Was Spock right? (1 Viewer)

[GregR]

"The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few. Or the one."

Was Spock right? Do the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few? Is that always the case or is it only sometimes the case?

If it doesn't always apply, when doesn't it apply and why?

 

[ShaqAttaq]

Yes it was spock. Depends on if I am in the many, the few or the one

 

[Andy Dufresne]

No. Which is what Star Trek 3 was about.And it was summed up in Trek 4:

Amanda: Spock, does the good of the many out weigh the good of the one? Spock: I would accept that as an axiom. Amanda: Then you stand here alive because of a mistake made by your flawed, feeling, human friends. They have sacrificed their futures because they believed that the good of the one - you - was more important to them. Spock: Humans make illogical decisions. Amanda: They do, indeed.

 

[Rayderr]

"The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few. Or the one."

Was Spock right? Do the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few? Is that always the case or is it only sometimes the case?

If it doesn't always apply, when doesn't it apply and why?

Well, the human body has 10 organs that can be transplanted (counting lungs and kidneys twice.) By Spock's logic, it is perfectly ok, to kill someone so that 10 others can be saved by harvesting the organs victims. I don't think any of us would be ok with that.

 

[GregR]

No. Which is what Star Trek 3 was about.

Star Trek 3 when Kirk and crew all risk their lives for Spock, and Kirk tells Spock that sometimes the needs of the few or the one outweigh the needs of the many. So are both Kirk and Spock right? If so, hat about those situations made their conflicting statements both right? And what other such types of factors matter in deciding which is right for any given situation?

 

[Tom Servo]

No. Which is what Star Trek 3 was about.And it was summed up in Trek 4:

Amanda: Spock, does the good of the many out weigh the good of the one? Spock: I would accept that as an axiom. Amanda: Then you stand here alive because of a mistake made by your flawed, feeling, human friends. They have sacrificed their futures because they believed that the good of the one - you - was more important to them. Spock: Humans make illogical decisions. Amanda: They do, indeed.

Sometimes that 1 person is indispensible.

 

[Andy Dufresne]

No. Which is what Star Trek 3 was about.

Star Trek 3 when Kirk and crew all risk their lives for Spock, and Kirk tells Spock that sometimes the needs of the few or the one outweigh the needs of the many. So are both Kirk and Spock right? If so, hat about those situations made their conflicting statements both right? And what other such types of factors matter in deciding which is right for any given situation?

Okay, here's a more complete answer...It is not up to the group to determine that their needs are more important than the needs of the individual. The individual, however, can decide that the needs of the group are more important than the needs of the individual and are worthy of self sacrifice.Lastly, it can be determined by the group that it is worth sacrificing the needs of the group in order to serve the individual.It'a all about the entity being asked to sacrifice doing so of its own volition that makes it a valid position.

 

[GregR]

"The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few. Or the one."

Was Spock right? Do the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few? Is that always the case or is it only sometimes the case?

If it doesn't always apply, when doesn't it apply and why?

Well, the human body has 10 organs that can be transplanted (counting lungs and kidneys twice.) By Spock's logic, it is perfectly ok, to kill someone so that 10 others can be saved by harvesting the organs victims. I don't think any of us would be ok with that.

I agree that I hope none of us would be ok with that. But where exactly is the line drawn?We'll take those organs from a dead person, but not a healthy, living person. But what if the person who has matching organs has a fatal illness and won't last more than another day or two, but three other people will die if they don't get the organs for transplant before then. Does that change the answer?

 

[Tom Servo]

No. Which is what Star Trek 3 was about.

Star Trek 3 when Kirk and crew all risk their lives for Spock, and Kirk tells Spock that sometimes the needs of the few or the one outweigh the needs of the many. So are both Kirk and Spock right? If so, hat about those situations made their conflicting statements both right? And what other such types of factors matter in deciding which is right for any given situation?

Okay, here's a more complete answer...It is not up to the group to determine that their needs are more important than the needs of the individual.

The individual, however, can decide that the needs of the group are more important than the needs of the individual and are worthy of self sacrifice.

Lastly, it can be determined by the group that it is worth sacrificing the needs of the group in order to serve the individual.

It'a all about the entity being asked to sacrifice doing so of its own volition that makes it a valid position.

