It’s only logical

<img alt="" src="https://64.media.tumblr.com/3f93317245cca6866679b75f8323bf43/tumblr_inline_pcrh0uN87o1qmqyem_1280.jpg">

The answer is yes, with the caveat that the many are not particularly good at figuring out what they need and that they often choose a sub-optimal solution to help a few people that there is some sort of emotional attachment to.

They’re also really bad at understanding their biases in this scenario. They will often say “no” verbally but then make daily decisions that contradict that.

No. Unfortunately, they don’t. But, they SHOULD!

The needs of the many cannot outweigh the human rights of the few.

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.

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… 😏

🍾🔥🏠🔥💰🔥

Depends on who the “few” are. Marginalized folks trying to survive? Or the rich and powerful sucking a country dry?

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.

Not anymore.

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.

The thing is, it’s not a blanket statement of what must be done. It’s a principle that is guided by the combination of logic, emotional control, and, as strange as it may seem, empathy.

It stands as a metric to process one’s actions and choices. The individual vulcan accepts that the needs of all vulcans as a whole are more important than their own needs. This doesn’t mean that there is no debate. It’s the framework for the debate.

As the individual vulcan weighs options, they seek to determine what is the most benefit, and therefore the greatest need. They use logic to measure opposing or contradictory options, but they also consider the non physical ramifications.

Expanded into the federation, it becomes a measure for all sapient beings, not just vulcans. And that’s where the empathy of vulcans comes in the clearest. They’ll weigh the emotional harm to emotional beings as a need that must be factored into a decision.

But it also includes as part of their culture that no single vulcan is perfect, and that logic is a tool that must be developed. They can disagree with the decisions made about what the needs of the many are. It’s just that every individual sees the logic of their own needs being secondary.

It’s an expression of the vulcan equivalent of religion

Maybe but I’d say the needs of the many absolutely outweigh the gluttonous desires of the few.

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.

Depends on the philosophy you believe in.

Deonthology states that some actions are allways morally wrong if they hurt the rights of a person

Ulitarism states that actions are morally right if they have a combined net positive on all the affected people.

In the first, specific needs of one can’t be broken no matter how many would profit.

(Thonk rorschach vs ozymandius in watchman “killing millions to save billions”)

Realistically nobody completely has one of these systems but rather it is about finding where you lie between them.

If you say you would not even tell a single lie if that would guarantee world peace:
that would be a 100% deonthology

If you say you would torture innocents, if enough other people’s lives would improve:
that would be 100% Ulitarism

The basis of the trolly problem is exactly this: what horrific act would and wouldn’t you do as long as there is a positive outcome

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.