The needs of the many, the needs of the few... Fascist?

[Gary Sebben]

I'm pretty sure Spock isn't a fascist, but that famous line "The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few, or the one" sure sounds like it is. If you think about how many horrible atrocities have been committed through this kind of "logic".

In fact, if it wasn't for the fact that modern democracy protects the minority from the tyranny of the majority we would still have slavery, segregation, anti-sodomy laws, and an official religion and language. The majority would have never voted to pass any of the civil rights laws we have now.

 

[Maurice]

If you apply it as ideology, but Spock is applying it as a sovereign individual deciding his own fate.

 

[Candlelight]

It's a very darwin-esque line.

 

[Maurice]

It's a very darwin-esque line.

Is it? How?

 

[iguana_tonante]

I'm pretty sure Spock isn't a fascist, but that famous line "The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few, or the one" sure sounds like it is. If you think about how many horrible atrocities have been committed through this kind of "logic".

In fact, if it wasn't for the fact that modern democracy protects the minority from the tyranny of the majority we would still have slavery, segregation, anti-sodomy laws, and an official religion and language. The majority would have never voted to pass any of the civil rights laws we have now.

Not at all. You are confusing "the needs" with "the rule".

The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few is the building block of society. When dealing with needs, you must do what it's better for the largest part of society. You must be ready to sacrifice the needs of a few to ensure the survival of many. It's hard, but it's necessary.

On the other hand, this has nothing to do with the tyranny of the majority and civil rights. The existence of minorities rights does not impede the needs of the majority: the heterosexual majority don't need to discriminate the homosexual minority; the white majority don't need to oppress the black minority. So the point in moot.

 

[JohanKoch]

I'm pretty sure Spock isn't a fascist, but that famous line "The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few, or the one" sure sounds like it is. If you think about how many horrible atrocities have been committed through this kind of "logic".

I think you are mistaking "fascist" and "communist". The "needs of the many..." quote sounds like it could have came from good ol' Marx himself.

Fascists aren't necessarily interested in the needs of the many (though they could be). They are interested in the needs of those in power, which could actually be a minority.

As for Spock, I don't think he is a communist, though the Federation as a whole has undeniably strong socialist elements to it...

 

[Vulcan Princess]

I think you are mistaking "fascist" and "communist". The "needs of the many..." quote sounds like it could have came from good ol' Marx himself.

Often the extreme ends of the political spectrum bend around on themselves. The far left and the far right tend to sound remarkably similar.

Spock's "needs of the many" dictum comes straight out of utilitarian philosophy, as pioneered by Bentham and Mills. The basic tenet of utilitarianism is that the ethically correct action is the one that brings the greatest net happiness to society (or its members), even if it entails great suffering to a small group. (i.e. as long as society as a whole is increased by 100 units of happiness as a result, it's proper to inflict 99 units of unhappiness on one member of society.)

 

[Sovay]

^ Yup, it's utilitarian. The only way it's related to any political doctrine is in those cases where those doctrines have also adopted a utilitarian philosophy. I always thought it was neat that Spock represented this sort of utilitarianism while McCoy and Kirk seem to embody this more deontological/humanism approach.

 

[JustKate]

What other decent alternative is there, really? Should the needs of the few outweigh the needs of the many?

We are, as Iguana pointed out, talking about needs - not rights. The many need to be fed, but they don't need to be the only ones allowed to vote.

 

[Doug Otte]

It's a very darwin-esque line.

Is it? How?

I was gonna ask the same question. Did Darwin ever write anything along those lines?

Doug

 

[Gary Sebben]

What other decent alternative is there, really? Should the needs of the few outweigh the needs of the many?

We are, as Iguana pointed out, talking about needs - not rights. The many need to be fed, but they don't need to be the only ones allowed to vote.

The needs and the rights are pretty much the same thing. Example: If you take Spock's line and apply it to slavery you'll find that the economic gains awarded to the vast majority of Americans from free labor far outweigh the freedoms of a minority of slaves. That's extremely utilitarian.

How about a religious issue? The needs of Christian heterosexuals to maintain a traditional definition of marriage and support their version of moralism would be above a small group of homosexual's rights to have legal recognition of their own unions. That's what prop 8 was all about. I could go on and on.

 

[JustKate]

What other decent alternative is there, really? Should the needs of the few outweigh the needs of the many?

We are, as Iguana pointed out, talking about needs - not rights. The many need to be fed, but they don't need to be the only ones allowed to vote.

