Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 3,693
# 41
06-08-2013, 06:02 PM
The reason I brought the Black Death is because it was a plague that did caused millions to die but as you mentioned, it never was in a situation that could wipe out humankind.

Reason I reject the notion "we must help everyone" is because that kind of interference can be harmful and likely will be harmful is not handled with care, it does mean you sit and wait seeing millions die but if you do anything you are dooming their entire society from ever evolving on its own from that point on.

I do not say "do nothing", I just reject yes/no binary solutions because its not that easy, factors have to be balanced and one thing is changing the course of a comet so it does not collide with a planet with a per-industrial society and another is giving the means to produce cure to a plague that kills millions to the same society.

The question of interference in a extinction case is hard to address because even that one might have factors that advice against interference, its really a case-by-case.

Unfortunately Trek writers decided to treat it as sacred later in the show (in Voyager especially), the Prime Directive is a guideline were factors must be balanced to see if intervention should be done or not, it does mean if there is a plague killing millions but does not threat the species that you do nothing.
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Feb 2013
Posts: 179
# 42
06-08-2013, 06:20 PM
Originally Posted by lordvedli View Post
No it is relevant but just on a much smaller scale since the point been argued (or at least as I can gather) here is whether interference is always wrong. Similar question: ...
No it's not relevant because of that smaller scale. Stop framing the Prime Directive in terms of personal average-joe vs. life-or-death crisis situations because that's not what it's about and if you do frame it like that then of course it's not 'moral' or 'just.'
The Prime Directive is about not influencing the development of cultures. That's it.

Originally Posted by lordvedli View Post
This however is were the dogmatism related to the almighty PD comes up. See if a captain discovers a situation were a disease is about to wipe out a species and does NOTHING (even alerting Starfleet command because his ship isn't capable of helping) to help then that captain is guilty of mass murder for the same reason that anyone who didn't help that child is guilty of murder (yeah it was a loaded and frankly rhetorical question as it was meant to help illustrate the ludicrousness of arguing it is right to allow a species to die out needlessly).
Again, the Captain is responsible for his actions and by Federation law he is blameless of their destruction. He can curse himself all he wants for letting them die but he is merely a witness. If they were Federation Citizens then he would be required to do all he could to help them but if not then they are not his responsibility until he makes them so.

Originally Posted by lordvedli View Post
The reason I think he would be guilty of genocide is because of a concept in law know as Depraved indifference
By this logic then, any eyewitness to a death is guilty of that death. There's a load of qualifications and requirements that have to be proven/shown for this concept to take effect for that reason.

Originally Posted by lordvedli View Post
... if a character in a work of fictions only response to the suffering of millions or billions is to point a piece of paper then he is at the very least, not the hero of your story.
The Federation, like all governments, has it's flaws. That makes it more realistic and interesting as it allows the plot to flesh out why those flaws are there and how the people of it overcome them.

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

All times are GMT -7. The time now is 10:13 AM.