BINGO!!! I just wish more people felt that way.

 

[Andy Dufresne]

But what if the person who has matching organs has a fatal illness and won't last more than another day or two, but three other people will die if they don't get the organs for transplant before then. Does that change the answer?

The answer does not change because there's no way to be certain whether that person will last a day or two nor is it up to the group to determine that the person MUST perform that self-sacrifice.Along this line of thinking...please don't be selfish. Sign your organ donor card...

 

[Andy Dufresne]

BTW - The Search For Spock is a really underrated soundtrack.

Stealing the Enterprise

The Katra Ritual - I'm a sucker for sustained violin notes, like the one at the end of this track.

The Mind Meld

 

[GregR]

No. Which is what Star Trek 3 was about.

Star Trek 3 when Kirk and crew all risk their lives for Spock, and Kirk tells Spock that sometimes the needs of the few or the one outweigh the needs of the many. So are both Kirk and Spock right? If so, hat about those situations made their conflicting statements both right? And what other such types of factors matter in deciding which is right for any given situation?

Okay, here's a more complete answer...It is not up to the group to determine that their needs are more important than the needs of the individual. The individual, however, can decide that the needs of the group are more important than the needs of the individual and are worthy of self sacrifice.Lastly, it can be determined by the group that it is worth sacrificing the needs of the group in order to serve the individual.It'a all about the entity being asked to sacrifice doing so of its own volition that makes it a valid position.

Let's say you're the mayor of a very remote village. You lose all forms of communication and your people face starvation. You send a messenger to get help but it will be days for them to get word out, and days more for help to arrive.If you distribute your finite food supplies fairly, everyone will have starved to death before help can arrive. If you refuse to feed 20% of the population, the other 80% should just barely make it until help arrives.Is it ok for the group to determine that their needs are more important than whatever 20% of individuals will be left out? If they decide to go that route, are they wrong to not put doctors or the like in the 20% because those people have skills that serve the needs of the 80%?

 

[GregR]

Some scenarios I was thinking about the other day, some already partially mentioned at least. How do you explain to someone who doesn't understand - a child, a sociopath, etc - what wins out in such decisions?

You're a researcher working on a medical cure that can save thousands but you have to kill a healthy, innocent, non-willing person to perfect it.

You're a researcher working on a medical cure that can save thousands, but you have to kill a death row inmate to perfect it.

You're a researcher working on a medical cure that can save thousands, but you have to kill before their time an unwilling person, but one with a terminal illness, to perfect it.

You're a military officer. You can send a few men on a suicide mission that is likely to save thousands.

You're the leader of a nation who learns through code breaking that the enemy plans to level a town. You can evacuate the town and save hundreds of innocents, but doing so will reveal the broken code and ultimately cost thousands of lives.

You're a military officer trying to defend a town of civilians. If you kill a few dozen civilian men, women and children and leave their bodies about like the town has already been wiped out, the enemy is likely to pass by without a fight and hundreds more will live. If you don't, you will be discovered and hundreds will die with only a few dozen who might escape.

 

[Andy Dufresne]

Let's say you're the mayor of a very remote village. You lose all forms of communication and your people face starvation. You send a messenger to get help but it will be days for them to get word out, and days more for help to arrive.If you distribute your finite food supplies fairly, everyone will have starved to death before help can arrive. If you refuse to feed 20% of the population, the other 80% should just barely make it until help arrives.Is it ok for the group to determine that their needs are more important than whatever 20% of individuals will be left out? If they decide to go that route, are they wrong to not put doctors or the like in the 20% because those people have skills that serve the needs of the 80%?

In this case, yes, the needs of the many would outweigh the needs of the few.However...It's not okay for the group of the 80% to determine who will be in the group of the 20%. The group as a whole, which would include the 20%, must come to a decision as to who would be in the 20%. What that decision process would be would be unique to each group.

 

[Sinn Fein]

Spock was right.

Unfortunately, groups seldom get to make decisions. Individuals make decisions, and the individual has an inherent bias towards self-sustainability.

We see this play out in politics all the time - "I want the government to cut spending, except for the services I like." Ditto for healthcare - biggest drain on our resources is healthcare for the elderly - least deserving of resources from a macro-resource management perspective, but tell that to the individuals.

