Learn! To! Be! Human!" Or, they are just a savage race that needs reason and order. So, anyway, that's why Star Trek is incredibly important.

Man on Fire

2012-06-08, 12:53 PM

It might be that they don't want to market a "vigilante execution is morally right" message to small children.

First, like small children read comics books anymore. Second, didn't stopped them in the nineties. Third, because "it's okay to let people die, just as long as you hold strictly to your principles in dogmatic and absolutist fashion, without a possibility for any sort of gray zone" message is really much better.

There is the fact that if Batman kills out of hand, it'd at least be the same as if a police man killed someone without just cause.

Why are you assuming that Batman is just going to kill first guy robbinga bank? We aren't talking black and white here, there is a gray zone between "killing out of hand" and "killing to save lives". If batman would kill the Joker to save the life of little girl, I'm pretty sure that it would be very hard to find a judge that wouldn't let him go.

Tavar

2012-06-08, 04:12 PM

Ravens_cry

2012-06-08, 04:13 PM

Heck there was a comic where the Joker gets stabbed in the heart, Batman is trying desperately to save him, and Commissioner Gordon explicitly says "Let him die."

Tavar

2012-06-08, 04:21 PM

Heck there was a comic where the Joker gets stabbed in the heart, Batman is trying desperately to save him, and Commissioner Gordon explicitly says "Let him die."
Okay, that is stupid. That's what I get for talking about a comic I don't really follow.

Granted, given Joker's popularity, even if Batman shot him point blank in the head, and then riddled the body with bullets, he wouldn't stay dead.

Tiki Snakes

2012-06-08, 04:35 PM

Well, to be fair that's kind of what Film Batman did, and where I think they went wrong.
The whole, I won't kill you, but I don't have to save you either line.
Letting someone die when it is within your power to save them is close enough to doing the deed yourself, usually.

But yeah, seriously, Joker should have been executed by the state a long time ago, or given over to the Hague for crimes against humanity or something.

Ravens_cry

2012-06-08, 05:01 PM

Okay, that is stupid. That's what I get for talking about a comic I don't really follow.

Granted, given Joker's popularity, even if Batman shot him point blank in the head, and then riddled the body with bullets, he wouldn't stay dead.
Heh, I don't really follow the comics either, I just read collections at my local library, so my knowledge tends to be a bit . . . scattered.
What exactly is stupid though?
Your comment leaves it kind of ambiguous.

Tavar

2012-06-08, 05:03 PM

What exactly is stupid though?
Your comment leaves it kind of ambiguous.

Going to heroic measures to try and save the Joker.

Man on Fire

2012-06-08, 05:22 PM

But he's pretty much never in the situation where it's kill someone to save someone else's life. By the time he'd have the chance to kill the foe, the issue is over. So, in that case, he would have to murder them, becoming Judge, Jury, and Executioner for his own selfish reasons.

Or he could turn them over to the justice system, and let it take it's course.

If he can stop them without killing them, he should. But that's not always the case. Take Maximum Carnage for example - Spider-Man and Captain America refused to kill Carnage or let anyone else do it. They couldn't stop him in any other way and he wa rampaging with his gang, killing dozens of innocent people. Sure, they finally found a way to stop him, deus ex machina a bit, but they did. But before that happened, Carnage killed loads of people who wouldn't have died if Spidey and Cap would just let Venom break his neck. A lot of people died and many more were in grave danger, entire city had sunk into chaos, because Captain America and Spider-Man see the issue of killing in absolute black and white. Blood of those people is on their hands.

Soras Teva Gee

2012-06-08, 05:33 PM

Going to heroic measures to try and save the Joker.

For Batman its not stupid, its the essence of the superhero really. That the superhero chooses life and mercy, for everyone. Turn the other cheek, let ye who is without sin, all that. That even your worst nemesis is worth saving, or at the very least you making that call is purest hubris. So Batman going above and beyond to save the Joker's miserable life is why he is a superhero and not just a freak in a bat costume.

This tangent isn't really important here. Star Trek is normal people in a sci-fi setting not sci-fi superheroics. That's what the Doctor is for.

Man on Fire

2012-06-08, 05:58 PM

For Batman its not stupid, its the essence of the superhero really. That the superhero chooses life and mercy, for everyone.

No, essence of superhero is a person who does imposible things to save lives.

But I think we derailed this thread too much, how about going back to star trek nad moving these posts to separate thread (is that possible on this forum?)?

Omergideon

2012-06-08, 05:59 PM

This ethical debate is one I do not think is likely to go well. Simply put, many of the axioms people accept for ethics are undefineable and ultimately indefensible. In that many appear so obvious to us we do not know how we would begin to defend them beyond pointing and going "isn't it obvious?"
Edit: E.g. for some it is axiomatic that executions is always wrong, regardless of risks etc. Unless common ground is found ethical debate stymies into a "but such a stance os wrong because it means xyz immoral thing" the opponent may not even agree with.

And a person who is against vigilante executions need not be "allowing people to die" or some such. A lot of other views can be held, with many shades of grey.

So I don't think debating whether Batman should or should not kill the Joker is going to be especially fruitful, or helpful. (Though I for the record fall on the line of "I would say no in 99.99% of circumstances, especially as seeing the future is not one of his powers. But in a kill or innocents die right now situation perhaps it is right". Roughly. In extremely undetailed form)

I will comment on one thing. The so called slippery slope fallacy. As said I do not wish to engage on the right or wrongness of any specific choice by starfleet in regards to the PD (though the fact that the law makes allowances for certain breakings of the PD is a sign that in TNG times it was not so absolute). But it is not always a fallacy to point towards a slippery slope. In the case of saving lives from natural disasters there will always be edge cases by the hard rules you set up. If the law was to say "only when a person will die unnaturally young do we intervene with unseen medicine" we hit a snag. A set age must be defined of course. Lets say it was 60 years old. Well what if a person of 61 years old, but in good health and expecting 20 more years, was ill and we could save them. Do we? If we say yes then a new precedent is established. Not a bad one of course* we can say. It only makes sense. But then we have healthy 61 year olds being saved.

We can see how this may go. A hard and fast, unbending, rule may appear to lack the compassion for all circumstances. If we wish to avoid the harshness of strict unbreaking laws our choices become limited to 2 broad camps (with numerous sub groups of course). First, we establish a complex but clear set of criteria to cover every possible outcome strictly set up, or we have simpler rules and allow initiative and eyeballing of the situation. Such outcome may not be desirable.

I do not see suggesting this as a fallacy. A hard rule will always seem harsh to people just on the other side of it. Lacking in compassion towards them. But when exceptions are allowed, unless they cover every possible unfairness (and thus become labrynthine and unwieldy) then we have to rely on common sense, which may not be reliable in emotionally charged situations.

Or rather, I do not wish to suggest a slippery slope. Only that exceptions establish a precedent that a society trying to be objective might be right to avoid. And that wherever we draw the line, to some it will seem unfair (perhaps rightly).

*I repeat, this is not a view I personally hold as being a good law, pro or anti. It is a dispassionate example of the sorts of reasoning I might see happening. But to offer my view on the Pd as a whole, briefly. I like the concept behind it, but think the implementation to strict. however I do not know where the lines themselves must be drawn. Only that they should be. And held to.

And finally (my last long post on the debate I swear), I see the difference as not only one of scale, but of type between the man and car, and the spaceship. The Starship captain has responsibilities, realities and his actions carry implications that do not exist for a simple scenario like a child in a car. For instance, if Starfleet's interference would lead to a diplomatic incident that creates war with the klingons (not that it must, but in some cases it may). A starfleet captain's acts cannot be in a vacuum when he orders his ship. This fundamentally changes how he must view his actions as there are not 2 players. Everyone in the galaxy is watching. His acts can affect them all, and this effect MAY need to be considered. In short, man and car has maybe 3 factors (man, car, risk to child). Man in starship has many, many more on local and interplanetary scales.

Ravens_cry

2012-06-08, 06:04 PM

Going to heroic measures to try and save the Joker.
It came across as a little gay in that instance, and I mean that as literally homosexual, but it is pretty much who Batman is, at least now.
Yes, The Batman is insane, as insane as his rogues gallery, if not more so in some cases.
But if Batman doesn't hold to his principles, what does he have left, what is he but a thug who takes out thugs?
The Punisher in a fancy outfit.

Man on Fire

2012-06-08, 06:34 PM

It came across as a little gay in that instance, and I mean that as literally homosexual, but it is pretty much who Batman is, at least now.
Yes, The Batman is insane, as insane as his rogues gallery, if not more so in some cases.
But if Batman doesn't hold to his principles, what does he have left, what is he but a thug who takes out thugs?
The Punisher in a fancy outfit.

Again, this is a false dichotomy. There are more options than "Thou shalt never ever ever ever kill" and "Shoot for kill first, ask questions later". Options like "kill to save life" and "kill if there is no other way" are there and neither of them would turn Batman into the Punisher. That's exactly the problem with superhero comics. Everybody - writers, fans and heroes themselve - belive in that false dichotomy and deal with absolutes, like every situation would be always the same and a choice could be always obiectively morally wrong no matter what. And that's just a delusion ,there are different circumstances and situations that calls for different measures.

Soras Teva Gee

2012-06-08, 07:31 PM

No, essence of superhero is a person who does imposible things to save lives.

But I think we derailed this thread too much, how about going back to star trek nad moving these posts to separate thread (is that possible on this forum?)?

No that's only the detail. Bats is THE Badass Normal, while obviously bent (often) what he does is at least ostensibly supposed to be possible. Its the principles, the ideals, that make the superhero. The ideal that you save everyone.

Something which is rather incompatible with say, the Prime Directive. Which is taking a "For the Greater Good" approach that must in the end break a few eggs to make the galactic omelet.

So I guess to return to this thread's original purpose to deconstruct the Federation/humans of ST would be to have them actually honor the Prime Directive. While also demonstrating the sort of consequences of even the most benign of interventions and deviations from it. Something we don't see in the bigger picture as far as I recall.

I'm reminded again of the case of the Doctor, who has no Prime Directive and the question of saving a world isn't even a question for, save those arbitrary times where its a Fixed Point in Time. However (and I understand there are others) I would point to the story from the 9th Doctor's era. Where after he arrives on Earth in the distant future and finds humanity being sabotaged by external forces manipulating the news media of the day, controlling the thoughts of humanity. And the Doctor sets right this historical wrong and comes back in a later episode to find... things are worse.

First because his actions created an unintentional disruption of order in society leading to anarchy retrograding society. Second because he failed to dive deep enough into the problem and find out the real cause.

To my knowledge Star Trek generally does not explore the longer term consequences of its own violations of the Prime Directive. They either do/don't violate it and the the Enterprise just flies off to the next planet and we never see the place again. This however is where one can deconstruct the idea of both the Prime Directive and violations-there-of from the rule of unintended consequences. Just have their actions observed and generations later the once primitive race has advanced enough to find out what really happened... and be royally ticked off at those it once considered "sky gods" or whatever birthing a bitter enemy.

Lord Seth

2012-06-08, 11:46 PM

And in the videos, he notes that the hubris argument is dismissed quickly. But the Hubris argument is made at several other points, most notable in Dear Doctor and Voyager.To be fair, that was a specific defense on its application in Pen Pals, not all episodes. So trying to appeal to Voyager or Enterprise is going beyond the actual defense offered.
The joker has killed over 2000 people alone because batman is a *****.Citation please for this figure?

There is the fact that if Batman kills out of hand, it'd at least be the same as if a police man killed someone without just cause.Worse actually, because Batman isn't a policeman.

And he does turn them over to the justice system, the issue is that the system in DC/Marvel is quite possibly more broken than our own.What do you mean possibly?

If anything I'd put the blame for guys like The Joker on the justice system, not Batman. They're the ones who seem to steadfastly refuse to do anything about him other than lock him up in a prison he's escaped from multiple times.

Tavar

2012-06-08, 11:53 PM

To be fair, that was a specific defense on its application in Pen Pals, not all episodes. So trying to appeal to Voyager or Enterprise is going beyond the actual defense offered.
I was referring to the Prime Directive video, which covers all areas, and does reference the Hubris argument as it occurs in those other series.

Worse actually, because Batman isn't a policeman.
The issue is he's a vigilante, and thus by out laws what he does doesn't work at all. I assume that the laws in the DC verse are different, so he might in fact be treated as a policeman.

Note also that I said at least. That does provide the option for being worse.

What do you mean possibly?

If anything I'd put the blame for guys like The Joker on the justice system, not Batman. They're the ones who seem to steadfastly refuse to do anything about him other than lock him up in a prison he's escaped from multiple times.
I'm pretty sure my statement is directly in lines with ours.

I will comment on one thing. The so called slippery slope fallacy. As said I do not wish to engage on the right or wrongness of any specific choice by starfleet in regards to the PD (though the fact that the law makes allowances for certain breakings of the PD is a sign that in TNG times it was not so absolute). But it is not always a fallacy to point towards a slippery slope. In the case of saving lives from natural disasters there will always be edge cases by the hard rules you set up. If the law was to say "only when a person will die unnaturally young do we intervene with unseen medicine" we hit a snag. A set age must be defined of course. Lets say it was 60 years old. Well what if a person of 61 years old, but in good health and expecting 20 more years, was ill and we could save them. Do we? If we say yes then a new precedent is established. Not a bad one of course* we can say. It only makes sense. But then we have healthy 61 year olds being saved.

We can see how this may go. A hard and fast, unbending, rule may appear to lack the compassion for all circumstances. If we wish to avoid the harshness of strict unbreaking laws our choices become limited to 2 broad camps (with numerous sub groups of course). First, we establish a complex but clear set of criteria to cover every possible outcome strictly set up, or we have simpler rules and allow initiative and eyeballing of the situation. Such outcome may not be desirable.
That doesn't follow. I mean, going by what's show the hard rule doesn't work.

Secondly, you could make a hard line that doesn't require such weak justifications: simply make the hardline natural/man made disasters. This isn't a grey area, not truly. But they don't make that distinction, because the Prime Directive became a dogmatic point of faith: it is right because it must be right(this is largely going by it's portrayal in Voyager). Any rule that uses that for its primary justification is bad.

I do not see suggesting this as a fallacy. A hard rule will always seem harsh to people just on the other side of it. Lacking in compassion towards them. But when exceptions are allowed, unless they cover every possible unfairness (and thus become labrynthine and unwieldy) then we have to rely on common sense, which may not be reliable in emotionally charged situations.

Or rather, I do not wish to suggest a slippery slope. Only that exceptions establish a precedent that a society trying to be objective might be right to avoid. And that wherever we draw the line, to some it will seem unfair (perhaps rightly).
But it doesn't work, because a hard line could be placed elsewhere, and it would likely be more effective because people wouldn't desire to break it as often.

*I repeat, this is not a view I personally hold as being a good law, pro or anti. It is a dispassionate example of the sorts of reasoning I might see happening. But to offer my view on the Pd as a whole, briefly. I like the concept behind it, but think the implementation to strict. however I do not know where the lines themselves must be drawn. Only that they should be. And held to.
Well, part of the problem is that, in universe, it is held up as a good and moral rule, and moral by our sensibilities. But it utterly fails at this.

Moreover, the logic used in universe to defend it flat out doesn't work. For Example, Dear Doctor.

And finally (my last long post on the debate I swear), I see the difference as not only one of scale, but of type between the man and car, and the spaceship. The Starship captain has responsibilities, realities and his actions carry implications that do not exist for a simple scenario like a child in a car. For instance, if Starfleet's interference would lead to a diplomatic incident that creates war with the klingons (not that it must, but in some cases it may). A starfleet captain's acts cannot be in a vacuum when he orders his ship. This fundamentally changes how he must view his actions as there are not 2 players. Everyone in the galaxy is watching. His acts can affect them all, and this effect MAY need to be considered. In short, man and car has maybe 3 factors (man, car, risk to child). Man in starship has many, many more on local and interplanetary scales.
Those don't apply in the situations we see. In Pen Pals, the only thing preventing their intervention is the Prime Directive. This applies in many other situations as well: external factors are not an issue.

This is especially the case in the theoretical exercise, where they are removing all extraneous factors and simply dealing with the question of if they can solve the issue, should they solve it.

By Star Trek's logic, even if you are not prevented, you should let the child die and brag about it. That is why the Prime Directive as written is garbage.

Omergideon

2012-06-09, 04:29 AM

I have been mostly limiting myself to the Pen Pals example, as it is the most complete discussion of the issue, and Janeway was written as a magnificently dogmatic individual even by the standards of starfleet regarding such rules as the Prime Directive.

And as for Hard Lines, my point is not the correctness/incorrectness of Hard Lines. I do think they would be needed. My point is that I was not trying to make a slippery Slope arguement (though I did refer to it). More that wherever we place the line it will seem abysmally unfair to large groups of people. I mean lets suggest we encounter a war of genocide, with one group being destroyed ruthlessly? Sticking by our natural/man made dichotomy of interference it may still seem massively unfair and cruel to not save the innocents. We need a line, but at the edges it will always seem cruel (which is the motivation for a slippery slope IF it were to happen).

And I do dislike and am against theoretical moral exercises precisely because they lack the extra factors in real life situations. That make the difference between car and spaceship. Of course the ending of PenPals (the "right" decision) was to interfere and save lives. And by Drumhead this choice was obviously approved of by the Federation. But regardless I did not want to prove the PD, AS IS, was a good rule in practise. Only that it was more nuanced at that point than the dogmatic view presented by Janeway, or in Enterprise with Dear Doctor. Which was stupid, and the episode should be erased from history.

Salbazier

2012-06-09, 07:25 AM

Scowling Dragon

2012-06-09, 07:29 AM

The problem comes from star fleet treatibg it black and white.

Man on Fire

2012-06-09, 07:54 AM

No that's only the detail. Bats is THE Badass Normal, while obviously bent (often) what he does is at least ostensibly supposed to be possible. Its the principles, the ideals, that make the superhero. The ideal that you save everyone.

Something which is rather incompatible with say, the Prime Directive. Which is taking a "For the Greater Good" approach that must in the end break a few eggs to make the galactic omelet.

Not really - problems with both Prime Directive and superhero "you shall not kill
principles are treated as dogmas, that cannot be overlooked under no circumstances ever. Which leads to insane situation where they do more harm than good. In case of prime directive it's when they let entire species dying. In case of superheroes it's when they let murderous maniac like Carnage murder innocent people because they don't want to kill him. At the core it's the same problem - dogmatism.

And no, superheroes aren't about saving everyone, even Superman isn't so naive to think it's possible even for them.

comicshorse

2012-06-09, 07:55 AM

To my knowledge Star Trek generally does not explore the longer term consequences of its own violations of the Prime Directive. They either do/don't violate it and the the Enterprise just flies off to the next planet and we never see the place again. This however is where one can deconstruct the idea of both the Prime Directive and violations-there-of from the rule of unintended consequences. Just have their actions observed and generations later the once primitive race has advanced enough to find out what really happened... and be royally ticked off at those it once considered "sky gods" or whatever birthing a bitter enemy.

The Original series seems to have done this better with 'The Omega Glory'. 'Patterns of Force', 'A Piece of the Action' and to a lesser extent 'A Private Little War' showing scenarios where the PD is ignored with disastrous consequences

Man on Fire

2012-06-09, 08:18 AM

I'm reminded again of the case of the Doctor, who has no Prime Directive and the question of saving a world isn't even a question for, save those arbitrary times where its a Fixed Point in Time. However (and I understand there are others) I would point to the story from the 9th Doctor's era. Where after he arrives on Earth in the distant future and finds humanity being sabotaged by external forces manipulating the news media of the day, controlling the thoughts of humanity. And the Doctor sets right this historical wrong and comes back in a later episode to find... things are worse.

Doctor's problems is, that he just doesn't think things through and barerly considers the conseuences, which might have resulted in his reputation of insane goblin warlord who comes from the sky to bathe planets with blood, but on whole...I think he does mroe good than harm. So yeah, in context of PD, interfference might have negative consequences, but may also have possitive ones.

Tavar

2012-06-09, 09:03 AM

EDIT: Okay, I googled the episode. The kid in the car analogy is correct per Pen Pals and I agree that was stupid.
It also is correct in at least one other episode, this one from Voyager.

I have been mostly limiting myself to the Pen Pals example, as it is the most complete discussion of the issue, and Janeway was written as a magnificently dogmatic individual even by the standards of starfleet regarding such rules as the Prime Directive.
It is the most complete, but ignoring other bits of evidence is a bit odd.

And as for Hard Lines, my point is not the correctness/incorrectness of Hard Lines. I do think they would be needed. My point is that I was not trying to make a slippery Slope arguement (though I did refer to it). More that wherever we place the line it will seem abysmally unfair to large groups of people. I mean lets suggest we encounter a war of genocide, with one group being destroyed ruthlessly? Sticking by our natural/man made dichotomy of interference it may still seem massively unfair and cruel to not save the innocents. We need a line, but at the edges it will always seem cruel (which is the motivation for a slippery slope IF it were to happen).
It would be a line, and it would be unfair. But, the current line obviously doesn't work: they are still breaking the rule, and in fact the way the rule is set up in encourages breaking it for moral individuals. Which, by your argument, should lead to a slippery slope.

Placing the Hard Line elsewhere would mitigate this, and allow for stronger arguments against taking action, which would help buttress the rule.

And I do dislike and am against theoretical moral exercises precisely because they lack the extra factors in real life situations. That make the difference between car and spaceship. Of course the ending of PenPals (the "right" decision) was to interfere and save lives. And by Drumhead this choice was obviously approved of by the Federation. But regardless I did not want to prove the PD, AS IS, was a good rule in practise. Only that it was more nuanced at that point than the dogmatic view presented by Janeway, or in Enterprise with Dear Doctor. Which was stupid, and the episode should be erased from history.
Except, in Pen Pals case, there is no other outside factor. And they still decide that the right thing to do is to not intervene, until one of the victims basically is made into a person instead of a statistic. Picard even says that changes things.

So, in this case, you're the one treating most in a theoretical exercise, adding in things that are not relevant to the situation Their is no problem with the analogy as it relates to the situation in Pen Pals.

Omergideon

2012-06-09, 10:20 AM

SNIP

Well I think I messed up here by not being clear enough about what I am trying to do. So let me explain.

I do not agree with the PD as it is currently followed. I am NOT trying to argue for that. I am trying to avoid the issue in general. My entire original arguement (before responding to specific ideas) was intended as a statement that the episode Pen Pals and the TNG presentation of the PD is more nuanced than we often give it credit. Voyager, through Janeway, did screw this up badly. But if Pen Pals represented Gene's real opinion then it was more complex than complete non-inteference. I stuck to it for that reason as well.

So please do not think I am arguing that the Line, placed where it is, is a good thing. Only the trouble that placing such a line will inevitably cause. Wherever it is, many MANY people will argue it should be more/less liberal.

And...........with Pen Pals itself it does come closest to the car situation. However as the Captain of the Flagship, one of the Federations go to diplomats and a man implicitly put forward as "This is Starfleet" nothing he does as captain of his ship is placed in isolation. Nothing. He acts, and it is inherently presented as Starfleet general rules. Other Captains must use him as a benchmark. Now in the case of Pen Pals I am glad he acted (and I do think the ending of Pen Pals, where compassion beats the reason of the PD, is a good critique of the rule as it stood). But to pretend that this could be totally isolated from the federation as a whole is nonsense.

