Star Trek Prime Directive Meets Ayn Rand
First of all let me say that I cannot believe I am doing an analysis of the Star Trek prime directive. The prime directive states:
“As the right of each sentient species to live in accordance with its normal cultural evolution is considered sacred, no Star Fleet personnel may interfere with the healthy development of alien life and culture. Such interference includes the introduction of superior knowledge, strength, or technology to a world whose society is incapable of handling such advantages wisely. Star Fleet personnel may not violate this Prime Directive, even to save their lives and/or their ship unless they are acting to right an earlier violation or an accidental contamination of said culture. This directive takes precedence over any and all other considerations, and carries with it the highest moral obligation.”
The associated prohibitions are given below (according to Jbrenner)
1. Providing knowledge of technologies or science
2. Taking actions to generally affect a society's overall development
3. Taking actions which support one faction within a society over another
4. Helping a society escape the negative consequences of its own actions
5. Helping a society escape a natural disaster known to the society, even if inaction would result in a society's extinction.
6. Subverting or avoiding the application of a society's laws
7. Interfering in the internal affairs of a society
What would Ayn Rand say about the prime directive. I bet her first question would be what is a sentient species? According to dictionary “sentient” means “able to perceive or feel things.” Well cows, cats, dogs, and many other species can perceive or feel things, in fact much simpler organisms would fit this definition. Based on this definition Rand would state that only rational beings have rights. Rand defined the hierarchy of knowledge integration as sensation, precepts, and conceptual. She explains it perceptual in this example.
“An animal is guided, not merely by immediate sensations, but by percepts. Its actions are not single, discrete responses to single, separate stimuli, but are directed by an integrated awareness of the perceptual reality confronting it. It is able to grasp the perceptual concretes immediately present and it is able to form automatic perceptual associations, but it can go no further.”
My guess is that Rand would then ask what is “normal cultural evolution.” Is it normal cultural evolution to allow Rachel Carson to convince countries to ban DDT and cause 100 million deaths? Is it normal cultural evolution to allow Mao to institute the cultural revolution that will starve over 30 million people to death? There is no such thing a normal cultural evolution. But it rings of Marxist ideas of a scientific progression of society.
Then Rand would ask why normal cultural evolution is considered sacred. According to the dictionary sacred means “connected with God (or the gods) or dedicated to a religious purpose and so deserving veneration.” Rand would reject anything based on an appeal to a deity. The proof of the first sentence of the prime directive rests on an appeal to faith, not reason.
It is clear the Prime Directive is based on faith, not reason and is immoral from the first sentence. I will not take on the rest of the directive but I will look at the prohibitions. The first prohibition is “Providing knowledge of technologies or science.” Given that directive was directed to species that are “able to perceive or feel things” this is almost meaningless. Most species that able to perceive are not able to understand or take advantage of knowledge.
But what about rational beings? Why would you not provide knowledge of technologies or science? Does this mean we cannot teach our kids science and technology? That would clearly be immoral. Your objection might be that they are within our culture, but what about African cultures? Should we have not introduced DDT, or steam engines, or the Internet? While we have no obligation to introduce these sciences and technologies, to purposely prohibit them would be immoral.
All the prohibitions and the prime directives are based group think (and written by Hollywood TV writers!). The word society is mentioned nine times in the Prime Directive and in the prohibitions. Individual is not mentioned once. Societies are based on a collection of people and only have rights based on the rights of the individuals, who make up the society, but none separate from them.
Start Trek’s Prime Directive is an inherently Socialist Ideal and Evil.
Previous comments... You are currently on page 8.
Did you mean to exclude from your criteria criminals, carriers of disease, and terrorists?
"Open borders" makes checking for any criteria impossible, and is a false alternative to "closed borders". The emphasis should be on the proper procedures for entry in accordance with what proper criteria. That is neither "open" nor "closed" borders and must be addressed for the current context.
Immigration policy addressing the current crisis has to be formulated in accordance with what is possible to do to achieve meaningful reform. Being "against welfare" doesn't address the fact that the welfare state is entrenched, will remain so for a very long time, and is open to immigrants whether we approve or not. Likewise for the rising trend to allow them to vote in the name of progressive "democracy".
Immigration policies suitable for the present context are not the same as what they should and could be under better circumstances, which cannot be allowed to permit hoards of illiterates manipulated to overwhelm the country for Obama's "fundamental change" as "welfare international" while overturning what is left of the country on behalf of the progressive agenda.
Once hoards of non-Americans (in the best sense of the concept of American) are entrenched and enlisted in the progressive evolution of the political and economic system, then it is over, with no way to go back, just as surely as if we had been invaded and taken over by a foreign culture and power aided and abetted by insider forces.
Humans often engage in post hoc rationalization. It's almost our default mode. But we have the power of reason if we use it and avoid logical errors. We use this non-default ability to build a republic, which is not the default mode of gov't for humankind.
We're saying rights are based on human reasoning power. That does mean we *always* use reasoning power.
I agree with everything in your post above. At its core, it seems like the PD is saying if we have any interaction with primitive people, we will end up stealing or taking advantage in some way, so they do nothing, even if that means letting people die of a plague or disaster the advanced people could easily stop. I agree with you. All people should try to behave according to their values. They shouldn't take no action out of fear.
The Prime Directive is a plot mechanism that furthers Star Trek episodes by creating an inherent barrier to action: If it were 'permitted' to save a crewman's life with modern tech or protect a civilization from disaster the series would have been about a bunch of godlets do-gooding around the universe. Which would have been a different program than Star Trek was.
The oft-ignored Prime Directive was interesting for a TV show (which I watched avidly for years) but it is the opposite of what I would do if I were on a ship exploring the galaxy. I would be more wysiwyg: We are from the stars. We are not gods, but we have abilities you do not. We are glad to meet you: Would you like to trade? Would you like to talk philosophy? You have some nice wine there...would you like an artificial ruby in exchange for it?
This is much more the interstellar society of Poul Anderson's Nicholas van Rijn. This is how I would hope an interstellar society worked - and that the Earth was not undergoing some secret 'test of development' whilst we were being carefully sequestered by star spanning Vulcan societies around us. I would adventure across the universe, if I had the ability...I do not need more barriers to action!
Jan
Morality is objective as is government. That is the whole point of Rand.
Regarding a physical Atlantis, it will be an interesting discussion to define natural resource mining. For example, if Ellis Wyatt drills and finds oil that is part of a basin that is partially under someone else's property, then how do we settle that?
Load more comments...