In the past year, as a dedicated Trekkie, one gift I much enjoyed was a collection of all the Star Trek movies. The movies, as was the television series, are not just pure entertainment but generally contain thought provoking concepts and issues that make us think. At least some of us.
The character Spock, a Vulcan, dedicated to the concept of Kohlinar which eradicates all emotion and self awareness with pure reason, logic, intellect, held to the concept of 'the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the one'. In Star Trek II, he sacrifices himself to deadly radiation poisoning to repair the warp drive on the space ship so that Captain Kirk and the rest of the crew could escape an equally deadly situation.
For Spock, the needs of the many outweighed the needs of the one.
Then, with some movie engineering, the writers managed to find a way to revive Spock which became known to the crew. Defying orders from Starfleet Command, Kirk and crew broke more than a dozen rules and regulations sufficient to destroy their respective careers when they set out on a mission to find and rescue Spock. Which they did.
For the crew of the Enterprise, the needs of the one outweighed the needs of the many.
That dichotomy exists throughout the human condition.
In the story of Moses, a prince of Egypt and heir to the Pharoah's throne sacrificed it all to lead the Israelites out of captivity in Egypt. The needs of the many outweighed the needs of the one.
In the parable, the shepherd leaves his flock unprotected to go and find the sheep that is lost. The needs of the one outweighed the needs of the many.
Fast forward to modern times.
Do the needs of the relatively few handicapped for prime parking spaces outweigh the needs for the able bodied to have one of those parking places?
Does the need of the immigrant student to learn English justify taking resources from the many to provide him with that education?
Does the need of the transgendered woman justify taking the right of privacy and safety from the many in the public restroom?
Does the need for the many to have a public facility or service justify taking property or property rights from the one?
Does the need for many Atheists and agnostics to have a religion free environment justify taking away somebody's religious relic or art work that he/she enjoys?
I'll admit a great deal of personal emotional/rational conflict in this area as to when to choose the common good over protection of the individual unalienable rights that this country was founded on.
Does anybody have a good formula to use to determine that?
The character Spock, a Vulcan, dedicated to the concept of Kohlinar which eradicates all emotion and self awareness with pure reason, logic, intellect, held to the concept of 'the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the one'. In Star Trek II, he sacrifices himself to deadly radiation poisoning to repair the warp drive on the space ship so that Captain Kirk and the rest of the crew could escape an equally deadly situation.
For Spock, the needs of the many outweighed the needs of the one.
Then, with some movie engineering, the writers managed to find a way to revive Spock which became known to the crew. Defying orders from Starfleet Command, Kirk and crew broke more than a dozen rules and regulations sufficient to destroy their respective careers when they set out on a mission to find and rescue Spock. Which they did.
For the crew of the Enterprise, the needs of the one outweighed the needs of the many.
That dichotomy exists throughout the human condition.
In the story of Moses, a prince of Egypt and heir to the Pharoah's throne sacrificed it all to lead the Israelites out of captivity in Egypt. The needs of the many outweighed the needs of the one.
In the parable, the shepherd leaves his flock unprotected to go and find the sheep that is lost. The needs of the one outweighed the needs of the many.
Fast forward to modern times.
Do the needs of the relatively few handicapped for prime parking spaces outweigh the needs for the able bodied to have one of those parking places?
Does the need of the immigrant student to learn English justify taking resources from the many to provide him with that education?
Does the need of the transgendered woman justify taking the right of privacy and safety from the many in the public restroom?
Does the need for the many to have a public facility or service justify taking property or property rights from the one?
Does the need for many Atheists and agnostics to have a religion free environment justify taking away somebody's religious relic or art work that he/she enjoys?
I'll admit a great deal of personal emotional/rational conflict in this area as to when to choose the common good over protection of the individual unalienable rights that this country was founded on.
Does anybody have a good formula to use to determine that?
Last edited: