Slashdot Mirror
Texas Supreme Court Cites Mr. Spock
An anonymous reader writes "We always knew that Spock was wise and would probably make a pretty good judge, so perhaps it's a good thing to see the Texas Supreme Court citing Spock in a recent ruling, noting his wisdom in stating that 'the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few.'"
While as a Trekky, I like the reference. I hope that they referenced utilitarianism in the article and I hope that they recognize utilitarianism can be used to justify evil things including letting a few starve so everyone else can live. This may be realistic but its evil unless you are acting as spock and *SACRIFICING YOURSELF* to be one of the few helping the rest. If the rest are choosing you to die against your will, it's evil.
Utilitarianism negates free will, property rights and individuality when misapplied (and perhaps when correctly applied too).
She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter.
...the rights of the few outweigh the interests, benefits, and even the needs of the many. "Democracy" is two wolves and a sheep voting on what to have for dinner. I'd rather see the rights of the minority protected, regardless of the opinions of a given science fiction character - pointy ears or no.
This story has no context. Without knowing what the decision was that they cited this on, there is no way for me to judge how appropriate this was or wasn't.
The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
No, the wish of 51% outweigh the wish of 49%
If the 51% started to hinder the needs of 49% then they would probably break the law, start riots and other stuff that makes the difference between democracy and dictatorship insignificant.
"The needs of the many [WOLVES] outweigh the needs of the few [SHEEP]." Yup, utilitarian democracy sucks if you're a sheep... or black... or an illegal alien...
As opposed to letting the rest starve so the few can live? Really not seeing the evil.
evil things including letting a few starve so everyone else can live.
As opposed to letting everyone starve? That's even eviler.
Utilitarianism negates free will
There is no such thing as free will in the first place.
property rights
If property rights cause more harm than good they should be abandoned.
individuality
Not sure what you mean here. Your individuality is a physical fact. Different people have different bodies, brains, and therefore minds. It's as if you said "Utilitarianism negates hair color". Nonsensical.
Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
>>>Utilitarianism negates free will, property rights and individuality when misapplied
Well said.
Also most people forget the SECOND half of the saying: "You were wrong Mr. Spock. We decided that the needs of the ONE outweigh the needs of the many. That is why we risked our lives to save you." - Captain Kirk. The American Confederation and later United States Constitution was founded on that principle. The individual matters.
"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
So as we can see, it's a rather dull case concerning asbestos.
A slightly more interesting interpretation is its a case about retroactively applying laws.
In a world where the laws are purchased by corporations acting as people, and almost no biological people can afford professional representation/interpretation of the law, the finer details of the rule of law are kind of irrelevant or uninteresting to the populous. But in a less apathetic world its an interesting situation.
"Science flies us to the moon. Religion flies us into buildings." - Victor Stenger
Indeed that is an extreme example, and not quite a good one. But the evil part in that specific example would be who gets to choose who dies, and what criterion they use to decide.
A better example would be "letting a few people die so that millions can have an extra five minutes with their kids in the afternoon." From a strictly utilitarian point of view, it works out, because those extra minutes, multiplied by millions, balance out entire lifetimes.
Or, in the case of Kilo V. New London, the taking of land from a few worthless homeowners was justified to build a cool office space for Pfizer that they would've paid a lot of taxes on if they'd actually used it....
A less naive view of Utilitarianism realizes that establishing a fundamental property right that sometimes locally prevents just that sort of thing, has benefits society-wide.
And that's the downside of utilitarianism: it can be used to construct a framework under which almost anything appears ethical, even though a further refinement shows just the opposite. It's a problem, because people tend to stop looking any further once they have a reason why the thing they want to do is the "right" thing to do.
Can you be Even More Awesome?!
He'd probably pull out a phaser, blast all the legislators to atoms and declare when queried, "The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the corrupt and stupid."
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
Anyone who reads Ayn Rand and cites it as anything more than an upper-class rant is a fool. Ask Mexico how well their libertarian build-gated-communities-and-let-everyone-else-fend-for-themselves approach to governance is working.
I swear to God...I swear to God! That is NOT how you treat your human!
Interestingly, nobody seems to complain when sacrifice is imposed for the sake of war - i.e. WWII. Why is only war, and not the human quality of life for all citizens, a worthy cause? Can we not build a society that rewards achievement _and_ protects those who have failed from utter ruin? Can we not have a utilitarian baseline of humane living conditions for all, and a capitalist economic engine that allows for the successful to rise (well) above the baseline? Also, why not these same concepts to protect the environment and other resources for future generations? Why is it only considered immoral to require some sacrifice when the goal is peaceful and just? This is not communism - this is a capitalist, socialist, utilitarian hybrid that works very well when implemented in good faith, and is basically the system we would have if it weren't for the constant undermining influence of the libertarian right in our government.
the opposite, is aristocracy, elitism. it doesnt matter how it happens ; whether a minority owns more than the majority, and/or rules them, it ends up as being feudalism.
in capitalism, this is provided by the inner mechanisms of capitalist system. free market just functions as a 'free for all' chaos environment in which a pecking order will get established in future. the 'better' competitors, however better they are (fair or unfair) get ahead, buy or subdue others (controlling shares), and increasingly control aspects of various industries.
if, nothing intervenes, then eventually after a while EVERYthing gets consolidated at the hands of a particular group. this may be as small as 4-5 people, just like in usa in late 19th century, or, it may be a group of conglomerates, which own and run aspects of life through proxies and conglomerate structure. (as in now).
