What do the "Golden Rule" and Star Trek's "Prime Directive" have in common? Are they both morally helpful?

Question

GOLDEN RULE (two slightly different versions):
(a) Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.
(b) Don't do to someone else what you you would not want done to yourself in similar circumstances.

PRIME DIRECTIVE:
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. ...This directive takes precedence over any and all other considerations, and carries with it the highest moral obligation.

Answer 1

Yep there is a parallel. I love Star Trek!

Answer 2

The moral principle is the same. Both are moral rules to be applied to different environments and different time frames. The Golden Rules applies to our time and culture and our planet and the Prime Directive will apply to alien civilizations, alien cultures and a time in the future as we make contact. Respect alien life and its environment as you would like them to respect your life and your environment. Some later episodes of Star Trek even apply non-interference to non-sentient life forms which would make Prime Directive morally superior to the Golden Rule. Live Long and Prosper.

Answer 3

If I were on a planet and someone from another one came to help, I would want all of the knowledge they had. So, sharing knowledge, which can be viewed as part of the Golden Rule 'educate others as you would have them educate you', would contradict the Prime Directive.

Answer 4

The first thing that comes to mind isn't a commonality: You couldn't be a Christian and follow the prime directive, because openly try to "spread" their religion.
Other than that, they seem to operate on different levels...the golden rule on the micro, and the prime directive on the macro.

Answer 5

I think that the prime directive of "Star Trek" isn't a parallel to reality because in reality we all live on one planet. Non-interference in anothers culture could mean annihilation for the rest of us. Tolerance of other people is reasonable. Tolerance of others peoples ideas is another matter. Some ideas are better than others, and for good or bad...ideas have consequences.

Answer 6

Interesting that in both cases, the quoters of the two rules are often very willing to trample all over them when it's suitable.

I really would like to see a treatment of the Prime Directive as a philosophical/legal stance, instead of just something that slows down the Enterprise by a commercial break or two.

Answer 7

i've got no longer seen the originals yet i replaced into relatively excited approximately seeing it, and it did no longer disappoint. i think of i might flow and spot it back. while its actually released(I observed it at a black curtain adventure) i needed to work out it by using fact -J.J created Alias that's my admired tutor - Zachary Quinto performs my admired character (Sylar) - The trailer appeared staggering. Taio Cruz - She's Like a great call

Answer 8

The Golden Rule is about empathy - seeing things from the customer's point-of-view as well as one's own.

The Prime Directive reduces avoidable conflict and is a great idea.

Answer 9

The Golden Rule would require intervention to prevent a sentient species from going extinct due to natural disaster or its own fratricidal activities.

The Prime Directive would require non-intervention.

Answer 10

The prime directive has its dark side, though. In the interest of not interfering with cultural evolution, Starfleet personnel may have to let someone die rather than reveal their advanced medical technology to a less advanced culture.

But both are equally good ideas in their own respect.

Answer 11

Oooh, I love Star Trek. Did you know there are new online-only episodes? Click THIS link:
http://stnv.dragonfly.com/#