Do the needs of the many outweigh those of the few?
 

While reading some of the many threads here I see a very basic commonality to some of the solutions. It's a balance to a larger argument, do the needs of the many outweigh those of the few? Or do the needs of the one outweigh the many?

Imagine during any armed conflict that some family is hiding. Baby cries because it is being restrained and in the act of trying to quiet the child, the child is smothered. Had the child cried out surely the family would have been discovered and all of them killed. But the act of smothering the child saved the rest of the family.

On ER the other week a man and his pregnant wife were in the hospital. The wife was going to die due to some terminal illness, but if they abort the baby she'll live a little longer. If they save the baby the mother will surely die, but then they can have another generation. I believe that when the man was presented a choice he said,"Save my wife." The rest of the staff wanted to save the child because it was the needs of that one that offset the needs of the others.

IMHO I find that it depends on each and every situation. There isn't a cut and dry method for determining which is more important the many or the one.

Re: Do the needs of the many outweigh those of the few?
 

This exact scenario was included in the recent Bruce Willis movie "Tears of the Sun" (though I don't think they actually killed the child).

That about says it all. If you are talking about the lives of countless other human beings being saved if one or a handful dies then clearly the many outweighs the few. A terrible decision? Absolutely, but sometimes practical decisions need to be made.

It really boils down to the definition of "need". Saving lives is a need. A majority wanted to discriminate against a minority is only a "want" which should be resisted at all costs. In that type of situation the desires of the many surely do not outweight the desires of the few.

Triage comes to mind.

The few are sacrificed so that the many can be saved.

Tough? Yes!

Cynthetiq,
good question.
I'll state the obvious for now and come back later as discussion proceeds.

In general, the needs of the many are what matters.

I do like your situationalist position, however.

Often, situationalism is preferable to absolutism.

"The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few. Or the one."

-----Mr. Spock

The needs of many will almost always prevail over the needs of the few. Whether or not it should be that way. I'm not so sure its a bad thing either. Its kinda the way we work together.

Re: Re: Do the needs of the many outweigh those of the few?
 

Don't you mean the DESIRES of the many do not outweigh the NEEDS of the few? This is true almost every time. I think the DESIRES of the many outweighing the DESIRES of the few should be taken on a case-by case basis, since desires fall secondary to needs.

-Mikey

Re: Re: Re: Do the needs of the many outweigh those of the few?
 

Good point, I think it's called Democracy when it involves desires.

The needs of the many <b>do</b> outweight the needs of the few...unless <b>you</b> are one of the few. ;)

The needs of the many always outweigh the needs of the few. I don't buy the second scenario presented. To me, it is just sacrifcing one for one.

The qualifier in this question is "needs" and they should not be confused with wants or desires.

I agree with Cynthetiq and ART that it really has to be situational. Desires can all too quickly become thought of as "needs" especially with a group. And sometimes, the survival of the few might be more important than the survival of the many.

An interesting (I think) comparison can be made. Think of rescue operations when people are lost in the wilderness or at sea. Very often, rescuers become lost, injured, or die in an attempt to save the other people. This is an example of where the needs of the few are put above the needs of the many. My question in this case is why?

While I can see the second scenario as a "needs of many vs needs of one" type scenario, I disagree. I think it's more of a "wants of the husband vs reality" scenario. Killing the baby to prolong the life of the terminally ill wife is rediculous. The husband seems to be in denial about the realitly of the situation. Then again, that would be a horrible situation to be in, and it's easy for me to cast judgement sitting here in front of my computer.

Re: Re: Re: Do the needs of the many outweigh those of the few?
 

You are absolutely correct. When I was putting together that sentence my thought was one thing and the words indicated another. We are in full agreement. Desires are secondary to needs.

as long as i come out on top im ok with it....








kidding! sacrifice on few to save many is def the way to go, its noble and just, and even if your not willing, people still think you were brave. in the case of the baby...i have no idea what the right answer is there...sounds brutal, but they could always have another kid right?

Re: Do the needs of the many outweigh those of the few?
 

You answered the question the best yourself, Cynthetiq.

I can see a person sacrificing themselves for a group as easily as I can see a group sacrificing for an individual. It is all in the situation.

(And BTW, I can't believe Hal doesn't like any Star Trek movies!!?!!)

It depends on the situation .. if a kid cries .. and is smothered .. everyone will be scarred .. the one who had to smother the kid will forever remember that ..

If you look at the military, they are classic examples of both. Many men will put their lives on the line to save one or a few of their comrades. This has been done infinite times during our history. You'll also see one or a few men sacrificing themselves for others (i.e. the classic "Leave me behind"). This is probably occurs just as much as the former.

As said before, it depends on the situation and the people.

This is slightly off topic but with respect to the military, the "leave no man behind" concept is an integral part of the military psyche. Soldiers by the nature of their job put themselves in harms way on a daily basis (more so when at war). By instilling in them the concept that should something happen to them that every resource and effort will be made to rescue/assist them regardless of cost or danger, the fears of combat can be lessened. Armies are not about individuals but about group cohesiveness and support. In fact, some military officers disagree with the latest US Army ad campaign using the "Army of One" slogan. They suggest that it is contrary to one of the basic foundations of military units.

Sometimes the need of the many rely on one person.

Hmmm I have one question here, how are we defining 'needs'? Are we using this word to refer to the 'greatest happiness principle' that is usually associated with the different forms of utilitarianism, because this does seem to be a utilitarian argument. And is so, which form of utilitarianism are we subscribing to? Act or Rule? And if it is Act utilitarianism who is determining the greatest happiness? The individual or the community? Sorry I only have questions.

Re: Do the needs of the many outweigh those of the few?
 

Just as an example, in that situation, i would have asked my wife to decide what she wanted, but if she couldnt choose, i would have probably saved the baby.


But anyway, im not really sure about this one. just think about it this way: what if you were one of the few?

I doubt anyone would argue that in principle it is obviously better to sacrifice one life for 10. In practice, however, people are selfish by nature. The amount of money the US population spends on pet food would feed all the starving nations.

Happy to let 100 people in a foreign land die rather than see your dog go hungry?

If my wife was going to die if I didn't abort the baby, I don't think there is a question. I don't believe in abortion, but there are always exeptions. I heard of a story, which I doubt was true, but it was about a father that was a train bridge operator, he had his son with him one day and he told his son never to play near the bridge. Well later along came a train and the father looked around for his son and he was up on the bridge, well the bridge had to be lowerd so the train could pass. If he lowered it, it would kill his son. He did not have enough time to get his son away. If he didn't lower the bridge everyone on the train would die. With only seconds to decide he lowered the bridge. seconds later the train goes buy oblivious as to what just happened. I thought about this story a few times since I have had two children of my own. I don't know if I could have made that same decision.