Or the one?
I would be curious what Lemmings think the results of a survey would be, if that question were asked in a non-political setting?
First… yes, as far as it goes. That said there’s some problems with it on the whole.
Keep in mind, this is a thought terminating cliche saying by Vulcans to explain “the logic” of self sacrifice.
The thing about logic is it can be used to justify all sorts of horrific things. (For example, the us nuking of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.)
It’s also important to note that, in general, I don’t really disagree with it here. That doesn’t make it any less of a cliche or problematic when applied to things like social policy.
Consider Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs. Some needs are themselves more weighty than others.
that guy’s need to get to work on time doesn’t outweigh my need to dress safely, even if there’s a dozen of them behind me- and never will.
Similarly, if the needs of the many (say, to feel safe) are juxtaposed against the few, whose need is to stay alive…. The needs of the few outweigh the many. One might say “but that doesn’t happen”… but we do. All the time.
Right now, the most extreme example are all the people that defend Israel’s right to genocide by insisting that Israel has a right to defend itself.
That said. Billionaires don’t need to make money. And they don’t even need to exist, for that matter.
That entirely depends on the circumstances. One cannot make a blanket statement. Let’s say that a horrible disease breaks out in a city and the government successfullymanages to quarantine the city before anyone gets out. The people inside suffer and most die without medical help or medicine, but the disease doesn’t spread and humanity is saved.
However there are plenty of cases where we should stand up for the rights of a few people even if it costs the majority of people. Making things accessible for people with disabilities costs money that technically could be spent elsewhere, but an empathic society should stand above this kind of thinking and make sure that society is accessible to people with disabilities.
Maybe but I’d say the needs of the many absolutely outweigh the gluttonous desires of the few.
Absolutely. Anyone that says no is seemingly incapable of looking at the bigger picture.
The problem with this is that there are a lot of people incapable of seeing the bigger picture or even thinking of anyone other than themselves or their small group of people, so they often don’t understand what is best for the many.
Judging by how many people wear clothes made by children in sweatshops, I’d say the wants of the many seem to outweigh the needs of the few.
Depends on who the “few” are. Marginalized folks trying to survive? Or the rich and powerful sucking a country dry?
No Billy, we aren’t killing black people. Stop that!
Majority Rule, yes, but also Minority Rights.
Unless you’re talking about the 1% minority of wealth hoarders, then um…
Do whatever you have to do… 😏
🍾🔥🏠🔥💰🔥
If they are needs, then none can be compromised.
A person should always aim for harm reduction. If an unwinnable situation were to arise, harm reduction statistically would favor the many for most scenarios. From a causal perspective, sad as it is to say, the casualties were not going to live past the situation; from this cold but pragmatic perspective, even something as invaluable as a person’s life is unfortunately not “needed” per se.
The needs of the many cannot outweigh the human rights of the few.
And yet, the wants of the many often do.
Other way around: the wants of the few [rich assholes] outweighs the needs of the many, because humans are dumb selfish animals that worship capitalism.
No. Unfortunately, they don’t. But, they SHOULD!
It’s only logical
Then WHY THE FUCK AREN’T WE ACTING LIKE IT!!!
Sir, I apologize for my inappropriate display of emotion. But seriously, I think almost everyone would agree with this statement if asked in a vacuum.
It’s an easy choice when the few or the one does not refer to oneself. However, when a person is asked to put the needs of everyone else above their own individual needs, it becomes a much more difficult conversation for any person to have.
What are you? A communist?
Stat Trek has always had Socialist Utopia vibes. And the new stuff on Paramount+ is undeniably woke…
If asked in a vacuum, there’d be no audible answer.
Unless non-verbal communication was used and the participants could hold their breath long enough.
Listen here, you little shit.
JK, you are correct. I prefer punishingly steep progressive taxation over asphyxiation as a solution.
