Anthropological argument:
The Prime directive establishes a baseline protocol by which Starfleet can scientifically & objectively observe/study new life and new civilizations intented to not corrupt the integrity of the scientific observation.
Impracticality argument:
- The anthropological argument is impractical because it assumes it’s possible to observe without interfering
- It’s poorly specified; why does it apply to pre-warp civilizations? It doesn’t consider the following nuances:
- pre-warp-capable, but hasn’t yet made 1st contact
- pre-warp-capable, but has made 1st contact
- was part of a warp-capable civilization, but either fell back to being pre-warp or was obscured from such knowledge
Moral particularism argument:
Although it is nearly impossible to address all the nuances of the prime directive, these nuances could not be explored had we not had the prime directive as a baseline for moral judgement: to use it as a baseline guiding principle, but also to discover these nuances and refine the general order as need be; The Impracticality argument is a perfectionist fallacy; i.e., “perfection should not be the enemy of progress”; “There can be no justice so long as laws are absolute. Even life itself is an exercise in exceptions.” - Jean-Luc Picard
Consequentialist argument:
There are circumstances in which it is morally impermissible to not interfere, due to foreseeable consequences of not interfering: i.e., Preserving a civilization’s continued existence
Moral prerogative by charter argument:
Interfering in a civilization’s natural afairs is not the objective or moral responsibility of Starfleet;
“Someday my people are going to come up with some sort of a doctrine, something that tells us what we can and can’t do out here; should and shouldn’t do. But until somebody tells me that they’ve drafted that… directive… I’m going to have to remind myself every day that we didn’t come out here to play God.” – Jonathan Archer, sensing the need for the Prime Directive, 2151 (“Dear Doctor”)
Moral prerogative by circumstance argument:
If you have the ability to intervene in a time of need, you have a moral obligation to intervene.
Military defense argument:
Pre-warp civilizations attaining knowledge of warp-capable species can potentially respond with violence or hostility.
Malevolent interference argument:
If Starfleet will not share knowledge of the existence of warp-capable technology with pre-warp civilizations, then they run the risk of less benevolent warp-capable civilizations interfering with a pre-warp civilization.
?
Social good argument:
If Starfleet has technology that could help solve problems of less developed civilizations, then Starfleet has a moral prerogative to share that technology which would otherwise be prohibited under the prime directive.
Military defense argument:
Pre-warp civilizations attaining knowledge of warp-capable species can potentially respond with violence or hostility.
?