Do the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few?
Scroll to see replies
Depends on which side has a better line of bull****.
Original post by I am not finite
This doesn't seem like the same thing to me... quite clearly if you're asked to pick between 5 or 2 children you would pick 5 based on quantity alone (at least if you're sane), no one is saying it is an easy decision. In your situation 'you may keep one of your children' seems like a strawman because it's not expressed in quantity, if you did you would see it is 1 vs 0, the 'children' part is irrelevant.
The example was intended to demonstrate the idea that utilitarianism promotes picking certain lives above others.
You say that 'if you're sane' you will pick the majority, but that is a huge blanket statement. Perhaps those 2 children are yours but the other 5 are strangers. Who are you going to pick then? Even if you stand by your argument, he reality is likely that if you were in the situation you would pick your children. Human nature is naturally emotional.
But for argument's sake, why do you assume that only a sane person would pick the majority? Is there something inherently more valuable about those 5 children? Taking another approach, perhaps if you saved the 5 children they would be mentally scarred from watching he other 2 children die. The majority here are suffering. Whereas if you picked the 2 children, the majority (those 5 children) would have escaped the torment of mental scarring, and so - to put things bluntly - you could argue that the majority are being put out of their misery which is what a utilitarian would probably want. Utilitarianism is far too subjective.
But what happens if the many want to lynch the few?
Depends on which side of that seesaw my own needs lie.
In other words:
The desires of the individual outweigh all other concerns (for said individual)
If we're talking from a governmental perspective, I'd say it depends on those "needs":
A hospital management team is allocating funds for treatment. There are considerably more patients with mundane, relatively mild illnesses than there are patients who rely on treatment to survive. According to the notion of "majority>minority", the few could be consigned to death so that the many may be relieved of mild discomfort.
I wouldn't consider this justifiable.
In other words:
The desires of the individual outweigh all other concerns (for said individual)
If we're talking from a governmental perspective, I'd say it depends on those "needs":
A hospital management team is allocating funds for treatment. There are considerably more patients with mundane, relatively mild illnesses than there are patients who rely on treatment to survive. According to the notion of "majority>minority", the few could be consigned to death so that the many may be relieved of mild discomfort.
I wouldn't consider this justifiable.
Original post by Bridget Jones
But, tbh, I think that in today's society, it seems to be the other way round: the needs of the rich and powerful few seem to outweigh the needs of the majority of working class people.
According to who?
Original post by BitWindy
According to who?
According to me, see the use of "I think"
Original post by Bridget Jones
According to me, see the use of "I think"
Well, how did you arrive to that conclusion?
I don't think you mean that YOU decide who matters more, do you?
Original post by BitWindy
Well, how did you arrive to that conclusion?
I don't think you mean that YOU decide who matters more, do you?
I don't think you mean that YOU decide who matters more, do you?
Through personal experience of the world, through reading papers everyday, through having to suffer at the hand of the Conservative government and Michael Gove.
I didn't give an opinion as to who matters more. I simply said that I thought that in today's society the needs of the many do not outweigh the needs of the few.
Are you possibly trying to start a debate?
Original post by Monkey.Man
not to the point that the many should steal from the few to get those needs; their needs may be "more considerable" than the few, but so what? that doesn't mean that the few are basically the theoretical slaves to the many
Ah yes, because you're the one who loves the many being slaves to the few
Posted from TSR Mobile
Original post by Bridget Jones
Through personal experience of the world, through reading papers everyday, through having to suffer at the hand of the Conservative government and Michael Gove.
I didn't give an opinion as to who matters more. I simply said that I thought that in today's society the needs of the many do not outweigh the needs of the few.
Are you possibly trying to start a debate?
I didn't give an opinion as to who matters more. I simply said that I thought that in today's society the needs of the many do not outweigh the needs of the few.
Are you possibly trying to start a debate?
Well, in my book your lack of reasoning makes it a good as opinion. It certainly hasn't been established as fact.