Still, I repeat. I think part of the point of Pen Pals is to show that the PD, as written, could be supported philosophically. Maybe. But in the face of real suffering it was discarded. And this choice was supported by the later Federation a la Drumhead/attempts to Promote Picard later etc.

And Man on Fire, I think an issue is that you seem to think that dogmatism with such rules being bad is axiomatic. Obvious. Indisputable. Your evidence is that innocents suffer. For others there may be.......larger issues at stake making exceptions a bad thing. I don't claim to speak for those arguing the point, only suggest a common (even inevitable) issue that arises in all debaqtes on ethics.

Tavar

2012-06-09, 10:45 AM

I do not agree with the PD as it is currently followed. I am NOT trying to argue for that. I am trying to avoid the issue in general. My entire original arguement (before responding to specific ideas) was intended as a statement that the episode Pen Pals and the TNG presentation of the PD is more nuanced than we often give it credit. Voyager, through Janeway, did screw this up badly. But if Pen Pals represented Gene's real opinion then it was more complex than complete non-inteference. I stuck to it for that reason as well.
It's non-interference unless you manage to forge a connection to one of the people in question. That's not a good basis for a rule, and to call it the moral thing is laughable.

And it's not nuanced. The whole issue is that it's too absolute for it's own good. Hence repeatedly breaking it, with essentially no justification besides "it's the moral thing to do".

So please do not think I am arguing that the Line, placed where it is, is a good thing. Only the trouble that placing such a line will inevitably cause. Wherever it is, many MANY people will argue it should be more/less liberal.
So, the solution chosen, instead of finding a middle ground or something, is to just blanket ban everything?

Sorry, that's not good government policy.

And...........with Pen Pals itself it does come closest to the car situation. However as the Captain of the Flagship, one of the Federations go to diplomats and a man implicitly put forward as "This is Starfleet" nothing he does as captain of his ship is placed in isolation. Nothing. He acts, and it is inherently presented as Starfleet general rules. Other Captains must use him as a benchmark. Now in the case of Pen Pals I am glad he acted (and I do think the ending of Pen Pals, where compassion beats the reason of the PD, is a good critique of the rule as it stood). But to pretend that this could be totally isolated from the federation as a whole is nonsense.
Except they make it clear in episode that, absent all outside influences, they should still not save them. That it is the moral thing to do.

Furthermore, if they are meant to show that it is right, then they're all hypocrites, as they don't uphold the Prime Directive. Even though it was later upheld, they didn't care about that going in: the broke the law.

And yet they weren't punished for it. Huh...almost sounds like something someone was talking about earlier. Some sort of slope...

Note that by this logic, if another ship was doing what the Enterprise did, and the Enterprise discovered it, they would be obligated to stop them. So not only can they not save the infant, they must stop others from doing so.

Finally, I have to ask, why does Picard need to refrain from acting? Well, because of the Prime Directive. So, in this case, you are saying that the Prime Directive justifies acting in accordance with the Prime Directive. Sorry, that doesn't work.

Still, I repeat. I think part of the point of Pen Pals is to show that the PD, as written, could be supported philosophically. Maybe. But in the face of real suffering it was discarded. And this choice was supported by the later Federation a la Drumhead/attempts to Promote Picard later etc.
Unless you can answer the car analogy proposed going with the idea that the infant should die and you should be congratulated for doing it, you cannot do it. Note that the characters in universe can't actually answer that question in that manner.

Soras Teva Gee

2012-06-09, 11:49 AM

The Original series seems to have done this better with 'The Omega Glory'. 'Patterns of Force', 'A Piece of the Action' and to a lesser extent 'A Private Little War' showing scenarios where the PD is ignored with disastrous consequences

Sadly there are some silly episodes in that collection. Though it does seem to at least show some of the virtue of the Prime Directive

Still not quite the subtlety though. I think even minus the Prime Directive you'd not get the Federation willing to just inject tech into primitive worlds for them to use.

And even here its just not in ST nature to revisit these places that much.

McStabbington

2012-06-09, 11:51 AM

Really, I think the situation could be cleared up by the writers learning the concept of legal standards. The law deals with the problem of applying bright-line rules to complex, nuanced factual situations all the time, and as a result, they've built up a sliding scale of legal tests that they apply based on what the government's interest is, what the private interest is, and how critical we think that private interest to be.

So, for instance, we have a provision in our law that states that laws should not discriminate between people who are otherwise equal. But some violations of this law are treated as more legitimate than others. A law that allowed only right-handed people to do a certain job would violate this rule, but the standard would be low: we would look to see if the government interest in making this rule is legitimate and whether that law is something a reasonable person could look at and say "Yeah, that might fix the problem." The standard is low because the law was written to prevent codifying bigotry into the law, and there's not a lot of history of left-handers being oppressed through the law. Moreover, in a world dominated primarily by right-handers, most things are built with righties in mind, so it's conceivable that the law might have a safety-based reason for preventing southpaws from doing the job. By contrast, a law that says Polish people can't do a job faces a much higher legal standard, because Polish people have suffered discrimination, and there's no real safety-based concern for preventing Polish people from doing a job.

Applying the principle to the Prime Directive, they should just have presumption that they don't interfere. But if a) by interfering they save lives and even species, and b) they can do so without affecting the development of a primitive culture, then that presumption can and should be overcome. As the level of interference goes up and the number of lives go down, the presumption gets stronger.

Omergideon

2012-06-09, 11:57 AM

I had a long post, so I will simplify it to 3 ideas.

1) What I am trying, badly it seems, to say is that If Pen Pals represents Gene's views, then even if the PD was written as total non-inteference even with genocide at stake, He did not personally agree with it. As shown by the morally good choice in the episode being to break the PD. And that the later Federation also took this view based on other events. Whether this is morally good or not is an opinion I have not tried to voice, but I think the ep and later TNG shows people coming to realise and codify some exceptions to the PD as it was written. This DOES risk slippery slope I agree, but it is also what I think they did and tried to support.

In short, to make it clear, I think the episode shows the philosophical justifications of the PD as written. And shows why they do not work and breaking the PD is right. I also think the Federation came to that view as well.

2) Once again, the Car analogy does not work for a Federation Starship as they do not exist in a moral vacuum where their choice only has the immediate consequences to deal with. With the right issues and factors to deal with I am sure I could produce a philosophical underpinning to justify almost any action. But this is the point. Child in a car is one situation, specifically designed to have almost no other factors. Man on Federation Flagship MUST consider any other issues that could arise. Now I don't want to try to prove we should let the kid in a car die. I only think it is manifestly clear that a man on a starship (for reasons I said before) is in a VERY different situation. I Am NOT saying what man on starship should do. Only that his situation is very different and so the analogy does not really always work.

3) Picard did break the PD. He did. It got retroactively justified in law, to me showing that the dogmatic view he tried to philosphically justify before was not the right one. This is the view I thought TNG had on the PD. Though I may be wrong.

As a final thought, to clear my head. Whether or not I think the characters acted morally in the show with the PD is not something I am debating. What they actually thought, and the implications of the decision in Pen Pals in light of the rest of TNG is. I am ignoring what I think should have happened, only what I think did happen.

Tavar

2012-06-09, 12:23 PM

What repercussions are their in the Pen Pals episode, or in other such Prime Directive episodes?

Man on Fire

2012-06-09, 02:23 PM

And Man on Fire, I think an issue is that you seem to think that dogmatism with such rules being bad is axiomatic. Obvious. Indisputable. Your evidence is that innocents suffer. For others there may be.......larger issues at stake making exceptions a bad thing.

Sometimes you have to stop looking at the bigger picture and focus on what's in front of you. If people are dying, bigger picture can go and **** itself. We don't know the future, why shouled we left fear of what it may possibly bring to paralize us?

Omergideon

2012-06-09, 03:39 PM

Sometimes you have to stop looking at the bigger picture and focus on what's in front of you. If people are dying, bigger picture can go and **** itself. We don't know the future, why shouled we left fear of what it may possibly bring to paralize us?

Again, this is you stating an opinion. Fair enough for that. Can't complain. But others may disagree and think that whatever happens in the moment one should not lose sight of the big picture. Both matter, but conversely both matter.

As for PD episodes, there are not too often a massive amount due simply to the serialised nature of TNG. It was almost written so that any episode could be slotted into any place in the series and not rely on past continuity. However in most of them where the PD was brought up they found ways around the issue of interference (such as in Who watches the Watchers) or negotiating and being clever (Such as in Code of Honour, or the Kilngon Civil War eps). Though WWTW does show a possible negative side effect of people finding out about aliens at the wrong point in a cultures development. And the KCW ep mentioning the political ramifications of interference.

Mostly such events are lightly referenced when facing interference from higher beings, similar events (rare) or when records are referenced such as in the Drumhead. Minor things really.

McStabbington

2012-06-09, 04:08 PM

Again, this is you stating an opinion. Fair enough for that. Can't complain. But others may disagree and think that whatever happens in the moment one should not lose sight of the big picture. Both matter, but conversely both matter.

As for PD episodes, there are not too often a massive amount due simply to the serialised nature of TNG. It was almost written so that any episode could be slotted into any place in the series and not rely on past continuity. However in most of them where the PD was brought up they found ways around the issue of interference (such as in Who watches the Watchers) or negotiating and being clever (Such as in Code of Honour, or the Kilngon Civil War eps). Though WWTW does show a possible negative side effect of people finding out about aliens at the wrong point in a cultures development. And the KCW ep mentioning the political ramifications of interference.

Mostly such events are lightly referenced when facing interference from higher beings, similar events (rare) or when records are referenced such as in the Drumhead. Minor things really.

With respect, I think you're pretzeling yourself in an effort to avoid the plain hard moral truths at play here. If an evil genie sticks you in a box with a button, and he says that if you don't push the button, he'll kill 100 people, but if you do, he'll not go through with it, and you don't push the button, you're not simply evil. You're in a class of evil with Joffrey Baratheon, pedophiles and people who talk in the theater. In Pen Pals, being evil was exactly what the titular heroes of Starfleet were arguing for. You can spin and dodge, juke and jive all you want, but at the end of the day, they could fix the problem on the planet without any risk of detection, but they weren't going to do it. Because that's what their first and most sacrosanct law asked them to do. That they changed their minds when a child begged them to doesn't change that. That they weren't punished for it doesn't change that. The simple fact is that in order to do the moral thing, they had to break their own law.

And that's a problem on a show where we want people to think of these people as heroic.

Man on Fire

2012-06-09, 04:14 PM

Again, this is you stating an opinion. Fair enough for that. Can't complain. But others may disagree and think that whatever happens in the moment one should not lose sight of the big picture. Both matter, but conversely both matter.

And why you're pointing it out? What, do you think I should stop advocating my opinion just because other people may dislike it? I know that people might have different opinions, that's why I'm using arguments to support mine. I won't shut up just because somebody may disagree with me.

Omergideon

2012-06-13, 02:26 AM

And why you're pointing it out? What, do you think I should stop advocating my opinion just because other people may dislike it? I know that people might have different opinions, that's why I'm using arguments to support mine. I won't shut up just because somebody may disagree with me.

All I am saying is that I do not see where you have made your arguements, save to suggest some axiom about how the now is more important/people are dying. To me this seems insufficient to say it is an arguement. And the vehemence you showed in your statement suggests you meant it as more than an opinion. Or in other words, I don't see the arguements to counter what other people have said about potentially more important laws etc. Just a statement of "it doesn't matter, people are dying". I may have missed them (possible), so if I did could you point them out to me. Thanks.

And I don't think I am pretzelling about the PD. As regards the moral character of the crew I think the fact they did intervene in Pen Pals (something the federation later on fully supported, as seen in Picard et als careers) is proof of that. They may have been able to philosophically justify their position of non-inteference. But overall they DID choose to act. Of course the only way it makes sense in my head is to Fan W**k their dilemma as being one so rare in occurance (seems likely enough) that no-one has had to consider it in ages. And when pressed they all agreed on an exception to the normal rule.

Also, when pressed I did agree that the PD, as now put with no interference ever, is not good. I honestly do. I am just trying to avoid moralising statements when critiqueing SFDebris' analogy of a kid in a car. I think that for a person on a starship the situation is nearly always so different as to make the comparison flimsy. Interplanetary politics etc. I am not advocating for any specific opinion*, just critiquing that of another in one area.

*Except that I think a hard line is essential, and wherever it is placed it will be possible to find borderline cases where it seems monstrously unfair. No more or less, and no comment where we should draw that line.

McStabbington

2012-06-13, 11:25 AM

And I don't think I am pretzelling about the PD. As regards the moral character of the crew I think the fact they did intervene in Pen Pals (something the federation later on fully supported, as seen in Picard et als careers) is proof of that. They may have been able to philosophically justify their position of non-inteference. But overall they DID choose to act. Of course the only way it makes sense in my head is to Fan W**k their dilemma as being one so rare in occurance (seems likely enough) that no-one has had to consider it in ages. And when pressed they all agreed on an exception to the normal rule.

Also, when pressed I did agree that the PD, as now put with no interference ever, is not good. I honestly do. I am just trying to avoid moralising statements when critiqueing SFDebris' analogy of a kid in a car. I think that for a person on a starship the situation is nearly always so different as to make the comparison flimsy. Interplanetary politics etc. I am not advocating for any specific opinion*, just critiquing that of another in one area.

*Except that I think a hard line is essential, and wherever it is placed it will be possible to find borderline cases where it seems monstrously unfair. No more or less, and no comment where we should draw that line.

I'm afraid I can't tell what point you're trying to prove. If your argument is with the analogy used about the kid in the car, I would say that your point is true but irrelevant to the conversation. Yes, most situations are more nuanced and finessed than the one in Pen Pals. But the situation in Pen Pals wasn't nuanced, and it was directly analogous to watching a kid burn to death in a car. Their law compelled them to sit by and let a species die while they had the power to prevent it without being detected. They were fully prepared to act in compliance with that law. And they spent a very long time rationalizing why they should do it. The analogy is completely apt.

Further, the Federation did not "fully support" their actions. They failed to punish Picard for breaking the law. There is a world of difference between the two. If I drive on the wrong side of the road in order to get to the hospital with my dying child, it's unlikely that the law will see fit to punish me. That doesn't mean I didn't break the law, and it certainly doesn't mean that anyone can drive on either side of the road for any reason from here on. It only means I had a very good excuse for breaking the law, and because of that excuse, it would be unjust to apply the punishment.

Tavar

2012-06-13, 11:30 AM

Man on Fire

2012-06-13, 12:52 PM

All I am saying is that I do not see where you have made your arguements, save to suggest some axiom about how the now is more important/people are dying. To me this seems insufficient to say it is an arguement. And the vehemence you showed in your statement suggests you meant it as more than an opinion. Or in other words, I don't see the arguements to counter what other people have said about potentially more important laws etc. Just a statement of "it doesn't matter, people are dying". I may have missed them (possible), so if I did could you point them out to me. Thanks.

What? How is pointing out that in situation presented to us person making a decision have to consider innocent lives at stake not an argument? I provided examples of how mindlessly clinging to the doctrines and inflexible dogmatism leads to death of innocent people, like in Maximum Carnage. I argue from stance of pragmatic moral flexibility, where the moral decision is the one that saves most of lives. You try to cut the discussion from the problem, reduce people to the number and talk about bigger picture, about potential future possibilities and I just cannot respect that - nobody knows the future, nobody knows the bigger pucture, nobody knows the long-term results of their actions, Starfleet captain is in the same situation as person standing in front of burning car with a child trapped inside - they don't know any bigger picture issues you are arguing about. And in face of the problem like this bigger picture is irrevelant. Needs of the many outnumbers the needs of the few and in this case population of dying planet is "many", while Captain not feeling bad about breaking a PD is "few".

Tyndmyr

2012-06-13, 02:13 PM

You try to cut the discussion from the problem, reduce people to the number and talk about bigger picture, about potential future possibilities and I just cannot respect that - nobody knows the future, nobody knows the bigger pucture, nobody knows the long-term results of their actions, S

Sometimes, you can have a pretty big idea of the bigger picture.

For instance, right now, I could probably save lives by donating money to starving africans. I've done it before, and it ain't necessarily a bad thing.

However, it pretty obviously doesn't make poverty and starvation go away. No matter how much money gets dumped into it, people end up starving due to lots and lots of complicated reasons. So, choosing a different approach that hasn't yet been shown to be so problematic is also a reasonable option.

Sure, nobody KNOWS the future 100%, but you can make a pretty good prediction based on past events.

Man on Fire

2012-06-13, 02:34 PM

Sometimes, you can have a pretty big idea of the bigger picture.

For instance, right now, I could probably save lives by donating money to starving africans. I've done it before, and it ain't necessarily a bad thing.

However, it pretty obviously doesn't make poverty and starvation go away. No matter how much money gets dumped into it, people end up starving due to lots and lots of complicated reasons. So, choosing a different approach that hasn't yet been shown to be so problematic is also a reasonable option.

Sure, nobody KNOWS the future 100%, but you can make a pretty good prediction based on past events.

Not in the case we are discussing here, where it's either death or survival of entire race of innocent beings.

Gnoman

2012-06-13, 03:09 PM

So, the only way pen pals makes sense is if they deliberately changed the law at a later point, essentially condoning murder.

THere's a fair bit to suggest that they did exactly that, or at least tightened the definition of interference greatly after the Kirk era. Which makes a lot of sense from an in-universe view, after the disastrous outcomes of a lot of the interference seen.

Tyndmyr

2012-06-13, 03:15 PM

Not in the case we are discussing here, where it's either death or survival of entire race of innocent beings.

One can assume that the PD was based on previous experiences, yes?

I agree that the exploration and consistency of this issue leaves much to be desired, but surely you'll agree that there are worse potential outcomes than the death of one race.

Man on Fire

2012-06-13, 03:20 PM

One can assume that the PD was based on previous experiences, yes?

Still doesn't justify climbing to it like a crazy maniac without acknowleding that there is a gray zone.

I agree that the exploration and consistency of this issue leaves much to be desired, but surely you'll agree that there are worse potential outcomes than the death of one race.

Letting entire race die because of potential outcome, as in outcome that doesn't have to happen is unforgivable for me. It's like killing a kid for the potential it may one day become criminal, only on mass scale.

Scowling Dragon

2012-06-13, 04:26 PM

That logic also makes no sense:

A Child can grow up to be a dictator

A Cure for a disease can cure a future serial killer

Therefore we must never help any children and stop all cures.

Or lets take it a step further: kill all children and destroy all cures.

Lord Seth

2012-06-13, 04:47 PM

Sometimes, you can have a pretty big idea of the bigger picture.

For instance, right now, I could probably save lives by donating money to starving africans. I've done it before, and it ain't necessarily a bad thing.

However, it pretty obviously doesn't make poverty and starvation go away. No matter how much money gets dumped into it, people end up starving due to lots and lots of complicated reasons. So, choosing a different approach that hasn't yet been shown to be so problematic is also a reasonable option.I've actually heard it argued that far too much humanitarian aid is poorly given and can end up having an adverse effect on development due to it increasing dependency and hurting the economy (how can a local farmer compete with free food?).

That's not to say, of course, that giving aid itself is bad, but that arguably too much of it isn't done in a way that considers longer-term consequences of the action.

Though I suppose that's a bit off topic.

Brother Oni

2012-06-13, 05:08 PM

Letting entire race die because of potential outcome, as in outcome that doesn't have to happen is unforgivable for me. It's like killing a kind for the potential it may one day become criminal, only on mass scale.

I think you're getting your own personal feelings too involved in this issue.

Suppose we have this scenario: the Enterprise is on patrol while the local political decision is unstable and may break out in hostilities.

They then end up in the scenario depicted in Pen Pals - does Picard abandon his patrol to save the less advanced people?
By your interpretation, they should because saving lives trumps a law, but what if the aforementioned galactic hostilities do break out and result in a number of Federation outposts destroyed, with a multitude of Federation casualties, because the Enterprise wasn't there to defend them?

Surely the lives of Federation citizens trump the lives of an unaligned world, to a Federation officer sworn to defend the Federation?

Aside from the humanitarian implications, since Star Fleet is effectively the Federation military, it makes rescuing the planet, a command decision.
I'm not saying it's a black and white scenario - it's very much a grey one and one that officers in command often encounter.

Man on Fire

2012-06-13, 05:59 PM

Suppose we have this scenario: the Enterprise is on patrol while the local political decision is unstable and may break out in hostilities.

They then end up in the scenario depicted in Pen Pals - does Picard abandon his patrol to save the less advanced people?
By your interpretation, they should because saving lives trumps a law, but what if the aforementioned galactic hostilities do break out and result in a number of Federation outposts destroyed, with a multitude of Federation casualties, because the Enterprise wasn't there to defend them?

They don't know that. By that logic cop on a patrol shouldn't stop a robbery because what if he won't be there when terrorists attacks? We live in present, we focuns on the matters we have at hand, we doesn't act or think of long-term possible consequences of our actions, not in situations like those.

If they are on patrol, it's their duty to help those in need. I could understand if they are on a mission, then they cannot abbandon it for any case, they may send signal for someone else to pick it up, but they have their orders. Or if the problem is taking place on the territory of alien nation that knows about Federation and doesn't wish to have them meddle in their private matters, because entering would have caused a war or something. But a patrol, where their duty is to respond to distress signal not responding to signal coming from less advanced civilization in need for help defy the whole idea of patrol.

Brother Oni

2012-06-13, 06:59 PM

They don't know that. By that logic cop on a patrol shouldn't stop a robbery because what if he won't be there when terrorists attacks? We live in present, we focuns on the matters we have at hand, we doesn't act or think of long-term possible consequences of our actions, not in situations like those.

If they are on patrol, it's their duty to help those in need.

Sorry, I meant patrol as in picket duty (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Picket_%28military%29), rather than just exploring or wandering around righting wrongs: suppose the Enterprise was on the border of the Neutral Zone and the Romulans were playing silly buggers, when they receive non-directional broadcasts from a primitive alien civilisation documenting the self destruction of their planet.

Also your cop on patrol is an incorrect analogy due to scale and circumstances. A single patrol officer is in charge of his vehicle and unless countermanded by his superior officer, generally has absolute discretion in what he does while on patrol.

The captain of a ship doesn't have the luxury of just involving himself only - there's all the people under him and all the people depending on his ship being where it should be.

Trying a slightly different example: Suppose an aircraft carrier from a neutral country was in sitting in international waters, just outside a potential warzone between two other countries - would it be reasonable for it assist a floundering refugee boat inside one of the hostile countries' national waters?
Simple humanity dictates that they should go in and help the refugees - consideration of the wider picture means that by trespassing, they could spark off the war they were hoping to prevent.

Your argument seems to indicate that they should go in, because they should focus on the present and ignore the long term consequences, and if they were anything but a warship of another nation, they probably would.
Board rules prevent me from offering specific examples, but imagine any one of the more paranoid/aggressive countries out there, having their sovereign waters violated by one of the largest warships afloat, it's sparking off a major international incident and possibly a shooting war, resulting in far more deaths than the original boatload of refugees.

Again to reiterate - the Prime Directive applies to Starfleet officers. These officers do not always have the freedom of being able to do the right thing - if they constantly ignored such larger picture concerns, they're unlikely to end up in a command position in the first place.

I personally think the PD is a good thing overall and that the penalties enforcing it ensure that any officer thinking about breaking it, think about it very, very carefully - according to ST lore, the PD was founded on experience, rather than theory, so presumably they've seen things go wrong enough times to warrant instigating it in the first place.

