Thanks for proving my point by using paternalistic language. So we have no moral obligations to civilizations with magical thinking because they aren’t our cultural equals but inferior? We can just watch them die and do nothing because they believe in zodiacs?
Besides: magical thinking isn’t even the criterion of the prime directive. It’s about warp technology. If it was about the scientific method, it would make a little more sense but even that’s independent of morality.
And what do you even mean with ““nice” civilizations”? So primitive/naive civilizations have to learn the hard way what technology can do to finally use the technology for good? We can’t give them vaccines before they had a world war? What has the one thing to do with the other? And how do you use words like “grow up” and claim it’s not paternalistic?
Paternalistic implies the benefit to be on the recipient
What does that even mean? I can paternalistically talk down to someone with no benefit or malefic to anyone except maybe an insult. I can control people paternalistically to my benefit and I can help and guide them for their benefit. Paternalistic doesn’t imply any benefit on any side. It’s about hierarchy, about feeling superior to people you don’t deem worthy to make decisions on their own or rather take their view serious and if anything, you confirmed my view that the prime directive is paternalistic.
I think Star Trek could argue either that they have no moral imperative to do ANYTHING at all, ever. Either that, or yes, leave them alone. I am not arguing for their sake, just saying that they can do as they please. If you want to invent warp speed travel, then so too could you:-).
I think Star Trek could argue either that they have no moral imperative to do ANYTHING at all, ever.
Well, Star Trek does argue that we have a moral imperative to do nothing and it’s wrong to help. I’m not saying they have to help each and everyone, I’m saying it’s paternalistic to never help. You either agree or disagree with me on that but I don’t quite get what this comment is doing on the agree/disagree binary/spectrum. Your first comment appeared to be on the disagree end.
If you want to invent warp speed travel, then so too could you:-).
I’m not sure what you mean. It reads like “it’s you’re fault that you die from a preventable illness we could cure in 5 minutes and that might take you a century to find a cure. If you really wanted help, you could just invent warp travel, not your fault you didn’t”
So there is another aspect of the Prime Directive that isn’t discussed as much, and that’s that it also exists not just in this paternalistic sense, but also as a reminder that we don’t always know what is right.
It’s best explored in the TNG episode “The Masterpiece Society” (S05E13). In short the Enterprise is tracking a star fragment and realizes that it’s path is going to cause harm to a nearby planet. They then discover an isolationist Human society lives on this planet. This society is isolationist because it’s been designed to be perfect, with no need for outside assistance. Begrudgingly they’re forced to admit that without the Enterprise’s help they’ll die.
Geordi has the most memorable line. After trying to find a solution and save the planet he chuckles and says, “Oh, that’s perfect. If the answer to all of this is in a VISOR created for a blind man who never would have existed in your society.”
The planet consisted of a society who thought they knew everything. They had perfectly designed a perfect society. If Star Fleet behaved this way, if the Prime Directive didn’t need to exist because Star Fleet always knew the correct answer, what would they get wrong?
In many cases Star Fleet captains don’t just let planets and societies die, they try to find a way to ensure they can continue to evolve and advance naturally. Yes, not interfering in some ways could be viewed as paternalistic. But there is another view, if we force our beliefs on another society, what do we lose? Now the reverse could also be true. If we don’t save a society, what do we lose? No matter what Star Fleet chooses to do or not do, there is a risk. So Star Fleet drew a line, warp technology. Technically the Vulcan’s drew the line, but it had sound logic and was adopted by Star Fleet.
But importantly it’s an understanding that we don’t know everything. It’s not an idea of superiority, it’s admittance someone or something out there might know more or be more advanced and to interfere would be a mistake.
I like that story because it shows how important it is to take as many perspectives into consideration as possible. True, we don’t know everything and I would argue, this isn’t about knowing more than others in a linear/hierarchical sense, but the whole knows more than the sum of its parts. It’s crucial to take the local perspective into consideration and the paternalistic aspect of the prime directive isn’t necessarily the conclusion itself but jumping to conclusion without involving the locals. This makes it more complex than it might sound since the locals aren’t a monolith. But every decision is paternalistic unless you are willing to really listen to those affected.
The topic is the politics behind a fictional universe, no need for ad hominem attacks or for defending your views like you’re arguing for your client’s life in a court. Even Judge Q would ask you to simmer down.
This is the fallacy fallacy. Instead of engaging with anything I said, you acuse me of the ad hominem fallacy. No seriously, where do I attack the person? I attack their line of thinking and the terminology but if that’s ad hominem, what isn’t?
