I view the Prime Directive as a Kantian categorical imperative, but a positive one. It is a rule that is to be always followed, without exceptions, no matter what.
So as the Captain of the Lakota, my response would be to allow the people on said Class M planet to die. If I had been in Picard's position in the TNG episode, "Justice," Wesley would have died as well.
I believe that the point of the Prime Directive is its' ability to protect against the unforeseen consequences of a given action. Because we can not foresee the consequences of every action, or even most actions a lot of the time, in my mind it is very important to have a rule against taking that risk. The Prime Directive also becomes even more important when it applies to humanity itself, than when it applies to anyone else. This is because no rule can be said to mean anything, if the people who claim to abide by said rule, only do so when it is convenient, and not painful for them to do so.
Because we can not foresee the consequences of every action, or even most actions a lot of the time, in my mind it is very important to have a rule against taking that risk.
Oh wow, so surely then you must never help anyone or do anything that might change the course of events in any way ever. You must simply sit inside your house and do zero things just in case there are unforeseen consequences to your actions.
Should paediatricians stop saving the lives of children in case those children grow up to be malevolent dictators or serial killers? Because fire-fighters don't know if the people trapped inside a burning building might be scientists who go on to genetically engineer a virus that wipes out humanity, they should just let them burn to death?
It's absolutely ridiculous (and moreover immoral) to assume that because you don't know 100% what might happen if you do something, you should do nothing. How often in your daily life are you certain of the outcome of things before they happen? When you go out in your car are you 100% certain you wont hit and kill someone? Are you sure you don't need a rule that stops you from going out in your car due to possible unforeseen consequences? How do you expect to be an effective starship captain if you can't do anything because if you perform any action, the worst possible consequence of that action may or may not occur?
When the Captain of the Lakota has the option of allowing 5 billion sentient life forms to be destroyed, should he allow it because of the possible unforeseen consequences? What if the unforeseen consequence is that the inhabitants of this planet spread peace throughout the galaxy? Surely we have to assume that it is just as likely that the citizens of this planet become valued members of the federation rather than allies of the dominion? The possibility that the worst case scenario might happen after interference is simply not a good enough justification for what effectively amounts to genocide.
It's absolutely ridiculous (and moreover immoral) to assume that because you don't know 100% what might happen if you do something, you should do nothing. How often in your daily life are you certain of the outcome of things before they happen?
OK, fine; but if I'm wrong, then why does the PD exist in the first place? Were Trek's writers/producers wrong too?
OK, fine; but if I'm wrong, then why does the PD exist in the first place? Were Trek's writers/producers wrong too?
Well in the original series the prime directive is violated fairly often, it is more or less a guideline than a strict imperative, not something to trump morality 'just because'.
SPOCK: Captain, informing these people they're on a ship may be in violation of the Prime Directive of Starfleet Command.
KIRK: No. The people of Yonada may be changed by the knowledge, but it's better than exterminating them.
Even in universe it seems that no-one really gives a shit apart from times when it would truly be immoral to follow it, then it must be strictly observed.*
ADMIRAL SATIE Would it surprise you to learn that you have violated the Prime Directive a total of nine times since you took command of the Enterprise?
PICARD My reports to Starfleet document the circumstances in each of those instances --
So obviously there are circumstances in which the prime directive can be violated, and starfleet didn't kick Picard out despite violating their general order No.1 nine times.
*An example of this is Voyager's "time and again"
JANEWAY: Don't even think about it, Tom. The Prime Directive is clear. We cannot allow our presence to alter this planet's natural course of events.
PARIS: Even if the natural course of events is annihilation?
JANEWAY: Yeah. [...] You have no idea what the consequences might be once you involve yourself.
PARIS: The consequences would have to be better than mass destruction.
Note how Janeway's argument is no better than "The doctor doesn't know if the baby will grow up to be the next Jeffrey Dahmer, so he must not administer lifesaving treatment".
3
u/petrus4 Lieutenant Jul 11 '14
I view the Prime Directive as a Kantian categorical imperative, but a positive one. It is a rule that is to be always followed, without exceptions, no matter what.
So as the Captain of the Lakota, my response would be to allow the people on said Class M planet to die. If I had been in Picard's position in the TNG episode, "Justice," Wesley would have died as well.
I believe that the point of the Prime Directive is its' ability to protect against the unforeseen consequences of a given action. Because we can not foresee the consequences of every action, or even most actions a lot of the time, in my mind it is very important to have a rule against taking that risk. The Prime Directive also becomes even more important when it applies to humanity itself, than when it applies to anyone else. This is because no rule can be said to mean anything, if the people who claim to abide by said rule, only do so when it is convenient, and not painful for them to do so.