Man on Fire

2012-06-13, 07:53 PM

Sorry, I meant patrol as in picket duty (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Picket_%28military%29), rather than just exploring or wandering around righting wrongs: suppose the Enterprise was on the border of the Neutral Zone and the Romulans were playing silly buggers, when they receive non-directional broadcasts from a primitive alien civilisation documenting the self destruction of their planet.

That's a completely different situation. In that case they should send the information to theirsuperior - if they're on guard dute they probably are in message reach of a base or other ship and those people may decide what to do.

Also your cop on patrol is an incorrect analogy due to scale and circumstances. A single patrol officer is in charge of his vehicle and unless countermanded by his superior officer, generally has absolute discretion in what he does while on patrol.

The captain of a ship doesn't have the luxury of just involving himself only - there's all the people under him and all the people depending on his ship being where it should be.

If it's a patrol, as in flying around and checking things out, then people who are depending on him are those who send that signal. And the crew is under the Captain, like you said, so they will follow Captain's orders. General doesn't ask every single soldier if they should go to war either.

Trying a slightly different example: Suppose an aircraft carrier from a neutral country was in sitting in international waters, just outside a potential warzone between two other countries - would it be reasonable for it assist a floundering refugee boat inside one of the hostile countries' national waters?
Simple humanity dictates that they should go in and help the refugees - consideration of the wider picture means that by trespassing, they could spark off the war they were hoping to prevent.

Your argument seems to indicate that they should go in, because they should focus on the present and ignore the long term consequences, and if they were anything but a warship of another nation, they probably would.
Board rules prevent me from offering specific examples, but imagine any one of the more paranoid/aggressive countries out there, having their sovereign waters violated by one of the largest warships afloat, it's sparking off a major international incident and possibly a shooting war, resulting in far more deaths than the original boatload of refugees.

Sorry, but you changed example into completely different situation. And I said:

We live in present, we focuns on the matters we have at hand, we doesn't act or think of long-term possible consequences of our actions, not in situations like those.

The factor you introduced changes it into completely different situation and I already said :

I could understand if they are on a mission, then they cannot abbandon it for any case, they may send signal for someone else to pick it up, but they have their orders. Or if the problem is taking place on the territory of alien nation that knows about Federation and doesn't wish to have them meddle in their private matters, because entering would have caused a war or something.

If it's on territory of another country that doesn't allow you to go there, you know that going there will cause serious international problems and may even lead to war, you simply cannot go there. People can help others only in borders of power they have and in case of military units, international borders means "beyond our power" (there are exceptions like war or international missions, but then power is granted by higher authority). But if the ship would sail on their waters, they should assist it.

Again to reiterate - the Prime Directive applies to Starfleet officers. These officers do not always have the freedom of being able to do the right thing - if they constantly ignored such larger picture concerns, they're unlikely to end up in a command position in the first place.

Again, false dichotomy - just because I'm against following PD to a single letter doesn't mean I'm saying they should completely ignore it. I'm saying that you need to be flexible and pragmatic, know when you can disregard it and when you cannot. You cannot when you know costs would be too great . But these cases from those Star Trek episodes are based on dumb justifications and imagined risk. My example about disegarding bigger picture concerns certain situations - breaking your principle or rule to save lives, where there is no confirmed risk of greater negative consequences of breaking that rule. Situations like Maximum Carnage or all those Trek Episodes. It doesn't mean you should disregard bigger picture always, that's not what I'm arguing about. Starfleet Captains should have shown more flexibility of real leaders who can trust their own judgment when it comes to rules vs situation at hand and doesn't make ridiculopus excuses just to follow the rules to the letter.

McStabbington

2012-06-13, 08:24 PM

Trying a slightly different example: Suppose an aircraft carrier from a neutral country was in sitting in international waters, just outside a potential warzone between two other countries - would it be reasonable for it assist a floundering refugee boat inside one of the hostile countries' national waters?
Simple humanity dictates that they should go in and help the refugees - consideration of the wider picture means that by trespassing, they could spark off the war they were hoping to prevent.

Your argument seems to indicate that they should go in, because they should focus on the present and ignore the long term consequences, and if they were anything but a warship of another nation, they probably would.
Board rules prevent me from offering specific examples, but imagine any one of the more paranoid/aggressive countries out there, having their sovereign waters violated by one of the largest warships afloat, it's sparking off a major international incident and possibly a shooting war, resulting in far more deaths than the original boatload of refugees.

Again to reiterate - the Prime Directive applies to Starfleet officers. These officers do not always have the freedom of being able to do the right thing - if they constantly ignored such larger picture concerns, they're unlikely to end up in a command position in the first place.

I personally think the PD is a good thing overall and that the penalties enforcing it ensure that any officer thinking about breaking it, think about it very, very carefully - according to ST lore, the PD was founded on experience, rather than theory, so presumably they've seen things go wrong enough times to warrant instigating it in the first place.

With respect, the only thing your counterexample demonstrates is that protecting innocent life isn't and shouldn't be the sole, only and inviolable consideration when a starship captain makes his decision. Which is completely fine by me (and I suspect Man on Fire), because I don't recall anyone in the thread making the argument for replacing the Prime Directive with the Categorical Imperative.

The argument is that the Prime Directive should have some form of balancing test. On the one hand, the interests of the Federation should be considered, and on the other, the interests of the lesser civilization. If they can't solve the problem without initiating first contact with a species that isn't prepared for it, then obviously that represents a strong reason not to intervene. Same with initiating a war with another species or infringing on someone else's territory. But they shouldn't be the only considerations on the table. Under the PD seen in Pen Pals, the Federation's interests are the only interests considered. They could stop a civilization from dying out without any risk of a first contact situation, but they weren't going to do it. Because such an intervention might cause problems for the Federation down the road. That's not only catastrophically bad balancing of interests; that's refusing to consider a balance at all.

Brother Oni

2012-06-14, 02:21 AM

That's a completely different situation. In that case they should send the information to theirsuperior - if they're on guard dute they probably are in message reach of a base or other ship and those people may decide what to do.

Ah, but what if they couldn't because they have to maintain communications silence?
I'm not making upholding the PD sacrosanct, I'm trying to point out that spaceship captains have to balance other concerns other putting rescuing lives over all.

Again, false dichotomy - just because I'm against following PD to a single letter doesn't mean I'm saying they should completely ignore it. I'm saying that you need to be flexible and pragmatic, know when you can disregard it and when you cannot.

I believe we're in agreement on principle here, so all we're quibbling over is the threshold over when action can be taken and the PD broken.
That is a matter for each individual captain though and is so dependent on the situation at hand that making any sort of law, rather than guidelines, is just stupid.

Starfleet Captains should have shown more flexibility of real leaders who can trust their own judgment when it comes to rules vs situation at hand and doesn't make ridiculopus excuses just to follow the rules to the letter.

Again, we're in agreement here. I believe someone noted the Drumhead episode where it's mentioned that Picard has broken the PD numerous times, but has subsequently vindicated. The fact that such a distinguished captain with apparently very sound judgement, was reticient to initially interfer in the situation shown in Pen Pals, shows that the PD has some merit.

Which is completely fine by me (and I suspect Man on Fire), because I don't recall anyone in the thread making the argument for replacing the Prime Directive with the Categorical Imperative.

I'm perfectly in agreement with that, just that Man on Fire's posts seemed to imply that saving lives trumps all, but it looks like he's on the same page as I am, just at a different threshold.

The argument is that the Prime Directive should have some form of balancing test.

It could be argued that it does - the judgement of a Starfleet captain.

Under the PD seen in Pen Pals, the Federation's interests are the only interests considered. They could stop a civilization from dying out without any risk of a first contact situation, but they weren't going to do it. Because such an intervention might cause problems for the Federation down the road. That's not only catastrophically bad balancing of interests; that's refusing to consider a balance at all.

As Tyndmyr pointed out, the PD was formed based on harsh experience from previous attempts to interfer, most probably with nothing but the best of intentions.
As the saying goes, the road to hell is paved with good intentions and it's not because intervening might cause a problem, it's because you've set a precedent that you can get involved while only paying lip service to the PD.
While things may work out this time, the next time it might not.

In the episode, Picard changes his mind about interfering because the situation has changed - a child is directly asking for help from a Starfleet officer she knows.
As I noted earlier, Picard is generally regarded as a good captain - if he feels the PD is worthy of being upheld, there's probably a good reason for it, or at the very least, it being broken only after careful consideration.

Omergideon

2012-06-14, 02:48 AM

Ah, but what if they couldn't because they have to maintain communications silence?
I'm not making upholding the PD sacrosanct, I'm trying to point out that spaceship captains have to balance other concerns other putting rescuing lives over all.

I believe we're in agreement on principle here, so all we're quibbling over is the threshold over when action can be taken and the PD broken.
That is a matter for each individual captain though and is so dependent on the situation at hand that making any sort of law, rather than guidelines, is just stupid.

Again, we're in agreement here. I believe someone noted the Drumhead episode where it's mentioned that Picard has broken the PD numerous times, but has subsequently vindicated. The fact that such a distinguished captain with apparently very sound judgement, was reticient to initially interfer in the situation shown in Pen Pals, shows that the PD has some merit.

First, Man on Fire, you did a better job explaining to me your exact opinion. Thanks for that. I, however, think that you have failed to acknowledge that when it is possible to infer that your actions have longer term consequences it is imperative to consider those before you act. At least in the situation of a Starship captain.

Let me put it thus. As Captain of the Federation Flagship, even if he tried to keep such actions secret, any violation of the PD will become big news. He cannot (based on federation law/civilains on the ship/lots of officers) keep any act secret. It would be unfeasible excepting for outside intereference by powerful aliens. As such he must know that anything he does will be known to most, if not all, major powers. In addition to this his position is essentially the No1 Captain in Starfleet. In the absence of an Admiral he can essentially waltz up to a random fleet and take command because he is the Capt of the flagship. To the man on the street/foreign power (who WILL know what he does) what he does is what the Federation thinks. Certainly his independent authority to negotiate treaties with foreign powers, admittedly ad hoc treaties that get proper looks by diplomats later, means he is considered important.

So whenever he makes a decision it looks like federation policy. As such he needs to carefully consider all outside influences because of his role and the fact it will have repurcussions.

Should he be crippled by this? Personally I say no. When in doubt his only recourses are to follow the law strictly or his own moral judgements but he will need to make the decision. But his position is more like the police commisioner than the patrolman. All his choices have political repurcussion when acting as Captain.

Of course I think Oni is right. We agree in principle that the PD cannot be pure and perfect non-inteference and remain moral. But I think Man On Fire, you need to consider more carefully that for some people at least (captains who give the orders) they cannot just live in the moment. Their lives and roles cannot allow it.

Alos yes, Capt Picard in the Drumhead was noted as violating the PD 9 times, of which can only think of 3/4 that happened on screen by this point. Even assuming he broke it a few times off screen he clearly has done it before becoming captain of the Enterprise. The federation admits exceptions. But they do need to make it more clear when they can happen, or else confusion would result.

Man on Fire

2012-06-14, 06:14 AM

Ah, but what if they couldn't because they have to maintain communications silence?

I know where arguments like that leads. I set my answer, you set up circumstances that make what I said impossible, I give you new answer, you set more circumstances until we end up having very impropable and very specific situation forcing me to agree with you...I'm not playing that game. That's why I'm saying that it's up to specific captain's judgment in situation he has at hand - you cannot prepare guidelines for every situation in existence, by trying and enforcing following them to the letter you teach your men to be dogmatic and inflexible, therefore unable to operate in situation not described in rulebook.

But I think Man On Fire, you need to consider more carefully that for some people at least (captains who give the orders) they cannot just live in the moment. Their lives and roles cannot allow it.

Read my previous post:

My example about disegarding bigger picture concerns certain situations - breaking your principle or rule to save lives, where there is no confirmed risk of greater negative consequences of breaking that rule. Situations like Maximum Carnage or all those Trek Episodes. It doesn't mean you should disregard bigger picture always, that's not what I'm arguing about.

Brother Oni

2012-06-14, 06:34 AM

I know where arguments like that leads. I set my answer, you set up circumstances that make what I said impossible, I give you new answer, you set more circumstances until we end up having very impropable and very specific situation forcing me to agree with you...I'm not playing that game. That's why I'm saying that it's up to specific captain's judgment in situation he has at hand - you cannot prepare guidelines for every situation in existence, by trying and enforcing following them to the letter you teach your men to be dogmatic and inflexible, therefore unable to operate in situation not described in rulebook.

Actually, that's about all I was going to add - maintaining comms silence while on picket duty (since we apparently have different interpretations of the word 'patrol') is about the reasonable limit you can alter the circumstances without ending up in your improbably specific situation.

I wasn't intending to get you to agree with me, I was trying to get you to acknowledge that people in command positions do not always have the luxury of being able to do the right thing, be it because of their own laws or because of the situation. Since you apparently agree to that, that's all I'm going to say on the matter.

Whether you think a law is incorrect is a different argument and one that's far more philosophical.
You feel one way, I feel another and I suspect that we'll never be able to convince the other.

With regard to your re-emphasised point - how are you sure there's no confirmed risk or consequence of breaking the PD? At the very least, you've set a precedent that a captain believes the PD can be broken in this particular situation.

Omergideon

2012-06-14, 08:22 AM

Read my previous post:

I missed that one. Blame little sleep last night for it.

Ignoring Maximum Carnage (and the idea that perhaps there are legitmate concerns as to there being inherent negatives to superheroes believing they can kill......not touching that one), and focusing on the other. I see your point. It is an interesting maxim and a very sympathetic one.

But one must consider as well if it is the case that live must be more important than some principles. Of course by utilitarian principles this is so. And to avoid a real life debate on ethics I am stopping there. Your position is clearly stated now and fair enough. I however would say that it is impossible for any circumstance to lead to a captain avoiding the bigger picture. His role is too important. What he decides to do (whether he thinks the now is more important etc) is something I won't comment on. Just for the reasons I described, that I don't think it is ever possible for a Starfleet Captain to ignore the wider potential consequences and weigh up how likely they are.

So I think we agree all in general that the PD as is could not morally be total non interference. I think the evidence shows that Starfleet has and does permit exceptions (to be assessed post facto it seems) and mt thought is that the balance of issues means a Starfleet captain must be much more hesitant to act than some because he needs to consider the future. Further disagreements would end up playing "moral mathematics" I reckon, a game a I refuse to play.

Is this about right?

Brother Oni

2012-06-14, 08:51 AM

So I think we agree all in general that the PD as is could not morally be total non interference. I think the evidence shows that Starfleet has and does permit exceptions (to be assessed post facto it seems) and mt thought is that the balance of issues means a Starfleet captain must be much more hesitant to act than some because he needs to consider the future. Further disagreements would end up playing "moral mathematics" I reckon, a game a I refuse to play.

Is this about right?

I'm more than happy to agree with this.

With regard to exceptions being assessed, because of the PD's importance to Federation values, it may be that any infringement is automatically reviewed and judged, regardless of the morality or acceptability of the infringement.
For example, in the navy, any captain that loses his ship is automatically court martialled to assess culpability, if any exists at all. It doesn't matter if they did nothing wrong, or it's publically lauded that they did everything right, the loss of a ship must be investigated and the captain judged.

Tavar

2012-06-14, 09:04 AM

The problem, once again, is that in Pen Pals they don't use any argument regarding the big picture. It's interesting to me that for someone who stridently claims to only want to use the situation as presented and not hypothetical, you seem to only use hypothetical yourself.

Also, it's not the fact that he knows a child is calling for help that makes him change his mind: she was already doing that. It's that he hears the child calling for help, instead of being told about it. Yes, he changed his mind in the end, but the fact that his initial inclination was to do nothing is a huge mark against him.

Philistine

2012-06-14, 10:27 AM

Pretty much what Tavar said. The only thing that happened in between "non-interference is the only possible legally and morally correct course of action" and "well, of course we must save these people" was that Picard got to put a name and a face to one of the individuals who was going to be affected by the decision. But if non-intervention was Picard's legal and moral obligation before, how does personal contact with one of his victims-to-be make reversing that decision okay? It's a problem, especially if you're trying to present the Enterprise-D senior staff as models of evolved, enlightened humanity (as Roddenberry explicitly was), because it suggests that law and morality in the Federation depend more on the personal connection between arbiter and subject than on any lofty principle. It makes the PD in the TNG era look like merely a fig leaf to cover up paralyzing moral cowardice.

And if you're worried about the PR implications, does "Federation Flagship Conducts Rescue Operations" really sound like a more damning headline than "Federation Crew Drink Tea, Mouth Platitudes as Billions Die"?

Tyndmyr

2012-06-14, 12:45 PM

Still doesn't justify climbing to it like a crazy maniac without acknowleding that there is a gray zone.

Letting entire race die because of potential outcome, as in outcome that doesn't have to happen is unforgivable for me. It's like killing a kid for the potential it may one day become criminal, only on mass scale.

Depends on the odds. Would you shoot one person if there was an 90% chance it'd save five lives?

I don't know what the particular odds behind the PD might be, but it is at least potentially possible that it has excellent reasons behind it. I do wish that they would explore such things in depth, but star trek was kind of a superficial show.

I've actually heard it argued that far too much humanitarian aid is poorly given and can end up having an adverse effect on development due to it increasing dependency and hurting the economy (how can a local farmer compete with free food?).

That's not to say, of course, that giving aid itself is bad, but that arguably too much of it isn't done in a way that considers longer-term consequences of the action.

Though I suppose that's a bit off topic.

Nah, it's wonderfully on topic. Giving aid can be a very good act, but sometimes the short term benefit doesn't match up with the best long-term plan. Ignoring long term plans for "saving lives right now" is not always wise.

This doesn't guarantee that the PD is the best formulation of this, but presumably it's a general answer to a class of problems that has arisen in the past. We simply don't know enough about the events that led up to it's creation to judge it effectively.

Lord Seth

2012-06-14, 01:29 PM

Depends on the odds. Would you shoot one person if there was an 90% chance it'd save five lives?

I don't know what the particular odds behind the PD might be, but it is at least potentially possible that it has excellent reasons behind it. I do wish that they would explore such things in depth, but star trek was kind of a superficial show. I think the issue is in cases like Pen Pals is the choices were either "let them all die for factors completely out of their control" or "save them without them knowing it." You can't say it's going to adversely effect their culture (a possible reason to follow the Prime Directive) because it's not possible for it to be worse. Even if you beam straight down and completely interfere (which they're not doing), it's still a better situation for them than all dying.

This is a big contrast between a war, in which monkeying around with it could conceivably make things worse for them. Or even a plague, because surviving it might make their society stronger or something. But here we're talking about complete destruction vs. not complete destruction with no drawback outside of the most vague of speculations that just cancel themselves out ("it might be a cosmic plan they die!"/"It might be a cosmic plan we save them!" "A few centuries down the line they might develop warp speed and become a warlike race that threatens us!"/"A few centuries down the line they might develop warp speed and help out the Federation!").

Heck, even in "Dear Doctor" they probably had a better reason to not act. Even ignoring the nonsensical evolutionary argument, they at least did have a race who might conceivably benefit from the other race dying. I mean, it's still dumb...but there's at least a reason. Pen Pals is more like if both races would be killed off; there's no benefit to anyone and even the already-shaky reasoning provided in Dear Doctor is gone.

Nah, it's wonderfully on topic. Giving aid can be a very good act, but sometimes the short term benefit doesn't match up with the best long-term plan. Ignoring long term plans for "saving lives right now" is not always wise.

This doesn't guarantee that the PD is the best formulation of this, but presumably it's a general answer to a class of problems that has arisen in the past. We simply don't know enough about the events that led up to it's creation to judge it effectively.Well that's the main issue again though. Even assuming things like that, the rationale here doesn't really apply because they couldn't make things worse if they did act.

Gnoman

2012-06-14, 03:45 PM

Man on Fire

2012-06-14, 04:04 PM

The reason behind the Prime directive was, essentially, to prevent Star Fleet from playing God to less advanced societies. Thus, it's not even about "short-term" or "long-term" good. Imagine if, for example, a child went to bed one night with terminal cancer, and woke up in the morning completely cured, with no memory of anything happening, because Picard had her treated while keeping her sedated. Even with no evidence left behind, this cure would still have massive impact on any society. That's interference with the absolute noblest of intentions.

As SF Debris said, it's not like Enterprise is going to beam in to every person being mugged, we're talking here about situations where lives of entire civilization are at stake.

Depends on the odds. Would you shoot one person if there was an 90% chance it'd save five lives?

Me? I don't have guts to murder somebody. I honestly cannot tell what I personally would do in that situation. And even if we would assume I can kill, it really woud depend on the context, depending on it I might give you two different answers.

I don't know what the particular odds behind the PD might be, but it is at least potentially possible that it has excellent reasons behind it.

Irrevelant.

Lord Seth

2012-06-14, 04:11 PM

Imagine if, for example, a child went to bed one night with terminal cancer, and woke up in the morning completely cured, with no memory of anything happening, because Picard had her treated while keeping her sedated. Even with no evidence left behind, this cure would still have massive impact on any society. That's interference with the absolute noblest of intentions.Difficult to see how it would have such a big impact on ours. At most it'd probably be covered by the media for a little while with a bunch of arguments about whether it was natural or had some kind of external influence (e.g. God, aliens) and then within like two weeks it'd be forgotten in favor of other things.

Now, if everyone with terminal cancer was spontaneously cured, that would be something that would likely have a big impact. But it's hard to see how one person would be anything more than a blip in the overall media, if national media even did pick up the story.

Gnoman

2012-06-14, 04:35 PM

Man on Fire

2012-06-14, 05:20 PM

Was trying to shy away from applying it to our society; but I doubt a full, provable cure would die down quickly. When you consider the coverage that even somewhat dubious partial cures get, it's a guarantee that it would get picked up, unless it happened in some obscure part of the world. Not to mention that our society is at a fairly high tech-level by PD standards. The way something of that sort would be recieved in 1850 is considerably different.

You described something completely different. You didn't said 'kids gets cure", but "kids wakes up without cancer", which would be threated as miracle or something like that, and as so wouldn't get much coverage in media. Just because he got well overnight doesn't mean people will be able to even understand what happened to him, not to mention repeating that process, which may be much more advanced than any technology they have at hand. In 1850 it would have even lesser impact - rumor might, but it would be very impropable, get to the ears of some sciencist anybody gives a damn, who would then dismiss it as fairy tale such educated people like him doesn't belive.

I was deliberately avoiding civilization-spanning examples in an attempt to illustrate the potential for even small interventions to have significant effects. If the Black Plague were stopped early, or WWII had been prevented by "meteors," it's easy to see how much that could affect us.

It's different. We don't know how things would change when we don't know the future. And because we don't know the future we don't know if intervention wil lchange things for better or worse.

SF Debris covered that too - just because thing might co wrong we cannot do nothing out of fear they will. By that logic doctors couldn't save children or dying soldiers because they may become next Hitler. And that's not Godwin's Law, Hitler is just the only dictator I can think of who was at the verge of death before becoming a dictator, so pardon me. More, he was at the verge of death twice. In his childhood (I think he almost drowned) and on WWI front (I think he inhaled a dose of poisonous gas releaset by the enemy) - people saving him didn't knew he will grew up to become one of the world's greatest mass murderers, in their mind it would be ridiculous. They seen just a dying boy/young man who need help - by every possible information they had it would be wrong to let him die. And they cannot be blamed for how Hitler turned on, it was his responsibility and his decisions, not theirs. Their responsibility was to save a life, what he did with this life cannot be blamed on them.

