the needs of the few outweigh the needs of the many

The needs of the few outweigh the needs of the many full#
The needs of the few outweigh the needs of the many code#

Spock: 'I have been-and shall always be.your friend.

Spock: 'I never took the Kobiyahi Maru test. Spock: 'Don't grieve, Admiral - it's logical: the needs of the many outweigh. Kirk and Spock are able to talk one last time-but this time separated by glass. Spock sacrifices himself to die of radiation sickness-but doing so allows him to save the crew of the ship. Then at the end of the film of course-one of the all time most memorable 'Deaths' on screen. Spock: 'In any case-were I to invoke logic, logic clearly dictates the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few.' They discuss Kirk's promotion-and Spock feels that it was mistake-as Kirk's leadership as a Captain is needed. In Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan at the start of the film, Kirk and Spock talk how they have been ordered to investigate something in their quadrant. In fact, I see it as an ideal to strive for in general, when you face a life altering decision that may affect others.To me - this is one of greatest scenes in the history of cinema. This is my opinion, but I don't see the main question as an 'absolute'. Yet, say that single person was a loved one, a child, or a very close friend? To add to the complexity, say the 10 were convicted criminals, politicians, or jihadists? Naturally, most will push the one to save the group of 10. Using the 'trolley example', a push of the button will save 1 person or 10 people by switching the tracks the running trolley is on.

The needs of the few outweigh the needs of the many full#

But with a few variables, as life is actually full of them, things are not so clear cut and clean.įor the most part, I think the decision will come down to the individual rescuer/savior/etc at the moment the decision needs to be made. Hypothetical is interesting to discuss and usually the 'ideal' meaning is often the sound and reasonable one. What if that one person was a child? And the 20 were convicted murderers, rapists, etc? Do you save the many (the criminals) or the one (the innocent child)? Wouldn't saving that one person save hundreds, thousands, or even millions of lives? Thus, we save 20 *now* and see many more die later? Perhaps it would stave off a war between two factions. Perhaps they are the only one who can bring about a peace agreement between two warring factions. Save the 20! However, mudding up the waters, say that one person is vitally important. the save 20 people or the single person, on its surface is very clear cut. Using the example of soldiers, emergency personnel. It is great guideline or rule of thumb to follow, but the situation(s) many not always be so clear cut. Did you go over the speed limit in your car? Did you obey every traffic regulation to the letter? Did you cross the street only at a designated cross-walk and only when the pedestrian light was lit? If you think I'm wrong, think about your commute to work or school. It doesn't mean we don't strive to obey and follow *all* laws. The world and life are not 'black and white'. Thus, I do not feel it necessarily works for *all* situations or scenarios. With all things being equal, I see this as an 'ideal' more than an 'absolute'. So, as you can see there are many different factors that we need to look at and discuss (I have only talked about a few here) than can be answered in a two (2) sentence answer.

Result, the social pressure of the many outweighs the few. This is because you believe that other people will do something and as a Respond (in normal circumstances, If you are in a crowded restaurant or mall for example). If there are other people close by, you will be less likely to

The needs of the few outweigh the needs of the many code#

EMS or Fire or Law Enforcement), thenīecause of your ethical code (as a first responder), you MUST help or risk many different ethical consequences (dismissed for failure to respond (violating ethicalĤ) With brings us to our fourth & final depends, diffusion of responsibility (If you do not know what this means, please click HERE for a Wikipedia page). If you have an ethical duty to respond (i.e. HERE for a Wikipedia page) If you have an non-ethical duty to respond (i.e. Do you have a duty to respond? (If you do not know what this means, please click That many? Does age mater? What matters to the person who is deciding?ģ) We can now transition to our Third depends. Think to yourself, what do you personally think that you should do in the previous situation? To you, does one matter more How would you respond?Ģ) The second depends on The morals of the person. However, If you pull the lever and redirect the train, one (1) person will die.

Take this hypothetical situation for example The trolley problem:, You have a train track that you can change if you do nothing, five (5) people die. In many scenarios, the needs of the many outweigh the few. I believe that the main point that I must re-iterate here is that It depends on many factors (I will talk about four (4) today).ġ) Here we come to our First Depends: It depends on the person doing the logical reasoning.