it doesnt matter how it happens : as long as a minority group has ownership of the resources and amenities in a given nation, they are de facto rulers of that nation. it may end up through establishing an elite through birthright, it may happen through establishing mega conglomerates by fair competition, which then ends up getting inherited.
think : competition, is competition. eventually, some will do better than others, and get to top. if there is nothing controlling their power, they will establish a hierarchy. AND, because there is inheritance, the established pecking order will just get inherited to heirs, and it will practically be an aristocratic dynasty. it doesnt matter whether these people do it consciously, planned, and be aware of each other and what they are doing. it is automatic, subconscious, and just a mechanical result of the system.
the ONLY thing different now, from the medieval feudal aristocratic system is, everyone is supposedly allowed to attempt being aristocrats. 'supposedly' and 'attempt' words are in the preceding sentence, because they describe how little chance such a thing happening has ; if, in medieval times, everyone was allowed to just attempt setting up a feudal lordship, (instead of being through birthright), the newcomers would find it impossible to set a domain for their own, because established pecking order would overpower them. just like that, it is as such in capitalist system of today ; enter into a market, try to be someone, establish yourself. as soon as you get noticeable and become a competitor, you are either clamped down through 'competitive' means, or, bought out. if the two not avail, then you are coerced into the hierarchy that is present in your area, which is the sub hierarchy that rules nationwide.
RARELY, there happens 'wild west' situations. original wild west, was one. it was a chaotic, free for all environment, where there were noone established, and the established powers were far away and unable to reach and dominate it. in this free for all environment, first to come and to get on top, established themselves into various points in the newly occurring pecking order. then, this pecking order, eventually got integrated with the greater hierarchy of the entire nation.
AND a contemporary example ; the internet, i.t., digitization of the society was another such land rush, a wild west. it was new, it wasnt even taken seriously at the start, noone knew what was it and what was going to happen. opportunist people with ideas and ambitions have entered this area. just like all these wild west situations, it was a phenomenally free environment in which there was great opportunities, great freedom. practical 'nobodies' (compared to established conglomerate owners) got rich over years' time, sometimes days. in a brave free world, the capitalist system seemed to fulfill its promise. after all, there was opportunity for the lower strata of society, who didnt have any capital and any place in pecking order - people were getting rich, right ?
right.
look how long did it take for it to end and an established order to come up. a deca
Read radical news here
But where does your right to property come from? It can't be religion. And if it comes from "the bill of rights", then it's just a social construct like the state.
Your right to property is a useful social construct, not a moral tenet.
Where is your refutation? He makes a good point. Blacks are the only racial group to vote as a virtual bloc. It is popular to make the claim that whites are conspiring to keep some sort of mythical "institutional white privilege" but it can't be substantiated on the same basis.
In skimming through the decision, I noticed that the legislative history of Chapter 149 (the relevant law being overturned in this instance) was discussed. It really looks like Chapter 149 was bought and paid for by the defendant in the case; yet, I did not notice any discussion of that matter. Perhaps someone who read the decision, or its concurrences, more thoroughly could comment. This type of legislative issue tends to be of interest to Slashdot readers, judging by some of their comments.
If Texans cited Star Trek at least as often as they cite the Bible, Texas, the US and actually the whole would be a happier place...
It is more right for an individual to own property and to suffer the consequences of it's use/misuse than it is for that property to be collectively owned and for everyone to suffer those consequences collectively.
But it is right for an individual to own (and therefore control) property, yet everyone to suffer the consequences collectively?
Proud member of the Ferengi Socialist Party.
Authors don't always share all the views of every single one of their characters. It's quite inappropriate to attribute a quote to the author when it's spoken by a character. That's taking things out of context.
ASCII stupid question, get a stupid ANSI
I don't share your interpretation. In the movie, Kirk, Scott, Sulu, Chekov and McCoy go to find Spock body in order to perform a Vulcan ritual to free Spock's katra which he "uploaded" into McCoy's mind before dying and also to prevent McCoy from becoming crazy, and in order to do this they have to desobey superior's orders, steal the Enterprise and sabotage another ship, which is likely to bring them to Martial Court.
So it's more in my opinion about friendship and loyalty among the crew of the USS Enterprise, and not about the US constitution; it's just people who say that, as individuals, they are willing to take risks to save one of them.
The principle on which the US constitution was founded is the protection of individual rights and freedom. But for the rest, as any other country, "the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few". That's why the US has an army, some tens of thousands of people who are ready to die and whom the government is willing to sacrifice in order to protect hundreds of millions.
You're missing the point that the "few" in this example are the one or two generations who will benefit from subsidized healthcare and an extra 10-20 years of lifespan at the expense of the "many" of younger generations who get completely screwed when the system completely collapses.
"I assumed blithely that there were no elves out there in the darkness"
Thank you for pointing out that trying to define all actions as either good OR evil is a flawed, and EXTREMELY subjective means of viewing the world. One man's terrorist really is another man's freedom fighter,.
Try not to take me more seriously than I take myself.
Since Utilitarianism is not a spock thing and he simply quoted the axiom in the movie, it is hardly quoting Spock to quote the phrase.
"It's comical that you pretend to have worthwhile knowledge when you cannot
even use correct English."
Damn ignorant Plato... how could he pretend to have worthwhile knowledge when he couldn't even use correct English?
In Search for Spock, there was a convincing argument that the needs of the one outweigh the needs of the many.
We see this in our system of criminal justice (at least in its theoretical form) where letting a guilty man go free is preferable to convicting an innocent man. Theoretically speaking I mean.
When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.