Crew of Enterprise shouldn't be responsible because race they saved turned into mass murderers, those vere individual decisions of that race, captain and his people couldn't knew it will turn that way.

Lord Seth

2012-06-14, 05:55 PM

Was trying to shy away from applying it to our society;Then why did you say "any" society, which by definition includes our own?

but I doubt a full, provable cure would die down quickly.What full provable cure? The person has cancer and then doesn't. Even assuming it's "provable" it occurred (e.g. documentation they had cancer and that it didn't), that doesn't tell you anything about what the cure was caused. It'd be considered a bit of a marvel by the people directly affiliated with it and maybe considered a miracle by some, but I doubt it'd get much actual coverage on a national level if any.
When you consider the coverage that even somewhat dubious partial cures get, it's a guarantee that it would get picked up, unless it happened in some obscure part of the world.Maybe as a side story on a few news shows but nothing that won't be forgotten within a week or two.

Not to mention that our society is at a fairly high tech-level by PD standards. The way something of that sort would be recieved in 1850 is considerably different.In what way other than that reduced media would make it even more unlikely that it'd have any impact outside of maybe in the local area?

hamishspence

2012-06-14, 06:55 PM

With respect, I think you're pretzeling yourself in an effort to avoid the plain hard moral truths at play here. If an evil genie sticks you in a box with a button, and he says that if you don't push the button, he'll kill 100 people, but if you do, he'll not go through with it, and you don't push the button, you're not simply evil. You're in a class of evil with Joffrey Baratheon, pedophiles and people who talk in the theater.

A case could be made that you should never let "evil genies" coerce you into anything- and all the moral responsibility for the genie's actions rests on his head, not yours.

O-Chul makes this point here:

http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0547.html

Bulldog Psion

2012-06-14, 07:31 PM

The way something of that sort would be recieved in 1850 is considerably different.

Nobody would even hear about it. In fact, most people wouldn't even know what was wrong with the person. "They were extremely sick, and then they got better" would not have an earthshattering impact on anyone other than the person who got well and was dancing around happily for an hour or two before getting back to work.

Man on Fire

2012-06-14, 07:49 PM

Tavar

2012-06-14, 10:32 PM

A case could be made that you should never let "evil genies" coerce you into anything- and all the moral responsibility for the genie's actions rests on his head, not yours.

O-Chul makes this point here:

http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0547.html

Note that the situation is a bit different. Redcloak is offering to save that group of humans if the Paladin betrays all he holds dear. The Genie, in the proposed situation, is offering a button press, and either he kills 500 people if you don't press it, or does nothing if you do press it(and, in this case, it should be assumed that you know that there is no real downside to doing it beyond the multitude hypotheticals, ie the child grows up to be a Mass Murderer). In that case, since there is no downside, you are guilty of murder if you don't do it.

Omergideon

2012-06-15, 02:41 AM

SF Debris covered that too - just because thing might co wrong we cannot do nothing out of fear they will. By that logic doctors couldn't save children or dying soldiers because they may become next Hitler. And that's not Godwin's Law, Hitler is just the only dictator I can think of who was at the verge of death before becoming a dictator, so pardon me. More, he was at the verge of death twice. In his childhood (I think he almost drowned) and on WWI front (I think he inhaled a dose of poisonous gas releaset by the enemy) - people saving him didn't knew he will grew up to become one of the world's greatest mass murderers, in their mind it would be ridiculous. They seen just a dying boy/young man who need help - by every possible information they had it would be wrong to let him die. And they cannot be blamed for how Hitler turned on, it was his responsibility and his decisions, not theirs. Their responsibility was to save a life, what he did with this life cannot be blamed on them.

Crew of Enterprise shouldn't be responsible because race they saved turned into mass murderers, those vere individual decisions of that race, captain and his people couldn't knew it will turn that way.

They would not be morally responsible for the races actions no. But again we need to consider that Starfleet starting to "play God", even for noble intentions, with other races is going to have knock on effects with other races in the Alpha Quadrant and beyond. They have to consider the wholly reasonable outcome that their actions will alter the balance of power in the AQ and change things a lot.

As a random example, not one directly from the show, but to illustrate. Suppose that part of the reason other races do not seem to routinely interfere with pre warp peoples is because the Federation does not and, as the big boys of the AQ, this is enforced almost universally. Should they then act, however quiet they try to keep it other may use this as a justification for their own expoitations of primitives claiming to only be doing as the feds did. Does this happen in show? No. I don't pretend it did. But such considerations are of the type that a Starfleet Captain needs to consider.

This is always my point. A Starfleet captain is in such a vastly different situation he needs to be concerned with more than the immeadiate situation. Now should he be paralysed from action? Of course not. That is absurd. Good commanders do not endlessly second guess themselves before making a decision. However they do need to take some time to address the issues and not say "screw the big picture". The Evil Genie, or kid in a car scenarios do not accurately reflect this situation*, with external factors having been carefully excised. Whether they decide to act, despite uncertainty, is a matter for after they weigh up the various pros and cons. Perhaps they should weight the immediate suffering as a bigger factor than many potential future harms. But all should be considered.

And I admit this point is not directly addressed in Pen Pals, more to the episodes shame. 1 line would be all it would take ("would that this were able to be a personal moral choice" from Picard say, making it clear they acknowledge larger realities afoot). Though the fact that every rational artifice crumbled once they were face to face with real suffering is I think a point one must remember about the Enterprise crew, however irrelevant it is to the PD debate as a whole.

*I recognise that sometimes they won't have the luxury of extended debate on the issue. And moral maths is never clean cut. But it is something I think they must be aware of. Real Life is never as neat as artifical moral scenarios tend to be.

hamishspence

2012-06-15, 06:18 AM

The Genie, in the proposed situation, is offering a button press, and either he kills 500 people if you don't press it, or does nothing if you do press it(and, in this case, it should be assumed that you know that there is no real downside to doing it beyond the multitude hypotheticals, ie the child grows up to be a Mass Murderer). In that case, since there is no downside, you are guilty of murder if you don't do it.

There's one obvious downside in any version of this- that you've just demonstrated that you can be coerced into doing things.

Man on Fire

2012-06-15, 06:39 AM

There's one obvious downside in any version of this- that you've just demonstrated that you can be coerced into doing things.

Life of 500 people or my ego. What a hard choice.

As a random example, not one directly from the show, but to illustrate. Suppose that part of the reason other races do not seem to routinely interfere with pre warp peoples is because the Federation does not and, as the big boys of the AQ, this is enforced almost universally. Should they then act, however quiet they try to keep it other may use this as a justification for their own expoitations of primitives claiming to only be doing as the feds did. Does this happen in show? No. I don't pretend it did. But such considerations are of the type that a Starfleet Captain needs to consider.

It's the same argument from ignorance as before - just because there is possibility something might happen if we do certain things we cannot act like it certainly will hapen.

hamishspence

2012-06-15, 06:43 AM

Life of 500 people or my ego. What a hard choice.

It's not just an ego issue. Why do you think various people take a "we do not negotiate with terrorists" attitude? Because once you start letting them force you into doing things, with threats against the innocent, who knows where it will end?

Man on Fire

2012-06-15, 07:16 AM

It's not just an ego issue. Why do you think various people take a "we do not negotiate with terrorists" attitude? Because once you start letting them force you into doing things, with threats against the innocent, who knows where it will end?

And that's a different situation again, because there you have military power to strike those terrorists and submitting to their demans has very real risk of resulting in death of more people. In this example givin up to the Genie has no negative consequences that you know about and you cannot punch him in the face.

hamishspence

2012-06-15, 08:05 AM

Strictly, "natural disasters" are different from malevolent genies in that they can't be influenced- acting to deal with the consequences of a natural disaster doesn't increase or decrease the probability of further disasters occurring.

So in that sense "intervening to save people" doesn't increase the probability of more disasters threatening different people occurring- as far as we known.

It's possible that the principle of the Prime Directive became "prevent any interference, positive or negative" after numerous "positive interference" attempts went horribly wrong.

From the point of view of the species threatened though, you can't get much more "horribly wrong" than extinction.

Omergideon

2012-06-15, 08:24 AM

It's the same argument from ignorance as before - just because there is possibility something might happen if we do certain things we cannot act like it certainly will hapen.

The genie example is a completely artificial one, with it designed to have no negative consequences to action. Real life is not so clean cut. Ironic as we are discussin fiction, but the concept remains similar. A real scenario where the question becomes relevant may have

Also I am not trying to argue for inaction or paralysis. I am saying that such considerations cannot be completely ignored and so must be a factor in the decision. One of many factors most likely, with the weighting depending on the case itself and likelihood of various outcomes. But if we have a reasonable and proper expectation of a negative outcome should it not be part of our consideration? I tried very hard to make it clear I was not speaking of certainties or paralsis, in the next paragraph. But of how we cannot ignore the big picture, with an example of why we might need to consider it by way of illustration.

Tyndmyr

2012-06-15, 09:01 AM

I think the issue is in cases like Pen Pals is the choices were either "let them all die for factors completely out of their control" or "save them without them knowing it." You can't say it's going to adversely effect their culture (a possible reason to follow the Prime Directive) because it's not possible for it to be worse. Even if you beam straight down and completely interfere (which they're not doing), it's still a better situation for them than all dying.

There are some evolutionary arguments for non-interference as well...but it's really impossible to judge, since we simply don't know enough about the background for the PD.

And no, you can't establish that beaming down and interfering overtly is worse than them all dying. In a universe with many races, possible outcomes exist that are worse than "one race dies".

Difficult to see how it would have such a big impact on ours. At most it'd probably be covered by the media for a little while with a bunch of arguments about whether it was natural or had some kind of external influence (e.g. God, aliens) and then within like two weeks it'd be forgotten in favor of other things.

Now, if everyone with terminal cancer was spontaneously cured, that would be something that would likely have a big impact. But it's hard to see how one person would be anything more than a blip in the overall media, if national media even did pick up the story.

What if humanity itself got saved? Suddenly, without explanation, everything is better. You can bet that this would be a pretty big deal.

Note that the situation is a bit different. Redcloak is offering to save that group of humans if the Paladin betrays all he holds dear. The Genie, in the proposed situation, is offering a button press, and either he kills 500 people if you don't press it, or does nothing if you do press it(and, in this case, it should be assumed that you know that there is no real downside to doing it beyond the multitude hypotheticals, ie the child grows up to be a Mass Murderer). In that case, since there is no downside, you are guilty of murder if you don't do it.

I'd probably be slightly suspicious of a deal offered by an evil genie willing to murder 500 people for no reason.

Brother Oni

2012-06-15, 01:10 PM

Life of 500 people or my ego. What a hard choice.

Odd that you didn't want to be drawn into a highly specific and increasingly convoluted scenario, but here you are, arguing in one. :smallconfused:

As hamishspence said, you've just shown that you can be coerced into doing something, so the principle is set; all that matters now is the threshold.

As Omergideon said, we're now in the territory of playing moral mathematics, which is always fraught with argument, so I'm only going to mention it.

Lord Seth

2012-06-15, 02:15 PM

And no, you can't establish that beaming down and interfering overtly is worse than them all dying. In a universe with many races, possible outcomes exist that are worse than "one race dies".Okay, then...what outcome could be worse?

The only way the Prime Directive makes sense is if its rationale is something akin to "don't muck around with another race, particularly those not warp-capable, because you might make things worse." The problem here is that if the entire planet is going to be destroyed (and not even by something the race in question actually caused), it's not possible to make things worse for them.

Even the dilemma in Dear Doctor makes more sense than the "dilemma" presented in Pen Pals because at least in Dear Doctor, even if you disregard the nonsensical evolutionary thing Dr. Phlox comes up with, all the Valakians dying might make things better for the Menk. Pen Pals is like that except without even that possible rationale.

Man on Fire

2012-06-15, 02:25 PM

Odd that you didn't want to be drawn into a highly specific and increasingly convoluted scenario, but here you are, arguing in one. :smallconfused:

Highly specific? Yes. Increasingly convoluded? No, it stays exatly the same it was since beginning - it' a genie, a button and you can push or not. No additional rules were added, nothing was changed, it's still the same example.

As hamishspence said, you've just shown that you can be coerced into doing something, so the principle is set; all that matters now is the threshold.

But I saved 500 people, I think that means more than appearing strong to the world.

And no, you can't establish that beaming down and interfering overtly is worse than them all dying. In a universe with many races, possible outcomes exist that are worse than "one race dies".

Doesn't change the fact that none of these possible outcomes is even hinted to be possible in any of those specific situations, the possibility too often exists only in imagination and is not backed up in any way.

I'd probably be slightly suspicious of a deal offered by an evil genie willing to murder 500 people for no reason.

To the point of letting 500 people die because you are suspicious?

The genie example is a completely artificial one, with it designed to have no negative consequences to action.

I wasn't talking about genie example in the part you quoted.

Real life is not so clean cut. Ironic as we are discussin fiction, but the concept remains similar. A real scenario where the question becomes relevant may have

Sadly up until this point all options you presented are the ones where people making decissions are working against consequences they have no way of predicting.

Also I am not trying to argue for inaction or paralysis. I am saying that such considerations cannot be completely ignored and so must be a factor in the decision. One of many factors most likely, with the weighting depending on the case itself and likelihood of various outcomes. But if we have a reasonable and proper expectation of a negative outcome should it not be part of our consideration?

Problem is that in those Trek examples we don't have any reasonable or proper exceptation of a negative outcome. They exist only in captain's head.

Strictly, "natural disasters" are different from malevolent genies in that they can't be influenced- acting to deal with the consequences of a natural disaster doesn't increase or decrease the probability of further disasters occurring.

Where did natural diseasters come into the picture? We were talking about terrorists. Are terrorists natural diseasters now?

So in that sense "intervening to save people" doesn't increase the probability of more disasters threatening different people occurring- as far as we known.

By that logic doctors shouldn't try to save terminally ill or critically wounded because they might die in the future.

It's possible that the principle of the Prime Directive became "prevent any interference, positive or negative" after numerous "positive interference" attempts went horribly wrong.

And by that logic people should stop any sort of research because many inventions of the past have been turned into weapons.

McStabbington

2012-06-15, 05:40 PM

It's not just an ego issue. Why do you think various people take a "we do not negotiate with terrorists" attitude? Because once you start letting them force you into doing things, with threats against the innocent, who knows where it will end?

But that's just changing my hypo. The point I was trying to make with the evil genie hypo was that our intuition tells us that if we can save lives with absolutely no cost; if all we need to do to save life is merely not abstain and engage in a trivial positive act, and we don't do it, we're acting in an evil manner. Terrorists ask for a tradeoff and invite further tradeoffs in the future. The holding of hostages is an exchange of life for something in the form of money, security, safe passage, etc. The evil genie in this case is simply gauging your character: do you have enough sympathy in you to save a life with trivial effort. The exchange in this case is so minor as to be non-existent.

The problem of course is that the Enterprise in Pen Pals is in a situation very similar to the evil genie scenario. Their action amounts to pushing a few buttons. There's no risk that they'll be detected. No risk that they'll run out of energy. No risk that it'll cause a diplomatic incident with another space-faring race. No risk that the aliens they help will develop in any way other than how they would if they didn't all die. Like the evil genie, this was purely a test of character. And yet they refused to push those buttons, all while going on long and hard about it was really more moral, more civilized and indeed more beneficial for all parties if they just didn't do anything. Which suggests to me that if that's a test of character, our purported heroes failed, and failed because obeying their most sacrosanct law required that they fail.

Brother Oni

2012-06-15, 07:07 PM

Highly specific? Yes. Increasingly convoluded? No, it stays exatly the same it was since beginning - it' a genie, a button and you can push or not. No additional rules were added, nothing was changed, it's still the same example.

As you've noted, such an isolated example is only of limited use in application to the real world, or even a fictitious example such as the Pen Pals episode.

But I saved 500 people, I think that means more than appearing strong to the world.

Since you appear to be missing the point:

Your personal ego is worth the lives of 500 people. Precedent set.
Is your well being worth the lives of 500 people? You've already said you're willing to sacrifice your ego, so what's a bit more of your self respect? Suppose you had to submit to a body cavity search to save the lives of 500? Would you do it?
How about being infected with a terminal disease? Sacrificing your life? Letting a loved one die - is that worth the life of 500? Or how about letting 499 people die to save the lives of 500?

As I've said, you've set the principle, now all we have to do is find your price.

The problem of course is that the Enterprise in Pen Pals is in a situation very similar to the evil genie scenario. Their action amounts to pushing a few buttons. There's no risk that they'll be detected. No risk that they'll run out of energy. No risk that it'll cause a diplomatic incident with another space-faring race. No risk that the aliens they help will develop in any way other than how they would if they didn't all die.

Except that saving the planet will have to be reported to Starfleet, who value the sanctity of the Prime Directive. Even if Picard could convince the entire ship not to report it (including civilians who he has no jurisdiction over once they're off his ship), he himself would know.
Picard is a Starfleet captain, a man of particular moral character - if he bent the rules so easily, do you think he would be the man he is today?

I think you're trying to isolate the scenario depicted in the episode, so that it's similar to our evil genie dilemma, which I think is misleading to do. You're making the assumption that the Federation hasn't done anything like this before and that their fears of interfering will prove to be baseless, when it's highly likely that they HAVE interfered before in similar situations and things HAVE gone wrong.

Interestingly enough, the Enterprise crew discuss violating the PD in the episode in quite some detail (link (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HjFG8gMeLlU&feature=related)), which indicates that even they're not all of one mind on the subject.

Man on Fire

2012-06-15, 08:20 PM

As you've noted, such an isolated example is only of limited use in application to the real world, or even a fictitious example such as the Pen Pals episode.

But it's pretty simple.

Your personal ego is worth the lives of 500 people. Precedent set.
Is your well being worth the lives of 500 people? You've already said you're willing to sacrifice your ego, so what's a bit more of your self respect? Suppose you had to submit to a body cavity search to save the lives of 500? Would you do it?
How about being infected with a terminal disease? Sacrificing your life? Letting a loved one die - is that worth the life of 500? Or how about letting 499 people die to save the lives of 500?

As I've said, you've set the principle, now all we have to do is find your price.

And? Why is that supposed to be a bad thing? Everybody has a price and everybody does make compromises in their lives. History of human civilization is a history of making compromises. There is nothing wrong in that fact that in certain situation you can sacrifice your principles, we are all flawed beings and we will all must live with responsibility of decisions we make. Beliving that a human being is capable of going through life without making compromises is foolish and naive, beliving that we are capable of always making right, most rationa and morally right decision even more so. Yes I have a price, so does everybody. I don' know my own price and I hope I never will have to find what it is. I'm not lying to myself I'm perfect person or one of those always right, never compromising superheroes. World isn't made of good and bad, it's made of shades of grey. At one point things just become too much in darker shades of grey for people. There is no shame in that. What's important is to go through your life and do things you think are right. I made my choice, I saved 500 people. Do I think this was right decision? Yes. And if it will cost me, if it will make others go and put me on test again? Let them come, it's a responsibility I accept, because I made a right choice. I acceept that responsibiliy without jumping into pseudo-philosophical debates that Picard, Janneway and what's his name from Enterprise or countless superheroes do, that boils down to running away from responsibility. All things said in this thread in defense of PD? they're nothing more but excuses to let Federation and Captains avoid responsibility that might go with making right choice. Federation and superheroes live in false vision of the world, where there is definite line between right and wrong. There ain' one. There is no situation in which we know everything, where we can tell what's the most optimal right thing to do by all accounts. There are only different prices.

Lord Seth

2012-06-15, 08:34 PM

Note that the situation is a bit different. Redcloak is offering to save that group of humans if the Paladin betrays all he holds dear.The fact that the paladin in question literally can't betray all he holds dear because he can't give Redcloak information he doesn't have makes the whole thing as any test of character kind of pointless.

It's kind of like someone telling me they'll kill a bunch of people if I don't jump straight to the moon. The outcome says nothing about me whatsoever because I literally can't jump to the moon.
To the point of letting 500 people die because you are suspicious?How would you know 500 people would die? The only source is, as you say, an evil genie, who seems hardly trustworthy (after all, he is evil). Indeed, it's hard to see any reason for the evil genie to do such a thing. If they want to kill 500 people, there's no purpose in requiring permission...and if they don't want to for whatever reason, why would they offer that up option up anyway? Why would they go to the trouble to set up this scenario? What do they get out of it?

The entire situation seems suspicious to the point that I'd consider it highly likely that they need you to press the button for some nefarious scheme (after all, they are evil). Because otherwise, why would they bother doing this at all?

I know I'm being pedantic, but it's difficult to see such a scenario occurring unless there's some secret agenda by the evil genie.

Brother Oni

2012-06-15, 08:37 PM

I made my choice, I saved 500 people. Do I think this was right decision? Yes.

You made the choice that you thought was right and I am not arguing against that.
I am trying to point out that other people may not think the same as you do.

I acceept that responsibiliy without jumping into pseudo-philosophical debates that Picard, Janneway and what's his name from Enterprise or countless superheroes do, that boils down to running away from responsibility.

So you admit that most moral decisions in the real (or semi real) world are shades of grey and have compromise, yet choosing to abide by their most sacrosanct law is 'running away from responsibility'? :smallconfused:

What happened to choosing what they thought was right? Or do you think they're moral cowards because they have different values to you and thus are making a decision that's abhorrent to you?

Man on Fire

2012-06-15, 08:40 PM

How would you know 500 people would die? The only source is, as you say, an evil genie, who seems hardly trustworthy. Indeed, it's hard to see any reason for the evil genie to do such a thing. If they want to kill 500 people, there's no purpose in requiring permission...and if they don't want to for whatever reason, why would they offer that up option up anyway? Why would they go to the trouble to set up this scenario? What do they get out of it?

The entire situation seems suspicious to the point that I'd consider it highly likely that they need you to press the button for some nefarious scheme (after all, they are evil). Because otherwise, why would they bother doing this at all?

I know I'm being pedantic, but it's difficult to see such a scenario occurring unless there's some secret agenda by the evil genie.

But you don't know that. For all your suspicions it may be equally possible dude wants you to be suspicious of him for you to let 500 people die. Or even better, that he is cruel, bored jerk. The last one would be more possible, because really, what sounds more likely - that its a part of elaborate plan or that he is a d***? It's stil lthe same reasoning, it's still looking for possibility that you might take responsibility and trying to run away from it.

So you admit that most moral decisions in the real (or semi real) world are shades of grey and have compromise, yet choosing to abide by their most sacrosanct law is 'running away from responsibility'?

What happened to choosing what they thought was right? Or do you think they're moral cowards because they have different values to you and thus are making a decision that's abhorrent to you?

Because that law is treated as dogmatic black-and white solution to everything, guide to always make right thing. Those people aren't moral, they are selfish, they want to be right so much they sacrifice their own flexibility and delude themselves to think they have perfect guide in form of PD. This is dogmatism that makes them amoral cowards because they run away from responsibility of having to admit they might be wrong. They are sacrificing people for their own ego.

Lord Seth

2012-06-15, 09:08 PM

But you don't know that. For all your suspicions it may be equally possible dude wants you to be suspicious of him for you to let 500 people die.Then why not just kill the 500 people and not bother with the middleman?

