Amazon.com Widgets

Do the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the one?

  • No it does not!

    I'm a grade sixer learning about democracy. Sometimes yes the majority does rule and the needs of many outweigh the needs of the few. But sometimes the needs of the few outweigh the needs of many. Would you kill 3 people to save 100? I think everybody's life counts in every way.

  • Yes i believe

    Democracy demands that majority rules. However, the reason you have a constitution, is that it sets limits to democracy. America has freedom of religion as a constitutional right. It doesn't matter how many people decide they want to imprison Muslims for practicing their religion, it will not pass.

    That is why if the President authorizes waterboarding, or plants bugs, it is a very big deal. Even though he is democratically elected, he is still bound by the constitution.

  • The needs of the one is always important, but...

    The "one" belongs to the "many". And for that reason their need is just as important., except when there is conflict. In this case, the right of the one comes up second. It's a basic instinct associated with the survival species. Humans must live in communities (or their genes would be less likely to survive). But in order for the community to remain cohesive, the general welfare needs to be protected above all. Otherwise the community would dissolve.

  • The needs of the one is always important, but...

    The "one" belongs to the "many". And for that reason their need is just as important., except when there is conflict. In this case, the right of the one comes up second. It's a basic instinct associated with the survival species. Humans must live in communities (or their genes would be less likely to survive). But in order for the community to remain cohesive, the general welfare needs to be protected above all. Otherwise the community would dissolve.

  • Life and it's choices

    Life's hardest choices are the ones that force you to question you're own moral code. If you can kill one to save a another , kill 1 to save 50, or let one die to save a city the needs of the many outweigh the need of the few. You have to be willing to weigh the options and if some need to die for some to thrive then so be it.

  • Life and it's choices

    Life's hardest choices are the ones that force you to question you're own moral code. If you can kill one to save a another , kill 1 to save 50, or let one die to save a city the needs of the many outweigh the need of the few. You have to be willing to weigh the options and if some need to die for some to thrive then so be it.

  • It is correct but not ultimate

    I believe that this rule is correct as when it comes to people as many needs generally is more important than the one need. However this also depends on the severity of the 'need' l, or how important it is. Furthermore one life is not worth more than many lives as life cannot be weighed or compared. So killing one to save many is definitely wrong.
    The rule must be adapted to the situation and there are definitely exceptions. However I do believe that the statement is more correct than wrong.

  • Needs, not wants.

    What people are not understanding is the operative word "need." If Spock had not sacrificed himself then the Enterprise and her entire crew would have been lost, including Spock. He would have died anyway, but if he did what he did then the many would and did survive. Yes, many would say it was a voluntary sacrifice, and perhaps made him a hero, but look how many people retained their lives. I believe this is what the quote is meant to suggest. You cannot compare monitary needs because no majority of people will loose their life because of money. Food could be used as an argument, but again, people will do what they must to survive thus in their mind their need is greater than anyone elses. So what this comes down to is the circumstance of the situation in question.

  • Democracy demands that majority rules.

    However, the reason you have a constitution, is that it sets limits to democracy. America has freedom of religion as a constitutional right. It doesn't matter how many people decide they want to imprison Muslims for practicing their religion, it will not pass.

    That is why if the President authorizes waterboarding, or plants bugs, it is a very big deal. Even though he is democratically elected, he is still bound by the constitution.

  • A universal ethic

    This summarizes the huge geo-political issues facing us now. Should 62 people own as much wealth as the bottom 3 billion people on this planet? Should corporations be permitted to destroy the environment for shareholder profit and executive bonuses? Should corporations be legally declared to be people and that money is free speech, and therefore they are entitled to buy democracies? Should people be allowed to hoard huge wealth while so many people live in poverty? What should the majority do when oligarchs, monarchies, kleptocrats, dictators, fascists, Czars, and petty corrupt politicians (the minority) use their power and privilege to enslave or deprive the majority? As Balzac stated, behind great wealth is often a great crime.

  • No it does not!

    I'm a grade sixer learning about democracy. Sometimes yes the majority does rule and the needs of many outweigh the needs of the few. But sometimes the needs of the few outweigh the needs of many. Would you kill 3 people to save 100? I think everybody's life counts in every way.

  • Not necessarily, friends.

    Individuals decide morals, not herds, and only through the use of force can a majority impose their will over a minority. Sacrifice should be voluntary, not mandatory. Spock voluntarily chose to sacrifice himself in order to save the Enterprise because it was his belief that it was the most rational decision, and we all know how attached to logic Spock was. If worse comes to worst, someone might sacrifice themselves, as it is an innate human quality to be altruistic. At the same time, it is as likely someone might refuse to be sacrificed, placing themselves above all.

    In which case, I would add that the needs of the essential outweigh the wants of the expendable, by Spock's reasoning, and his decision to sacrifice himself, rather than suggest, say, a maintenance worker or someone of less significant status that knew the reactor enough to fix it, was, ironically, highly illogical.

  • The majority does not define equity.

    An easy equation:

    On average, human life is valued as "invaluable", and in mathematical terms, this may equate to 'infinity'. An infinity, when multiplied by, divided by, added to, etc, will -always- remain an infinity. No matter how many instances of infinity are added to the equation, the ultimate answer will remain infinity.


    Now whether or not an individual so -chooses- a sacrifice, of their own free will, is up to them. However, this does not dictate the worth of one individual in proportion to a population. Of course, majority opinion tends to sway the general public more often than not, but even the simplest of minorities should not be left unheeded.

  • Everyone has the right of pursuit of happiness.

    Since it is generally asserted that everyone has the right of pursuit of happiness, you cannot deprive each individual's access to the pursuit, that is, the sole action of pursuit, regardless of the actual outcome. Therefore, it is both morally and logically wrongful to prohibit the few of pursuing happiness in order to meet the demand of the many.

  • No it does not!

    I'm a grade sixer learning about democracy. Sometimes yes the majority does rule and the needs of many outweigh the needs of the few. But sometimes the needs of the few outweigh the needs of many. Would you kill 3 people to save 100? I think everybody's life counts in every way.

  • No it does not!

    I'm a grade sixer learning about democracy. Sometimes yes the majority does rule and the needs of many outweigh the needs of the few. But sometimes the needs of the few outweigh the needs of many. Would you kill 3 people to save 100? I think everybody's life counts in every way.

  • A Democracy of Idiots

    If the majority of unintelligent people vote and win,but the more intelligent minority were right. What does that do for the society? The world? Democracy can work, but the sample of voters must be selected from the brightest and best to further mankind. The current system shows the inadequacies and pitfalls of blindly following democracy.

  • A Democracy of Idiots

    If the majority of unintelligent people vote and win,but the more intelligent minority were right. What does that do for the society? The world? Democracy can work, but the sample of voters must be selected from the brightest and best to further mankind. The current system shows the inadequacies and pitfalls of blindly following democracy.

  • If the rights of the individual are equally upheld, society will take care of itself.

    The Bill of Rights applies to individuals, not collectives, for a good reason. The more rights are interpreted as belonging to the collective, the less free is not only the individual but also the society as a whole. We have had collectivist states in both the 20th and 21st centuries to demonstrate the point.

  • If the rights of the individual are equally upheld, society will take care of itself.

    The Bill of Rights applies to individuals, not collectives, for a good reason. The more rights are interpreted as belonging to the collective, the less free is not only the individual but also the society as a whole. We have had collectivist states in both the 20th and 21st centuries to demonstrate the point.


Leave a comment...
(Maximum 900 words)
No comments yet.
>