The Prime Directive (part 2 of 2)
Thoughts on the Prime Directive – and a little philosophy
Last time, I talked about a rather blatant misuse of the Prime Directive as an argument (hard as it is to believe) against the development and settlement of space. The complete opposite of what we see the Federation doing in Star Trek. In part 2 of our discussion, we’re going to look at a little bit of philosophy, and hash out whether the Prime Directive is a good idea or not—and in what contexts. As a bit of an experiment, I also asked ChatGPT to write an essay discussing this same question. You’ll find it, unedited, after my own thoughts below. Let me know which one you prefer, and what you think of the differences.
Though I assume most of you already know, let’s start off with what the Prime Directive is. While a little hard to pin down the exact wording, the Prime Directive is the guiding principle of the Federation in the Star Trek universe which forbids interference with the internal development of alien civilizations that have not reached a certain level of technology on their own. Specifically, the indigenous development of warp drive (faster than light travel) is considered to a good proxy for adequate technological and societal development; enough to be ready for alien contact and a role in the interstellar community of species.
Jumping into the philosophical underpinnings for a minute, the Prime Directive reflects both a consequentialist commitment to reducing harm and a Kantian commitment to respecting the autonomy of others. Consequentialism says that “whether something is good or bad depends on its outcomes.” In other words, the morality of an action depends on its consequences. Perhaps the most famous embodiment of consequentialism is in the form of utilitarianism, which is about creating ‘the greatest amount of good for the greatest number.’ Ironically, this makes it possible to use utilitarianism to justify the most severe form of intervention, war. Utilitarianism’s biggest drawback is that it’s difficult to know for sure the consequences of an action before taking it, because predicting the future with certainty is impossible.
When it comes to the Prime Directive, this impossibility of knowing the results beforehand is exactly why it was put in place. The accidental destruction of a pre-warp civilization as a result of giving it technology it wasn’t yet ready to handle is given as a cautionary tale several times in the Star Trek universe. With the best of intentions, a more technologically advanced species gives tools (usually the ability to generate unlimited energy or warp tech itself is the culprit) which are then turned into weapons and used by the immature society to destroy itself. Intuitively this makes sense, that there’s a level of development needed to handle higher technologies—in Star Trek, the discovery of warp drive. So far so good for the Prime Directive. Not interfering in the development of civilizations too immature to handle the tools a far more advanced society could give them (for their own safety) seems like a reasonable idea.
If that was the extent of it, I think I could get behind the idea; but it’s far more extensive than simply withholding advanced technology from species that aren’t yet ready for it. The Prime Directive forbids any interference with an immature (pre-warp) society that may change the natural course of their development. What does that mean for disasters (natural or otherwise) that could not just change, but completely wipe out a society? Take our own world for instance, we are just in the process of learning practical ways to deflect dangerous asteroids and comets that might impact our planet. If there was a large asteroid heading our way even 50 years ago, I would hope an alien civilization aware of it would have stepped in and saved us instead of just letting us be obliterated.
This I think—disasters that could destroy a society or species—is the biggest argument in favor of some policy of limited interference in other, less developed, alien civilizations. Because if you let a culture, or even an entire species get wiped out, interference that changes the natural development of their society is sort of a moot point.
We see two forms of this in various places throughout Star Trek. To cite a couple of more recent examples: In Strange New World (S1E2, ‘Children of the Comet’) the Enterprise and her crew under the command of Captain Pike work to save a planet inhabited by a sentient but low-tech species from destruction. Even at the risk of all their lives, they don’t give up, and end up succeeding. In this instance, there was never a chance of the locals seeing the Enterprise, thus their societal development was never going to be contaminated by the unseen presence of these alien guardians.
Now jump forward in time and into the movie Star Trek: Into Darkness, and we see a different scenario play out. Here, Captain James T. Kirk, Spok, and the rest of the crew save another sentient species with primitive technology by preventing the eruption of a nearby volcano. However, this time the ship is seen, and as it turns out does influence the development (apparently spawning a new religion) of the society in question. As a result of this, Kirk ends up temporarily losing the Enterprise, because he violated the Prime Directive and interfered with the natural development of this species. It’s not explicitly stated, but during a chewing out given by now Admiral Pike, Kirk is told that he should have just done a planetary survey and not interfered at all. The worst part is that their ship was seen, but the implication is that they shouldn’t have stopped the volcano even if there had been no sighting of the ship.
Things get murkier in Star Trek: Enterprise (S1E13, ‘Dear Doctor’) where they come to a planet with two (pre-warp) intelligent species. The less developed one lives in fairly benign servitude to the other more developed (technologically and cognitively) one. The more advanced society is suffering from a plague which will eventually wipe them out, and after investigating, the Enterprise’s doctor, finds he has developed a cure. However, the captain and doctor choose not to give it to them because of the moral complexities of interfering in the development of both species. The dilemma they’re faced with is whether it is better to save the one species, thus ensuring the continued subservience of the other? Or to let one species take their chances and maybe die out so that another might eventually develop enough to build their own advanced society? This is before the Federation and the Prime Directive, but obviously impacted how both would look in the future.
I would argue that some degree of interference is not only acceptable, but ethically required to help an alien civilization facing an existential crisis. While there is wisdom in a policy of broad non-interference in developing cultures, it would seem the line where it is acceptable to step in is where the society, or especially the species, is in danger of being wiped out. Back to utilitarianism, I argue that when the consequences are this severe—can’t get much more severe than extinction—if you have the power to do something, you are morally obligated to help. After all, as Spider Man’s Uncle Ben said, “With great power, comes great responsibility.” Or as Jesus said even earlier, “From everyone who has been given much, much will be demanded; and from the one who has been entrusted with much, much more will be asked.”