Or even better, that he is cruel, bored jerk.Because clearly offering someone what appears to be an incredibly easy choice is cruel.

The last one would be more possible, because really, what sounds more likely - that its a part of elaborate plan or that he is a d***?The elaborate plan sounds far more likely to me.

If they were legitimately being a jerk, there are significantly better ways to do that. Remember the famous "sadistic choice" scene from the Spider-Man movie? It would've been something like that, not "push a button or people die." It would be something like "these people die or these other people die" or if it was really a case of "you versus other people," something like "give up appendages or people die" or even "you die or other people die." That's actual jerk behavior, not "exert less effort than walking across the street requires or people die."

Brother Oni

2012-06-15, 09:28 PM

Because that law is treated as dogmatic black-and white solution to everything, guide to always make right thing. Those people aren't moral, they are selfish, they want to be right so much they sacrifice their own flexibility and delude themselves to think they have perfect guide in form of PD. This is dogmatism that makes them amoral cowards because they run away from responsibility of having to admit they might be wrong. They are sacrificing people for their own ego.

Except the PD isn't inflexible - I linked to a discussion in the very episode where they discuss interfering or not and Picard eventually decides to break it due to a last minute request for help.
It also isn't treated as a 'cure-all' solution - it's specifically intended to make them think about the consequences of their actions and if they're not sure about what to do, then not to interfere.

You still haven't answered my question about why you appear to be so vehemently against the PD. Why in your opinion, does having principles and following a code of conduct appear to be nothing but self gratifying egotism when lives are at risk?

What is your opinion on imposing the 'law' of rules of engagement on soldiers? Are generals/politicians pandering to their egos to set them? Are soldiers being egotistical that they follow them as best they can, even when their lives and the lives of their fellow soldiers (and possibly civilians) are put at risk because of them?

One example imposition in a recent ongoing conflict is PID or Positive Identification, that is, soldiers cannot return fire without first accurately identifying the threat that is firing on them and where that threat is. They can't just fire a couple rounds back in the vague direction the enemy fire came from or call in supporting fire to attack a general area.
Does this put the soldier's lives at risk? Yes. However, by your logic, they should fire back even though they might hit the wrong people because they've failed to PID the enemy.

There was a documentary following some British soldiers on joint patrol with the ANP where they came under fire and the Afghans fired back without PID, resulting in the near fatal shooting of a 3-year old girl bystander.
If that doesn't prove the validity of having a code of conduct, even when lives are at risk, I don't know what does.

I was talking to a soldier whose patrol came under enemy fire, including from a sniper from a minaret on a mosque. He subsequently shot and killed the sniper but was immediately cursed out by his commanding officer, asking him did he shoot the mosque (he hadn't as it turned out - drilled him nice and neat in the centre of mass as he had intended) - when fear of antagonising the local populace by damaging their places of worship prevent soldiers from fighting effectively (nobody was shooting at the sniper for fear of hitting the mosque), your logic would dictate that they should fire regardless because lives are at risk.

McStabbington

2012-06-15, 10:02 PM

The fact that the paladin in question literally can't betray all he holds dear because he can't give Redcloak information he doesn't have makes the whole thing as any test of character kind of pointless.

It's kind of like someone telling me they'll kill a bunch of people if I don't jump straight to the moon. The outcome says nothing about me whatsoever because I literally can't jump to the moon.How would you know 500 people would die? The only source is, as you say, an evil genie, who seems hardly trustworthy (after all, he is evil). Indeed, it's hard to see any reason for the evil genie to do such a thing. If they want to kill 500 people, there's no purpose in requiring permission...and if they don't want to for whatever reason, why would they offer that up option up anyway? Why would they go to the trouble to set up this scenario? What do they get out of it?

The entire situation seems suspicious to the point that I'd consider it highly likely that they need you to press the button for some nefarious scheme (after all, they are evil). Because otherwise, why would they bother doing this at all?

I know I'm being pedantic, but it's difficult to see such a scenario occurring unless there's some secret agenda by the evil genie.

Because I'm the incompetent Dungeonmaster, and through the power of Rule 0, I have decreed that this is the evil genie's game. It may be a bad game. It may make no sense. But it's the game he, and by extension you, are playing. Either push the button, or he indulges his twisted desire to see 500 innocent people die. What do you do?

Really, however, I'm simply creating a hypo to test the moral implications of the PD applied in a situation like Pen Pals. I fully agree that the situation has limited real-world applicability (although I do think this hypo raises considerations about non-participation in certain forms of charity or low-cost immunization, but that's neither here nor there), but not for the reason you think. The reason it's of limited applicability is because the Prime Directive as written in Pen Pals is so morally broken that if it weren't General Order #1 of a popular faction of an immensely influential science fiction franchise, it would never be an accepted law. The only people who would accept it would also be willing to accept the evil genie killing 500 people when they needed only to flick their wrist to stop it. Usually, we call those people sociopaths, not morally enlightened.

Tavar

2012-06-15, 10:45 PM

Okay, let's make a new situation which is less open to pointless quibbling. And, yes, it is pointless, because you are trying to change the hypothetical situation to something else.

You are in a hypothetical train yard. You do have all technical knowledge that would be applicable. You find out two trains are going to collide, and in such a way that everyone on the trains is going to die(one is carrying toxins, nerve gas, and high explosives). Neither can break in time to avert the crash. However, it would be a simply matter for you to divert one of the trains onto a section of the track that it currently un-used, and will be unused for the next couple days. You are simply a visitor, and no one else is in position to act, or has the knowledge to do so.

The Prime Directive says that we should let the trains crash. What would you do, without such a directive?

Would it change if you knew there was a chance for up to 20 workers to be on the unused section of the trap, thus dooming them to die, but saving the hundreds on the Trains?

The fact that the paladin in question literally can't betray all he holds dear because he can't give Redcloak information he doesn't have makes the whole thing as any test of character kind of pointless.

Right, but O-Chul recognizes that even if he did know the information, he wouldn't reveal it because he is a paladin. And, Redcloak doesn't know that the Paladin doesn't know, and thus set up the situation assuming that he did know.

Except that saving the planet will have to be reported to Starfleet, who value the sanctity of the Prime Directive. Even if Picard could convince the entire ship not to report it (including civilians who he has no jurisdiction over once they're off his ship), he himself would know.
Picard is a Starfleet captain, a man of particular moral character - if he bent the rules so easily, do you think he would be the man he is today?
Good Lord, are you even reading the argument? Because, honestly, the only way I can figure that you wrote this part is if you haven't been.

Basically, you are arguing that the Prime Directive is justified because of the Prime Directive. This is what's known as Circular Reasoning.

We are arguing that, if the Prime Directive would require non-action in a situation such as Pen Pals, then it is morally wrong, hypocritical, and logically unsound. Appealing to the prime directive to counter this is utterly irrelevant, though it seems common.

I think you're trying to isolate the scenario depicted in the episode, so that it's similar to our evil genie dilemma, which I think is misleading to do. You're making the assumption that the Federation hasn't done anything like this before and that their fears of interfering will prove to be baseless, when it's highly likely that they HAVE interfered before in similar situations and things HAVE gone wrong.
How could it be worse than everyone being dead? Because that's the situation here. Additionally, note that they are able to solve the issue without alerting anyone besides one young girl. That's not exactly widespread contact.

Interestingly enough, the Enterprise crew discuss violating the PD in the episode in quite some detail (link (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HjFG8gMeLlU&feature=related)), which indicates that even they're not all of one mind on the subject.
We've linked to that/discussions of that several times. The issue is that the discussion uses extremely weak arguments in support of the PD, and selectively applies them at that. In addition, when it comes down to it, they come down in favor of non-interference, until they hear the girls voice. That is incredibly damming, because it lays out the real issue: if they don't actually know you, they don't give a damn, but if they do they will go and help you.

Except the PD isn't inflexible - I linked to a discussion in the very episode where they discuss interfering or not and Picard eventually decides to break it due to a last minute request for help.
It also isn't treated as a 'cure-all' solution - it's specifically intended to make them think about the consequences of their actions and if they're not sure about what to do, then not to interfere.

You still haven't answered my question about why you appear to be so vehemently against the PD. Why in your opinion, does having principles and following a code of conduct appear to be nothing but self gratifying egotism when lives are at risk?

Note that he decides to break it, not after receiving any additional information about the situation, but hearing one of the pleas instead of simply hearing about the pleas. Before that, he was fully intending to uphold the Prime Directive. Which means that it wasn't logic or anything that changed his mind, it was emotion. That means that, in the abstract, he is fine with their deaths, and only when he cares about a person does this change.

A code of conduct could easily be "I must murder 100 children every day". So having one isn't a sign of morals. In fact, having and obeying an immoral one is a sign that you yourself are immoral. The fact of the matter is, they use the Prime Directive as one of the justifications that they are moral, thus it is part of the self-gratification. The fact that the law itself is immoral is what makes it so detestable.

What is your opinion on imposing the 'law' of rules of engagement on soldiers? Are generals/politicians pandering to their egos to set them? Are soldiers being egotistical that they follow them as best they can, even when their lives and the lives of their fellow soldiers (and possibly civilians) are put at risk because of them?
Not really applicable: the rules of engagement are their to prevent civilian/accidental deaths and casualties. In this case the governing bodies decided that the additional risk to the soldiers is allowable to prevent such deaths.

One example imposition in a recent ongoing conflict is PID or Positive Identification, that is, soldiers cannot return fire without first accurately identifying the threat that is firing on them and where that threat is. They can't just fire a couple rounds back in the vague direction the enemy fire came from or call in supporting fire to attack a general area.
Does this put the soldier's lives at risk? Yes. However, by your logic, they should fire back even though they might hit the wrong people because they've failed to PID the enemy.

There was a documentary following some British soldiers on joint patrol with the ANP where they came under fire and the Afghans fired back without PID, resulting in the near fatal shooting of a 3-year old girl bystander.
If that doesn't prove the validity of having a code of conduct, even when lives are at risk, I don't know what does.

I was talking to a soldier whose patrol came under enemy fire, including from a sniper from a minaret on a mosque. He subsequently shot and killed the sniper but was immediately cursed out by his commanding officer, asking him did he shoot the mosque (he hadn't as it turned out - drilled him nice and neat in the centre of mass as he had intended) - when fear of antagonising the local populace by damaging their places of worship prevent soldiers from fighting effectively (nobody was shooting at the sniper for fear of hitting the mosque), your logic would dictate that they should fire regardless because lives are at risk.
No, that doesn't follow. All of those situations involve rules that are weighing possible lives saved(taking immediate action) vs the consequences(killing innocent bystanders, losing local support). Both of those consequences could in fact lead to more deaths. So, it's weighing the potential deaths used in each case.

McStabbington

2012-06-16, 02:41 AM

No, that doesn't follow. All of those situations involve rules that are weighing possible lives saved(taking immediate action) vs the consequences(killing innocent bystanders, losing local support). Both of those consequences could in fact lead to more deaths. So, it's weighing the potential deaths used in each case.

I would go even further: that example makes the exact opposite point that Picard does. The rule that the military is operating under isn't "Don't shoot your weapons under any circumstances whatsoever." Nor is it "Shoot first any time your life is in danger until the magazines run dry." Instead, they're striking a balance between the short-term imperative of soldiers to defend themselves from fire vs. the long-term costs associated with firing their weapons. The rule necessarily recognizes both interests, and it balances both of them. The Prime Directive, however, is a rule that does no balancing whatsoever: any risk, no matter how slight or theoretical it may be, is justification for abstaining from acting. Even if the slightest action would prevent the death of entire species of sentient beings and whole planetary ecosystems. And what's worse, apparently the people who cause genocide by omission of action then pat themselves on the back about how enlightened and moral they are.

Man on Fire

2012-06-16, 05:57 AM

Then why not just kill the 500 people and not bother with the middleman?

Listen to yourself, you are just advocatind killing 500 people because you don't want to play a game. That's sick.

Because clearly offering someone what appears to be an incredibly easy choice is cruel.

First, dude is willing to kill 500 people, I would say that's pretty cruel in my book.
Second, nitpicking and catching up to words doesn't make good argument.

The elaborate plan sounds far more likely to me.

O-Chul needs to have a word with you. (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0546.html)

If they were legitimately being a jerk, there are significantly better ways to do that.

Stop nitpicking.

Remember the famous "sadistic choice" scene from the Spider-Man movie? It would've been something like that, not "push a button or people die." It would be something like "these people die or these other people die" or if it was really a case of "you versus other people," something like "give up appendages or people die" or even "you die or other people die." That's actual jerk behavior, not "exert less effort than walking across the street requires or people die."

Stop nitpicking and stop tryingo change the example into something else, because it only makes you look afraid of answering original question.

Except the PD isn't inflexible - I linked to a discussion in the very episode where they discuss interfering or not and Picard eventually decides to break it due to a last minute request for help.

Because suddenly he stopped talking about statistics and theories when he heard a voice of little girl. His behavior wasn't rational, it was emotional and quite selfish - "It's moral to let entire race die, as long as I can think of them as just numbers".

It also isn't treated as a 'cure-all' solution - it's specifically intended to make them think about the consequences of their actions and if they're not sure about what to do, then not to interfere.

Watch SF Debris videos linked, because it's clearly not threated that way, especially not when Enterprise and Voyager have anything to say.

You still haven't answered my question about why you appear to be so vehemently against the PD.

I answered it - because it's dogmatic and inlexible rule that has no grasp of reality.

Why in your opinion, does having principles and following a code of conduct appear to be nothing but self gratifying egotism when lives are at risk?

No. Putting your principles and code of conduct above the lives however, is.

What is your opinion on imposing the 'law' of rules of engagement on soldiers? Are generals/politicians pandering to their egos to set them? Are soldiers being egotistical that they follow them as best they can, even when their lives and the lives of their fellow soldiers (and possibly civilians) are put at risk because of them?

One example imposition in a recent ongoing conflict is PID or Positive Identification, that is, soldiers cannot return fire without first accurately identifying the threat that is firing on them and where that threat is. They can't just fire a couple rounds back in the vague direction the enemy fire came from or call in supporting fire to attack a general area.
Does this put the soldier's lives at risk? Yes. However, by your logic, they should fire back even though they might hit the wrong people because they've failed to PID the enemy.

There was a documentary following some British soldiers on joint patrol with the ANP where they came under fire and the Afghans fired back without PID, resulting in the near fatal shooting of a 3-year old girl bystander.
If that doesn't prove the validity of having a code of conduct, even when lives are at risk, I don't know what does.

I was talking to a soldier whose patrol came under enemy fire, including from a sniper from a minaret on a mosque. He subsequently shot and killed the sniper but was immediately cursed out by his commanding officer, asking him did he shoot the mosque (he hadn't as it turned out - drilled him nice and neat in the centre of mass as he had intended) - when fear of antagonising the local populace by damaging their places of worship prevent soldiers from fighting effectively (nobody was shooting at the sniper for fear of hitting the mosque), your logic would dictate that they should fire regardless because lives are at risk.

See what Tavar and McStabbington have said.

Picard is a Starfleet captain, a man of particular moral character - if he bent the rules so easily, do you think he would be the man he is today?

Captain Picard? Captain "Broke PD 9 times" Picard?. Captain "Constantly bends and breaks the rules" Picard? Captain "The entire first movie started with him disrefgarding orders for personal vendetta" Picard? Captain "Rebels against Federation's orders that would save entire Federation to protect small community ecause he feels it's a right thing, in second movie" Picard? Captain "There was an episode showing us that if he wouldn't be such self-righteous jerk, he would be nobody" Picard? Sorry, I'm not seeing it.

You're making the assumption that the Federation hasn't done anything like this before and that their fears of interfering will prove to be baseless, when it's highly likely that they HAVE interfered before in similar situations and things HAVE gone wrong.

By that logic it would be forbidden to try inventing airplanes - people tried to fly in the past and died. Or boat, because people tried to travel thrugh rivers and seas before and drowned. Or even wheel, because I bet that before they tried to make one, some dumb caveman killed himself by sitting on round rock and ordering his buddy to push him.

Brother Oni

2012-06-16, 06:50 AM

Good Lord, are you even reading the argument? Because, honestly, the only way I can figure that you wrote this part is if you haven't been.

Well his post was a bit ranty and rather difficult to read, so presumably I must have ticked him off somehow.
I must have missed his point somewhere.

Basically, you are arguing that the Prime Directive is justified because of the Prime Directive. This is what's known as Circular Reasoning.

Am I? I thought I was arguing that the PD (as a guideline not an absolute) is justified because previous instances of carelessly breaking the PD has resulted in things going wrong.
I guess I must not be making myself very clear.

How could it be worse than everyone being dead?

I'm going to hazard a guess and say that my personal philosophical beliefs differ to yours on the sanctity of life, and that board rules would prevent me from elaborating further.
Let's agree to disagree?

That is incredibly damming, because it lays out the real issue: if they don't actually know you, they don't give a damn, but if they do they will go and help you.

One would almost argue that Picard is human. :smalltongue:

A code of conduct could easily be "I must murder 100 children every day". So having one isn't a sign of morals. In fact, having and obeying an immoral one is a sign that you yourself are immoral. The fact of the matter is, they use the Prime Directive as one of the justifications that they are moral, thus it is part of the self-gratification. The fact that the law itself is immoral is what makes it so detestable.

Cultural relativism aside (I can think of one culture where attempting to kill 100 persons of a particular religion would be regarded as a good thing), while you believe the law is immoral (I agree that it is too, to an extent), that's a slightly different issue to whether Picard is immoral for upholding it.

A police officer has discretion in how he applies the law of the land - does choosing to apply a law that he thinks is wrong make him immoral?

Not really applicable: the rules of engagement are their to prevent civilian/accidental deaths and casualties. In this case the governing bodies decided that the additional risk to the soldiers is allowable to prevent such deaths.

PID is just one example. I was reading an account where soldiers defending CIMIC house in Iraq had issues where their ROE was well known to the insurgents, specifically that the soldiers were unable to fire on unarmed men.
The insurgents took advantage of this by placing unarmed men with walky-talkies near the soldiers' positions and using them to report in on the fall of mortar shells from out of sight teams.
The soldiers clearly knew what the men were doing, but they were unable to fire on them. As I understand Man on Fire's position, you shouldn't obey a law that puts lives at risk and I was trying to point out that sometimes people don't have a choice in this.

No, that doesn't follow. All of those situations involve rules that are weighing possible lives saved(taking immediate action) vs the consequences(killing innocent bystanders, losing local support). Both of those consequences could in fact lead to more deaths. So, it's weighing the potential deaths used in each case.

The examples I posted are of people following laws that put lives at risk, as a counterpoint to Man on Fire's position, rather than a direct comparison to the PD.

I believe a better example of where ROE and mandates resulting in the deaths of civilians would be UN troops in the Bosnian War, particularly the Srebrenica massacre.
This event does support Man on Fire's position quite well though and hence why I agree the PD should be a (very strong) guideline rather than the absolute described by Worf in Pen Pals. However I disagree that it should be easily ignored whenever it becomes inconvenient for your conscience.

--

I apologise, but I'm having difficulty understanding this reply:

Why in your opinion, does having principles and following a code of conduct appear to be nothing but self gratifying egotism when lives are at risk?

No. Putting your principles and code of conduct above the lives however, is.

Is that 'no, having principles and following a code of conduct is not self gratifying egotism, but putting your principles and code of conduct above the lives however, is'?

See what Tavar and McStabbington have said.

They're both addressing the reasons behind having ROE, which is different to your assertion that 'lives come before principles and codes of conduct'.

Captain Picard monologue

So you don't think the military captain of a ship has strength of character and moral fibre?

By that logic it would be forbidden to try inventing airplanes - people tried to fly in the past and died. Or boat, because people tried to travel thrugh rivers and seas before and drowned. Or even wheel, because I bet that before they tried to make one, some dumb caveman killed himself by sitting on round rock and ordering his buddy to push him.

Not an accurate comparison, because there's a difference between trial and experimentation and interfering willy-nilly with another civilisation because you think you should.

Man on Fire

2012-06-16, 08:38 PM

One would almost argue that Picard is human. :smalltongue:

One would argue he is not only human, but also a very arrogant, selfish jerk.

A police officer has discretion in how he applies the law of the land - does choosing to apply a law that he thinks is wrong make him immoral?

Funny thing that so many times in RPGs Paladins have to face "child steals from hunger" dillema. And the ones who apply to rule to the law always are the ones who made this class look like terrible insult to inteligence it is considered right now. Cops have discretion in how they apply the law because laws are general and situations may have many different circumstances. This is what Trek's Dogmatic approach to PD lacks - there is no room to move.

PID is just one example. I was reading an account where soldiers defending CIMIC house in Iraq had issues where their ROE was well known to the insurgents, specifically that the soldiers were unable to fire on unarmed men.
The insurgents took advantage of this by placing unarmed men with walky-talkies near the soldiers' positions and using them to report in on the fall of mortar shells from out of sight teams.
The soldiers clearly knew what the men were doing, but they were unable to fire on them. As I understand Man on Fire's position, you shouldn't obey a law that puts lives at risk and I was trying to point out that sometimes people don't have a choice in this.

This is not the case in Star Trek, not in a single one of the examples we're talking here about. Picard, Janeway, Archer - they all have the choice and no reason not to make the right one. They made up excuses to not take it so they can appeal to their egos.

The examples I posted are of people following laws that put lives at risk, as a counterpoint to Man on Fire's position, rather than a direct comparison to the PD.

Problem is that ROE were made to protect the lives and soldiers willingly sacrifice part of their options on the battlefield, to protect those lives. PD in Trek protects nothing but itself.

This event does support Man on Fire's position quite well though and hence why I agree the PD should be a (very strong) guideline rather than the absolute described by Worf in Pen Pals. However I disagree that it should be easily ignored whenever it becomes inconvenient for your conscience.

First sentence is all I'm arguing about. Second forces me to ask if you even read my posts, because I never argued it should be ignored when it's "inconvinient for your conscience". I argued it should be avoided when there are lives at risk. What happens in Star Trek episodes is Picard, Janeway, Flux and Archer letting (or wanting to let) entire races to die because it would be inconvinient for their conscience to break PD. What happens in Maximum Carnage is that Peter Parker and Steve Rogers let hundreds of people be killed because it would be inconvinient for their conscience to kill Carnage. And this is the problem with it.

Is that 'no, having principles and following a code of conduct is not self gratifying egotism, but putting your principles and code of conduct above the lives however, is'?

That's what I meant.

They're both addressing the reasons behind having ROE, which is different to your assertion that 'lives come before principles and codes of conduct'.

ROE is code of conduct shaped with saving lives in mind. Which is how you do it, even it can be abused by those who doesn't follow it - soldiers hindrace themselves and become more vunerable, like in example you described about civilians, in order to better protect civilian lives, sometimes at the cost of their own. Picard, Janeway and Archer are willing to sacrifice innocent lives to not feel bad about breaking the rules. You know what, I just realized Im offended by you trying to equate those two things.

So you don't think the military captain of a ship has strength of character and moral fibre?

That wasn't a question. You said he wouldn't be the captain is he would break the rules all the time. I said he does break the rules all the time, and he even breaks direct orders all the time. And there was even an episode directly contradicting you, showing us that if he didn't, he would be a small-time sciencist who never accomplished anything. Strength of character and moral fibre doesn't come in equation here, it's about the fact that argument "he doesn't break PD because he wouldn't be a cpatain if he was breaking the rules" falls apart because he does breaks the rules all the time.