 

[Andy Dufresne]

You're a researcher working on a medical cure that can save thousands but you have to kill a healthy, innocent, non-willing person to perfect it.You're a researcher working on a medical cure that can save thousands, but you have to kill a death row inmate to perfect it.You're a researcher working on a medical cure that can save thousands, but you have to kill before their time an unwilling person, but one with a terminal illness, to perfect it.

I don't find any of those to be possible real-life scenarios because I'm certain that if you made it known you had just such a cure you'd be able to find someone to volunteer for the position from each group.

You're a military officer. You can send a few men on a suicide mission that is likely to save thousands.

Those soldiers signed up with the possibility of just such a mission so they have each individually chosen to make that sacrifice.

You're the leader of a nation who learns through code breaking that the enemy plans to level a town. You can evacuate the town and save hundreds of innocents, but doing so will reveal the broken code and ultimately cost thousands of lives.

This one's tougher. War destroys ethics. In this case, I think you'd have to leave the town.

You're a military officer trying to defend a town of civilians. If you kill a few dozen civilian men, women and children and leave their bodies about like the town has already been wiped out, the enemy is likely to pass by without a fight and hundreds more will live. If you don't, you will be discovered and hundreds will die with only a few dozen who might escape.

Again, you'd have to decide who lives and who dies. I think the group would never sanction such an action and there would be a "we all fight" type spirit.

 

[wikkidpissah]

The most wonderful development in the time i've been on this planet has been to watch a world where, according to the song, "a handful of fools made up all of the rules", explode into an orgy of liberty. Nonwhites & women gained actual rights allowing them self-determination & every last American saw, for the first time, the opportunity to choose the complete and utter conduct of their lives, free from scourge and scorn.

A bit of exageration perhaps, but not so much when considered from the state of the buttclenched world i entered 60 yrs ago.

Here's the thing, though. The human race not only works best when it works together, it can fairly operate no other way. Cooperation got us to the point where citizens no longer cowered in fear and ultimately chose their course. As Lincoln cautioned us, in so many words, we sail together or sink.

The world is now on a course to hell. Two generations have used new license to grow to such a state of immaturity that younger adults dont even know that finding a way to agree instead of argue is that upon which the ridiculously wonderful American Experiment is based. The party of freedom has turned ugly and there's not only a mess to be cleaned up but work to be done if we're to afford the next one. "I aint cleaning it & you cant make me", only has us wallowing in filth.

It's pretty hard to tell a species where each member has self-determination for the first time in its million yrs of existence to chill after only 50 yrs, but it's the only choice. Think about it, look around, choose your neighbors and neighboring wisely. nufced

 

[Statcruncher]

Let's say you're the mayor of a very remote village. You lose all forms of communication and your people face starvation. You send a messenger to get help but it will be days for them to get word out, and days more for help to arrive.If you distribute your finite food supplies fairly, everyone will have starved to death before help can arrive. If you refuse to feed 20% of the population, the other 80% should just barely make it until help arrives.Is it ok for the group to determine that their needs are more important than whatever 20% of individuals will be left out? If they decide to go that route, are they wrong to not put doctors or the like in the 20% because those people have skills that serve the needs of the 80%?

That you Kodos?

 

[Andy Dufresne]

And Greg...you've got too much time on your hands.

 

[Chaka]

"The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few. Or the one."

Was Spock right? Do the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few? Is that always the case or is it only sometimes the case?

If it doesn't always apply, when doesn't it apply and why?

Well, the human body has 10 organs that can be transplanted (counting lungs and kidneys twice.) By Spock's logic, it is perfectly ok, to kill someone so that 10 others can be saved by harvesting the organs victims. I don't think any of us would be ok with that.

At least a little bit of that depends on who is getting killed and who is getting the organs.

 

[GregR]

You're a researcher working on a medical cure that can save thousands but you have to kill a healthy, innocent, non-willing person to perfect it.You're a researcher working on a medical cure that can save thousands, but you have to kill a death row inmate to perfect it.You're a researcher working on a medical cure that can save thousands, but you have to kill before their time an unwilling person, but one with a terminal illness, to perfect it.