That remark about the Conservatives could spell the beginnings of some justification, mind you.
Original post by BitWindy
Well, in my book your lack of reasoning makes it a good as opinion. It certainly hasn't been established as fact.
That remark about the Conservatives could spell the beginnings of some justification, mind you.
That remark about the Conservatives could spell the beginnings of some justification, mind you.
Yes, but I'm not establishing it as a fact, it's my opinion.
Good to hear, thank you.
Original post by Abstraction
when are you going to realise that one person's problems aren't dependent upon the success of someone else? if I fall over and break my leg and I don't have enough money to afford medical care (let's say we don't have an NHS), does the fact that someone else has enough money for the treatment mean that they are enslaving me simply for having that money in their pocket that they themselves worked for or received with consent?
Original post by Monkey.Man
when are you going to realise that one person's problems aren't dependent upon the success of someone else? if I fall over and break my leg and I don't have enough money to afford medical care (let's say we don't have an NHS), does the fact that someone else has enough money for the treatment mean that they are enslaving me simply for having that money in their pocket that they themselves worked for or received with consent?
No it doesn't, and I meant slavery in reference to what your beloved free market does all over the world.
Staying on topic now, those with more than enough and who are WITHIN REACH should try to fund fixing your leg - that increases happiness at virtually no cost to society. It is extremely unreasonable for a very rich person to get unhappy at that. The thing with your libertarian religion is that it seems alien to the concept of externalities. You simply don't acknowledge that society is composed of interdependent beings whose actions affect one another rather than being a set of independent and voluntary exchanges.
Posted from TSR Mobile
Original post by Abstraction
No it doesn't, and I meant slavery in reference to what your beloved free market does all over the world.
Staying on topic now, those with more than enough and who are WITHIN REACH should try to fund fixing your leg - that increases happiness at virtually no cost to society. It is extremely unreasonable for a very rich person to get unhappy at that. The thing with your libertarian religion is that it seems alien to the concept of externalities. You simply don't acknowledge that society is composed of interdependent beings whose actions affect one another rather than being a set of independent and voluntary exchanges.
Posted from TSR Mobile
Staying on topic now, those with more than enough and who are WITHIN REACH should try to fund fixing your leg - that increases happiness at virtually no cost to society. It is extremely unreasonable for a very rich person to get unhappy at that. The thing with your libertarian religion is that it seems alien to the concept of externalities. You simply don't acknowledge that society is composed of interdependent beings whose actions affect one another rather than being a set of independent and voluntary exchanges.
Posted from TSR Mobile
yes, you're saying what the moral thing would be, but the role of government isn't to enforce or police morality. if I am not free to "sin", I am simply a subject to someone else's life. shouldn't I be an agent to myself and not somebody else if I so wish? strictly speaking, the breaking of the other person's leg really isn't based on my acts, and in legal logic, convictions/damage costs are based on liability, and you can't find liability in a disconnected act or an omission unless it is something like a duty to care for one's children, but very little else. other adults aren't children, they're independent, or should be deemed independent. human beings should be self-confident enough to take care of themselves, not to be so weak and pitiful that they need help from others. that is patronising to the entire adult human species.
Original post by Bridget Jones
Yes, but I'm not establishing it as a fact, it's my opinion.
Good to hear, thank you.
Good to hear, thank you.
Sorry, I seem to have misread your post.
Where you said "I didn't give an opinion as to who matters more", I just read the "I didn't give an opinion".
Apologies.
Still, it'd be nice if you at least tried to back it up.
Original post by Monkey.Man
yes, you're saying what the moral thing would be, but the role of government isn't to enforce or police morality. if I am not free to "sin", I am simply a subject to someone else's life. shouldn't I be an agent to myself and not somebody else if I so wish? strictly speaking, the breaking of the other person's leg really isn't based on my acts, and in legal logic, convictions/damage costs are based on liability, and you can't find liability in a disconnected act or an omission unless it is something like a duty to care for one's children, but very little else. other adults aren't children, they're independent, or should be deemed independent. human beings should be self-confident enough to take care of themselves, not to be so weak and pitiful that they need help from others. that is patronising to the entire adult human species.