Not an accurate comparison, because there's a difference between trial and experimentation and interfering willy-nilly with another civilisation because you think you should.

But it is how humans acts. We don't ban something because trying it went wrong, we analyze what we did wrong and ban that. PD is counterproductive, it should be rather a set of guidelines what not to do when you have first contact with less advanced civilisation.

Brother Oni

2012-06-17, 04:41 AM

Cops have discretion in how they apply the law because laws are general and situations may have many different circumstances. This is what Trek's Dogmatic approach to PD lacks - there is no room to move.

Except Picard has manoeuvred around the PD to a total of nine times by your count.
You're also avoiding the question in that you have stated that Picard is immoral because he upholds a law that's immoral by your standards. My example of a police officer upholding a law that he thinks is wrong (and sometime they don't have a choice on this), makes him immoral by your same argument.

This is separate to whether the law is immoral or not. I'm asking a very specific question, which you appear to have missed multiple times. Is upholding an immoral law an immoral act?

This is not the case in Star Trek, not in a single one of the examples we're talking here about.

I'm not addressing any case in Star Trek. I'm addressing your assertion that rules and codes of conduct that prevent the saving of lives should be ignored.

Problem is that ROE were made to protect the lives and soldiers willingly sacrifice part of their options on the battlefield, to protect those lives.

Even the lives of the enemy, as I pointed out in my example? The very enemy that will subsequently kill more of your fellow soldiers?

Again, this is all towards your specific statement of 'putting principles and code of conduct above lives is wrong'.

First sentence is all I'm arguing about. Second forces me to ask if you even read my posts, because I never argued it should be ignored when it's "inconvinient for your conscience". I argued it should be avoided when there are lives at risk

I apologise, I mis-understood your argument. However I am challenging your last statement.

ROE is code of conduct shaped with saving lives in mind. Which is how you do it, even it can be abused by those who doesn't follow it - soldiers hindrace themselves and become more vunerable, like in example you described about civilians, in order to better protect civilian lives, sometimes at the cost of their own. Picard, Janeway and Archer are willing to sacrifice innocent lives to not feel bad about breaking the rules. You know what, I just realized Im offended by you trying to equate those two things.

*Sigh* For someone accusing me of not reading their posts, it seems odd that I have to repeat points that I made earlier.

Let's try this again:

You have made the statement that putting principles and codes of conduct that prevent the saving of lives is self gratifying egotism.

I have put up examples that govern codes of conduct in warfare, where lives are at risk, specifically ROE.
The ROE that especially seems to run counter to your statement is the one that doesn't permit the firing upon unarmed people and in my example, the insurgents were taking advantage of this and posting unarmed artillery spotters to better attack the British soldiers.

Now as I understand your quoted part above, you have made the modification to your statement that 'soldiers hindrance themselves and become more vunerable' [sic] to better protect civilian lives at the cost of their own?
Does that mean your original statement should read "Putting principles and code of conduct above saving lives is self gratifying egotism except for military personnel"?

Now to re-iterate, this has nothing to do with any Star Trek example, but your specific statement listed above. I apologise if you're offended, but any inferences with similarities between the above case and Star Trek you drew yourself.

That wasn't a question. You said he wouldn't be the captain is he would break the rules all the time.

Actually I said he wouldn't be the captain if broke the rules easily all the time, which is something different.

But it is how humans acts. We don't ban something because trying it went wrong, we analyze what we did wrong and ban that. PD is counterproductive, it should be rather a set of guidelines what not to do when you have first contact with less advanced civilisation.

Actually the PD governs what to with a less advanced civilisation before official First Contact, especially if the civilisation is not ready for it.

I'm also not understanding your first sentence. Are you equating interfering with a civilisation with the development cycle of scientific progress? If you are, do you not think there is a disparity in the potential consequences that make the two incomparable?

Wardog

2012-06-17, 01:24 PM

I haven't seen the episode in question, but I just read the synopsis on Memory Alpha (http://en.memory-alpha.org/wiki/Pen_Pals_%28episode%29), and I have to say:

Good grief! What were the characters (and the episode writers) thinking?

"Riker and Troi offer yet another argument; that the destruction of Drema IV and the other planets could be part of a larger "cosmic plan," which the crew of the Enterprise have no right to interfere with."

Seriously?

That argument could apply to anything. Saving warp-capable civilizations just as much as non-warp-capable ones. Treating an illness. Reporting a robbery. Helping someone carry their shopping. "Sorry, I can't pick up that stone. That stone being there could be part of a larger Cosmic Plan that I have no right to interfere with".

From the synopsis given, it looks like the reason they finally intervened wasn't because of personal emotional connection, but because the PD permits intervention in the case of a direct appeal to help. But I don't think that makes it any better, because it is still putting obedience to the letter of the law ahead of actual consequences.

And finally, "Picard orders Dr. Pulaski to erase Sarjenka's memory of her Enterprise experiences".

What?

One moment they are worried about "playing God", and the next they are meddling with someone's mind?

I always thought the "Enterprise Fails Evolution Forever" episode was the most immoral use of the PD. I guess it still is, because it still resulted in mass deaths. But this comes close, and if they hadn't rules-lawyered their way round it at the last moment, it would definitely be worse.

Man on Fire

2012-06-17, 03:49 PM

Except Picard has manoeuvred around the PD to a total of nine times by your count.
You're also avoiding the question in that you have stated that Picard is immoral because he upholds a law that's immoral by your standards. My example of a police officer upholding a law that he thinks is wrong (and sometime they don't have a choice on this), makes him immoral by your same argument.

This is separate to whether the law is immoral or not. I'm asking a very specific question, which you appear to have missed multiple times. Is upholding an immoral law an immoral act?

It is. I'm trying to explain to you that this is why human rulesystem is rather general and inividual cases are let to the judgment of either cop on place or judge and jury in court. Two cases of breaking the same law may have different outcome, because of circumstances. Our law system is made to work toward avoiding the cases where law would become immoral, because upholding immoral laws is immoral.

Even the lives of the enemy, as I pointed out in my example? The very enemy that will subsequently kill more of your fellow soldiers?

Yes. Many parts of ROE are made for that too, like makings faking death or surrender in order to get the enemy a war crime.

*Sigh* For someone accusing me of not reading their posts, it seems odd that I have to repeat points that I made earlier.

Let's try this again:

You have made the statement that putting principles and codes of conduct that prevent the saving of lives is self gratifying egotism.

I have put up examples that govern codes of conduct in warfare, where lives are at risk, specifically ROE.
The ROE that especially seems to run counter to your statement is the one that doesn't permit the firing upon unarmed people and in my example, the insurgents were taking advantage of this and posting unarmed artillery spotters to better attack the British soldiers.

Now as I understand your quoted part above, you have made the modification to your statement that 'soldiers hindrance themselves and become more vunerable' [sic] to better protect civilian lives at the cost of their own?
Does that mean your original statement should read "Putting principles and code of conduct above saving lives is self gratifying egotism except for military personnel"?

Again, ROE are made to save the lives. What you are describing is an example of it's abuse by enemy who doesn't uphold them himself, risk soldiers must be prepared to deal with. But as whole ROE are made to limit the loss of innocent life and are effective at it, even if sometimes they may lead to situation as above. If soldier will break them, he'll shed unnecessary blood, if he don't, he puts his teammates at risk, in this case every choice leads to death, but soldiers are prepared to risk their lives and taught not to play god and decide that today a man with walkie-talkie will die.

Actually I said he wouldn't be the captain if broke the rules easily all the time, which is something different.

I would say that in case of guy who broke Prime Directive, first point in the book, nine times, who disregard direct orders to go on his personal vendetta against the Borg, who rebeled against Federation to save some bunch of hypocrites, even when their sacrifice, which wasn't even that of a life but just moving away, could have saved countless lives, I could make a soild case that yes, he does break the rules easily.

I'm also not understanding your first sentence. Are you equating interfering with a civilisation with the development cycle of scientific progress? If you are, do you not think there is a disparity in the potential consequences that make the two incomparable?

It's not like we're doing this with animals all the time - hunting them, destroying their homes, kidnapping them to zoos and to experimenting with us, taming them, making symbiotic relationships with them. Or between different human civilisations - human history is full of multi-cultural interactions that resuluts in both cultures becoming changed. Our interaction with alien species would be similiar, we would interact if even for scientific curiosity and even if we would limit our interference, like we did with wild nature to some extend, we would never limit our interference enough to let them die because we would be afriand of consequences. If a genocide was happening in another country we wouldn't limit ourselves from interffering just because there may be potential negative consequences - hell, isn't that what NATO interventions are about? Stop breaking of human rights in other countries, even if they aren't part of NATO. Do you think they care that they may be some long-term consequences beyond their understanding when they send soldiers?

Okay, and now I need to ask you to stop bringing up real life examples. We're entering zone of danger of getting a warning anf I don't want to get banned for going into forbidden topics.

Brother Oni

2012-06-17, 06:49 PM

Our law system is made to work toward avoiding the cases where law would become immoral, because upholding immoral laws is immoral.

All right, you hold the position that upholding an immoral law is an immoral act, subject to variance on the person doing the upholding.

What, in your opinion, defines an immoral law then? Different people have different values, and what you regard as immoral, may not be so for others.

Yes. Many parts of ROE are made for that too, like makings faking death or surrender in order to get the enemy a war crime.

Actually, no they're not. There are some leaked or declassified RoEs available on the internet - may I suggest you read up on them?

The Geneva Convention covers things like war crimes, not ROE.

Again, ROE are made to save the lives.

You mean civilian lives, not military ones.

If soldier will break them, he'll shed unnecessary blood, if he don't, he puts his teammates at risk, in this case every choice leads to death, but soldiers are prepared to risk their lives and taught not to play god and decide that today a man with walkie-talkie will die.

Except that this particular ROE was later changed so that soldiers could shoot unarmed civilians if and when they felt that the civilian was posing a legitimate threat to life, which puts a hole in your 'ROE is there to save lives' and 'soldiers are taught not to play god' argument.
You also have managed to avoid answering the question I put to you.

I would say that in case of guy who broke Prime Directive, first point in the book, nine times, who disregard direct orders to go on his personal vendetta against the Borg, who rebeled against Federation to save some bunch of hypocrites, even when their sacrifice, which wasn't even that of a life but just moving away, could have saved countless lives, I could make a soild case that yes, he does break the rules easily.

Really? Then why hasn't he been successfully court-martialed if he's such a law breaker? They attempted to do so in Drumhead and I don't think they've succeeded since.
The events you've mentioned also take place over 15 years of active service, which involved at least 2 major Borg incursions and the Dominion War.
In my opinion, the violations you mentioned, including the 9 counts of PD violation which were all subsequently vindicated by independent inquiry, hardly paints Picard as someone who plays fast and loose with the Federation's laws.

Kirk on the other hand though...

If a genocide was happening in another country we wouldn't limit ourselves from interffering just because there may be potential negative consequences - hell, isn't that what NATO interventions are about? Stop breaking of human rights in other countries, even if they aren't part of NATO. Do you think they care that they may be some long-term consequences beyond their understanding when they send soldiers?

May I suggest you read up on some recent UN operations where they HAVE failed to do exactly what you have stated? I mentioned one earlier during the Bosnian war and a quick google search will quickly reveal others.

Okay, and now I need to ask you to stop bringing up real life examples. We're entering zone of danger of getting a warning anf I don't want to get banned for going into forbidden topics.

While I agree that we are very close to the no politics line, I don't believe that using real life examples are explicitly against board rules. They do however, invite me to refer you to the Rules of Posting (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/announcement.php?a=1) for your last remark.

Man on Fire

2012-06-17, 07:02 PM

All right, you hold the position that upholding an immoral law is an immoral act, subject to variance on the person doing the upholding.

What, in your opinion, defines an immoral law then? Different people have different values, and what you regard as immoral, may not be so for others.

What's immoral depends on situation and many factors, there is no one clear definition of it for me.

Really? Then why hasn't he been successfully court-martialed if he's such a law breaker?

Bad writing.

The events you've mentioned also take place over 15 years of active service, which involved at least 2 major Borg incursions and the Dominion War.
In my opinion, the violations you mentioned, including the 9 counts of PD violation which were all subsequently vindicated by independent inquiry, hardly paints Picard as someone who plays fast and loose with the Federation's laws.

I haven't watched more from Trek, but I think that it's safe to assume that if I would dwell deeper, I would find much, much more.

While I agree that we are very close to the no politics line, I don't believe that using real life examples are explicitly against board rules. They do however, invite me to refer you to the Rules of Posting (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/announcement.php?a=1) for your last remark.

And what I find there:

Inappropriate Topics
The following topics are always off-limits on these forums, no matter what (hence, Inappropriate Topics). Any posts including these topics will be edited, and any threads started to discuss these topics will be locked. Please note that, as specifically stated below, these topics remain off-limits even where they intersect with gaming or other activities discussed on these forums, and that putting an alert for "Adult" or "Mature" content on the thread does not allow circumvention of this rule. Likewise, if you can't post something under the Forum Rules, please don't link to that content.
Real-world religions (including religious reactions to gaming)
Real-world politics (including political reactions to gaming)

Sorry dude, I already have one infraction and I'm in too many games to risk getting banned becse of you bringing up real life examples, I already stepped to far even answering to those examples. I don't have that much knowledge about them and I did made mistakes based on lack of information in my last post, but I'm not going to adress your points about ROE, UN interventions or anything else like that any longer. Even if they do not step into the politics bad, they are too close for me - I know myself, and I know that if it will continue, I will cross this line. So no, change example on something fictional, I'm not going to answer real life questions anymore.

Brother Oni

2012-06-18, 02:04 AM

What's immoral depends on situation and many factors, there is no one clear definition of it for me.

All right, so your definition of immoral is variable and is dependent on situation and other factors.
Could I then not argue that 'immorality' is also dependent on the cultural values of the individual or society in question?

Bad writing.

That's a rather flimsy reason. As I noted, Picard has actually been tried on more than one occasion (both by the Federation and by Q), so he must be doing something right.
Bad writing would be making no reference to his numerous violations at all.

I haven't watched more from Trek, but I think that it's safe to assume that if I would dwell deeper, I would find much, much more.

Actually, I think you'd be surprised.

Compared to Sisko or Kirk, Picard was generally a 'by the book' man, although he knew when to throw the book out of the window.
Janeway however, I would agree to on inconsistent writing. I haven't watched enough of Archer to form an opinion.

I agree that Picard had a bit of an issue with the Borg, but at the time, he was the only Federation officer outside the Delta Quadrant who understood them at all and like any person with severe trauma issues (his breakdown in Family with his brother is very similar to those by PTSD sufferers), antipathy bordering on near hatred is understandable.

Take Sisko - you don't think he would take any chance to strike against the Borg?

Omergideon

2012-06-18, 02:53 AM

Picard encountered the Borg a grand total of 5 times over the course of the show and movies. In Q Who, Best of Both Worlds, I Borg, Descent and First Contact. In the first 2 cases he explicitly followed orders, in the next 2 cases he had no orders to violate and in the last his reasons to enter the battle away from the neutral zone seemed to be something the whole crew agreed with (especially Riker and Data). First Contact is the only one where he violates orders, but in doing so was able to calmly and effectively defeat the cube without seeming vengeful or mad about it. It was only later in the film that he went of the deep end. He does violate orders there, but not quickly and only when he felt his presence was necessary/useful to save Earth.

Anywho, responding to Man on Fire from earlier, I have suggested several reasons why I think a Starship Captain, violating the PD, needs to give careful consideration to what impact this may have at large in the galaxy. It is reasonable I think for a Captain who is frequently the front line diplomat for the federation, and who had by this point (or soon after) already been involved in a power struggle for leadership of the Klingon Empire to consider his choices may have wider implications. And I repeat, I Am NOT stating that he must consider any specific outcome reasonable (that would be decided in universe based on more knowledge). But that there will be outcomes that require some awareness at least is reasonable. I ask you to explain why there is no reasonable reason, or why my suggestions for them are invalid.

Also, someone suggested a train yard example earlier. This is a more "real world", though still highly artificial, moral idea that has limited application to a Starfleet Captain. The example itself is one involving moral maths that has no easy answers, lots of defensible points of view and no possible good outcome. It bears little resemblance to any known Star Trek example of the PD in action. The PD does not advocate total non interference in all cases. It is a specifically applied rule that says
1) Do not interfere with a pre warp culture ever. (though some episodes where interference is vindicated in court suggests this part has exceptions) and
2) Do not interfere with the internal politics of another sovereign nation.

That is it. The PD is not a blanket law of "interference is bad always, never make moral choices". It is a specifically applied law designed to limit how much the federation uses their great power to impose their wills on other races, and a general political law. The law says nothing about the train scenario, or the kid in a car, as written. Or a genie with a magic box and a wish to kill 500 peoples. It only applies to the specifics of space travel.

Granted the PD as applied occasionally in Voyager does not seem good to me. I personally think that saving a planet from anihallation (poor spelling here) is worth breaking the rule. BUT I also think that before blanket condemining it we should consider the "realities" of the situation Starfleet finds itself in and recognise that many scenarios constructed do not address them.

Tavar

2012-06-18, 12:53 PM

Also, someone suggested a train yard example earlier. This is a more "real world", though still highly artificial, moral idea that has limited application to a Starfleet Captain. The example itself is one involving moral maths that has no easy answers, lots of defensible points of view and no possible good outcome. It bears little resemblance to any known Star Trek example of the PD in action. The PD does not advocate total non interference in all cases. It is a specifically applied rule that says

You keep saying it's different, without actually say why. Most especially, saying why it's different than the situation in Pen Pals. Not a method of argument that makes me inclined to believe you.

Wardog

2012-06-18, 06:14 PM

I think the real problem with the PD, both from an in-universe decision-making perspective, and from a real-world story-telling / ethical philosophy perspective, is that it is a lazy cop-out.

Over the course of this thread, all sorts of people have come up with all sorts of examples - real and hypothetical - of situations where intervention may or may not be justifiable.

We have argued about whether saving life is the absolute priority, or if other considerations can outweigh it.

We have discussed the dangers of meddling in situations where the outcomes are unpredictable, and the risks of setting the precident that you can be manipulated by threatening an innocent third party.

We have discussed the potential political and diplomatic consequences of trespassing on someone else's territory to carry out a rescue, and the dangers of altering the geopolitical balance of power by assisting a civilization that may become a client (or puppet) state as a result.

We have discussed military rules of engagement, and whether those tasked with upholding the law should disobey laws that are immoral (and in both cases probably come close to breaking the board rules).

We probably will never find a satisfactory answer to all these points.

But with the Prime Directive, all these arguments can be ignored.

If the civilization in question is pre-warp, and hasn't made an explicit call for help, then there is no need for argument. The plight of those in trouble is irrelivent. The likelyhood and consequences of intervention going wrong are irrelivent. The only answer is to sit back, say "too bad - The Rules say we can't do anything, and obeying The Rules is more important than anything else", and watch as Bad Stuff happens to people who are too primitive to be worthy of saving.

Omergideon

2012-06-19, 04:19 AM

You keep saying it's different, without actually saying why. Most especially, saying why it's different than the situation in Pen Pals. Not a method of argument that makes me inclined to believe you.

Well for one, the situation in Pen Pals is not about choosing who to save as in the train crash, but whether to save at all so evidently they are not comarable, though I conceeded the kid in car was relatively applicable. And in a previous post I mentioned a few reasons why a starfleet captain cannot simply concern himself with the simple acts, but must consider a wider context to his actions. Such as how others will see him, how it becomes the "federation standard" etc. I have not the time nor now the will to repeat, though I may air all my reasons again later today when I have time.

In short my arguement is that there are myriad outside factors present in a Starfleet Captains choices that do not exist for a simple moral scenario as presented here. One reason why I don't like them. Now of course one may say such factors a of negligent importance, but I largley disagree.

Edit: Wardog, a good point about how the PD was used in later episodes. I still think it was more nuanced in early TNG etc but by Janeway it was a cheap crutch.

Tavar

2012-06-19, 09:52 AM

Philistine

2012-06-19, 10:48 AM

Inasmuch as the primary line of defense for the Prime Directive seems to be that Starfleet officers are expected to honor it in the breach, it might be worth pointing out that "General Orders" are not "general principles." You don't enshrine a directive as General Order #1 for the entire service if you just want it to be a speedbump to slow down potential violators - a confirmation dialog box that pops up to ask "Are you sure you want to break the single most important law in Starfleet? Y/N." So it doesn't make a lot of sense to argue that the Prime Directive is okay because it's not really intended to be obeyed*. And the fact that Picard remains in command of the Federation flagship after nine recorded violations of Starfleet General Order #1, "vindicated" or not, does not mean everything's okay - instead, it indicates that Starfleet is a profoundly disfunctional organization by the TNG era.

* Apart from any other considerations, Rule One of Command is that you never give an order that you know is going to be disobeyed - it undercuts your authority.

Wardog

2012-06-19, 03:44 PM

Another flaw with the PD, as presented by Trek and illustrated by this quote here (http://en.memory-alpha.org/wiki/Prime_Directive#Memorable_quotes):

"...all of this is just philosophy. Sarjenka is not a subject for philosophical debate, she is a person."
"He's got a point. The Prime Directive was designed to protect, not destroy."
"So Doctor, you draw the line at the death of millions."
"Yes!"
"Same situation if it's an epidemic rather than a geological catastrophe?"
"Absolutely!"
"How about a war? A generations-long conflict that is killing millions. Do we interfere? Now we're less secure in our moral certitude. And what if it's not death? What if it's an oppressive government which is enslaving millions? You see, the Prime Directive has many different functions, not the least of which is to protect us. It keeps us from allowing our emotions to overrule our judgment."

- Data, Pulaski, and Picard, debating the Prime Directive (TNG: "Pen Pals")

Now, I don't know if this is a formal logical fallacy, but it strikes me as poor reasoning. Just because there are certain situations (like war or an oppressive government) where the best course of action is not obvious (or where you have good reason to believe intervention could/would make things worse), does not mean intervention is always bad.

Just because it can be difficult to know where to draw the line does not mean that some things are obviously on one side of that line (and some things obviously on the other).

Indeed, that very conversation (IMO) shows why that line of reasoning is flawed. The first example is something no-one would reasonably object to. Bringing up an entierly different scenario as an example of why intervention can be problematic just shows that when things are different, you will have to act differently. A generations-long war is not the same as an instantaneous natural disaster, so whether you should (or should not) intervene in one says nothing about whether you should intervene in the other.

The PD starts from the very reasonable point that people meddling in situations they don't understand can easily make things worse (and if there are tons of real-world examples of that happening when humans meddle in the affairs of other humans, how much worse could it be when dealing with another species that may have completely different needs and ways of thinking?)

But as implemented, it comes across as a combination of a way to avoid making difficult decisions, and a hands-off version of the Shadow's philosophy from Babylon 5 ("Those who survive will be wiser/tougher; if none survive, too bad").

Omergideon

2012-06-19, 03:54 PM

Note that the deciding who lives and who dies is an optional add-on. The core of the question does not involve is.