ChatGPT: The Prime Directive
The Prime Directive is one of the most controversial concepts in the Star Trek universe. It is the guiding principle of the United Federation of Planets, which forbids any interference with the internal affairs of other civilizations. The Prime Directive is often seen as a moral imperative to avoid imposing one's values on others, but in reality, it is a much more complex issue than that. In this article, I will explore the idea that some interference can be good and argue that the Prime Directive should be reexamined in light of this perspective.
First, let's examine what the Prime Directive actually says. According to the Star Trek canon, the Prime Directive is as follows: "As the right of each sentient species to live in accordance with its normal cultural evolution is considered sacred, no Starfleet personnel may interfere with the normal and healthy development of alien life and culture."
At first glance, this seems like a noble principle. It suggests that we should respect other cultures and not try to impose our values on them. But the problem is that the Prime Directive can also be interpreted as a blanket prohibition on any kind of intervention. This means that even if we see another civilization suffering or in need of help, we are not supposed to interfere.
The question is, does this make sense? Is it really ethical to stand by and watch as others suffer, simply because we don't want to meddle in their affairs? I argue that it is not. Sometimes, a little interference can be a good thing.
For example, let's consider the case of a civilization that is suffering from a terrible plague. According to the Prime Directive, Starfleet would not be allowed to intervene, even if they had the means to cure the disease. The logic behind this is that curing the disease would interfere with the natural course of the civilization's evolution.
But is this really ethical? Is it really right to let millions of people suffer and die, just so that we can maintain some abstract principle of non-interference? I argue that it is not. Sometimes, it is necessary to intervene to prevent suffering.
Another example is the case of a civilization that is on the brink of self-destruction due to environmental damage. According to the Prime Directive, Starfleet would not be allowed to intervene, even if they had the means to repair the damage. Again, the logic behind this is that repairing the damage would interfere with the natural course of the civilization's evolution.
But again, I argue that this is not ethical. If we have the means to prevent a civilization from destroying itself, then we have a moral obligation to do so. This is not about imposing our values on others, but about preventing unnecessary suffering.
Of course, there are limits to how much interference is appropriate. We should not try to force our values on others or impose our way of life on them. But sometimes, a little interference can be a good thing. It can prevent unnecessary suffering and even save lives.
So, what does all of this mean for the Prime Directive? I believe that the Prime Directive needs to be reexamined in light of this perspective. Instead of being a blanket prohibition on all interference, it should be seen as a guiding principle that needs to be balanced against other considerations, such as the prevention of suffering and the preservation of life.
In other words, we need to adopt a more nuanced approach to the Prime Directive. We should not automatically assume that non-interference is always the right course of action. Instead, we should carefully consider each situation and weigh the benefits and risks of intervention.
This does not mean that we should abandon the Prime Directive altogether. It is still an important principle that reminds us to respect other cultures and not impose our values on them. But we should also recognize that sometimes, a little interference can be a good thing.
The Prime Directive, while noble in its intentions, is not a one-size-fits-all solution to every situation that may arise in space exploration. There may be instances where non-interference is not the best course of action, and some level of intervention may actually be necessary for the greater good.
One potential argument for this perspective is the idea that non-interference can actually perpetuate harm and suffering in certain situations. For example, if a civilization is on the brink of destruction due to natural disasters or other catastrophic events, it may be necessary to offer aid and assistance in order to prevent the loss of an entire culture or species. In this case, non-interference would be akin to turning a blind eye to suffering and allowing it to continue unabated.
Another argument in favor of intervention is the idea that advanced civilizations have a moral obligation to share their knowledge and technology with less developed civilizations. If a civilization is struggling with poverty, disease, or other issues that can be alleviated through advanced technology, it is arguably the responsibility of those who possess that technology to share it in order to improve the quality of life for all beings. This can be done in a way that respects the autonomy of the less developed civilization, rather than imposing unwanted changes upon them.
It is also important to consider the fact that the Prime Directive was established in a specific context - that of avoiding interference with less developed civilizations. However, in situations where two or more advanced civilizations are interacting, non-interference may not be the best course of action. In fact, it may be necessary for the civilizations to engage in diplomacy, trade, and other forms of interaction in order to promote mutual understanding and cooperation. By refusing to interfere in such situations, advanced civilizations may be missing out on valuable opportunities for growth and advancement.
Of course, the question of when interference is necessary and how much interference is appropriate is a complex one. It is possible for intervention to be well-intentioned but ultimately harmful, particularly if it is imposed upon a civilization without their consent. Therefore, any decision to interfere must be made carefully and with consideration for the potential consequences.
Ultimately, the Prime Directive is not an absolute law, but rather a guideline intended to promote ethical behavior in space exploration. As with any guideline, it is important to consider the context in which it was established and to evaluate its usefulness in specific situations. While non-interference may be the best course of action in many cases, there are situations where some level of intervention may be necessary for the greater good. By approaching each situation with a critical eye and a willingness to consider all perspectives, we can ensure that our actions in space are both ethical and effective.
I’d like to say a big thank you to all my readers, especially those of you who have subscribed to The Eclectic. While I would probably still send my thoughts out into the electronic void anyways, it’s so much more gratifying to know that someone, somewhere, finds them interesting enough to read. If you like what you’ve seen so far, please do subscribe, and if you really love it feel free to get a paid subscription which will help support my doing what I do here.