Or the one?
I would be curious what Lemmings think the results of a survey would be, if that question were asked in a non-political setting?
Judging by how many people wear clothes made by children in sweatshops, I’d say the wants of the many seem to outweigh the needs of the few.
Depends on who the “few” are. Marginalized folks trying to survive? Or the rich and powerful sucking a country dry?
If they are needs, then none can be compromised.
A person should always aim for harm reduction. If an unwinnable situation were to arise, harm reduction statistically would favor the many for most scenarios. From a causal perspective, sad as it is to say, the casualties were not going to live past the situation; from this cold but pragmatic perspective, even something as invaluable as a person’s life is unfortunately not “needed” per se.
The needs of the many cannot outweigh the human rights of the few.
And yet, the wants of the many often do.
Other way around: the wants of the few [rich assholes] outweighs the needs of the many, because humans are dumb selfish animals that worship capitalism.
No. Unfortunately, they don’t. But, they SHOULD!
The answer is yes, with the caveat that the many are not particularly good at figuring out what they need and that they often choose a sub-optimal solution to help a few people that there is some sort of emotional attachment to.
They’re also really bad at understanding their biases in this scenario. They will often say “no” verbally but then make daily decisions that contradict that.
If three people all have different terminal medical conditions, which are currently making their state of life excruciating, and will kill them shortly, and there is one healthy person who can be killed and their organs repurposed to restore quality of life and stop the medical condition to all of those people then utilitarianism says it is moral to do that.
Any answer saying that it is wrong to do that shows there must be a factor beyond need in the determination.
There is a need by the population to be protected against being directly killed to help others.
That question becomes a lot murkier when it isn’t a direct killing, such as the American healthcare system where poor people are just left to die so that doctors can be more quickly available to handle patients who can afford care. That happens daily, and plenty of people are totally okay with it.
It’s only logical
Then WHY THE FUCK AREN’T WE ACTING LIKE IT!!!
Sir, I apologize for my inappropriate display of emotion. But seriously, I think almost everyone would agree with this statement if asked in a vacuum.
It’s an easy choice when the few or the one does not refer to oneself. However, when a person is asked to put the needs of everyone else above their own individual needs, it becomes a much more difficult conversation for any person to have.
What are you? A communist?
Stat Trek has always had Socialist Utopia vibes. And the new stuff on Paramount+ is undeniably woke…
If asked in a vacuum, there’d be no audible answer.
Unless non-verbal communication was used and the participants could hold their breath long enough.
Listen here, you little shit.
JK, you are correct. I prefer punishingly steep progressive taxation over asphyxiation as a solution.
