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.'"

Comments

Alright Star Trek +1

[Murdoch5]

It would of be amazing if Bones stood up and said "Come on spock it's a court room not a space ship"

Re:Alright Star Trek +1

[MightyMartian]

"Damn it, Jim, I'm a doctor, not a Texas Supreme Court judge!"

Re:Alright Star Trek +1

[Culture20]

It would of be amazing if Bones stood up and said ...

"Dammit Jim, I'm a zombie, not a dead body!"

Re:Alright Star Trek +1

[MightyMartian]

"Damn it Jim, I'm a doctor, not an Anonymous Coward trying to look clever on Slashdot."

Re:Alright Star Trek +1

[MightyMartian]

"Damn it, Jim! I'm a doctor, not a karma whore!"

Re:Alright Star Trek +1

[masmullin]

The joke's dead Jim!

While i like the reference, utilitarian reality...

[Maxo-Texas]

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).

Re:Not a trend you want to extend too far

[Farmer Tim]

All the neck-pinch does is put people to sleep. Courts are already effective enough at that.

Not quite

[bsDaemon]

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.

Re:Not quite

[commodore64_love]

I suspect more people have seen A Christmas Carol than Star Trek 2.

BTW ever read part 2 of that story? Ebenezer Scrooge ends-up bankrupt because he goes from a spend-thrift to a careless spender (kinda like some americans today). Perhaps Ebenezer suffers from obsessive compulsive disorder? Unfortunately Bob Cratchet loses his job when Mr. Scrooge loses his bank and business.

The moral is the same moral as Henry David Thoreau wrote-about in his novels: Moderation is the best course.

Because

[commodoresloat]

the judge lost his copy of John Stuart Mill?

Except that under the U.S. Constitution...

[Anonymous Coward]

...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.

Re:Except that under the U.S. Constitution...

[Hatta]

Protecting the rights of everyone (including the few) is beneficial to everyone. If we have sheep for dinner tonight, there's nothing to stop me from being next. Therefore it's in my best interest to vote for constitutional limitations preventing anyone from being dinner, no matter how delicious that sheep may be.

Re:Except that under the U.S. Constitution...

[srothroc]

Not everyone thinks like that, though. A lot of people seem to think more along the lines of "Damn, I could go for some sheep tonight... and seriously, there are a million sheep! What are the odds that I'LL be the one taken?"

Re:Except that under the U.S. Constitution...

[cowboy76Spain]

Not everyone thinks like that, though. A lot of people seem to think more along the lines of "Damn, I could go for some sheep tonight... and seriously, there are a million sheep! What are the odds that I'LL be the one taken?"

It is not that there are some sheeps that think that way... IMHO, they are sheeps precisely because they think that way...

The story has no context

[Attila Dimedici]

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.

Re:The story has no context

[DougBTX]

Here's the context:

First, we recognize that police power draws from the credo that “the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few.” Second, while this maxim rings utilitarian and Dickensian (not to mention Vulcan21), it is cabined by something contrarian and Texan: distrust of intrusive government and a belief that police power is justified only by urgency, not expediency. That is, there must exist a societal peril that makes collective action imperative: “The police power is founded in public necessity, and only public necessity can justify its exercise.”22 Third, whether the surrender of constitutional guarantees is necessary is a legislative call in terms of desirability but a judicial one in terms of constitutionality. The political branches decide if laws pass; courts decide if laws pass muster. The Capitol is the center of policymaking gravity, but the Constitution exerts the strongest pull, and police power must bow to constitutional commands: “as broad as [police power] may be, and as comprehensive as some legislation has sought to make it, still it is subsidiary and subordinate to the Constitution.”23 Fourth, because the Constitution claims our highest allegiance, a police-power action that burdens a guarantee like the Retroactivity Clause must make a convincing case.24 Finally, while police power naturally operates to abridge private rights, our Constitution, being inclined to freedom, requires that such encroachments be as slight as possible: “Private rights are never to be sacrificed to a greater extent than necessary.”25

http://www.supreme.courts.state.tx.us/historical/2010/oct/060714c2.htm#_ftnref21

Note: "cabined" means limited, contained in a small place

TL;DR: The Vulcan quote was used as an example of evil to be contained, not as a guiding principle.

