Do the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few?

Calculating the number of people affected is not enough when judging which needs are most important.

I assume you are a doctor There are five people waiting for organ donation. There is now a person who enters the waiting room and has all the organs necessary to save five people.

If you become afraid of seeing a doctor, you will not be able to receive treatment due to your own illness, because there is a possibility that work may decrease, short lived up, or the quality of life may decline. You can make everyone stop in the long run, at the expense of the short-term needs of a few people.

They feel safe and protected when people do not sacrifice them to save others. This can promote cooperation, loyalty, etc., and make society more productive. In this way, society will be able to solve the problems facing people more and more without depriving others of their rights.

I love your answer, Linda. But I temporarily play the role of devil supporters. Well, at the moment, we do not doubt, and inevitably live in the social world. As a social survivor, almost all of the motto of personal behavior is filtered by a social contract that we (most people) agree and are bound by law. It is worth noting that even those who do not vote in majority by participating and operating under this social structure are bound by these rules which may not agree.

Ted is said to be considered abnormal for most people, regardless of whether it is a birth defect or a painful age. He likes to put people in the refrigerator after killing people in a strange way. (The language we use when talking about Ted is biased towards most people, but it can exist only in social situations, deviant, strange, terrible). His needs are to do something as a serial killer. It is evil and terrible. Therefore, most people are restricted and he is condemned

Strictly adhere to your claim, his needs are mistakenly sacrificed. Because most people are anxious for security. Strictly speaking, most people do not loot, but because they clearly show the sacrifice of human needs to many people in the surroundings, these people do not agree with his view.

"Does the logic clearly state that the needs of many people outweigh the needs of a few people?" Logic needs some evidence to support this claim - but Spock supports this I did not provide any evidence to do. He just insisted on that. Which is "plenty"? Which is "small"? Who is the "over" size? For what? Who is right for you? Why is he or their interest a legitimate benefit? Spock did not solve these problems; he insisted that logic clearly defined his conclusion. But it is not so

Should our ethics come from the Star Trek Thought School? As Spock said, "Is there a lot of people having more than a few or a few people," or is the individual most important? If a person is about to die in a crash accident, should they be allowed to die to survive? How about the two? 50? thousand? Does society exceed individuals or "one person" always dominates?

It is a good time to evaluate or reevaluate the frequent occurrence of Star Trek's claims now in "Star Trek" released in the DVD in the dark this week, "The needs of many people exceed the needs of several people "(Or" 1 "). This statement is made in various scenes of the movie including the latest scene. First consider some examples and related background. Since the company (ship) is about to face the risk of injury, Spock enters a highly radioactive compartment to repair the ship's operation so that the crew can escape the danger. Spock immediately disappeared, and last breath, not sad, Admiral. This is logical. The needs of many people are more than that ... Kirk completed for him. "The needs of a few people." Spock replied, "That's it."