And, frankly, your reasoning is utter BS. The only reason he would need to worry about what his own organization thinks would be because of organizational rules, and our position is that the organizational rules in this case are wrong(something that the characters themselves admit). And bringing in outside forces is inane, because none of those are referenced in the show. Basically, for all your argument about using hypothetical because they don't match the situation, you constantly change the situation yourself.

BS is a bit harsh I think. You can simply disagree with me. That is fine. I just think that a person who serves as probably THE frontline diplomat for his organisation (something we see Picard do many, many times)*should be aware of and consider the wider implications of his choices. Wardog mentioned a couple in his post, I mentioned a few reasonable ones earlier in the thread, but to reiterate them

*I mean Sisko was no flagship Captain and he renegotiated the signing of the Khitomer Accord V2, with little apparent oversight. Starfleet captains have a lof of power.

Picard serves as a front line diplomat, negotiator, 1st contact rep and all round example of what Starfleet is or should be. What he does is starfleet policy in the eyes of many. As such when he acts he must consider how it will look to outsiders, especially powerful leaders he is on first name terms with. This is a difference to the scenarios of Genie etc presented as there are no outside forces in them. And we know that Picards personal choices regarding Worf (as one example) led ultimately to Gowron becoming Chancellor of the Klingon Empire. To say his actions have more consequences than the simplified moral choices presented by the scenarios presented by genie et al is no leap to me. That he might need to consider them before making a choice is to me reasonable. If you think me wrong fine. Disagree. And let me know why.

That is the crux of my position. I bolded one comment of yours as it is one I mentioned myself earlier. It is sad the show never comments on this sort of thing. It robs the PD of one of it's more interesting backing thoughts. But I have never been arguing that the PD as it is, is good. Only for 2 points. Maybe 3.

1: That a starfleet captain should need to consider the wider ramifications of his actions before violating it. 2: That the fact these implications may exist, and more besides including the potential effects on the federation, means that relatively simple moral exercises are not fully applicable to PD debates. Without accounting for analogues to Klingons, Romulan Empires or the person making the choice being a man who's actions become the normal view of the Federation to these people a key element is missing.

So I don't claim the PD rule of "let them die" is good*. I think the fact that the people in Pen Pals chose to act, with this presented as the right choice overall, is evidence we were not supposed to agree with the idea either. The only thought I am arguing against is the idea that Picard should not care about the wider ramifications of his actions. He is too important politically. He should consider it. As 1 factor in making his choice. Not the only one by any means. Or necessarily the most important one. But a factor. no more or less.

*I also think that the fact Picards violations were upheld in court suggests the Federation at large would concur. Maybe not Janeway, but the majority of Starfleet.

Brother Oni

2012-06-19, 06:10 PM

Now, I don't know if this is a formal logical fallacy, but it strikes me as poor reasoning. Just because there are certain situations (like war or an oppressive government) where the best course of action is not obvious (or where you have good reason to believe intervention could/would make things worse), does not mean intervention is always bad.

However what actually gives them the right to intervene? Is it because they so much more 'enlightened' than the 'primitive' civilisation? Their advanced knowledge and science? Or simply because they have the biggest stick in the neighbourhood?

Just because they can, doesn't mean they should. You stated that the PD is a very reasonable idea, just poorly implemented and I agree with that.
The problem is that because Starfleet captains have so much power and autonomy, leaving things solely to their judgement results in very variable responses, thus the Federation has installed a fairly hard line in the shape of the PD, the breaking of which results in automatic investigation, regardless of the circumstances.

Philistine suggests that Starfleet is profoundly dysfunctional because of the repeated violations of General Order #1 (actually there's a rule even higher than that in the Omega Directive (http://en.memory-alpha.org/wiki/Omega_Directive)).
I propose that the nature of space exploration and intergalactic politics is so complex, that the rules simply haven't had time to catch up.
The new version of the Prime Directive is currently tied up in committee though and is currently having all thousands of its clauses examined, re-examined ratified, un-ratified, had its meaning altered because of linguistic differences between the committee members (not mentioning the universal translator failures), etc, etc. :smalltongue:

Tavar

2012-06-19, 08:46 PM

BS is a bit harsh I think. You can simply disagree with me. That is fine. I just think that a person who serves as probably THE frontline diplomat for his organisation (something we see Picard do many, many times)*should be aware of and consider the wider implications of his choices. Wardog mentioned a couple in his post, I mentioned a few reasonable ones earlier in the thread, but to reiterate them
Again you ignore my hypothetical, but bring in your own. Hell, you even misinterpret my examples. Yeah, I think I'm done if you're going to continue the double standard.

Sorry, but when someone seems to deliberately use the strategies that they themselves rail against, my patience gets pretty short.

However what actually gives them the right to intervene? Is it because they so much more 'enlightened' than the 'primitive' civilisation? Their advanced knowledge and science? Or simply because they have the biggest stick in the neighbourhood?
Hence, you know, the non-interference in the internal affairs of foreign nations. That doesn't apply, however, to natural disasters, which fits in with the original series interpretations.

I propose that the nature of space exploration and intergalactic politics is so complex, that the rules simply haven't had time to catch up.
The new version of the Prime Directive is currently tied up in committee though and is currently having all thousands of its clauses examined, re-examined ratified, un-ratified, had its meaning altered because of linguistic differences between the committee members (not mentioning the universal translator failures), etc, etc. :smalltongue:
Problem with that is that the Prime Directive was obviously changed to this version sometime after the Kirk era.

Man on Fire

2012-06-19, 10:50 PM

However what actually gives them the right to intervene? Is it because they so much more 'enlightened' than the 'primitive' civilisation? Their advanced knowledge and science? Or simply because they have the biggest stick in the neighbourhood?

They have power to save lives and there are lives to be saved. Simple.

All right, so your definition of immoral is variable and is dependent on situation and other factors.
Could I then not argue that 'immorality' is also dependent on the cultural values of the individual or society in question?

I knwo where you're getting with it and you know what? Yes, I agree, but even that also depends on circumstances. In case of culture who advocated mass murder or even genocide as moral under any circumstances, it's moral to consider them immoral. And if they consider moral their own deah, the morality doesn't even come in question because they clearly are stupid.

That's a rather flimsy reason. As I noted, Picard has actually been tried on more than one occasion (both by the Federation and by Q), so he must be doing something right.
Bad writing would be making no reference to his numerous violations at all.

Or made excuses, or made up reasons to let him avoid consequences of hsi actions. bad writing has a lot of possibilities.

I'm not in the mood for the rest of your arguments, maybye later, sorry.

Omergideon

2012-06-20, 02:41 AM

Again you ignore my hypothetical, but bring in your own. Hell, you even misinterpret my examples. Yeah, I think I'm done if you're going to continue the double standard.

Sorry, but when someone seems to deliberately use the strategies that they themselves rail against, my patience gets pretty short.

Ok I am truly sorry if you feel that way, but I am afraid I do not see how I misinterpret your examples. I Honestly want to understand what you are saying, but seem to fail to do so. There is no intentional dishonesty from me here. This is my understanding of your example, using the Train one.

A person is in a position to save lives using their expertise, and have no outside attachments or likely expectation of long term consequences. If he chooses not to save lives in the first example he is able to be considered responsible for the death of the people on the train, similar to the kid in the car example. I think this is the implication of your example. The addition of the "sacrifice some to save more" element is interesting as well, but is the sort of moral maths I try to avoid in debate as I don't believe there are any clear cut answers.

If I am right in my interpretation then I assert that even though the show itself does not explore the wider implications angle much (something I have admitted a few times) it is something that should be considered. I then show my reasoning why a Starfleet captain can reasonably assume his actions could lead to wider political consequences, what with them being official representatives and often diplomats for the federation. And then give 2 clear examples from the show of 1 Captain's acts resulting in massive political ramifications. It is this difference that I think makes PD debates more complex than the examples of Genie and Box, Kid in car or Train Tracks. That and the idea that we have no direct analogue in the world to Starship Captains and PD situations. Except for interactions with "primitive" tribes and how more advanced peoples respond to them.

If I am showing a double standard there then I would appreciate it being pointed out. If not then you could explain why my suggestions have no merit.

And to repeat a point, I do not advocate total ignorance and refusal to intercede. Only suggest that the political situation etc is something a Captain may need to consider before acting. No more or less than that.

But I do concede that the Pen Pals example is quite similar to the Train Track one. And the Kid in the Car. I said that a while ago. A few times. And say the show itself does not discuss the issues I keep mentioning. However I think the differences of wider implications (politically) make the Pen Pals example sufficiently different to affect the discussion meaningfully. The show does not do this. I admit that. I, however, want to.

Brother Oni

2012-06-20, 06:23 AM

Hence, you know, the non-interference in the internal affairs of foreign nations. That doesn't apply, however, to natural disasters, which fits in with the original series interpretations.

So suppose they encounter a culture like Earth circa 13th century, in the midst of an epidemic similar to the Black Death with a 60% mortality rate.
It's obviously a natural disaster, thus they intervene. It later turns out that the disease is endemic to the planet's ecosystem and is naturally occuring as a form of population control - by providing a cure, they've completely screwed up the planet.
So now what do they do? Uplift the culture? Remove the cure? Reinstate a new disease?

An even more dubious scenario would be the disease is an escaped bioweapon that got out of control (yes, they practiced biological warfare of a form back in the Middle Ages) - is the Federation obligated to save them from themselves?

Problem with that is that the Prime Directive was obviously changed to this version sometime after the Kirk era.

So they got an interim update in preparation for the formal one. :smalltongue:

Flippancy aside, it could be that the version they currently have is also now obsolete in dealing with situations that space exploration is currently throwing up.

They have power to save lives and there are lives to be saved. Simple.

So because they have the power to do so, they should interfer? What if that power is solely derived from the end of a gun, for example could a Federation ship threaten orbital bombardment on all warring parties that refuse to meet for peace negotiations?
What if a culture refuses Federation help? Does the Federation force it on them anyway because they have the power to save lives?

The Borg believe that by assimilating a culture and its inhabitants, they are improving the quality of life for them, by making them part of the collective.
Are you proposing that the Federation do the same in principle? Fix a culture's 'problems', tweak their development and generally make them palatable for Federation membership in the future?

In case of culture who advocated mass murder or even genocide as moral under any circumstances, it's moral to consider them immoral.

Moving away from real life examples, you're judging another culture by your views and values - while this is permissable as a personal view, that's a very restrictive view for an intergalactic organisation and culture to have, to put it politely.

And if they consider moral their own deah, the morality doesn't even come in question because they clearly are stupid.

I'm sorry, are you saying that a culture that values the sacrifice of a life is stupid?
I just want to be clear on what you're saying before I reply to this.

I'm not in the mood for the rest of your arguments, maybye later, sorry.

Sure, no problem. I'd like to make it clear that I am enjoying this debate with no hostility (it's interesting the point of view you have) and if you feel that the questions are being too argumentative, please just say.

Devonix

2012-06-20, 06:33 AM

Brother Oni

2012-06-20, 06:51 AM

My God Oni is secretly Flox. Dun Dun Dun.

Flox?

Do you mean Phlox from Enterprise? In my defence I'd like to point that I've watched maybe four episodes of that, so anything that he's done or said, I'm probably not aware of.

Devonix

2012-06-20, 07:24 AM

Flox?

Do you mean Phlox from Enterprise? In my defence I'd like to point that I've watched maybe four episodes of that, so anything that he's done or said, I'm probably not aware of.

Phlox used almost the exact same argument to convince Archer to not cure a civilization being killed by a disease in the episode "Dear Doctor"

Tavar

2012-06-20, 12:08 PM

Man on Fire

2012-06-20, 01:05 PM

So suppose they encounter a culture like Earth circa 13th century, in the midst of an epidemic similar to the Black Death with a 60% mortality rate.
It's obviously a natural disaster, thus they intervene. It later turns out that the disease is endemic to the planet's ecosystem and is naturally occuring as a form of population control - by providing a cure, they've completely screwed up the planet.

As great man once said WHAT?! (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w1YyWRKVzaw).
Dude, I need to inform you that this isn't how diseases work. They aren't there to stop overpopulation, microbes doesn't care about population they attack, they are opportunists whose only goal is to reproduce and that's it. This again boils down to the same argument used in all those terrible episodes - that there is some sort of plan, that it was meant to be for those people to die. And we already known this doesn't hold water.

An even more dubious scenario would be the disease is an escaped bioweapon that got out of control (yes, they practiced biological warfare of a form back in the Middle Ages) - is the Federation obligated to save them from themselves?

It's hardly entire population's fault that their leaders were playing with bioweapons, why should they pay for their leaders mistakes?

Flippancy aside, it could be that the version they currently have is also now obsolete in dealing with situations that space exploration is currently throwing up.

That, or Captains just treat it like some sort ofabsolute law without any flexibility.

So because they have the power to do so, they should interfer? What if that power is solely derived from the end of a gun, for example could a Federation ship threaten orbital bombardment on all warring parties that refuse to meet for peace negotiations?

You're saying it like there aren't other options than "don't interffere" and "blow the s*it up!". There are and Federation Captains should use them.

What if a culture refuses Federation help? Does the Federation force it on them anyway because they have the power to save lives?

They are better pissed off than dead.

The Borg believe that by assimilating a culture and its inhabitants, they are improving the quality of life for them, by making them part of the collective.
Are you proposing that the Federation do the same in principle? Fix a culture's 'problems', tweak their development and generally make them palatable for Federation membership in the future?

Nobody said anything about making them future Federation members. Where did that assumption come from? It's not about walking around abd being a slef-righteous arrogant "i'm better than you" mister "this is not how you play the ball". It's about saving lives.

Moving away from real life examples, you're judging another culture by your views and values - while this is permissable as a personal view, that's a very restrictive view for an intergalactic organisation and culture to have, to put it politely.

I'm judging other cultures only in case they find mass death to be moral - aside fro mthat I'm trying to be tolerant and understanding, if a race of space slugs like to dress up in pink skirts and dancing macarena, while singing I'm so pretty little girl", it's their deal. But if they throw five thousand of their citisems into Vulcano every day, that's where the line is draw for me.

I'm sorry, are you saying that a culture that values the sacrifice of a life is stupid?
I just want to be clear on what you're saying before I reply to this.

I should be more clear, sorry - I'm saying that culture that considers their destruction, as in death of their their entire civilisation for no real reason (I could get them sacrificing themselves to safe the Universe or Galaxy) to be moral, or a culture that values pointless sacrifice of life is stupid.

Sure, no problem. I'd like to make it clear that I am enjoying this debate with no hostility (it's interesting the point of view you have) and if you feel that the questions are being too argumentative, please just say.

I'm enjoying that too, it's just that now I have so many things to answer it suddenly feels like a chore.

Tyndmyr

2012-06-20, 02:38 PM

Brother Oni

2012-06-20, 03:18 PM

As great man once said WHAT?! (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w1YyWRKVzaw).
Dude, I need to inform you that this isn't how diseases work. They aren't there to stop overpopulation, microbes doesn't care about population they attack, they are opportunists whose only goal is to reproduce and that's it.

Actually there are some diseases that only seem to 'trigger' or reach epidemic levels when the population hit a certain size and new unprotected hosts come into contact with it, mutates in the new hosts and reinfects the originally immune population.

Meningitis watches every freshers' ball at university is a common example of diseases meeting new hosts (people come in contact with new versions of the causative agent from other areas of the country) and various genetic drifts/shifts of influenza show the mutations and re-infection aspect.
In other animal species, myxomatosis in rabbits goes through surges often when population numbers spike.

Bear in mind this is all for terrestrial diseases - who's to say that an alien ecosystem won't have a different mechanism?

It's hardly entire population's fault that their leaders were playing with bioweapons, why should they pay for their leaders mistakes?

True, but then the Federation can't play favours and have to cure everybody. What if the bioweapon was the weapon of last resort by one side in order to stop the opposing side, like the British developing anthrax against the Germans during WW2?

The Federation has now completely changed the balance of power on the planet, all by doing nothing more than the innocent act of curing a disease.

You're saying it like there aren't other options than "don't interffere" and "blow the s*it up!". There are and Federation Captains should use them.

I'm not saying that, but I am saying what if the only leverage the captains had to enforce talks was the fact that they can blow [redacted] up?
'Come here and sort this out now with your neighbour or I'll kick the crap out of you' is hardly a moral stance to take and certainly not one the police usually takes. As I understand your position, this is perfectly justified and for personal situations, I would agree - sometimes two people just needs their heads knocking together before the situation gets sorted.
I would firmly disagree that this the right approach to take on an international or intergalactic scale though.

They are better pissed off than dead.

So this still makes it right?

Nobody said anything about making them future Federation members. Where did that assumption come from? It's not about walking around abd being a slef-righteous arrogant "i'm better than you" mister "this is not how you play the ball". It's about saving lives.

Except it is about being a 'know it all'. As noted, the Borg think they're saving people by uplifting them into the Collective.
While not as blatant as infecting them with Borg nanites and outfitting them with cybernetics, Federation interference can be equally insidious via cultural modification and over the time period involved, the culture won't even realise they're being manipulated.

I believe there's a great conversation in DS9 between Quark and Garak that highlights this:

[Garak takes a drink of root beer]
Quark: What do you think?
Elim Garak: It's vile.
Quark: I know. It's so bubbly and cloying and happy.
Elim Garak: Just like the Federation.
Quark: And you know what's really frightening? If you drink enough of it, you begin to like it.
Elim Garak: It's insidious.
Quark: Just like the Federation.

Sure, it starts with saving lives, but soon they're all part of the same happy (Federation) family.

While it's an assumption, it's a reasonable one to make - if they're interfering so freely with other civilisations as you say they should, why shouldn't getting the culture into the Federation be a good thing?
After all access to Federation technology and medicine would help save more lives, not to mention Federation membership would help improve their economy and political standing.

I'm judging other cultures only in case they find mass death to be moral - aside fro mthat I'm trying to be tolerant and understanding, if a race of space slugs like to dress up in pink skirts and dancing macarena, while singing I'm so pretty little girl", it's their deal. But if they throw five thousand of their citisems into Vulcano every day, that's where the line is draw for me.

I should be more clear, sorry - I'm saying that culture that considers their destruction, as in death of their their entire civilisation for no real reason (I could get them sacrificing themselves to safe the Universe or Galaxy) to be moral, or a culture that values pointless sacrifice of life is stupid.

I believe both of these points tie into your personal values and that's fine as a subjective view. It's when personal values are used to make an objective assessment and this assessment is used to judge the entire culture.

For example, you have the 'pointless sacrifice of life' as stupid.

The Japanese culture values adherence to duty and with their particular values on the ephemeral nature of the physical world, it's considered heroic to lay down your life for your duty.
It's considered particularly heroic to perform your duty even if it's considered to be futile. Spoilered for length:

Staying away from real examples, there's a well known Japanese play where a group of modern day school children are transported back in time to the day before the end of WW2.

They meet a kamikaze pilot who's been told to report for duty at dawn the following day and they beg him not to go, that the war will end the following day and to not waste his life.
Eventually he is convinced that the war is futile and it will end the following day. He still reports for duty at dawn and presumably is killed before the ceasefire happens.

Pointless tragic waste of life, or honourable dedication to duty? Depending on your personal values, it can be either or both.

With regard to the space slugs, that's relatively harmless quirk as it's not affecting anybody. Suppose instead of dancing around in pink tutus, they practised a form of culturally formalised pederasty as the Spartans did?

I'm going to hazard a guess and say that we're not going to make any headway on this particular point since our viewpoints are so different, so I suggest we agree to disagree?

I'm enjoying that too, it's just that now I have so many things to answer it suddenly feels like a chore.

Personally I just take my time typing it up and save drafts as I go until I'm ready to post.

Man on Fire

2012-06-20, 03:21 PM

Long as we're playing with hypotheticals, let me propose one of my own.

By say, with robots, removing things from human control allows the reduction of accidental loss of life. So, yknow, no humans driving. Or playing dangerous sports. Or mountain climbing. Or unhealthy food. Etc, etc. You can vastly reduce the risk of death by removing freedoms, but obviously, some people are going to greatly miss those activities.

Interventionism is dangerous. There's obviously a point that's "too far", and while complete non-interventionism isn't *always* correct, I can see why it'd be a default policy.

I'm not demandind eliminating every threat to every single life, that's impossible. But refusing to save millions is taking things definitely too far for non-internentionism. Again, Enterprise won't beam down to save woman being mugged, we're talking here about saving entire races from extinction. Sure, interventionism taken too far may be dangerous, but everything taken too far is dangerous, including non-interventionism. And I really don't see why, insteand of finding the balance between two, we should submit ourelves to one, who is as like to go wrong and as dangerous if it did, as the other.

Man on Fire

2012-06-20, 03:58 PM

Actually there are some diseases that only seem to 'trigger' or reach epidemic levels when the population hit a certain size and new unprotected hosts come into contact with it, mutates in the new hosts and reinfects the originally immune population.

It's still not a form of population control, that's just normal process - microbes mutates at extreme rate compared to other organism, especially viruses. Hell, the only reason we have genders is to mix our genetic material every generation, so it would be harder for new mutation of virus to infect our children. But it's not some part of big plan of mother nature to keep number of beings in line, that's just part of evolutionary arms race. Read Matt Ridley's The Red Queen.

Bear in mind this is all for terrestrial diseases - who's to say that an alien ecosystem won't have a different mechanism?

Unless it's artifactially arranged ecosystem, then I don't see how it can have any sort of plan, everything in the Universe works about lasting as long as it can by replication, including atoms. Richard Dawkins explains it in his book The Selfish Gene. I don't have it at hand and I cannot explain it myself in non-confusing way, but if we agree that everything in Universe exist to prolong it's existence, then that should also means alien ecosystems, whatever they would be made from, would also be a set of evolutionary arms race where different species fight to prolong their existence.

True, but then the Federation can't play favours and have to cure everybody. What if the bioweapon was the weapon of last resort by one side in order to stop the opposing side, like the British developing anthrax against the Germans during WW2?

The Federation has now completely changed the balance of power on the planet, all by doing nothing more than the innocent act of curing a disease.

Even if they are conquered, won't you agree it's still better than being dead? What's better from a perspective of a species: being ruled by a tyrant or extinction? That's another problem with Star Trek by the way, especially in Voyager - they constantly choose to uphold PD in face of extinction but break it immiediately when the threat is tyranny. SF Debris argues that's stupid and I must agree with him.

I'm not saying that, but I am saying what if the only leverage the captains had to enforce talks was the fact that they can blow [redacted] up?
'Come here and sort this out now with your neighbour or I'll kick the crap out of you' is hardly a moral stance to take and certainly not one the police usually takes. As I understand your position, this is perfectly justified and for personal situations, I would agree - sometimes two people just needs their heads knocking together before the situation gets sorted.
I would firmly disagree that this the right approach to take on an international or intergalactic scale though.

It's another one of those gray areas - sometimes it might be for better, sometimes it might be for worse.

So this still makes it right?

Yes, it's better to disregard their wishes (or rather wishes of those in charge, which hardly makes up for whole civilisation) than to let them die.

Except it is about being a 'know it all'. As noted, the Borg think they're saving people by uplifting them into the Collective.

Borg is what happens when you're things too far. Again, in everything there have to be balance, you cannot save anybody the way they do.

While not as blatant as infecting them with Borg nanites and outfitting them with cybernetics, Federation interference can be equally insidious via cultural modification and over the time period involved, the culture won't even realise they're being manipulated.

Sure, it starts with saving lives, but soon they're all part of the same happy (Federation) family.

