I like the “needs of all” messaging, it combats polarization. Ultimately we are all human and should have basic rights: food, housing, healthcare, expression
Comment on Do the needs of the many outweigh the whims of the few?
x4740N@lemmy.world 2 days ago
It’s a grey area that requires many diverse opinions and backgrounds to discuss
Applied from a benevolent point of view it should always be a last resort if you’ve exhausted all your options to provide the needs of all
Star trek for example has shown it in its benevolent form where you see Spock saving the many over his own needs ultimately sacrificing himself
But it can lead into dangerous territory such as eugenics or discrimination when used in a malevolent or even unintentionally in a benevolent way like eugenics or discrimination for example
So the argument is well meaning but it can also lead to dangerous territory, its a double edged sword
dropped_packet@lemmy.zip 2 days ago
Havatra@lemmy.zip 2 days ago
I think there are two more questions that need to be answered first, before being able to tell whether we should prioritize the many.
First question is what is the ultimate goal behind prioritizng the many? Happiness of the population? Infinite growth? To conquer the stars? Depending on what the goal is, there are occasions where minorities should be the focus if we want to approach the goal the fastest.
Example is moon landing: The amount of resources that was spent on “simply” building a rocket, space suits & equipment, and send a couple of humans over there was prioritizing the few. Despite a lot of people watching with curious eyes, it did not benefit the many’s needs much. There were several goals here: Being before the USSR, explore the unknown, satisfying shareholders, and more. By the many working hard to send the few, we approached all these goals faster than if we would allocate some of these resources towards the many’s needs, like health (prime days of smoking cigarettes).
The second question is what timeframe are we talking? Is it long-term or short-term success we’re aiming for? Because in many cases, if we want long-term success fast, the many are those who should “suffer”.
Example is where the long-term goal is the glorious evolution of mankind: In one way, we downprioritize the few who are those born with defects, either by culling them or by ensuring they do not make offspring. In another way, we downprioritize the many who are on- or below-average intelligence/capabilities. But then we get the question of how we quantify the few/many; where do we draw the line? And as we get more smart/capable humans, the average constantly shifts - what is the concrete goal?
Suffice to say that this is written without emotion, as that makes this discussion the soup it really is: Ethics, benevolence, discrimination, etc., as you mentioned.