I've found myself fascinated by the concept of an afterlife so much, I wouldn't particularly mind dying just to see what happens. I just hope it's none of the boring stuff described by world religions. Then again, I am also fascinated by the idea of a "hell". Firstly I wonder if one would not just get used to an eternity of torment? Secondly, I believe Christianity describes hell as the absence of god. I wonder what they mean by this.

Sadly, kindness and atrocity seem to go hand in hand with the evolution of humanity. As we saw during WW2 acts of cruelty were committed beyond what should be acceptable not just on the side of Germany, but on the side of the allies. Dealing with the needs of the many and needs of the few I find this grim look understandable due to those horrendous acts.

Even now in the paper we find people committing things that represent a complete opposite of "screw the many I represent the few and proudly do it regardless of the consequences." It is definitely troubling that cruelty seems to be outweighing kindness in the world, but that can mostly be attributed to the media sensationalizing the bad areas instead of the good.

I believe that was the premise of the movie "Idiocracy"

Didn't Gattaca do it first with the main character having "deficient/imperfect" genes?

The needs of me and mine outweigh the needs of everyone else.

True, but religion have often, at almost all times, come with claims of being something of love and peace.

A noble approach.

Depends on the situation. I would agreed slightly, though you wont get me sticking to my guns. Too many variables and situations to make it a creed.

In answer to the original issue, I think if it's between give all to the many, and nothing to the few, then that's wrong. Give more to the many (proportionate to their amount) and do as much for the few as possible without detracting from the many. Or even better, integrate the few with the many if possible.

Wish i had some popcorn.

So do all the starving children in Africa.

Everything in the bible is right.

I have faced both sides of the equation, catering to the needs of the many as well as the those of the few.

I have put the outcome of missions in jeopardy because a team member was wounded and needed to be removed from the area first before continuing.

The needs of the many may very well be important and all that, but the overall worth of the nameless masses diminishes rapidly when I start losing team members..

That's when the needs of the few damn well come first in certain situations.


And don't even try to make me think otherwise, or I *will* climb down someone's throat and yank hard..

Spocks assertion reeks of fascism.
Why is there always this sacrafice one to save many thing I just don't see how so many people land themselves into a prediciment that harming one person not involved with their immediate plight is going to fix anything. So I guess my answer would be the individual is more important than the whole, they got themselves into that mess they can get themselves out.

Nah, too salty.

"The needs of the many outweight the needs of the few"

I agree, but I do not think this is a philosophic approach meant for the everyday life. As I have understood it it has to do with choices where it is no clear right or wrong answer.

An example might be that if it becomes war and I am put in a situation where either I or others die. If I survive let's say maybe 4 or 5 people die. In that situation I would expect my comrades to leave me behind to save as many as possible, even encourage it.

"Many" and "few" isn't always about numbers in itself. 1000 people with a terminal illness compared to say 10 healthy children in a situation where this philosophy applies I would consider the children the many since they have a more secure future and carries the generations of our people on.

That is at least my take on it, though very simply explained.

That's understandable and with philosophy it's good to have different POVs to gain a better grasp of ideas. Have to say personally without philosophy i'm not sure if morals/ethics would exist since people wouldn't delve into the deeper side of things.

I didn't read the entire thread, sorry, but I guess it would depend on what the actual "needs" are. Are there vital needs? For instance, a lot of people are in need of money around me. Should we just get it from the well-off minority? It's not a vital need, but it would be majority vs minority, wouldn't it?

Ugh, I need to stay away from philosophy, what I wrote is probably a little dumb :/

I think you may be right. However I do not believe it would be possible for humans to not evolve some sort of philosophy of one simple reason: We are self-aware and will then question our own actions, unlike creatures that have not developed self-awareness who operate on instinct.

This thread reminds me of a movie I saw the other night called http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1334260/, where humans are cloned and raised for the sole purpose of live organ donation. So the clones are viewed by society as less-than-human and thus they feel justified in raising the clones to advlthood just to take their vital organs (which eventually kills them, of course). It's their way of "curing" cancer and other fatal diseases -- sacrificing the few to save the many.

To an extent I agree. I still think that if you have to sacrifice ten people to save a thousand, you have to save a thousand.

That depends. If those ten people are close friends and family of mine, I'll kill the thousand any day.

Justify [censored], incist, child killing, genocide, and filicide. Oh, and the virgin mary was [censored] if the bible is true, because the conception was non-consensual.

Sure, I would too. It is relative. I was thinking from a perspective of war, which is the only way I could see this philosophy used...

Philosophy will exist as long as humans exist. Everyone of us encountered a philosophical problem in his/her life.

Life is never that one-sided. Edit: Even in wars.

I actually think the "evolution of morality" nearly reached its peak. I don't mean that it will stop eventually/ever (if we just consider that some societies might fall back or that always new philosophical problem rises like genetics), but the problem with moral and that stuff is that people still need to adapt or at least think about it.