TNG - Homeward

[Fianna]

I think what happened with the Prime Directive is that, early on in TNG, a couple big things had been established:

1) The Federation is a futuristic utopia.

2) The Prime Directive is Starfleet's (and, presumably, the Federation's) highest law.

The writers took these two things as absolute truths. Given those premises, it logically follows that the non-interference demanded by the Prime Directive must always be right.

A utopia like the Federation would not enforce the Prime Directive if it was the wrong thing to do. But if the Federation didn't enforce the Prime Directive, then it wouldn't be their highest law. Ergo, if the Federation is a utopia and the Prime Directive is their highest law, then enforcing the Prime Directive must be what's right, no matter how it conflicts with conventional morality.

[Fuzzy Necromancer]

To see them reduced to the kind of stubborn self-righteousness was not only a regression to the dubious season 1/2 characterization that Picard had largely grown out of, it also was a disappointing sign that the PD dogmatism was going to be embraced even further, which Voyager and Enterprise bore out.

I disagree completely. The Prime Directive means no interference, period. If the Federation isn't going to play god, it's not going to play god - you can't pick and choose when interference is permissible and when it's unacceptable.

That race was doomed. It would have been doomed if the Federation didn't exist. So they get the destiny the universe gave them. It's not the Federation's place to determine which species live and which species die, or which tragedies a primitive species undergoes and which ones it doesn't.

The episode with the little girl with the subspace radio was complex: they'd inadvertently broken the Prime Directive already, they could intervene without letting the race know the Federation existed, and they erased the little girl's memory. Even then, it was a betrayal of the Federation's ideals because they couldn't bring themselves to make the hard decision.

Do you just choose the most detestable position you can find to argue in any given debate?

[Riedquat]

I think what happened with the Prime Directive is that, early on in TNG, a couple big things had been established:

1) The Federation is a futuristic utopia.

2) The Prime Directive is Starfleet's (and, presumably, the Federation's) highest law.

The writers took these two things as absolute truths. Given those premises, it logically follows that the non-interference demanded by the Prime Directive must always be right.

A utopia like the Federation would not enforce the Prime Directive if it was the wrong thing to do. But if the Federation didn't enforce the Prime Directive, then it wouldn't be their highest law. Ergo, if the Federation is a utopia and the Prime Directive is their highest law, then enforcing the Prime Directive must be what's right, no matter how it conflicts with conventional morality.

A classic case of worshipping the letter of the law rather than the spirit, and believing that because it is SAID it is true. Remove religion and you get this sort of thing as substitution. You don't have to look far to see real world parallels.

[clearspira]

I think what happened with the Prime Directive is that, early on in TNG, a couple big things had been established:

1) The Federation is a futuristic utopia.

2) The Prime Directive is Starfleet's (and, presumably, the Federation's) highest law.

The writers took these two things as absolute truths. Given those premises, it logically follows that the non-interference demanded by the Prime Directive must always be right.

A utopia like the Federation would not enforce the Prime Directive if it was the wrong thing to do. But if the Federation didn't enforce the Prime Directive, then it wouldn't be their highest law. Ergo, if the Federation is a utopia and the Prime Directive is their highest law, then enforcing the Prime Directive must be what's right, no matter how it conflicts with conventional morality.

We know of two laws (read: retcons) that supersede the Prime Directive. The Omega Directive and Article 14, section 31 of the Starfleet charter that authorises basically any secret operation against any person or government they deem necessary (lets forget the DISCO interpretation for the mo.)

There is also an argument to be made for Regulation 3, paragraph 12 that Captain Ransom tried to justify his actions with ("in the event of imminent destruction, a Starfleet captain is authorized to preserve the lives of his crew by any justifiable means"). Which as Chuck noted, the word ''justifiable'' can mean just about anything. Its up to a tribunal to decide what it does and what it does not mean. What if by saving a planet full of primitive people they end up saving themselves?

And then there is ''Insurrection''. Yes the Ba'ku planet is in Federation space, fine, but they weren't Federation citizens. The Prime Directive really ought to have applied - Picard CERTAINLY thought it did and said so - but because of some weird loophole about them not being native to the planet then it did not apply.

What i'm trying to get at here is that the Federation is hypocritical. There is plenty of statutes on their books that supersede their supposedly highest law and even has loopholes built into it.