I don't find any of those to be possible real-life scenarios because I'm certain that if you made it known you had just such a cure you'd be able to find someone to volunteer for the position from each group.

You're a military officer. You can send a few men on a suicide mission that is likely to save thousands.

Those soldiers signed up with the possibility of just such a mission so they have each individually chosen to make that sacrifice.

You're the leader of a nation who learns through code breaking that the enemy plans to level a town. You can evacuate the town and save hundreds of innocents, but doing so will reveal the broken code and ultimately cost thousands of lives.

This one's tougher. War destroys ethics. In this case, I think you'd have to leave the town.

You're a military officer trying to defend a town of civilians. If you kill a few dozen civilian men, women and children and leave their bodies about like the town has already been wiped out, the enemy is likely to pass by without a fight and hundreds more will live. If you don't, you will be discovered and hundreds will die with only a few dozen who might escape.

Again, you'd have to decide who lives and who dies. I think the group would never sanction such an action and there would be a "we all fight" type spirit.

I agree with pretty much everything you've said Andy. But here's the part I keep coming back to in my head.My answers, and yours, suggest to me there is a line drawn based on likelihood of imminent death. When the town faces being wiped out whether by soldiers or starvation, imminent death is a likely or inevitable outcome for everyone. In such a case, we feel justified that it's ok to force on the few the change from likely to certain death so long as it carries with it enough saving of life.But so having said that... I don't think it is right to kill a terminally ill person on their last legs ahead of time to harvest organs even if it saves multiple other people. Why is that situation really any different than the starvation or the military examples?

 

[GregR]

And Greg...you've got too much time on your hands.

I used the time I saved by not posting more in the Trayvon Martin thread.

 

[Andy Dufresne]

I agree with pretty much everything you've said Andy. But here's the part I keep coming back to in my head.

My answers, and yours, suggest to me there is a line drawn based on likelihood of imminent death. When the town faces being wiped out whether by soldiers or starvation, imminent death is a likely or inevitable outcome for everyone. In such a case, we feel justified that it's ok to force on the few the change from likely to certain death so long as it carries with it enough saving of life.

But so having said that... I don't think it is right to kill a terminally ill person on their last legs ahead of time to harvest organs even if it saves multiple other people. Why is that situation really any different than the starvation or the military examples?

I think the highlighted word is key. I don't think any moral person would feel justified even if it appeared necessary. I just think said person would feel less dirty.

 

[NCCommish]

No. Which is what Star Trek 3 was about.

Star Trek 3 when Kirk and crew all risk their lives for Spock, and Kirk tells Spock that sometimes the needs of the few or the one outweigh the needs of the many. So are both Kirk and Spock right? If so, hat about those situations made their conflicting statements both right? And what other such types of factors matter in deciding which is right for any given situation?

Okay, here's a more complete answer...It is not up to the group to determine that their needs are more important than the needs of the individual. The individual, however, can decide that the needs of the group are more important than the needs of the individual and are worthy of self sacrifice.Lastly, it can be determined by the group that it is worth sacrificing the needs of the group in order to serve the individual.It'a all about the entity being asked to sacrifice doing so of its own volition that makes it a valid position.

This seems right to me.

 

[GregR]

I agree with pretty much everything you've said Andy. But here's the part I keep coming back to in my head.

My answers, and yours, suggest to me there is a line drawn based on likelihood of imminent death. When the town faces being wiped out whether by soldiers or starvation, imminent death is a likely or inevitable outcome for everyone. In such a case, we feel justified that it's ok to force on the few the change from likely to certain death so long as it carries with it enough saving of life.

But so having said that... I don't think it is right to kill a terminally ill person on their last legs ahead of time to harvest organs even if it saves multiple other people. Why is that situation really any different than the starvation or the military examples?

I think the highlighted word is key. I don't think any moral person would feel justified even if it appeared necessary. I just think said person would feel less dirty.

That's a very good point, and one I hadn't thought about enough.Does that suggest that the "most right" decision would be for the medical researcher to kill the terminally ill person for the cure, but that he's only really not likely to do it because of how it makes him feel even if it is "more right?"

Put another way, perhaps a better way... the difference is that the researcher isn't viewed by society as being directly responsible for the lives (and deaths) of those his cure could have helped.... while a mayor or military leader has such responsibility upon them so has a duty to make a decision to favor the many? So the mayor or military leader can feel better about himself in making such a decision, while the medical researcher would feel he was overstepping his bounds?