Its weak and pitiful to want help? You sound like a social darwinist. I am not saying people should live life being dependent on others, yes self-ownership and self-governance are very important but in a world of interdependence, some lose out through no fault of their own. It is therefore society's job to use its surpluses to minimise suffering. Individuals who own those surpluses should be made to pay.
Its weird lol, libertarianism is in a way quite contradictory. It loves the free market but focuses exclusively on the agency of individuals, when in fact the free market itself was established on utilitarian grounds - optimising the distribution of resources to preferences and wants. This is very obviously against the idea of an individual being able to hoard excess while there are people.around with needs to be satisfied. Unfortunately, the foolish assumption is that if you want it enough, you can pay for it. Collectively, we should resolve this.
You're a classic example of those who stick their heads in the Wealth of Nations while absolutely ignoring Smith's other major work - the Theory of Moral Sentiments. The free market has a moral foundation, and that's what you need to learn. Thanks for the debate though, you do have some valid points.
Posted from TSR Mobile
Original post by Abstraction
Its weak and pitiful to want help? You sound like a social darwinist. I am not saying people should live life being dependent on others, yes self-ownership and self-governance are very important but in a world of interdependence, some lose out through no fault of their own. It is therefore society's job to use its surpluses to minimise suffering. Individuals who own those surpluses should be made to pay.
Its weird lol, libertarianism is in a way quite contradictory. It loves the free market but focuses exclusively on the agency of individuals, when in fact the free market itself was established on utilitarian grounds - optimising the distribution of resources to preferences and wants. This is very obviously against the idea of an individual being able to hoard excess while there are people.around with needs to be satisfied. Unfortunately, the foolish assumption is that if you want it enough, you can pay for it. Collectively, we should resolve this.
You're a classic example of those who stick their heads in the Wealth of Nations while absolutely ignoring Smith's other major work - the Theory of Moral Sentiments. The free market has a moral foundation, and that's what you need to learn. Thanks for the debate though, you do have some valid points.
Posted from TSR Mobile
Its weird lol, libertarianism is in a way quite contradictory. It loves the free market but focuses exclusively on the agency of individuals, when in fact the free market itself was established on utilitarian grounds - optimising the distribution of resources to preferences and wants. This is very obviously against the idea of an individual being able to hoard excess while there are people.around with needs to be satisfied. Unfortunately, the foolish assumption is that if you want it enough, you can pay for it. Collectively, we should resolve this.
You're a classic example of those who stick their heads in the Wealth of Nations while absolutely ignoring Smith's other major work - the Theory of Moral Sentiments. The free market has a moral foundation, and that's what you need to learn. Thanks for the debate though, you do have some valid points.
Posted from TSR Mobile
Couldn't help notice an abundance of "should" in your post without any justification, save an appeal to what you allege as the foundations of the free market.
Original post by Abstraction
social darwinism is a broad school - it can be bent to mean a lot of different things. I'm simply a individualist social darwinist because I believe in the principle of survival of the fittest, individual accountability, etc, although it's not necessarily fair, it's simply the lesser of two evils (coercion being the worser).
I am not saying people should live life being dependent on others, yes self-ownership and self-governance are very important but in a world of interdependence, some lose out through no fault of their own. It is therefore society's job to use its surpluses to minimise suffering. Individuals who own those surpluses should be made to pay.
I never said that things are literally based on their own fault - some people in the world are born to terrible poverty, but again, in terms of strict liability, that isn't somebody else's fault either simply because they are choosing to look out for themselves and not others. it is not society's job to do anything - society is a non-concept. society is a term that equates all individuals as a group - we aren't a group, we act differently, we think differently. we have our own private existences. suffering if it is not based on the acts of others is entirely blameless and therefore you cannot expect blameless people to clear up someone else's mess just because they didn't choose that suffering. if they want to stop suffering that's their responsibility; we don't have a responsibility to serve the interests of others; we have moral concerns, but those moral concerns are private and non-public.
