Spock says, “The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few, or the one.” Is he right?
You would need to explain specifically which “common good” you are talking about. The phrase is extremely vague and general and can mean almost anything.
Sometimes the common good outweighs the rights of the individual. But there many unscrupulous people who will insist that whatever they happen to want is a “common good” which justifies running roughshod over all opposition. The flip side is that many unscrupulous people will insist that whatever they happen to want is a “right,” which is supposed to end all discussion.
That sounds all find and dandy until your little slip of paper is the one with the little black dot.
Marc
Self interest comes before the common good. Although the needs of many does outweigh the needs of one, that one won’t see it that way.
Despite what ambitions we might have to act in the behest of the, “common good,” our brains are almost completely unable to allow us to act truly on behalf of the common good. Even when we try to be fair, we rationalize in favor of our own self-interests.
It’s better to design a system where people working in their own self-interests generally works to further the rest of society as well. I would argue that’s generally true in capitalism. Exceptions apply.
There is no case I can think of in which the “needs” of the many conflict with the needs of an individual. You might be able to invent a crazy hypothetical in which you have to choose between one person dying, or thousands of people dying though.
I think what people mean when they say “the common good” is really “the common benefit”. We have decided that sometimes the common benefit is more important, like the government’s power of eminent domain.
In practice, it’s never as crystal clear as you seem to want to make it. Sometimes the common good should be valued higher than individual rights or self interest, and sometimes it shouldn’t.
And sometimes protecting self-interest for all IS the common good. Human/civil rights are really about self-interest (I don’t want to be tortured; I want to be able to have a say in my govt.; etc.), but protecting them for all people benefits society as a whole.
Well, *Kirk *says that sometimes the needs of the one outweigh the needs of the many. 
And I agree with both. I can think of circumstances where the needs of the one (guy with a house in the middle of a proposed bypass) are outweighed by the needs of the many (the people who want to use the bypass) and I can also think of circumstances where the needs of the one or the few (people drinking from wells) outweigh the needs of the many (the employees, customers, stockholders and owners of a large corporation dumping hazardous waste in the groundwater).
Like most pithy aphorisms, it’s sometimes true and sometimes not.
My favorite aphorism captures that, I think: Everything in moderation - including moderation!
Well, Adam Smith believed that people acting in enlightened self-interest would better the common good.
The answer is, as most here seem to be saying: It depends. Myself, I’m more likely to come down on the needs of the individual trump the needs of the ‘common good’…but only sometimes. Consider war, for instance. In a war sometimes the needs of the ‘common good’ must be higher than the needs of the individual who is being asked to potentially sacrifice his or her life FOR that society. I suppose, distasteful as it is for me to say, that taxes also fall into this category…though in many cases it’s in an individuals best interest to pay into a common pool to enjoy things like our road infrastructure and the protection of that military.
-XT
Is this why Socialism consistently fails? Does this make Capitalism superior to most other systems?
I “need” to get someplace 50 miles away within the next 30 min. Can I drive 100 MPH on a public highway in order to accomplish that?
I “need” to protect myself from a possible intruder (or mugger). Can I keep a loaded gun handy for that purpose?
I “need” to buy essentials for my family. Can I use my tax money for that instead of donating it to the government?
I “need” to conveniently and cheaply dispose of the oil from my car after my last oil change. Can I pour it into a hole in my backyard?
I “need” to listen to my stereo at maximum volume…you get the idea. I can think of lots more!
First of all, socialism doesn’t constantly fail. Parts of Western Europe are pretty socialist and they do ok. Parts of our own society are also socialist in nature (ie schools, police and roads). You are thinking of communism.
Think of it as a continuous scale with pure collectivism/communism on one end and laissez faire free market capitalism on the other. Neither system is ideal. Communism takes away all individual incentives for hard work and inginuity. Pure capitalism maximizes production, however it doesn not guarantee that everyone’s wants and needs are met. For example, you wouldn’t want the police or fire department to be market based.
Generally some combination of the two systems is best. For example, public schools and government run police departments provide a basic level of service. For those who want additional services, there are private schools and security firms for those willing to pay.
The question is, who determines?
When Spock does, he’s determining that the needs of the many outweigh his needs. Not someone else’s.
In all fairness, he was dead either way.
Yes, but he went in that chamber under his own altruistic ideals. He, himself, didn’t have to go in there, they could have drawn straws, in all fairness.
The sacrifice he made was his dying sentiment. The idea is really about when to self-sacrifice, not about sacrificing someone else in your stead. But then they made ST III, Search for Spock, and pissed all over it.
I think when things get sticky is when the individual is EXPECTED to sacrifice himself for society. When it’s freely given it’s moving…when it’s expected it sets my teeth on edge. And to many people think it’s a given that the individual should sacrifice him or herself for the ‘greater good’.
-XT
IIRC, didn’t it have to be Spock since the radiation or whatever would have killed a human before he could effect the repairs? Anyhow, it doesn’t diminish Spock’s courage (or logic) as many, if not most people would probably rather someone else be the one to sacrifice themselves for the good of the ship.
Of course, that’s probably why IRL most ships, whether they are spaceships or the terrestrial variety, don’t put emergency valves, failsafe switches, abort buttons and the like in chambers that will fill up with radiation, water, antimater positrons or anything else that will save the ship but kill the person who activates them. I remember one dumb scifi film (similar plot to Sunshine but came out about a decade before) where to start the rocket engines to save the ship, some chump had to throw the emergency start switch…located inside the main rocket engine combustion chamber. Kind of like in a submarine movie, the emergency ballast release will always be on the side of the bulkhead hatch that is filling with water which of course leads to the “GO!! I NEED TO DO THIS!!” conversation.
With a pause for noting the emphasis on “needs”, not “wants”, I’d say yes, he is.
Of course, I don’t agree that capitalism is the greatest benefit to mankind, so I’m decidedly on the left end of the spectrum anyway.
Yet, if my understanding of history is correct—and it may not be, so I welcome correction from experts—we live in one of the most individualistic societies in history. Compared to us, most people throughout history have been more inclined to identify with a larger group of people, to think of themselves as parts of a whole: their nation, their tribe, their family, their people. They grew up with the idea that a major part of virtue is to do one’s civic duty.