 

[pittstownkiller]

Will Spock be on the Death Panels?

 

[Leroy Hoard]

Will Spock be on the Death Panels?

"Nowhere am I so desperately needed as among a shipload of illogical humans."

 

[pittstownkiller]

Will Spock be on the Death Panels?

"Nowhere am I so desperately needed as among a shipload of illogical humans."

An emotionless bureaucrat, what a novelty.

 

[Andy Dufresne]

I agree with pretty much everything you've said Andy. But here's the part I keep coming back to in my head.

My answers, and yours, suggest to me there is a line drawn based on likelihood of imminent death. When the town faces being wiped out whether by soldiers or starvation, imminent death is a likely or inevitable outcome for everyone. In such a case, we feel justified that it's ok to force on the few the change from likely to certain death so long as it carries with it enough saving of life.

But so having said that... I don't think it is right to kill a terminally ill person on their last legs ahead of time to harvest organs even if it saves multiple other people. Why is that situation really any different than the starvation or the military examples?

I think the highlighted word is key. I don't think any moral person would feel justified even if it appeared necessary. I just think said person would feel less dirty.

That's a very good point, and one I hadn't thought about enough.Does that suggest that the "most right" decision would be for the medical researcher to kill the terminally ill person for the cure, but that he's only really not likely to do it because of how it makes him feel even if it is "more right?"

Put another way, perhaps a better way... the difference is that the researcher isn't viewed by society as being directly responsible for the lives (and deaths) of those his cure could have helped.... while a mayor or military leader has such responsibility upon them so has a duty to make a decision to favor the many? So the mayor or military leader can feel better about himself in making such a decision, while the medical researcher would feel he was overstepping his bounds?

I think the mayor or military leader could feel better about himself because in the group situation it would be understood that some would have to sacrifice for the good of the many. So again it's really not ultimately the leader's decision but rather the decision of those being asked to sacrifice.In the case of the medical researcher, there's not that same understanding that a terminally ill person should give themselves up for the benefit of others. Is it a good idea? Yeah, probably. But it's not the same "social compact" sort of understanding since it's at such an individual level.

 

[17seconds]

"The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few. Or the one."

Was Spock right? Do the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few? Is that always the case or is it only sometimes the case?

If it doesn't always apply, when doesn't it apply and why?

Wow, high school philosophy class flashback. Thanks.

 

[Andy Dufresne]

"The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few. Or the one."

Was Spock right? Do the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few? Is that always the case or is it only sometimes the case?

If it doesn't always apply, when doesn't it apply and why?

Wow, high school philosophy class flashback. Thanks.

Sounds like you went to an awesome high school.

 

[Chaka]

I cried when Spock died.

 

[bostonfred]

The most wonderful development in the time i've been on this planet has been to watch a world where, according to the song, "a handful of fools made up all of the rules", explode into an orgy of liberty. Nonwhites & women gained actual rights allowing them self-determination & every last American saw, for the first time, the opportunity to choose the complete and utter conduct of their lives, free from scourge and scorn.A bit of exageration perhaps, but not so much when considered from the state of the buttclenched world i entered 60 yrs ago. Here's the thing, though. The human race not only works best when it works together, it can fairly operate no other way. Cooperation got us to the point where citizens no longer cowered in fear and ultimately chose their course. As Lincoln cautioned us, in so many words, we sail together or sink.The world is now on a course to hell. Two generations have used new license to grow to such a state of immaturity that younger adults dont even know that finding a way to agree instead of argue is that upon which the ridiculously wonderful American Experiment is based. The party of freedom has turned ugly and there's not only a mess to be cleaned up but work to be done if we're to afford the next one. "I aint cleaning it & you cant make me", only has us wallowing in filth.It's pretty hard to tell a species where each member has self-determination for the first time in its million yrs of existence to chill after only 50 yrs, but it's the only choice. Think about it, look around, choose your neighbors and neighboring wisely. nufced

 

[17seconds]

"The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few. Or the one."

Was Spock right? Do the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few? Is that always the case or is it only sometimes the case?

