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.'"
Even as the footnotes to the ruling indicate, Spock was merely referencing a classic work of English literature. One of the hallmarks of good literature, and good art, are that they reflect the sensibilities of the culture which created them. That's what allows people to identify with the work and the characters therein, as well as learn a great deal about now-dead cultures through surviving works. If not for Beowulf and the Exeter Book, then we would not precious little about the minds of the ancient Anglo-Saxons. Citing Dickens, who was nothing if not socially conscious, seems perfectly reasonable. The fact that more people have seen Star Trek II than have likely read Dickens is just a way to help get the point across.
If not for the Star Trek reference, this likely wouldn't have made it to Slashdot, however I honestly think that it's slightly disingenuous to relegate it to idle.
John Stuart Mill, the utilitarian proponent, would say that harming a minority for the benefit of a majority would not be for the greatest good of the greatest number. Instead, Mill argues that the concepts of justice and individual rights emerge directly from the principle of utility. Violating individual rights, he says, more often leads to bad consequences than good, and individual rights as an unbreakable rule promotes the greater happiness.
He spends a large portion of his book on utilitarianism arguing this, so it's not a particularly new objection to utilitarianism.
Little company makes something that turns out to be quite dangerous.
Big company buys little company and immediately strips the assets, sells off the division that make dangerous stuff.
Is the big company liable for everything the little company's dangerous division ever did if they never directly actually did anything dangerous?
Lots of paperwork and billable hours burned there.
Idiots hear the words "possession is nine tenths of the law" and don't realize they look stupid claiming that means whomever holds something gets to keep it regardless of how they got it or something equally dumb. What that phrase actually means, is nine tenths of the law is about whom exactly owns what, under the weirdest imaginable situations.
"Science flies us to the moon. Religion flies us into buildings." - Victor Stenger
Choosing to let everyone starve is the good choice if all decide to starve and none decide to sacrifice themselves. That the entire group dies isn't an evil event since no one's consent was violated.
Choosing a few to die involuntarily (against their informed consent) is evil.
---
Interesting point on the nothing to do with free will.
My personal morality system reflects here. Essentially, if a rational (not drugged, drunk, or obviously insane) individual gives informed, uncoerced consent, then the act isn't evil. If they are not informed, or irrational, or coerced then it's evil even if they said yes if they would have said no otherwise. And if they don't get a choice but they would have said no, it's also evil.
So what I'm saying is that Utilitarianism allows legitimately violating the informed consent of one or a few by the larger number of people if has a good argument that they will benefit. "The two of us will die, but if we kill you, we will live. By Utilitarianism, we have the right to kill you to save ourselves."
She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter.
One could also argue that in the end, your actions (including thoughts) are determined by the laws of physics, and therefore, free will must be an illusion.
Quantum physics allows for indeterminate solutions ;-)
On a more realistic note, if there was no such thing as free will, then science would never have developed anything. No thinking "outside the box" allowed ;-) (philosophy has never been one of my strong subjects, because I think most of it is an illusion produced by people exercising free will...)
In the society we live in - yes, you do have that right. But ours is not the only possible society. The concept of property only emerged when humans began to settle down, so it can't be something inseperably linked to human nature. It must be allowed to assess, in a philosophical sense, whether this concept is still useful in serving society as a whole (as opposed to only serving a relatively small number of people).
The concept of "property" is extremely common amongst living things, particularly higher organisms. Most species above the level of bacteria have territorial behaviours that are comparable to human behaviour.
I really love the current scientific debate about "altruism". It has the potential to actually show how our species can be less destructive than animals which don't have the opportunity to steal from their fellows and the other species they compete with.
(/sarcasm on multiple levels)
SB
It's old. The more humans I meet, the more I like my cats. At least they are honest.
All the neck-pinch does is put people to sleep. Courts are already effective enough at that.
Actually, it can kill as well. Please turn in your nerd badge at the door.
Texas courts are already effective at that too.
These posts express my own personal views, not those of my employer
You'll be disturbed to know that the origins of that quote are....wait for it....
The Bible:
John 11:49-50 the Apostle John wrote, "And one of them, named Caiaphas, being the high priest that same year, said unto them, Ye know nothing at all, Nor consider that it is expedient for us, that one man should die for the people, and that the whole nation perish not."
So, it's likely that he wasn't quoting Spock.
"Lame" - Galaxar
In the early discussions between Prof, Manny and Wyo in Heinlein's The Moon is a Harsh Mistress, Prof poses a question that is the inverse of this. Manny replies that there is nothing the state can do that overrides Manny's best interests. I don't have the book at hand right now, but it's a great discussion, and should be on the required reading list of every student and prospective political candidate.
It's a difference of intent.
If the enemy attacks my side and civilians are accidentally killed, it's not terrorism.
Terrorism has the express purpose of creating terror in the civilian populace by targeting the civilian populace.
A freedom fighter might scare the hell out of enemies, kill them by the thousands, burn them to death, drown them, etc. They cross the line to being a terrorist when they kill a four year old *because* it's a four year old to create terror in the hearts of parents. When they kill seniors in an old folk's home because they are seniors in an old folk's home. It would be completely different if the military had a valid target or there was a power station right next door to the daycare or seniors home and their deaths were accidental/or necessary but not the target of the attack.
We have rules of war that specify who valid targets are. OTH, I think "freedom fighters" have to break some of the rules of war because of the mismatch. I can grant them not wearing uniforms, attacking sneakily, etc. as long as the targets are valid.
---
To your end point, we have some ugly wars ahead and no one is going to be right. Hope I'm dead by then.
She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter.