"The Prime Directive" doesn't make sense

I originally published this on Live Journal in 2005. Someone commented on it the other day, which brought it back to my attention. It still holds up, notwithstanding some rhetorical excesses (which I have removed), so I am republishing it! Seems timely in light of our current Star Trek renaissance.

Commander "Trip" Tucker III (RIP!)

One of the worst episodes of Star Trek ever produced is "Cogenitor" from Enterprise (2001-05). From a moral perspective, I found it unacceptable. I kept hoping for wonderful twist at the end would turn everything on its head, but no. The episode was a great example of how Star Trek's "Prime Directive" of non-interference in alien cultures is the antithesis of the Parable of the Good Samaritan

Any episode that truly espouses the Prime Directive (as episodes of Enterprise seem to like doing) becomes a moral disaster, as it advocates indifference towards the suffering of others simply because they're others. It's worse than indifference, as helping is branded "interference" in another person's culture.

In "Cogenitor," Trip is rebuked by the captain for doing something good to an alien, because as a result he "interfered" with her culture. The alien ended up killing herself because she knew she would never again experience the kindness and respect that Trip had shown her due to the extreme sexism of her culture. Trip is persuaded that her suicide is his fault and thus comes to embrace the Prime Directive philosophy. At its heart, although Captain Picard once called it "very correct" ("Symbiosis") the Prime Directive is tyrannical. It sets up the status quo as the highest good, to be preserved at the expense of allowing tremendous suffering. It's the ultimate firewall against revolutionaries and prophets, who have a vision of a more equitable society. It illustrates the evil of moral relativism.

In fairness to Star Trek, before Enterprise, whenever Starfleet crew faced a situation in which the Prime Directive would result in extreme suffering on the part of many, they always decided to break it in order to do the right thing. In fact, whenever it was mentioned, it was usually in the context of "We're going to break it again, aren't we?" For example, in the The Next Generation (TNG: 1987-94) episode "Pen Pals" the captain is convinced to save a dying planet because Data made radio contact with a frightened little girl. Such episodes, especially in The Original Series (TOS: 1966-69) (e.g., "The Apple"), were accompanied by a speech about the true meaning of the Prime Directive, by which its spirit contradicts its letter. Likewise, the Prime Directive is violated in the TNG episode "Justice," when Riker asks rhetorically, "When has justice ever been as simple as a rule?" Captain Archer could learn a lesson from Riker or Kirk!

Enterprise absolutizes the Directive. Given how often it is broken in the previous series, one wonders why Starfleet never modified the Directive to be reasonable. For example, you could allow for interference when huge parts of societies are going to be oppressed or destroyed. There's one or two episodes of TNG in which the crew lets a whole civilization go extinct, although the point is not driven home so fiercely and cruelly as in "Cogenitor." It makes no sense to allow a whole species to die, as if that were better than interference. If the sun were about to explode, and some technologically advanced aliens were watching, I would beg them to rescue or help us, even if it caused all sorts of problems on Earth (like mass panic, etc). I'm not saying Starfleet should run around trying to help everybody everywhere, but they should not turn their backs on the most severe instances of injustice in the galaxy, simply because they're taking place on alien worlds.

The Prime Directive has some logic to it. For instance, it makes sense that the Federation wouldn't introduce itself to every civilization it meets and it makes sense that the Federation wouldn't involve itself in the politics of other planets. The problem is absolutizing the principle. In medio stat virtus. Virtues stands in the middle.

This isn't the only bad idea that Star Trek's creator, Gene Roddenberry (1921-91), had. Another was that there would be no money in the Federation, which doesn't make sense. His anti-religion attitude, which especially showed itself in the episode "Who Watches the Watchers?", also contradicts his message of tolerance for cultural and political differences. And it's laughable to imagine that any technological advance could so transform humanity that poverty, war, crime, and even inter-personal conflict would all but vanish overnight. In truth, the writers of Deep Space Nine (DS9: 1993-99), despite opposition by Rick Berman, who felt obligated to defend Roddenberry's original vision, mitigated a lot of these bad ideas. In that show, money, religion, war, and inter-personal conflict are common.

Nevertheless, in spite of these problems, Star Trek remains the greatest TV franchise of all time! If I didn't love it so much, I wouldn't criticize it.