If it doesn't always apply, when doesn't it apply and why?

Wow, high school philosophy class flashback. Thanks.

Sounds like you went to an awesome high school.

Just a standard Utilitarianism discussion.Or maybe you think we dove into an analysis of ST characters.. shyeah, I wish.

 

[GregR]

I cried when Spock died.

I was thinking that scene would have been tougher for me in the 19 video don't cry challenge, than a couple of the ones they did include.

 

[GregR]

Appreciate the discussion. I love kicking topics like this around. A lot of times I find if I can't clearly state something, like what separates some of the examples in this topic, then I probably don't understand it as well as I would like. It's sort of like that old saying from the Supreme Court ruling that amounts to "I can't fully define the term hard-core pornography, but I know it when I see it".

I hate not being able to fully define something. And so I study hard core pornography every opportunity I get.

But I digress...

 

[cstu]

No. Which is what Star Trek 3 was about.And it was summed up in Trek 4:

Amanda: Spock, does the good of the many out weigh the good of the one? Spock: I would accept that as an axiom. Amanda: Then you stand here alive because of a mistake made by your flawed, feeling, human friends. They have sacrificed their futures because they believed that the good of the one - you - was more important to them. Spock: Humans make illogical decisions. Amanda: They do, indeed.

Sometimes that 1 person is indispensible.

People should be weighted according to the Jimmy Johnson human value chart.

 

[Gr00vus]

The most wonderful development in the time i've been on this planet has been to watch a world where, according to the song, "a handful of fools made up all of the rules", explode into an orgy of liberty. Nonwhites & women gained actual rights allowing them self-determination & every last American saw, for the first time, the opportunity to choose the complete and utter conduct of their lives, free from scourge and scorn.A bit of exageration perhaps, but not so much when considered from the state of the buttclenched world i entered 60 yrs ago. Here's the thing, though. The human race not only works best when it works together, it can fairly operate no other way. Cooperation got us to the point where citizens no longer cowered in fear and ultimately chose their course. As Lincoln cautioned us, in so many words, we sail together or sink.The world is now on a course to hell. Two generations have used new license to grow to such a state of immaturity that younger adults dont even know that finding a way to agree instead of argue is that upon which the ridiculously wonderful American Experiment is based. The party of freedom has turned ugly and there's not only a mess to be cleaned up but work to be done if we're to afford the next one. "I aint cleaning it & you cant make me", only has us wallowing in filth.It's pretty hard to tell a species where each member has self-determination for the first time in its million yrs of existence to chill after only 50 yrs, but it's the only choice. Think about it, look around, choose your neighbors and neighboring wisely. nufced

A classic pissah lucid moment.

 

[wikkidpissah]

The most wonderful development in the time i've been on this planet has been to watch a world where, according to the song, "a handful of fools made up all of the rules", explode into an orgy of liberty. Nonwhites & women gained actual rights allowing them self-determination & every last American saw, for the first time, the opportunity to choose the complete and utter conduct of their lives, free from scourge and scorn.A bit of exageration perhaps, but not so much when considered from the state of the buttclenched world i entered 60 yrs ago. Here's the thing, though. The human race not only works best when it works together, it can fairly operate no other way. Cooperation got us to the point where citizens no longer cowered in fear and ultimately chose their course. As Lincoln cautioned us, in so many words, we sail together or sink.The world is now on a course to hell. Two generations have used new license to grow to such a state of immaturity that younger adults dont even know that finding a way to agree instead of argue is that upon which the ridiculously wonderful American Experiment is based. The party of freedom has turned ugly and there's not only a mess to be cleaned up but work to be done if we're to afford the next one. "I aint cleaning it & you cant make me", only has us wallowing in filth.It's pretty hard to tell a species where each member has self-determination for the first time in its million yrs of existence to chill after only 50 yrs, but it's the only choice. Think about it, look around, choose your neighbors and neighboring wisely. nufced

A classic pissah lucid moment.

most of my lucidity is silent.

 

[Fensalk]

The human race is a caste system. You have the warrior caste and an elite caste.