Its weird lol, libertarianism is in a way quite contradictory. It loves the free market but focuses exclusively on the agency of individuals, when in fact the free market itself was established on utilitarian grounds - optimising the distribution of resources to preferences and wants. This is very obviously against the idea of an individual being able to hoard excess while there are people.around with needs to be satisfied. Unfortunately, the foolish assumption is that if you want it enough, you can pay for it. Collectively, we should resolve this.
that depends what kind of libertarian you consider someone to be - there are people out there like rand who were principle-based libertarians, but then you had economists like friedman who were consequentially libertarian (e.g. the failure of socialism and the success of privacy), I recognise the principle and consequentialist aspects of libertarianism. and if there are people who want happiness, they are perfectly free to try and get happiness, but the government isn't a happiness-generator, the government is here to protect individuals against the harm of other individuals. we don't have a private sphere of protection because we are sceptical of how people would potentially abuse it to establish harmful projects against others based on plutocracy. government thus is here to stop that from happening - that's considering positive acts of harm, not omissions that might privately be considered immoral, but we all have the right to be free, and in order to be free, we must have the choice of morality and immorality (but in order to be free we do not have the choice to harm others).
You're a classic example of those who stick their heads in the Wealth of Nations while absolutely ignoring Smith's other major work - the Theory of Moral Sentiments. The free market has a moral foundation, and that's what you need to learn. Thanks for the debate though, you do have some valid points.
I know what adam smith said - he said that the free market would lead to people acting morally (although I can't remember his exact argument; it's been a long time since I've read anything about him), but I am not using what adam smith said because I reject the suggestion that the free market is for the benefit of the community - the free market is here for the benefit of individuals who strive. and you have valid points as well, we obviously just have fundamentally different approaches that aren't based on objective truth or falsehood, just a difference of perspective that is relative to opinion.
Quick Reply
Related discussions
- Is there any point going to uni if you will end up doing a foundation year?
- Anyone else feel it's just simpler to live alone?
- A-level Subjects Help
- Are romantic relationships too difficult?
- HELP Do elements with higher energy levels have a lower ionisation energy?
- Living in Nottingham halls while studying graduate medicine A101 in derby campus
- F1 EPQ
- antidepressents
- Whats the difference between social exchange theory and equity theory AQA Psychology?
- one day exclusion in year 10 please help im going crazy
- Need some help deciding between Lancaster and Kent for which I should study comp sci
- Please help me how do i learn most of chemistry for alevel in less than two weeks
- UCAS 47 lines Personal Statement
- Moving out 3rd year
- Working 50 hours and wondering if its worth it?
- What uni life like
- My bff told me she never loved me!
- Help on EPQ title please!
- Home or away?
- Freshers on TSR: Getting Ready for University - Let's Share Top Tips!
Latest
Trending
Last reply 1 day ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 1 day ago
Is it true that British unis are prejudiced towards degrees from Scottish unis?Last reply 1 day ago
If the Russell Group was now a fair representation of what it still claims to beLast reply 2 weeks ago
TSR Goes Green: How important will the environment be in this year's election?Last reply 2 weeks ago
Research Rankings of universities if you add Research Quality & Intensity percentagesLast reply 1 month ago
Is University of Birmingham prestigious and respected well enough in UK ?Trending
Last reply 1 day ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 1 day ago
Is it true that British unis are prejudiced towards degrees from Scottish unis?Last reply 1 day ago
If the Russell Group was now a fair representation of what it still claims to beLast reply 2 weeks ago
TSR Goes Green: How important will the environment be in this year's election?Last reply 2 weeks ago
Research Rankings of universities if you add Research Quality & Intensity percentagesLast reply 1 month ago
Is University of Birmingham prestigious and respected well enough in UK ?