That quote has a sequel

[destinyland]

The judge obviously hasn't seen Star Trek III... Captain Kirk and his crew risk their lives to save Spock. And when he asks them why, Kirk replies "The needs of the one outweigh the needs of the many." And then Spock raises an eyebrow...

Re:That quote has a sequel

[DingerX]

But the judiciary has a rule: Even-numbered Star Trek movies have greater legal authority than odd-numbed ones.

Re:Not a trend you want to extend too far

[snsh]

Quote Yoda next they will.

The Decision

[mdsolar]

Refreshingly pompous: http://www.supreme.courts.state.tx.us/historical/2010/oct/060714c2.htm

Re:The Decision

[BitterOak]

Refreshingly pompous: http://www.supreme.courts.state.tx.us/historical/2010/oct/060714c2.htm

This is actually a concurring opinion, and not the main opinion. As such, little can be gleaned from it regarding what the actual case is about. This is the main opinion. Quoting the summary:

The issue we address in this case is whether a statute that limits certain corporations’ successor liability for personal injury claims of asbestos exposure violates the prohibition against retroactive laws contained in article I, section 16 of the Texas Constitution1 as applied to a pending action. We hold that it does, and therefore reverse the judgment of the court of appeals2 and remand the case to the trial court.

So as we can see, it's a rather dull case concerning asbestos.

Re:The Decision

[vlm]

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.

Re:The Decision

[vlm]

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.

Re:The Decision

[Saxophonist]

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.

link to text of decision

[FeriteCore]

http://www.supreme.courts.state.tx.us/historical/2010/oct/060714c2.htm

Re:While i like the reference, utilitarian reality

[Hatta]

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.

Re:While i like the reference, utilitarian reality

[commodore64_love]

>>>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.

Re:While i like the reference, utilitarian reality

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:Not a trend you want to extend too far

[MyLongNickName]

Actually, it can kill as well. Please turn in your nerd badge at the door.

Sounds Like Socialism

[assertation]

Seriously, "the needs of the many, outweigh the needs of the few", sounds like socialism......AND in Texas yet. Rush LImbaugh better sound the alarm bells.

Re:While i like the reference, utilitarian reality

[zippthorne]

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.

Re:Spock wouldn't make a good judge

[MightyMartian]

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."

Re:Ayn Rand

[GodfatherofSoul]

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.

moderated utilitarianism can be fair/just

[frytoy]

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.

Re:moderated utilitarianism can be fair/just

[benjamindees]

In general, "moderated" anything is not an example of fairness, but of ignorance, muddled thinking, and an inability to synthesize a more complete and/or consistent philosophy.

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.

Sorry, but what you have in mind is communism, and it only works as long as the productive people are separated from the consumers a la Eloi and Morlocks, and both groups are lied to. It has been tried over and over again, and each time fails once producers become aware of their exploitation, and consumers are made aware of their precarious position.

For thousands of years this division broke down along gender lines, and the institution that did the lying was religion. Men lived in a world of competition and production, while women were left to consume whatever they were given. Religion told each this was their duty. The institution of marriage, however, has lately broken down in the face of competing systems.

With slavery, the division was along racial lines. The institution that held together this arrangement was, variously depending on time and place, the military or the police-state. Overt slavery turned out to be too costly a system to maintain, however.

Today, the division is mostly along national lines, with the clearest example being the consuming USians and the producing Chinese. The institutions lying to these groups are the central banks.

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?

Fortunately, this ideal is actually achievable, and achievable even with a fair and logically consistent philosophical underpinning. Unfortunately, there is little incentive to implement such a solution because the immediate costs are high, and the future rewards accrue mainly to generations not yet even conceived.

Philosophically, the simplest solution is to regulate and eliminate negative economic externalities, and to regulate or prohibit reproduction beyond replacement. Unfortunately, that's easier said than done. The entire global economy is built upon negative externalities such as pollution, resource depletion, and subsidized consumers. And it doesn't look like that will change any time soon.

Well, true.

[unity100]

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

Re:While i like the reference, utilitarian reality

[fche]

If you read the entire court decision, you'll see that they point to this Spockian utilitarianism as something to be wary of. Their decision was actually to reverse just such legislation.

