11 replies to this topic

[Arden_Cain]

Hi POW Fans,

This week we ask one of the toughest and most controversial questions that a Star Fleet Officer could be faced with: Do you agree with the Prime Directive. Is the directive of non-interference something you despise or live by in any situation.

It goes without saying that since its introduction, the directive has been challenged by just about every Star Fleet captain as they come across situations that are morally and ethically dubious. So come on down and share your views because the discussion is always what make this fun and enlightening.

[Nathan Baker]

Although I agree with the Prime Directive on the whole, I do take issue with how it has been executed on certain occasions.

In my opinion, one can not hold rigidly to the fact that "We don't get involved." Usually when a matter of interference comes up, it's not a black or white issue. Sure there might be precedent to take into account, but every matter should be looked at on it's face with the facts at hand before rendering a decision.

http://blip.tv/sf-de...nalysis-5638650

I think SF-Debris' look at the Prime Directive is a very good way one should perceive the directive. Not as a dogmatic expression of non-interference, but looking at a situation with critical thinking before making your choice. Kirk and Picard were very good at this... Janeway and Archer not so much.

As much as I agree with the idea of General Order #1, I think Captains of starships should be held to a very high standard of reasonable interpretation when it comes to those situations where it comes into play.

[Segolene LeMarnix]

I have the idea in my head, but have huge problem explaining it.

Let's put it this way - "Do not kill!" - it is forbidden to do it, part of every law in the World. But there are still occasions when it is done and acceptable, though it should never be.

So yes, absolutely, we need Prime Directive.

[Sinda Essen]

I agree with the Prime Directive - and I see why it should be upheld under all circumstances, even those which would result in deaths. With a rule this important you either enforce it or you don't - there should be no grey areas.
Of course, from a story perspective, having grey areas makes for great narrative

[Nathan Baker]

I agree with the Prime Directive - and I see why it should be upheld under all circumstances, even those which would result in deaths. With a rule this important you either enforce it or you don't - there should be no grey areas.

No grey areas? What if someone explicitly asks for help? This is what happened in the episode in "Enterprise" where the Prime Directive didn't exist, but Archer (via Phlox) put a mandate regarding non-interference. In my opinion, it wasn't for the crew to decide what steps "nature" should be allowed to take, it should've been about doing the right thing.

Every matter has to be looked at individually. I'm not saying the crews should automatically help every civilization they run across that's in danger. But if they find themselves in a unique position where they have been forced into making the decision, why not help if they can?

Making the Prime Directive a black and white, dogmatic rule goes against what makes the Federation such a good organization. If you're going to have to violate the rule, you had better have a darn good reason. Saving lives from natural disasters = probably OK. Interfering with internal matters such as war or other strife = not such a good idea.

[T'Mihn Ah'mygahn]

I'm still thinking about this one. I've noticed some captians would invoke general order#1 when they didn't want to get involved because of emotional reasons,and some disregard GO #1 for the same reasons. It's truly a difficult situation that can be potentially dangerous in the hands of the wrong ship captian. There should be some sort of guidelines,not necessarily hard,fast or black and white rules. Just guidelines,and encouragement to move carefully, it's a culture at stake. On one side we can't say "you're not ready." Or "you're too young. " We had only dealt with this one as recently as Picards and Janeway respectively on the many consequences of their maybe needed,interference with a culture. Even interference with a warp capable culture can cause instability. I guess we think carefully,seek advice even pray then act. Hope for the best prepare for the worst.

[mengtian]

The idea of the Prime Directive sounds good but is IMO the most inconsistent part of Star Trek canon. I am trying to figure out how many officers have actually given their lives, no less their ship, to adhere to the Prime Directive. I come up with none!

Edited by mengtian, 22 April 2012 - 03:13 PM.

[T'Mihn Ah'mygahn]

The script has a bit where they escape at the last second.

[Sakorra Jefferson Reed]

I didn't vote either way, because I agree and disagree to a point, depending on case and context. There are some absolutes which would be unethical to adhere to. That is why no one just lets a dictator murder people by the thousands and throw them in mass graves. That is why we aren't speaking German today, for those of us not in a German-speaking country. That is why we still have jewish people in the world today. It is why the entire world isn't shouting "Hail, Caesar!" We have an inherant knowledge of good and evil. And we need to follow that. That said, there is always a context. If you say to always do what appears to be right, you end up stopping the guy about to send a missile into a city with a million people only to find out they have a deadly virus that is now spreading to the rest of the world because you stopped the only thing that would have stopped the spread. And now 10 billion people are dead, because of you. All in context.

[Sinda Essen]

But that's the thing about the Prime Directive - it's designed to be so absolute. There is no case-by-case basis, it either applies all the time, or none of the time. To allow Captains the freedom to chose when it does and doesn't apply completely undermines the point of the Prime Directive and makes it totally pointless.
It's like the Omega Directive in Voyager - again, to allow captains the freedom to interpret that as they wish would invite disaster. Starfleet is a paramilitary organisation, after all, and you are *supposed* to follow orders.

At least that would be the case if the Prime Directive was real - obviously it's not, and is rather a tool for driving narrative and creating moral dilema. Which is also good.

[Kotir Arith]

I definitely agree. This got me thinking about the episode in Voyager called "Equinox" in the episode. Captain Rudy Ransom is the Captain on board the USS Equinox and went to extreme lengths in ignoring the Prime Directive to get his crew home. Of course this discover shocks Janeway so much she almost forgets the meaning of the Prime Directive herself. It was a really interesting person which really hits hard on "What would you do?" situation.

To be honest, I wish I could act as reasonably and stay true to the directive as Janeway had. I won't know though. I've never been stuck in a situation like that (obviously) so who knows how people would react.

Even though I totally went off topic thinking I was making a point, don't know myself if I did that but... I do agree that the Prime Directive is agreeable. It is very respectful and is genuinely a good thing. So I agree with it and I don't think I would break it (which was that point I was trying to make in my earlier paragraph )

Edited by Chris O'Hanlon, 25 April 2012 - 03:44 PM.

[Johanna MacLaren]

It is said that a smart person learns from his mistakes, but a truly wise person learns from the mistakes of others. The Prime Directive prohibits people from having that choice. It denies emerging cultures the chance to avoid mistakes and progress at a faster pace than they might otherwise. The old cliche, "No sense in re-creating the wheel." is exactly the opposite of the Prime Directive which forces culture after culture to re-create the wheel. It always seemed inconsistent to me that a culture which had barely avoided blasting themselves into extinction would make it a first priority to deny an emerging culture the benefit of their experience.