Any student of basic human history knows how its all a bunch of wars fighting over land, empires rising and falling, and an endless need for warriors. The warrior mindset has been bred into the human race for thousands of years. The warrior caste is all about being bad, breaking rules, causing trouble, being aggressive and having an attitude. In modern times, we call the warrior caste "cool". Their function in the system is to fight and die for their elites. Warriors are plentiful and expendable.

The entire human race, in its caste system, has been built around the philosophy that the needs of the few (the elite caste) outweigh the needs of the many (the warrior caste).

The elites serve their function as the intelligence behind the society. They are rare and essential. Without them, society falls apart. In modern times, we call the elite caste "geeky", which is a recognition of their rarity and strangeness compared to the dominant warrior caste culture.

It all self-organizes to make society function. The geeky and cool social circles that form in high school is just young adults assigning themselves the traditional roles to prepare for a future war.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

No. Which is what Star Trek 3 was about. And it was summed up in Trek 4:

Amanda: Spock, does the good of the many out weigh the good of the one? Spock: I would accept that as an axiom. Amanda: Then you stand here alive because of a mistake made by your flawed, feeling, human friends. They have sacrificed their futures because they believed that the good of the one - you - was more important to them. Spock: Humans make illogical decisions. Amanda: They do, indeed.

Correct, that was the beauty of Star Trek (IMO).

Spock was half human, what was a philosophical struggle for many was a real internal struggle for him, and in the end when the chips were on the table he acted as a human. And humanity means acting irrationally in a myriad of ways but perhaps the most and even the best of us is that we value the individual, life itself for itself. We are at our best when things are worst.

 

[NorvilleBarnes]

This sort of happened two fold in Enders Game. The many (Armada) was sacrificed for the few (The penetrating main ship) which was sacrificed for the many (Earth).

 

[bueno]

No. Which is what Star Trek 3 was about.

Star Trek 3 when Kirk and crew all risk their lives for Spock, and Kirk tells Spock that sometimes the needs of the few or the one outweigh the needs of the many. So are both Kirk and Spock right? If so, hat about those situations made their conflicting statements both right? And what other such types of factors matter in deciding which is right for any given situation?

Okay, here's a more complete answer... It is not up to the group to determine that their needs are more important than the needs of the individual. The individual, however, can decide that the needs of the group are more important than the needs of the individual and are worthy of self sacrifice. Lastly, it can be determined by the group that it is worth sacrificing the needs of the group in order to serve the individual. It'a all about the entity being asked to sacrifice doing so of its own volition that makes it a valid position.

Why Andy, you're sounding almost Republican here!

 

[bueno]

Some scenarios I was thinking about the other day, some already partially mentioned at least. How do you explain to someone who doesn't understand - a child, a sociopath, etc - what wins out in such decisions?

You're a researcher working on a medical cure that can save thousands but you have to kill a healthy, innocent, non-willing person to perfect it. You're a researcher working on a medical cure that can save thousands, but you have to kill a death row inmate to perfect it. You're a researcher working on a medical cure that can save thousands, but you have to kill before their time an unwilling person, but one with a terminal illness, to perfect it. You're a military officer. You can send a few men on a suicide mission that is likely to save thousands. You're the leader of a nation who learns through code breaking that the enemy plans to level a town. You can evacuate the town and save hundreds of innocents, but doing so will reveal the broken code and ultimately cost thousands of lives. You're a military officer trying to defend a town of civilians. If you kill a few dozen civilian men, women and children and leave their bodies about like the town has already been wiped out, the enemy is likely to pass by without a fight and hundreds more will live. If you don't, you will be discovered and hundreds will die with only a few dozen who might escape.

Utilitarian ethics would dictate that you take the path of least short-term harm, while respecting other's free will. The future is always in motion - hard to predict.

 

[bueno]

The human race is a caste system. You have the warrior caste and an elite caste. Any student of basic human history knows how its all a bunch of wars fighting over land, empires rising and falling, and an endless need for warriors. The warrior mindset has been bred into the human race for thousands of years. The warrior caste is all about being bad, breaking rules, causing trouble, being aggressive and having an attitude. In modern times, we call the warrior caste "cool". Their function in the system is to fight and die for their elites. Warriors are plentiful and expendable. The entire human race, in its caste system, has been built around the philosophy that the needs of the few (the elite caste) outweigh the needs of the many (the warrior caste). The elites serve their function as the intelligence behind the society. They are rare and essential. Without them, society falls apart. In modern times, we call the elite caste "geeky", which is a recognition of their rarity and strangeness compared to the dominant warrior caste culture. It all self-organizes to make society function. The geeky and cool social circles that form in high school is just young adults assigning themselves the traditional roles to prepare for a future war.

