As Star Trek: The Next Generation celebrates its 30th anniversary, we look at what the sci-fi saga tells us about morals, ethics – and our own souls
Although often reduced to the image of Captain Kirk battling a paper mache lizard-man in a quarry, Star Trek really does boldly go where no show has gone before. And we’re not referring to its advent of ingenious androids or interstellar travel to the final frontier, but the crew’s exploration into philosophical dimensions.
Yes, a populist TV sci-fi adventure it may be, but since Trek blasted off in 1966, the saga has launched debates into the largest metaphysical conundrums and ethical enigmas going – from questioning the very foundations of society, to the nature of the soul. And with Star Trek: Discovery currently beaming down to Netflix, our brains are likely to be cranked to warp 10 once more.
So, to ease our subspace flight, we’ve energised Star Trek’s biggest philosophical ideas into one handy databank. Prepare to engage…
Is The Prime Directive really ethical?
Also known as the Non-Interference Directive, The Prime Directive commands Starfleet ships to follow one golden rule: don’t interfere with other cultures or civilisations. And all captains are supposed to take this VERY seriously – as Kirk says in The Original Series, “A starship captain’s most solemn oath is that he will give his life, even his entire crew, rather than violate the Prime Directive.”
But is such a rigid policy really in the universe’s best interests? If Starfleet has the power to save civilisations – and countless lives – from extinction, shouldn’t it try? Wouldn’t standing by as innocents die make Starfleet a tad, well, evil?
Not according to the concept of Westphalian sovereignty, a key political paradigm embodied by Starfleet. Born out of the Peace of Westphalia treaties of 1648, this paradigm not only established modern thinking on nation states and boundaries, but also that intervening across borders would only cause conflict.
Such thinking is clearly laid out by Captain Jean-Luc Picard in The Next Generation: “The Prime Directive is not just a set of rules; it is a philosophy… and a very correct one. History has proven again and again that whenever mankind interferes with a less developed civilisation, no matter how well intentioned that interference may be, the results are invariably disastrous.”
At its inception, this philosophy appeared to have led to peace: the Westphalia treaty halted 80 years of war in Europe. But, as you might have noticed from a couple of near-apocalyptic world wars since then, such a simple idea rarely leads to peace in our intricate universe.
And as with every strategy that walks the line between war and peace, the thinking behind the Prime Directive provokes a lot of debate. After all, taken to its extreme, the Directive is a barely-compromising non-interventionist policy, a stance never going to please everyone in every circumstance. Would non-action be the right line to face when threatened by Nazi Germany? Iraq? North Korea? Syria?
Or, to take a less politically-charged example, if a wildlife filmmaker comes across a dying zebra, do they have a moral obligation to help it? Would they be responsible for its death by walking away? And what if aiding the animal inadvertently starves a pride of lions that would otherwise have fed on the carcass?
Star Trek has handled such sticky non-interventionist predicaments head-on during the show, often with heart-breaking consequences. For instance, in The New Generation episode Pen Pals, android Lt Commander Data receives messages from a little girl whose planet will soon be destroyed by volcanic eruptions. Captain Picard’s response? The Prime Directive must stand. The child must die.
Fortunately, Picard reverses his decision in time for Data to save the girl, but at the cost of the Prime Directive. Is it right that he sacrificed this Star Fleet value to save one child? Like most philosophers, the crew are divided. [keep reading]