[Lazerlike42]

A lot of strong reactions to this one. For some reason, it never bothered me as much as many of the other prime directive episodes. Maybe that's because in this one, they ultimately do help the people and the prime directive part of it is sortof briefly addressed and then largely forgotten about rather than it being the primary focus as in some other episodes.

In any event, I think out-of-universe what happened with the prime directive is that as (real world) time went on, weaker writers started to see the prime directive as a good source of conflict and so started to dogmatize it for the sake of creating more tension and conflict. Meanwhile, as (real world) time went on the characterization of the humans of the show's setting evolved to be more and more "goody two shoes" and too perfect to tell interesting stories with. Remember that the TOS characters were still a lot more human than those season one and two TNG characters when Rodenberry was really able to establish the idea of his future utopia in a more comprehensive way. - and, while they certainly loosened up a bit though seasons 3, 4 and so on of TNG a certain fundamental kind of "good guyness" stuck with them and even deepened. You know what I mean - that sense by which "you're a Starfleet officer" was sufficient to describe all of the motivations and behaviors of every character. The result was, I think, writers looking for ways to actually tempt these characters to do something that would cause conflict.

Note that the one series - DS9 - in which that utopianism was pretty much absent is also the one series that doesn't have a single prime directive episode. There was no need for one: the characters were already perfectly adequate sources of drama because they were normal, imperfect human beings. Then comes Voyager, which was sortof a mixed bag. On the one hand, it "feels" like it had a lot of really bad prime directive episodes, but on the other, I think it was probably not as bad as we remember it and I suspect that feeling comes from the strength of Janeway's moralizing about it a few times when it did come up. Still, it certainly reared its head a few times and of course Voyager was really the show that drove home that "like a starfleet officer" thing. They were in the "wild west" of outer space and needed to act like *super-duper-really-extra-perfect starfleet officers, which I think made the prime directive even more tempting as a plot device.

[Jonathan101]

And then there is ''Insurrection''. Yes the Ba'ku planet is in Federation space, fine, but they weren't Federation citizens. The Prime Directive really ought to have applied - Picard CERTAINLY thought it did and said so - but because of some weird loophole about them not being native to the planet then it did not apply.

What i'm trying to get at here is that the Federation is hypocritical. There is plenty of statutes on their books that supersede their supposedly highest law and even has loopholes built into it.

I think in the case of "Insurrection" the Admiral was probably either wrong or lying, a bit like Bush Administration arguments that they weren't using torture but "enhanced interrogation techniques" so laws against torture didn't apply.

I also think we should keep in mind that the "Federation" (or any organisation or nation-state) is not being hypocritical, because only persons can truly be hypocrites. Starfleet officers and Federation citizens can be hypocrites (or just inconsistent, or wrong) but that's because they are individuals and laws will always be interpreted in a variety of ways, for fair reasons as well as foul ones.

A lot of strong reactions to this one. For some reason, it never bothered me as much as many of the other prime directive episodes. Maybe that's because in this one, they ultimately do help the people and the prime directive part of it is sortof briefly addressed and then largely forgotten about rather than it being the primary focus as in some other episodes.

In any event, I think out-of-universe what happened with the prime directive is that as (real world) time went on, weaker writers started to see the prime directive as a good source of conflict and so started to dogmatize it for the sake of creating more tension and conflict. Meanwhile, as (real world) time went on the characterization of the humans of the show's setting evolved to be more and more "goody two shoes" and too perfect to tell interesting stories with. Remember that the TOS characters were still a lot more human than those season one and two TNG characters when Rodenberry was really able to establish the idea of his future utopia in a more comprehensive way. - and, while they certainly loosened up a bit though seasons 3, 4 and so on of TNG a certain fundamental kind of "good guyness" stuck with them and even deepened. You know what I mean - that sense by which "you're a Starfleet officer" was sufficient to describe all of the motivations and behaviors of every character. The result was, I think, writers looking for ways to actually tempt these characters to do something that would cause conflict.

