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.'"
While i like the reference, utilitarian reality... (Score:5, Insightful)
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).
Except that under the U.S. Constitution... (Score:5, Insightful)
...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.
The story has no context (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Magic 51% (Score:1, Insightful)
No, the wish of 51% outweigh the wish of 49%
If the 51% started to hinder the needs of 49% then they would probably break the law, start riots and other stuff that makes the difference between democracy and dictatorship insignificant.
I added the missing words for ya... (Score:0, Insightful)
Re:While i like the reference, utilitarian reality (Score:1, Insightful)
As opposed to letting the rest starve so the few can live? Really not seeing the evil.
Re:While i like the reference, utilitarian reality (Score:3, Insightful)
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 (Score:4, Insightful)
>>>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:The Decision (Score:4, Insightful)
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:Except that under the U.S. Constitution... (Score:5, Insightful)
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:While i like the reference, utilitarian reality (Score:5, Insightful)
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 (Score:3, Insightful)
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 (Score:4, Insightful)
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 (Score:3, Insightful)
Well, true. (Score:5, Insightful)
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 (Score:1, Insightful)
But where does your right to property come from? It can't be religion. And if it comes from "the bill of rights", then it's just a social construct like the state.
Your right to property is a useful social construct, not a moral tenet.
Re:AC troll is troll and racist (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:The Decision (Score:3, Insightful)
Signs of progress (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:While i like the reference, utilitarian reality (Score:1, Insightful)
It is more right for an individual to own property and to suffer the consequences of it's use/misuse than it is for that property to be collectively owned and for everyone to suffer those consequences collectively.
But it is right for an individual to own (and therefore control) property, yet everyone to suffer the consequences collectively?
Re:Except that under the U.S. Constitution... (Score:3, Insightful)
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...
Re:One more comment (Score:4, Insightful)
Not politics, just friendship. (Score:4, Insightful)
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:moderated utilitarianism can be fair/just (Score:3, Insightful)
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.
Re:And yet... (Score:2, Insightful)
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:While i like the reference, utilitarian reality (Score:4, Insightful)
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,.
It is an axiom of Utilitarian phylosophy (Score:4, Insightful)
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 (Score:3, Insightful)
"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... (Score:5, Insightful)
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.