In defense of the A_hole directive

[Teaos]

If you start interferring when do you stop?

I cant remember who said it but it went something like "What if one of those planets we save raises another Hitler or Khan?"

[Tsukiyumi]

I'm in total agreement with Seafort on this one, especially in light of the quote.

"Failure to stop and render aid" is the term here in the US for turning a blind eye to someone in trouble, and it is a felony, as it should be.

[Captain Seafort]

I cant remember who said it but it went something like "What if one of those planets we save raises another Hitler or Khan?"

You could use the same argument to abort every child ever conceived, just to be on the safe side.

You stop interferring when it either directly threatens Federation interests or personnel, such as the Cardies threatening all out war over Federation attempts to intervene on Bajor, for example, or simply not have the resources available to pull off a particular feat. You do not let entire civilisations be wiped out simply because of a rule.

In modern terms, the PD would be the equivalent of not merely failing to send aid to SE Asia after the tsunami a few years ago, but arresting and imprisoning anyone who tried to send aid as a private individual.

[Teaos]

"Failure to stop and render aid" is the term here in the US for turning a blind eye to someone in trouble, and it is a felony, as it should be.

So if I see someone that needs help and I'm not at all involved I have to help? That just stupid.

In modern terms, the PD would be the equivalent of not merely failing to send aid to SE Asia after the tsunami a few years ago, but arresting and imprisoning anyone who tried to send aid as a private individual.

Bad anology. The PD is so they dont interfer with natural evolution of other species which are not warp capable.

[Mikey]

The PD is so they dont interfer with natural evolution of other species which are not warp capable.

Exactly, and Seafort's correct - there is a difference between interference and involvement. When assistance can be rendered without interference - as in "Homeward" - the PD ceases to become a valid reason and ends up as an empty excuse.

[Teaos]

Homeworld was a case of nature at work. Interference and involvement are the same thing in that situation.

Rules can not be broken when ever you want to. They exist for a reason, and starfleet created the PD not only for their own protection but for others.

[Mikey]

Homeworld was a case of nature at work. Interference and involvement are the same thing in that situation.

I described "interference" and involvement" as different things because assistance could have been (and eventually was) rendered without kowledge of, or cultural contamination by, Fed technology etc.

Rules can not be broken when ever you want to. They exist for a reason, and starfleet created the PD not only for their own protection but for others.

That's the problem we have - the way it exists, the TNG PD is broken whenever someone wants to, and the reasons for its existence are disregarded in favor of convenience.

[Teaos]

Yes and I disagree with it being broken. Others seem to be annoyed that it is followed.

[Mikey]

I think that annoyance is with the nature of the rule in TNG, as opposed to the way it was in TOS. The newer interpretation of the PD lends itself to the haphazard application that we've seen.

[sunnyside]

I'm in total agreement with Seafort on this one, especially in light of the quote.

"Failure to stop and render aid" is the term here in the US for turning a blind eye to someone in trouble, and it is a felony, as it should be.

I'm pretty sure that isn't true. Lets see if I can find something quick on google. Uh
http://ask.metafilter.com/59744/Failure ... render-aid

That seems like about what I thought. Complicated laws. Interesting though that in most states if you get involved you have to stay involved to some degree but you can just drive by/avoid the situation in the first place.


Anyway @ Seafort I think it's more of a matter of where you draw the line. Is it fine to save a civilization as long as it doesn't use over 20KG of antimatter. 200? 20000? 200000000?

At any rate the way they balance flexibility/inflexibility is that it is designed to be totally inflexible. However captains have some wiggle room in that you aren't necessarily going to get court martailed for it.

[Graham Kennedy]

In modern terms, the PD would be the equivalent of not merely failing to send aid to SE Asia after the tsunami a few years ago, but arresting and imprisoning anyone who tried to send aid as a private individual.

More like arresting anybody who smuggled a bunch of survivors on board a US ship. And if somebody did that after the US government had decided not to offer relief to a disaster zone, I imagine they would indeed be prosecuted.

In Pen Pals, Picard posed the question - if they are morally obliged to help a species threatened by a natural disaster, then what if they are threatened by a war? Suppose the Boraalans had been in the path of a rampaging army that was slaughtering everything in its path. What then?

[Duskofdead]

You could use the same argument to abort every child ever conceived, just to be on the safe side.

You stop interferring when it either directly threatens Federation interests or personnel, such as the Cardies threatening all out war over Federation attempts to intervene on Bajor, for example, or simply not have the resources available to pull off a particular feat. You do not let entire civilisations be wiped out simply because of a rule.

I agree partway with your point, but this quoted part is where the problem comes in. If you are free to intervene to "help" contingent only upon whether or not someone makes a judgment call that it would be against Federation interests to do so, you will very rightly open up the policy and Starfleet to accusations of simply being self-serving. That all your humanitarian values get tossed out the window when it comes to helping someone who is politically inconvenient to you. When it comes to things like disaster response, emergency aid, etc., if you are going to make the backdoor escape route that you can always refuse if it at all goes against your interests then you might as well just forbid any and all aid and be consistent about it. It's a lot like saying a doctor is bound by the hippocratic oath.... until he decides this patient might sue him later.

[Captain Seafort]

More like arresting anybody who smuggled a bunch of survivors on board a US ship. And if somebody did that after the US government had decided not to offer relief to a disaster zone, I imagine they would indeed be prosecuted.

Nikolai was specifically stated to have violated the PD by sheltering the Boraalans in the caves, before the E-D even arrived and despite not being Starfleet.

In Pen Pals, Picard posed the question - if they are morally obliged to help a species threatened by a natural disaster, then what if they are threatened by a war? Suppose the Boraalans had been in the path of a rampaging army that was slaughtering everything in its path. What then?

If you're talking about an interstellar rampagining army then the Feds would have good reason to stop it for self-preservation.

If you're talking about the equivalent of a Federation-like interstellar culture intervening in Darfur, then the matter becomes one that can't be solved without letting the entire planet know about the existence of alien life. In which case the orginal TOS-PD, which was a good idea, comes into effect.

[Mikey]

Dusk hit on a very good point, and one which I have been coming to circuitously. The service to the PD is often lip service, and mothing more. Having a hard and fast rule isn't the problem - it's getting everyon on the same page as far as committment to it, and interpretation of it.

[Captain Seafort]

If you are free to intervene to "help" contingent only upon whether or not someone makes a judgment call that it would be against Federation interests to do so, you will very rightly open up the policy and Starfleet to accusations of simply being self-serving. That all your humanitarian values get tossed out the window when it comes to helping someone who is politically inconvenient to you. When it comes to things like disaster response, emergency aid, etc., if you are going to make the backdoor escape route that you can always refuse if it at all goes against your interests then you might as well just forbid any and all aid and be consistent about it. It's a lot like saying a doctor is bound by the hippocratic oath.... until he decides this patient might sue him later.

In the example I gave of intervening in the Cardie occupation of Bajor, booting the Cardies off the planet would have caused a war - one that would have have put the lives of billions of Federation citizens at risk. In which case the government's overriding priority is the safety of it's citizens, regardless of the moral argument in favour of liberating Bajor. Indeed there's a moral argument against such intervention, in that the good of a few billion Bajorans must be subordinated to the good of the many billions of Federation citizens along the Cardassian boarder.