>>119737682>>119737716The issue is from a production standpoint, the Prime Directive has no concrete definition or punishments for violation. It has no weight to it. From an in-universe standpoint, despite the admonishments that the PD is sacrosanct, in practice the PD is little more than an individual value call by captains subject to a later review - one that is more often than not predicated on the admittance and testimony of the people committing the potential violation. It is full of canonical exemptions, exceptions, and justifications, and even when we're told something is a PD violation the consequences of that action are so minor as to be a slap on the wrist. As far as morality goes, the PD was an admirable attempt to sidestep the issues of colonialism but it completely falls apart when put to any sort of test. The notion that Trek characters shouldn't interact with characters below a specific technological threshold is great until they're actively denying aid and humanitarian efforts to people clearly suffering or in danger. At that point the PD goes against the humanist ideals underpinning Trek and becomes little more than an avenue for classism, scientific bigotry, and technological chauvinism. Homeward has the Enterprise crew standing around proclaiming their solemn moral duty is to standby and watch people die while pontificating about their solemn moral duty and how hard it is, before mailing a recording of the planet blowing up to Starfleet and going back to what they were originally doing, while being really angry at Worf's brother for being so immoral as to save a handful of people. Penpals has the senior crew arguing whether or not they have any right to intervene in a planet dying with Picard stating firmly that doing so would be be a PD violation, until Data guilt tripped him with the recording of a little girl. At which point it magically stopped being PD violation, but don't tell Starfleet and they mindwipe the kid later.