Note that the one series - DS9 - in which that utopianism was pretty much absent is also the one series that doesn't have a single prime directive episode. There was no need for one: the characters were already perfectly adequate sources of drama because they were normal, imperfect human beings. Then comes Voyager, which was sortof a mixed bag. On the one hand, it "feels" like it had a lot of really bad prime directive episodes, but on the other, I think it was probably not as bad as we remember it and I suspect that feeling comes from the strength of Janeway's moralizing about it a few times when it did come up. Still, it certainly reared its head a few times and of course Voyager was really the show that drove home that "like a starfleet officer" thing. They were in the "wild west" of outer space and needed to act like *super-duper-really-extra-perfect starfleet officers, which I think made the prime directive even more tempting as a plot device.

Agreed.

[pilight]

I think what happened with the Prime Directive is that, early on in TNG, a couple big things had been established:

1) The Federation is a futuristic utopia.

2) The Prime Directive is Starfleet's (and, presumably, the Federation's) highest law.

The writers took these two things as absolute truths. Given those premises, it logically follows that the non-interference demanded by the Prime Directive must always be right.

Gene Roddenberry forced that view and they tried to honor his vision even after he died

[stellar_coyote]

I think what happened with the Prime Directive is that, early on in TNG, a couple big things had been established:

1) The Federation is a futuristic utopia.

2) The Prime Directive is Starfleet's (and, presumably, the Federation's) highest law.

The writers took these two things as absolute truths. Given those premises, it logically follows that the non-interference demanded by the Prime Directive must always be right.

A utopia like the Federation would not enforce the Prime Directive if it was the wrong thing to do. But if the Federation didn't enforce the Prime Directive, then it wouldn't be their highest law. Ergo, if the Federation is a utopia and the Prime Directive is their highest law, then enforcing the Prime Directive must be what's right, no matter how it conflicts with conventional morality.

This Prime Directive has had such cold, indifferent interpretation to it. We must seek out new life and new civilizations but if some calamity is about to befall a civilization that isn't up to our technological standards. Whelp, sucks to be them. Combine that with the "duck blinds" and what you have is basically a group of technologically-superior people documenting other people's lives for their own curiosity, not for the betterment of other's lives.

It's like they wanted to set up the Federation's Observation detail like a documentary service. But here's the thing, people who document wildlife like the BBC have a no interference clause because human interaction would affect the animal's behavior (and possibly scare away those they were trying to document). And even then, they can still fail. The behind-the-scenes for "Planet Earth" even show that after months of documenting penguins in the Antarctic, the crew just couldn't bring themselves to abandon a baby penguin that had fallen into a hole and couldn't get out on it's own. And they still clarified that even after they rescued the chick, the mother might not accept it back into it's care, nor would that guarantee the long-term survival of the chick, all they did was give it a second chance.

What I don't understand is how can it be interpreted as a futuristic utopia if basic empathy for sentient beings is cast aside for the sake of just scribbling down the details of their lives?

[Mabus]

Biggest issue with the Prime Directive in Trek is that the examples given as to why you should never interfere are so contrived, they're basically strawmen. It's almost always "they'll become Nazis" or "they'll radically alter their civilization after reading one stupid book" or "they'll worship the Picard and kill in his name". Very few times you get nuanced episodes, where they actually deal with more complicated matters. TNG "First Contact" is one good example done right.

You know that Trek didn't do properly? Actually show how the pre-warp culture actually suffered because of influence from the Humans/Federation. There are only two examples that I can think of that touched that in a more sensitive manner: VOY "Friendship One" and ENT "The Communicator". In case of the first one, you basically see how the accidental introduction of advanced technology lead to the destruction of that's planet civilization, while in the second case the attempt to hide the existence of alien life is arguable worse than simply telling them the truth.

Starfleet keeps repeating how interfering with a pre-warp or less advanced civilization is dangerous for those civilizations? Well, then show that danger and the consequences. Show what happens to that society. Show how the society changes, show how it leads to political instability. Show how not everyone is pleased with the Federation making themselves known to them, because in their POV their presence has increased the tensions in their society because one side considers them good, while to the other side the Feds are the boogie man they'll blame for all their ills. Show how those civilizations suddenly feel threatened because their militaries are now obsolete, and their hardliners are afraid that their entire existence is pointless and they might try excessive militarization out of fear of being easy target to space-faring civilizations.

It's funny how Stargate of all series had better episodes showcasing the danger of sticking your nose where you shouldn't.

[TGLS]

You know, one thing they really could have done with Enterprise is have them do some of that interference, and have it blow up in their faces. Like have them tamper with the Klingons or something and then they become this implacable enemy. Give a reason why they worship the prime directive.