The needs and the rights are pretty much the same thing. Example: If you take Spock's line and apply it to slavery you'll find that the economic gains awarded to the vast majority of Americans from free labor far outweigh the freedoms of a minority of slaves. That's extremely utilitarian.

No, I disagree. They can be "pretty much the same thing," but they most certainly aren't always.

And besides, in the case of slavery in the American South before the Civil War, the slaves were the many, at least in some Southern states. In states particularly dependent on slavery, such as Alabama and Mississippi, the slave population was greater than the free population, if you can imagine, which I find kind of difficult to do. It's apparently true, though. And then there were other states where slaves were indeed in the minority...but they were a really BIG minority. In those states in which slaves weren't the majority or weren't a very large "minority," slavery wasn't often not of great economic importance. It sometimes was, but it wasn't always.

And I'd still like to know what's a better alternative, if "the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few" is so bad.

 

[Rush Limborg]

It would be most fascinating to see the full context of Surak's famous line. Perhaps he delved deeper into the meaning and applications of "The Needs Of The Many...", so as to clear up such confusion.

After all...fascism is illogical.

 

[Gary Sebben]

And I'd still like to know what's a better alternative, if "the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few" is so bad.

I don't know what you mean by alternative. The needs of the many may be an altruistic personal choice, and thats fine. But forcing the needs of the many over the needs of the few is never good. The alternative, I guess, would be our judicial system that interprets our laws and ensures that they stand above the prejudices of the day. I would guess the opposite of "the needs of the many..." would be "The right to swing my fist ends at the bridge of your nose". Its a more vulgar saying, but I like it.

 

[JustKate]

"Forcing the needs of the many over the needs of the few is never good"? Really? Never?

Honestly, Gary, I think you're getting hung up on this idea of "the many." Yes, that phrase can have negative implications, but surely you can see that it can have positive implications, too. After all, what is an election, that backbone of democracy, but finding out which candidate has the support of "the many"? What was the end of apartheid in South Africa but the needs and rights of "the many" finally getting recognized instead of only the needs and rights of "the few"?

And I also think, though I could of course be misinterpreting you, that you are assuming that "the many" is always a monolithic majority. But it doesn't have to be. I mean, sometimes "the many" is one big ol' group A. But sometimes "the many" is lots of different groups - B, C, D and E - joined together. For example, in South Africa, apartheid didn't just affect blacks. It also affected those known as "coloured," that is, those of a variety of mixed races, and the status of these two main groups wasn't exactly the same. Defeating apartheid required the non-white groups to join together to become "the many."

As for what I mean by an "alternative" - I mean just that. What workable alternative is there to "majority rules," which is to me another way of stating the Spock line that you mention? You can and must have protections in place to protect the rights of those who aren't in the majority, but I honestly and truly cannot imagine what alternative there is to "majority rules," aside from "minority rules." Really.

 

[Candlelight]

It's a very darwin-esque line.

Is it? How?

It's not.

This is what you get when you have two browsers open with two seperate threads in your face...

 

[Data Holmes]

Wasn't this countered with the point that it was about choice?

Spock chose to sacrifice the needs of the one for the needs of the many. The crew sacrificed the needs of the many for the one. In the end it's about choice.

 

[Nardpuncher]

They need to establish what the many's needs are and the few's needs are and go from there.
Don't just go by numbers...as sci- fi great Robert A Heinlein said when wondering how many citizens of your nation would need to be taken hostage/killed by another nation before you declared war. Since there's no clear line or number...he said we just don't decide it that way because: "Men aren't potatoes."

 

[plynch]

Spock's utilitarianism might get played out in a true democracy. The many (majority) would continually vote in ways that benefited them. Our republic involves many perverting interest groups and powerful individuals, so it doesn't work out that way.

Fascism does posit that the people or nation as a totality is more important than the needs or "rights" of any individual.

Western, liberal democracies Locke-ed in on a system of belief where it is morally wrong to impede certain sacrosanct rights of individuals, even if it benefits everyone else. In a weird, hypothetical situation, it would be wrong for any level of government (elected by the many) to impair my freedom of speech or religion, even if it meant some genie would grant to all 300 million other Americans life eternal, free poptarts or any benefit you can think of. There (in our tradition, anyway) the needs of the many would not outweigh the rights of the one.

The idea of these sacrosanct rights of individuals is of course a minority opinion, if one were to survey every human ever alive. Not that that makes it right or wrong.

 

[Rush Limborg]

^I, of course, support the concept of "individual rights" wholeheartedly.

And--if "Space Seed" is any indication, so does Spock.