The proletariat - you forgot about the serfs.

 

[bueno]

The most wonderful development in the time i've been on this planet has been to watch a world where, according to the song, "a handful of fools made up all of the rules", explode into an orgy of liberty. Nonwhites & women gained actual rights allowing them self-determination & every last American saw, for the first time, the opportunity to choose the complete and utter conduct of their lives, free from scourge and scorn. A bit of exageration perhaps, but not so much when considered from the state of the buttclenched world i entered 60 yrs ago. Here's the thing, though. The human race not only works best when it works together, it can fairly operate no other way. Cooperation got us to the point where citizens no longer cowered in fear and ultimately chose their course. As Lincoln cautioned us, in so many words, we sail together or sink. The world is now on a course to hell. Two generations have used new license to grow to such a state of immaturity that younger adults dont even know that finding a way to agree instead of argue is that upon which the ridiculously wonderful American Experiment is based. The party of freedom has turned ugly and there's not only a mess to be cleaned up but work to be done if we're to afford the next one. "I aint cleaning it & you cant make me", only has us wallowing in filth. It's pretty hard to tell a species where each member has self-determination for the first time in its million yrs of existence to chill after only 50 yrs, but it's the only choice. Think about it, look around, choose your neighbors and neighboring wisely. nufced

Really? Over the same time period, I think I have seen a decrease in liberty.

 

[Dinsy Ejotuz]

Okay, here's a more complete answer... It is not up to the group to determine that their needs are more important than the needs of the individual. The individual, however, can decide that the needs of the group are more important than the needs of the individual and are worthy of self sacrifice. Lastly, it can be determined by the group that it is worth sacrificing the needs of the group in order to serve the individual. It'a all about the entity being asked to sacrifice doing so of its own volition that makes it a valid position.

In this formulation, where you must have 100% unanimity to limit any individual freedom (no one can be forced to give something up if they don't want to) there would be no society. It's a complete fantasy.

Which is why Libertarians are reduced to talking about man-made islands in the ocean as their nation.

 

[Aerial Assault]

No. Which is what Star Trek 3 was about.

Star Trek 3 when Kirk and crew all risk their lives for Spock, and Kirk tells Spock that sometimes the needs of the few or the one outweigh the needs of the many. So are both Kirk and Spock right? If so, hat about those situations made their conflicting statements both right? And what other such types of factors matter in deciding which is right for any given situation?

Okay, here's a more complete answer...It is not up to the group to determine that their needs are more important than the needs of the individual.

The individual, however, can decide that the needs of the group are more important than the needs of the individual and are worthy of self sacrifice.

Lastly, it can be determined by the group that it is worth sacrificing the needs of the group in order to serve the individual.

It'a all about the entity being asked to sacrifice doing so of its own volition that makes it a valid position.

Genius answer. Bravo, Andy.

 

[beer 30]

"The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few. Or the one."

Was Spock right? Do the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few? Is that always the case or is it only sometimes the case?

If it doesn't always apply, when doesn't it apply and why?

This is what you come up with when all your builders are tied up for 8 days? Step out into the sun Greg

 

[GregR]

No. Which is what Star Trek 3 was about. And it was summed up in Trek 4:

Amanda: Spock, does the good of the many out weigh the good of the one? Spock: I would accept that as an axiom. Amanda: Then you stand here alive because of a mistake made by your flawed, feeling, human friends. They have sacrificed their futures because they believed that the good of the one - you - was more important to them. Spock: Humans make illogical decisions. Amanda: They do, indeed.

Correct, that was the beauty of Star Trek (IMO).

Spock was half human, what was a philosophical struggle for many was a real internal struggle for him, and in the end when the chips were on the table he acted as a human. And humanity means acting irrationally in a myriad of ways but perhaps the most and even the best of us is that we value the individual, life itself for itself. We are at our best when things are worst.

Completely forgot about this thread. Out of curiosity, what brought you to it?