Re:Not a trend you want to extend too far

[MyLongNickName]

Actually, I think I got it from a Start Trek book. I have been looking unsuccessfully on the internet for a reference to it :(

So, it looks like at best I have a non-canon understanding and I should be the one turning in my nerd badge.

In my defense, I read dozens of Star Trek books in college instead of dating... certainly that should buy me another chance to join the club.

Signs of progress

[KGBear]

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...

Re:Signs of progress

[Crudely_Indecent]

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.

Re:While i like the reference, utilitarian reality

[Maxo-Texas]

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."

Re:While i like the reference, utilitarian reality

[shadowbearer]

  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

 

Re:One more comment

[canajin56]

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.

Re:While i like the reference, utilitarian reality

[cpt kangarooski]

A person's 'natural' right to property is limited only to what he can personally defend against others who might try to take it. Anything beyond that is purely based upon other people recognizing my claim, which they are not obligated to do, and may only do when it is in their own interest.

That an individual might claim to own a particular piece of property doesn't mean that property law generally is founded on individuals.

Your example of a single person fighting against a large and presumably unscrupulous group to keep their land only works when the single person can call upon the resources of a much larger group -- law enforcement, the judicial system, the army, etc. -- for aid. Consider the difference between someone being forced off their land at gunpoint by brigands, and someone being forced off their land via a foreclosure by a bank. Not only will the local sheriff not defend the second victim, he is apt to be called in to help kick him out. And if invulnerable aliens landed there the next day and disintegrated anyone who crossed the property line, the aliens would own it, because a good disintegration gun is worth a lot more than a mere property deed.

It's not pretty, but this is how property law ultimately works when you get down to the bottom of it.

Re:Not a trend you want to extend too far

[cpt kangarooski]

I know about that, but it was just a bluff on Spock's part. How Vulcans keep getting away with their reputation for honesty, I can't imagine.

Re:While i like the reference, utilitarian reality

[outsider007]

I knew you would say that

Not politics, just friendship.

[DavMz]

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.

Re:And yet...

[benjamindees]

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.

Re:Not a trend you want to extend too far

[syousef]

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.

Re:While i like the reference, utilitarian reality

[Miseph]

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,.

a better sci-fi reference trumps that

[Tumbleweed]

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 is an axiom of Utilitarian phylosophy

[modmans2ndcoming]

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.

Re:While i like the reference, utilitarian reality

[turbidostato]

"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?

Actually...

[sycodon]

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.

Re:While i like the reference, utilitarian reality

[Maxo-Texas]

That's bullshit. Someone who blows up teenagers is a terrorist. Doesn't matter if they are on my side or your side.

Unless your ethical system allows murder, torture, rape, genocide, mass murder, organ-legging, there are lines at which "freedom fighter" stops.

Aristotle wrote that 2260 years ago

[flyingfsck]

Aristotle, 250 BC, "The Aim of Man": "Even supposing the chief good to be eventually the aim for the individual as for the state, that of the state is evidently of greater and more fundamental importance both to attain and to preserve. The securing of one individual's good is cause for rejoicing, but to secure the good of a nation or of a city-state is nobler and more divine."

Re:While i like the reference, utilitarian reality

[Maxo-Texas]

I recommend this free series of lectures-- it was recommended to me.

http://www.justiceharvard.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=category&layout=blog&id=9&Itemid=5

---

Now, my personal philosophy is based on the concept that unless you give your informed uncoerced consent that it's evil.

In the case you present-- it's my choice. If I decide to do so, it's good even tho I die (even if only one of them lived... even if only one of them lived for a few days and then died). Their life or death isn't the point. My consent is the point.

Humans make this kind of choice every day. It's pretty cool and noble. Do they dive into the freezing water to save someone, step in front of a bullet to protect someone, give up a kidney to give someone life?

Spock made the decision that he was willing to give up *his* life to save the many. His decision. His life. Not for someone else. Not about someone else's life.

--

Anyway, the exact question you propose is in that lecture series. It's a classic problem. Consent and intent make the difference between evil and good.

Re:While i like the reference, utilitarian reality

[Maxo-Texas]

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.