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.'"
"Damn it, Jim, I'm a doctor, not a Texas Supreme Court judge!"
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
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.
All the neck-pinch does is put people to sleep. Courts are already effective enough at that.
Blank until
...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.
But the judiciary has a rule: Even-numbered Star Trek movies have greater legal authority than odd-numbed ones.
>>>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
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.
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?!
"Damn it Jim, I'm a doctor, not an Anonymous Coward trying to look clever on Slashdot."
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
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
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.
See my journal for slashdot ID's by year. Mine created in 2005. http://slashdot.org/journal/289875/slashdot-ids-by-year
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.
The joke's dead Jim!
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.