World, Writing, Wealth discussion

Scout quoted Spock who, with his dying breath, says: "Logic clearly dictates that the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few." and continued " I've always thought that this would make a good topic for debate -- and who better to debate it than you guys? Do the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few?"
An interesting theme for discussion, deserving its own thread, as suggested by Ian.

In case of fireworks - it's not really a need, so grudgingly we give up on them for the benefit of ex-soldiers suffering from battle shock lest they feel terrified.
On the other hand a few grabbing all toilet paper in corona times with an intention to resell it .... :)

Everyone needs things.

The majority within any society are physically and mentally able to obtain what is needed. There will always be some who, due to physical and/or mental challenges, must rely upon others for help in obtaining what they need. The majority are morally obligated to help those requiring help.

The question that should be asked when deciding just how much help should be provided to the disadvantaged is: Do they need this or do they just want this?.

The issue is further complicated by children. Lazy bad parent(s) or missing parents. How does society try to ensure that children are well looked after, stay in education and become the opposite of their parents.

Support for parents? Children's homes, forced adoption or foster care. None of the alternatives have blemish free records.

What is clear is failure to support leads the children to be just like their parent(s)

That is not to down play single parents or those that have succeeded - but that is despite the odds.

Philip wrote: "What is clear is failure to support leads the children to be just like their parent(s)"

Since its expansion under LBJ, the welfare state has seen a massive increase in the rate of illegitimacy. Among black children, it has gone from about 21% to over 60%.

I've read arguments that say Welfare caused the disintegration of the Black family by awarding more money to single women with children, thus discouraging the family unit of mom, dad, children. I don't know if this is true.

When I think of this topic, I think of soldiers who give their lives to defend their country. I think they believe that the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few. Or one.

Scout wrote: "When I think of this topic, I think of soldiers who give their lives to defend their country. I think they believe that the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few. Or one."

In a sense of their willingness to sacrifice their life protecting others?

Our Company 1st. Sergeant would tell us to always face front during a firefight and not to worry about what might be coming at us from any other direction because the other three members of our fire team were protecting our left and right sides and our rear (both figuritively and literally).

If you were to be hit from any other direction than your front, it would mean that the Marine guarding those areas had already fallen. It wasn't considered heroism, it was just cosidered duty and right thing to do.

Getting back to the thesis statement of this thread, saying that the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few, or the one, is a restatement of "the greatest good for the greatest number of people." That statement is the core of Utilitarianism, a philosophy which I eschew for its vague definitions and retrograde morality.

Let's start with the core definition, "good". Seriously, what is "good"? For Hedonists (Benthamite subset of Utilitarianism), good is happiness. Of course, a lot of Romans were very happy to watch a few slaves murder each other for sport. Was that good?

That's where the morality becomes retrograde. For most free Romans, gladiatorial combat was moral. From their perspective it kept the plebians happy, provided opportunities for educating the illiterate plebes, and reinforced the social structure of the Empire. We deem it immoral because we value the lives of the slaves as greater than all the Roman reasons and because many of us find blood sports to be distasteful savagery. How will our posterity evaluate our greater goods?

In terms of political economics, one could make a case that currently the needs of the few outweigh the needs of the many, the evidence being the way wealth is distributed, and the way politicians ensure it stays that way. Nothing, of course, to do with funding for political campaigns :-(

"In a sense of their willingness to sacrifice their life protecting others?" Yes, that's what I was thinking, Nik. Another example would be firefighters who fight wildfires, even the guy on the subway who subdued a crazy man (and is now being accused of murder) - putting himself between the man and passengers who were being threatened in an enclosed space. Some people step up without hesitation and risk their lives to protect others. I think that's admirable. You have to respect Spock for his decision. Of course, there are others who want the world to bow to their own needs, not the needs of the many. You also have to look at politicians who sell out their constituents for money.

I prefer Kant's Categorical Imperative:

“Act only according to that maxim by which you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law”

Also worded as:

“So act as to treat humanity, whether in your own person or in another, always as an end and never as only a means.

Spock was making the ultimate sacrafice to save his crew and that does apply to the needs of the many. But, I do think Rodenberry was referring to it in terms of community - that we all act with the idea that we must do what is best for our community rather than what is best for ourselves. A utopia from my perspective as I think we are generally a society that acts based on our own individual needs and those of our immediate family rather than the needs of others. After those needs are met.

Actually needs are few - food, shelter from the elements, ability to defend oneself and family, cures or treatment for injury and disease. Pretty much everything else is a "want." It used to be possible for most people to supply their needs through work, and the minority who couldn't had access to charity. Now there are able bodied, working people who can't afford a home, who have to cut the grocery budget, who struggle to pay for health insurance. The other problems is that society's trends can turn a want into a need - we never used to need iPhones or wifi to communicate, but now they are pretty much necessities.

I would argue that the way our cities have developed, transport is also a need because you cannot access the other needs without it.