And this is what PD should be about, this is what it should protect from. The problem is that it's not. PD is a paranoid trainwreck of rule that lets lives die. Instead of protecting who what you describes it takes things too far in other direction.

While it's an assumption, it's a reasonable one to make - if they're interfering so freely with other civilisations as you say they should, why shouldn't getting the culture into the Federation be a good thing?

There is a difference between saving entire race and just beaming out for no reason. Again you are assuming that I want them to go down every planet and fix all their problems, when it's not what I'm arguing about. I'm not saying PD is inherently a bad thing, okay. I'm saying that the way it is now it's a bad thing. It doesn't allow flexibility and says that sacrifice of entire innocent race for made up reasons is a moral thing to do. I'm not demanding it to be abolished completely and when you bring up examples that come out like this, go with "interacting with other races so freely" like if I want them to ignore PD always, well...I start to wonder if my English is really that bad.

With regard to the space slugs, that's relatively harmless quirk as it's not affecting anybody. Suppose instead of dancing around in pink tutus, they practised a form of culturally formalised pederasty as the Spartans did?

Again, one of those gray areas. But still not sacrificing thousands to vulcano.

I'm going to hazard a guess and say that we're not going to make any headway on this particular point since our viewpoints are so different, so I suggest we agree to disagree?

I don't think we will agree in general about this issue. Maybe we should just agree to disagree about PD and call it a day?

Sotharsyl

2012-06-20, 04:12 PM

I'm all for deconstruction but not all the way for me the perfect balance would be "in the Pale Moon Light" from DS9 in that episode principals of the Federation are broken a lot of them from the small to the great but Sisko sees that they worked and he's shaken to the core changed by this.

And what I like about it it's that it wasn't a "Drop your principals and the bad guys are defeated! Y/N" situation sure the payoff was huge but in the end it was a chance just to fight on and maybe win another day.

But if we strip away things like the PD the benevolent socialism the ability to ask "Why does God need a starship?" ST becomes just this show where they have transporters and replicators.

And the thing is I love Picard for trying to respect the PD every episode it's this along with the fact that he strives to be a officer and a gentleman that makes him a memorable character in my eyes.

Since people are using sf debris, love the show always have a eye out for the newest episode, I'll just add something more there are also reviews of Farscape and I watched Farscape before it appeared on sf debris and I have to say John Crichton "the captain" of that series get's continual praise and I know it's just Chucks's opinion, but really both when I watched it live and in review I could not help but be bored to sleep by Chrichton "my love interest is captured screw the mission I'm going for her" and well just stereotypical hero behavior.

While with Picard there's a bit more tension does he see a need to break the rules this time (PD, whatever) oh will he play by them there is no "well they're the good guys they'll go in phasers blazing".

As a last bit of info I read once a Firefly/ST cross over Iliterraly wouldn't have read it if it were any other SF series then ST, because well the 'Verse is weak really weak they'd bee stomped by any other SF faction, but not the Federation the Feds hold back you know they could do so much it would be so easy, but they stick to their principles or do they?

And it was fun watching Enterprise trying to be stealthy and not break the PD, to see the Serenity crew be taken aback by the tech but not in danger for once and to see them try to rationalize to themselves "Nah this central gov Picard represents has 0% in common with the evil evil central gov we hate"

And it will be good if the Alliance do manage to track the Fed down and open a portal to another universe and not be invaded by xenomorphs as most SF universes would have for the Firefly and it would be a absolute laugh to see the Alliance try to join the Fed only to be greeted by a "Ok but we need to talk about your human rights record."

Devonix

2012-06-20, 06:35 PM

I have to be say that you must be very careful when you talk about Diseases existing to help population control or genetic diversity ect. That is the exact same excuse that people have used to say that the Aids Virus and other such diseases are nature's way of keeping population control in certain regions or a way to weed out homosexuals.

I am not saying that's where you are going. what I am saying is such talk is a slippery slope and suggest we steer clear of it.

Omergideon

2012-06-21, 02:41 AM

Omergideon: Problem being that the other considerations basically rely on the Prime Directive as written. If it didn't forbid involvement, then what considerations would apply?

Hmm, interesting question. I had not really thought about that.

As it stands I would still assert that this does not wholly remove the issue. My main assertion is that a Federation Captain being such a front line diplomat has a reasonable expectation that his/her actions in general will often have political/social ramifications. Is this a reasonable general principle based on the facts that we know of more than one Fed Captain (Jellico, Sisko, Picard) who have almost without oversight negotiated high level treaties with foreign powers and become embroiled in such affairs, even without intent?

If so then considering the political ramifications of an act is still an issue, however a lesser one. Without the standing rule of non-interference I would suppose that there is not the immediacy of risk involved of a change to the status quo. The potential for wider ranging effects would then have to be seen on a case by case basis. But it becomes less a massive political hot button, and more a normal part of consideration as any humanitarian/expansionist/exploratory/research mission would be. Sadly how our neighbours see us is always going to affect policy. But if you are not having to deal with interference breaking your most fundamental laws (potentially) then the pressue I think would lessen.

But with the PD in place I would say that being able to legitimately claim moral high ground becomes a significant factor in international relations, affecting how other worlds see your interactions with others Edit: insofar as avoiding the semblance of hypocrisy. Of course I personally would advocate interference in terms of natural disasters more often then not.........though I have no idea personally where I could comfortably draw the line between interference and non interference.

Gnoman

2012-06-21, 03:40 PM

The PD makes sense if you look at the use in later seasons as ever-increasing rigidity being given to it form being broken too often, or the disasterous effects that bending it had. Kirk destroyed at least three entire social structures, and nearly caused a war of annihilation between two planets. It's not unlikely that the Directive would be modified after something of that sort.

Lord Seth

2012-06-21, 04:04 PM

Kirk destroyed at least three entire social structures,Name them. You can't just throw out that claim; explain what the ones that are "destroyed" so a reasonable discussion can be had as to whether that's even correct characterization of what happened.
and nearly caused a war of annihilation between two planets.Another claim tossed out without saying what it actually is. If you're referring to "A Taste of Armageddon" then that's really not what happened; Kirk ended a war. His actions brought about positive results for both planets and the Federation.

Gnoman

2012-06-21, 04:32 PM

The society in "The Apple" and the Landru-controlled society in "Return of the Archons" were both destroyed by Kirk's intervention, as neither was really capable of operating without their computer, while that in "A Private Little War fares little better.

As for "A Taste of Armageddon," there was, if anything, a greater chance that ending the "clean" war would precipitate a full-scale "dirty" one. Yes, it worked out, and worked out to the advantage of all concerned. That doesn't mean that it wasn't an incredibly risky gamble with the fate of two entire planets at stake.

The Prime Directive, even the rather looser TOS one, was violated in three of the four cases, with one being technically not a violation because of previous interference by the Klingons. It's not far fetched that the higher-ups would revise the Directive after such events.

Lord Seth

2012-06-21, 05:24 PM

The society in "The Apple" and the Landru-controlled society in "Return of the Archons" were both destroyed by Kirk's intervention, as neither was really capable of operating without their computer,Both were capable of operating without it, or so it is indicated afterwards (well, the people kept on living, at any rate).
while that in "A Private Little War fares little better.Kirk did not "destroy" anything. Even if we do consider this to be an actual "destroying" of the society (which it really isn't, it's more of a shifting), Kirk was responding to the Klingon's interference. What would have led to a destruction--worse than the other two you mentioned--would have been if Kirk had done nothing. The Prime Directive had essentially already been broken (well, by people who didn't observe it in the first place, but still), and Kirk's actions were an attempt to restore the Prime Directive, or at least restore it as best as it could have been. It seems irrelevant to your claim.

As for "A Taste of Armageddon," there was, if anything, a greater chance that ending the "clean" war would precipitate a full-scale "dirty" one. Yes, it worked out, and worked out to the advantage of all concerned. That doesn't mean that it wasn't an incredibly risky gamble with the fate of two entire planets at stake.Not really. Kirk correctly deduced that the other planet would have such a similar thought process as the planet he was on that they would be just as desperate to avoid an all-out war. And he was right. I think the odds were in fact very high that the outcome he was going for would occur.

Not only that, but I'm unsure if in the long run an all-out war would in fact be a worse outcome than them continuing indefinitely with the way things were.

The Prime Directive, even the rather looser TOS one, was violated in three of the four cases, with one being technically not a violation because of previous interference by the Klingons. It's not far fetched that the higher-ups would revise the Directive after such events.That argument makes no sense. Your claim is that because the looser TOS one was violated...the answer was to revise it. Huh? If it's already against the rule, then how would revising it change anything in that department? If something is illegal, making something else illegal doesn't somehow make the original thing more illegal.

Even more confusing, you don't provide any reason from these examples as to why such a thing would be necessary, as one case brought about positive results (A Taste of Armageddon), another case didn't bring about great results but brought about better results than if they had done nothing (A Private Little War), and the other two cases are debatable as to whether it made it worse or better.

I do wonder if destroying Vaal in The Apple was really a case of breaking the Prime Directive, actually, as the only way it could have been there in the first place was by some other species interfering by putting it there.

Gnoman

2012-06-21, 08:17 PM

The entire point of the Prime Directive is to prevent intervening in another culture "for their own good." The people of the computer controlled societies survived. They're entire culture and social structure ceased to exist. It's the equivalent of landing in Europe and forcing government by computer. Whether or not that would be better is irrelevant. Likewise, the computer war planets were soverign entities that had mutually worked out a treaty. Unilaterally voiding that treaty is something that Kirk had no right to do*. In the real world, it would be a casus belli for both parties against the interloper.

In all those cases, Kirk's actions were caused, at least in part, by things that did not violate the Directive. Thus, the Directive did not do its job. Thus, it is logical to revise it.

Lord Seth

2012-06-22, 12:47 AM

Whether or not that would be better is irrelevant.Yes it is. You can't simply say that a society got destroyed and automatically assume that's a bad thing. Societies can be "destroyed" without outside interference, and it can be a good or bad thing. You can't simply say "the society was destroyed" and act as if that closes the matter.

Likewise, the computer war planets were soverign entities that had mutually worked out a treaty.Which the Federation did not agree to.
Unilaterally voiding that treaty is something that Kirk had no right to do*.You're ignoring the fact that the planet attempted to force the treaty on Kirk, which again the Federation had never agreed to.

In the real world, it would be a casus belli for both parties against the interloper.Only after they had already done a "casus belli" against the Federation by trying to destroy their ship.

In all those cases, Kirk's actions were caused, at least in part, by things that did not violate the Directive. Thus, the Directive did not do its job. Thus, it is logical to revise it.So because things that didn't violate the Directive produced good outcomes, it should be revised to ban those? :smallconfused:

willpell

2012-06-22, 01:59 AM

Whether or not that would be better is irrelevant.

Gotta disagree there. Ultimately if someone is sufficiently objectively superior in ability to determine right from wrong, the responsible thing for them to do is to intervene to prevent others from making severe self-destructive and irreparable mistakes, no matter what principles of sovereignty say that they have the right to shoot themselves in the foot if they so choose. Whether the Federation qualifies for that objective superiority is more debatable of course.

Omergideon

2012-06-22, 02:31 AM

Gotta disagree there. Ultimately if someone is sufficiently objectively superior in ability to determine right from wrong, the responsible thing for them to do is to intervene to prevent others from making severe self-destructive and irreparable mistakes, no matter what principles of sovereignty say that they have the right to shoot themselves in the foot if they so choose. Whether the Federation qualifies for that objective superiority is more debatable of course.

Whether any being not sufficiently advanced to claim quasi-divinity (and even then would the Q qualify?) have the sort of objective moral superiority is a debate in itself. Whether such a state exists at all is a question people have grappled with for centuries and more. Perhaps if someone were to have that state they could try........but this raises the issue of the value of self determination and free will.

To wit, would you, personally, rather be allowed to injure yourself by your own choices or have that prevented by someone capable of showing their moral superiority? This is again a question I think has no clear and concise answer and we all make our own minds up on it.

To return to Trek, both the Borg and the Q claim this objective moral superiority and thus meddle and interfere almost relentlessly. By our standards both are capricious and cruel races. But even if we could prove objectively that people were happier, safer and better in the collective than outside......what? Would you wish your ability to choose for yourself removed? Is the ability to screw up and suffer by our choices a necessary price for free will?

But that is a full moral debate. I only offer it as an example of the type of reasoning, perhaps, why Star Trek generally does not advocate that but seems to take a position of "I know they are choosing idiocy, but they have the right to make that choice".

Brother Oni

2012-06-22, 06:25 AM

I don't think we will agree in general about this issue. Maybe we should just agree to disagree about PD and call it a day?

I think we should. It's ironic to note that I believe we're both agreed that the PD shouldn't be inflexible, but we disagree on when and where the Federation could or should intervene.

willpell

2012-06-22, 08:39 AM

Whether any being not sufficiently advanced to claim quasi-divinity (and even then would the Q qualify?)

John De Lancie's Q (it's rather inconvenient that they don't have names) definitely doesn't qualify as morally superior, no matter how much he thinks so. Whether the rest of the Continuum is any better we don't know, since we've only ever met one other of them (though there was a Voyager episode when they were said to have gone to war, assuming you regard mid-seasons Voyager as canonical for some strange reason; I prefer to think of all save the first and last seasons of the show, excepting "Scorpion" and "The Expanse" and maybe a couple other standout episodes, as Rick Berman having had a bad acid trip which somehow wound up on film).

.......but this raises the issue of the value of self determination and free will.

In my opinion those things are overvalued; if all but one of your choices are unquestionably wrong, is there any reason why you should wish for the ability to make them? Of course a television show or any other medium is going to take the stance that you should, because making bad decisions that cause you harm, and necessitate further deciison about how to cope with that harm, is great drama. But I would prefer to believe that our actual lives, that we really live, where pain hurts and scars never heal and we have no certain knowledge that any of it actually accomplishes anything in the grand scheme of things, was not configured primarily for the sake of drama.

If there were any being I trusted to make all my decisions better than I could, I'd happily make that trade; it's just that I am unlikely to ever trust any being to such an extent, being a cynical and paranoid individual as I am. They'd need to do an awful lot of work to win me over, but if they did earn that trust, I wouldn't throw away the gift of their guidance just out of a stubborn and wrong-headed determination to prove I was still in charge. After all, I've learned quite often and very painfully that I don't do well when I'm in charge of things, my own life very definitely included.

To return to Trek, both the Borg and the Q claim this objective moral superiority and thus meddle and interfere almost relentlessly. By our standards both are capricious and cruel races.

The Borg are hardly capricious, and "cruel" is debatable in its accuracy, much as calling an earthquake or avalanche "cruel" would be dubious, though we certainly might perceive it so. The Q are cruel and capricious; the Borg are horrifying and relentless. Very different (and bloody fascinating as a Law vs. Chaos contrast to us D&D players).

But even if we could prove objectively that people were happier, safer and better in the collective than outside......what? Would you wish your ability to choose for yourself removed?

Have it removed, no. Be talked into surrendering it, with an extremely persuasive show of evidence? That'd be another story.

Is the ability to screw up and suffer by our choices a necessary price for free will?

No, it's just a consequence of our poor decision-making ability. We could still have free will if we had the ability to forecast the future and determine with perfect accuracy where our choices will inevitably lead us. My childhood self didn't think when he started biting his fingernails about how he'd feel 25 years down the road when he still suffered an irresistable compulsion to gnaw them down to stumps. I'd be a lot happier if I hadn't been free to make that stupid short-sighted decision when I was a brainless infant that didn't know any better.

But that is a full moral debate.

As far as I know the forum still allows those, as long as they steer clear of religion, which is admittedly very tricky in the vein of this particular topic. AFAICT the statements I've made here are equally applicable whether you're a secular humanist or some sort of theist philosopher, but I can tell I'm very close to an edge and thus am walking with great care.

I only offer it as an example of the type of reasoning, perhaps, why Star Trek generally does not advocate that but seems to take a position of "I know they are choosing idiocy, but they have the right to make that choice".

As I said, I see this decision as having nothing to do with right and wrong, and everything to do with generating pathos and creating conflict to drive the plot. Which are fine in fiction, but which I deeply hope are not true in the reality I'm stuck actually living in.

Gnoman

2012-06-22, 10:44 AM

Brother Oni

2012-06-22, 10:59 AM

Have it removed, no. Be talked into surrendering it, with an extremely persuasive show of evidence? That'd be another story.

However, would it be so if the evidence was falsified or otherwise misleading? In the case of pre-warp civilisations, they may even lack the scientific understanding to comprehend the evidence and thus unable to give informed consent - would it still be moral to force them to choose?

As I said, I see this decision as having nothing to do with right and wrong, and everything to do with generating pathos and creating conflict to drive the plot. Which are fine in fiction, but which I deeply hope are not true in the reality I'm stuck actually living in.

Eargh. Far too many real life examples and all far too political for this board to mention directly.

Compare and contrast international relations and interventionism back in the height of colonialism to current day and you'll find plenty of examples of both sides of this decision.

willpell

2012-06-22, 11:15 AM

However, would it be so if the evidence was falsified or otherwise misleading? In the case of pre-warp civilisations, they may even lack the scientific understanding to comprehend the evidence and thus unable to give informed consent - would it still be moral to force them to choose?

IMO our own society shows us plenty of the false or misleading evidence, despite our supposed advancement, but this gets back to my saying "objectively superior morality", which would preclude such falsification. The fact that falsification can occur is exactly why I'm cynical and paranoid; it takes a LOT of convincing to win me over, and if you come across as a little too persuasive it just increases my defensiveness. Still, I trust my own mother and the other lady who lives in our homestead not to stab me in my sleep for no reason, so clearly I'm capable of trusting someone under some circumstances. The OMS one would just have to reach that level of comfort with me, and I'm reasonably confident that they'd be more likely to succeed if they were honest and forthright the whole time, than if they were extremely skilled at lying and I never once caught on.

Eargh. Far too many real life examples and all far too political for this board to mention directly.

You're welcome to PM me with what you have in mind.

Compare and contrast international relations and interventionism back in the height of colonialism to current day and you'll find plenty of examples of both sides of this decision.

Very little of what went on either then or now comes close to "objective moral superiority". If there's room for reasonable doubt then it's not objective after all; that doesn't mean objectivity isn't possible, just that it takes a lot of doing to achieve.

Omergideon

2012-06-22, 12:35 PM

John De Lancie's Q (it's rather inconvenient that they don't have names) definitely doesn't qualify as morally superior, no matter how much he thinks so. Whether the rest of the Continuum is any better we don't know, since we've only ever met one other of them (though there was a Voyager episode when they were said to have gone to war, assuming you regard mid-seasons Voyager as canonical for some strange reason; I prefer to think of all save the first and last seasons of the show, excepting "Scorpion" and "The Expanse" and maybe a couple other standout episodes, as Rick Berman having had a bad acid trip which somehow wound up on film).

You outline most of your philosophy quite well there and state your own personal moral axioms well. I don't think the debate on such a topic would be especially needful here. It could be debated until the cows come home but we have a fundamental difference of opinion on the value of allowing free will etc. Of course my reasons enter religious territory so I won't go there in the debate. But you explain it well and so while I disagree, I understand.

However I was not at any point suggesting that Q was indeed morally superior. I was instead questioning how one could demonstrate moral superiority. Superior understanding of self interest perhaps. But I cannot conceptualise how one might (avoiding some supernaturalist ability) prove moral superiority in an objective sense at all. And if this is impossible then surety of our own superiority (as opposed to humble attempts to do our best etc) if we were the Federation or some other group is a tricky prospect.

Not only this but I am always hesitant of arguements to prove the immorality of a certain moral code by pointing out the various acts it encourages/forbids as though this were proof. It presupposes the moral correctness of the interpretation of those views, which defeats the logic of moral debate in many ways.

willpell

2012-06-22, 01:32 PM

You outline most of your philosophy quite well there and state your own personal moral axioms well.

Seriously, that means a lot to me that you say that. I always feel like I'm rambling and making no sense and usually get very upset at others' inability to understand me, so if I've accidentally done a good job laying out my position for a change, that makes this a high point of my day.

I don't think the debate on such a topic would be especially needful here.

Agreed, especially given that I'm badly sleep deprived right now.

I was instead questioning how one could demonstrate moral superiority.

There's no quick and easy way. You'd have to see a long career of good judgment in action, to be able to observe that wisdom and compassion and logic and a nuanced understanding of multiple perspectives are at work. The ability to understand why a conflict is occurring and how to solve it, taking into full account the way the conflicting parties feel and how things got to the point where they are, without ever snapping and just smacking them both down. You see Stupid Good behavior a lot in D&D, even from such beings as the ultimate archangels or deities, but it never flies in my game - it doesn't even deserve the Good label, let alone Exalted or the like, if it fails a certain less than scientific litmus test for whether it's really representing the best possible approach.

But I cannot conceptualise how one might (avoiding some supernaturalist ability) prove moral superiority in an objective sense at all.

Maybe truly objective is impossible, save with an omniscient observer. But certainly "hard to argue with". Subjectivity is a lot more of a factor in a question like "which of these shades of red is prettier" than in a question like "is this color more nearly red or green?" The latter question is still subjective, the color could be a brown that's near the midpoint between R and G on the spectrum, but it's also entirely possible that there's an obviously correct answer and that only someone who's rather brainless (or color-blind etc., of course) would fail to recognize that there's a correct answer clearly visible in this case. Blood is more red, fresh grass is more green; you can subjectively believe otherwise but you'll be pretty alone in that assertion.

Not only this but I am always hesitant of arguements to prove the immorality of a certain moral code by pointing out the various acts it encourages/forbids as though this were proof. It presupposes the moral correctness of the interpretation of those views, which defeats the logic of moral debate in many ways.

Completely can't parse this statement in my current state of bleariness; perhaps just as well.

Omergideon

2012-06-22, 06:23 PM

My question is.......what sort of thing could possibly be proof or evidence of moral superiority? As in is the question even one that has any real objective, and one assumes scientific veracity? If yes what could they possibly be? If not, I do not see how we can even discuss real objectively provable moral superiority.

Saying someone needs to demonstrate "good judgement for the best of all" for instance presupposes a utilitarian view of things. Suggesting that one needs to be able to account for multiple viewpoints fairly also assumes that this is a good thing. We may be able to demonstrate that we ourselves like these things, and even justify them down to reasonably basic principles. But relating this to objective reality becomes difficult. And this is even harder when you begin to include aliens that could have totally different cultural, biological and moral viewpoints. (See Ender's game for how something like this can occur, assuming you haven't read it)

That is my trouble with all assertions of proving a moral position. If I say that race x is morally superior because their code leads to certain acts......do I not assume the end result is better? I am begging the question and stating as facts things any number of people or races may not think to be so. The Borg honestly believe, and can reasonably (as in logically) argue that they are acting for our benefit. Any arguement against assimilation assumes that a hive mind is bad for individuals or some such. I think this is a logical fallacy.

But if we cannot ourselves provide any meaningful objective basis for moral superiority then where do we get it from? The most logical choice is the beings with greater understanding of the universe, such as the Organians or the Q. But by our standards they are typically morally inferior in some respects. At least I can't remember a group who weren't presented as such. Any race of similar midset to us would essentially have to take on faith the moral superiority of another group then. Or rely on a type of evidence we cannot even understand, rendering it's place in discourse often pretty moot.

Or so I think, in my midnight ramblings here.