Texas Supreme Court Cites Mr. Spock 345
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.'"
That quote has a sequel (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Texas is not Vulcan. (Score:1, Informative)
No, Texas is Qo'noS. Florida is Ferenginar.
http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_philosopher_said_th (Score:1, Informative)
http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_philosopher_said_the_needs_of_the_many_outweigh_the_needs_of_the_few [answers.com]
The Decision (Score:3, Informative)
link to text of decision (Score:2, Informative)
http://www.supreme.courts.state.tx.us/historical/2010/oct/060714c2.htm [state.tx.us]
Re:The Decision (Score:4, Informative)
Refreshingly pompous: http://www.supreme.courts.state.tx.us/historical/2010/oct/060714c2.htm [state.tx.us]
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 [state.tx.us] 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:While i like the reference, utilitarian reality (Score:3, Informative)
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:Except that under the U.S. Constitution... (Score:3, Informative)
Re:While i like the reference, utilitarian reality (Score:4, Informative)
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 (Score:3, Informative)
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:AC troll is troll and racist (Score:2, Informative)
Let's assume, for the sake of argument you are right on both your claims. That is 1) Blacks vote as a bloc, and 2) they are the only racial group to do so.
The great majority of Black voters once supported the Republican party, before switching towards the Democratic party. Do you really think that Blacks were overwhelmingly Republican and all switched in a single election cycle to stay in a bloc? It would seem pretty obvious from a little history that even if there is a strong, even monolithic Black voting bloc right now, that hasn't always been the case, since Blacks gained the right to vote. There have been times when the Black vote has been quite divided, and there are still elections and issues where it tends to divide more. There were specific circumstances (do a search for Richard M Nixon, Southern Strategy), that tended to create and then reinforce bloc voting for Blacks. On your second point, there have not been any situations that would tend to encourage similar bloc voting for, say, Hispanics and Asian Americans. You might note that there are non-racial groups (GLBT), that tend to also vote more as blocs than the other major group of the same sort criterion (Straight), again for similar reasons.
Re:The story has no context (Score:3, Informative)
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 [state.tx.us]
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.
Re:While i like the reference, utilitarian reality (Score:3, Informative)
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 (Score:3, Informative)
Re:While i like the reference, utilitarian reality (Score:3, Informative)
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 [justiceharvard.org]
---
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.