Originally Posted by Samuel
Special, but sometimes too far. I suppose some take issue (as far as a piece of fiction goes) about an institutionalized policy of not getting involved in anything... even if it would have been morally correct. Individuals would, but not the state. There were a few exceptions to the rule (I think) but its an interesting conflict. High morals that absolves them from taking moral stances and doing something to help.
The story about the drug addicts who didnt know that was their problem, because the feds didnt want to hurt the pushers. Not even telling them 'you didnt hear it from us but you guys are junkies and not dying from a plague." And then we got the high morals explanation. IIRC the doc simply said it was a high price to pay. It would have been a much better story conflict if she simply said the policy needs to be changed and a total cop out. Would have been a great writing setup for future stories. Oh and it was funny about the pushers in-your-face use of official policy against them.
I guess for example the Klingon civil war. The feds want to stay out of an 'internal matter', a rebellion against the legitimate government of its largest ally. Taking it to the next step, when a major power gets involved at best the feds would try to expose them but not take any action. But even to just make a barricade they needed convincing. I suppose its an attempt at a Trek statement against the realities of the cold war when each side secretly provided material support to keep the balance of power intact or in their favor.
Funny paradox but they did get involved and worked to stop rebels against the Card-whatevers. So... actively work against rebels fighting your enemy but not the ones fighting your friend.
Old old old Trek argument and there are other story examples of the same thing. Very true about ENT and would have been the perfect example to try and show why these high morals were correct.
On the flip side, TOS often showed the TOS crew interfering in the course of a planet's development (for better or worse reasons at times) and then once done, simply leaving them behind to get on with it.
There was sometimes a token line about a 'group' being left to 'help' them but it seems TOS could at times have a far more insidious nature.
We, the Federation, will come along, we will decide your people need a 'boost' and we will upset your development and then leave 'our' people behind to show you how it 'should' be done.
Because 'we' think it's the right thing to do for you.
So, when is it right to actively interfere and when is it right to use the non-interference doctrine to sit out of an issue you simply don't want to get your hands dirty with.
The Klingon Civil War was a great example of 'using' it to avoid being dragged into a conflict they didn't want to be involved in, apparently without any thought to what it might mean for the Federation if the Duras family (and by default) the Romulans had succeeded in driving them apart.
So much for the Federation standing by it's 'allies' in crisis times.