Also: if you can’t handle engaged arguments, maybe don’t use the internet, or maybe you should grow up. This is so typical for sh.itjust.works users.
Thanks for proving my point by using paternalistic language. So we have no moral obligations to civilizations with magical thinking because they aren’t our cultural equals but inferior? We can just watch them die and do nothing because they believe in zodiacs?
Besides: magical thinking isn’t even the criterion of the prime directive. It’s about warp technology. If it was about the scientific method, it would make a little more sense but even that’s independent of morality.
And what do you even mean with ““nice” civilizations”? So primitive/naive civilizations have to learn the hard way what technology can do to finally use the technology for good? We can’t give them vaccines before they had a world war? What has the one thing to do with the other? And how do you use words like “grow up” and claim it’s not paternalistic?
What does that even mean? I can paternalistically talk down to someone with no benefit or malefic to anyone except maybe an insult. I can control people paternalistically to my benefit and I can help and guide them for their benefit. Paternalistic doesn’t imply any benefit on any side. It’s about hierarchy, about feeling superior to people you don’t deem worthy to make decisions on their own or rather take their view serious and if anything, you confirmed my view that the prime directive is paternalistic.
I think Star Trek could argue either that they have no moral imperative to do ANYTHING at all, ever. Either that, or yes, leave them alone. I am not arguing for their sake, just saying that they can do as they please. If you want to invent warp speed travel, then so too could you:-).
Well, Star Trek does argue that we have a moral imperative to do nothing and it’s wrong to help. I’m not saying they have to help each and everyone, I’m saying it’s paternalistic to never help. You either agree or disagree with me on that but I don’t quite get what this comment is doing on the agree/disagree binary/spectrum. Your first comment appeared to be on the disagree end.
I’m not sure what you mean. It reads like “it’s you’re fault that you die from a preventable illness we could cure in 5 minutes and that might take you a century to find a cure. If you really wanted help, you could just invent warp travel, not your fault you didn’t”
So there is another aspect of the Prime Directive that isn’t discussed as much, and that’s that it also exists not just in this paternalistic sense, but also as a reminder that we don’t always know what is right.
It’s best explored in the TNG episode “The Masterpiece Society” (S05E13). In short the Enterprise is tracking a star fragment and realizes that it’s path is going to cause harm to a nearby planet. They then discover an isolationist Human society lives on this planet. This society is isolationist because it’s been designed to be perfect, with no need for outside assistance. Begrudgingly they’re forced to admit that without the Enterprise’s help they’ll die.
Geordi has the most memorable line. After trying to find a solution and save the planet he chuckles and says, “Oh, that’s perfect. If the answer to all of this is in a VISOR created for a blind man who never would have existed in your society.”
The planet consisted of a society who thought they knew everything. They had perfectly designed a perfect society. If Star Fleet behaved this way, if the Prime Directive didn’t need to exist because Star Fleet always knew the correct answer, what would they get wrong?
In many cases Star Fleet captains don’t just let planets and societies die, they try to find a way to ensure they can continue to evolve and advance naturally. Yes, not interfering in some ways could be viewed as paternalistic. But there is another view, if we force our beliefs on another society, what do we lose? Now the reverse could also be true. If we don’t save a society, what do we lose? No matter what Star Fleet chooses to do or not do, there is a risk. So Star Fleet drew a line, warp technology. Technically the Vulcan’s drew the line, but it had sound logic and was adopted by Star Fleet.
But importantly it’s an understanding that we don’t know everything. It’s not an idea of superiority, it’s admittance someone or something out there might know more or be more advanced and to interfere would be a mistake.
I like that story because it shows how important it is to take as many perspectives into consideration as possible. True, we don’t know everything and I would argue, this isn’t about knowing more than others in a linear/hierarchical sense, but the whole knows more than the sum of its parts. It’s crucial to take the local perspective into consideration and the paternalistic aspect of the prime directive isn’t necessarily the conclusion itself but jumping to conclusion without involving the locals. This makes it more complex than it might sound since the locals aren’t a monolith. But every decision is paternalistic unless you are willing to really listen to those affected.
The topic is the politics behind a fictional universe, no need for ad hominem attacks or for defending your views like you’re arguing for your client’s life in a court. Even Judge Q would ask you to simmer down.
This is the fallacy fallacy. Instead of engaging with anything I said, you acuse me of the ad hominem fallacy. No seriously, where do I attack the person? I attack their line of thinking and the terminology but if that’s ad hominem, what isn’t?
Also: if you can’t handle engaged arguments, maybe don’t use the internet, or maybe you should grow up. This is so typical for sh.itjust.works users.