Quote:
Originally Posted by hedbonker
[You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]
That would be a paraphrase of Aristotle, in his "The Aim of Man":
"Even supposing the chief good to be eventually the aim for the individual as for the state, that of the state is evidently of greater and more fundamental importance both to attain and to preserve. The securing of one individual's good is cause for rejoicing, but to secure the good of a nation or of a city-state is nobler and more divine."
Which is the earliest known reference to the precept of the needs of the individual being less than the needs of the masses. Typically attributed to Star Trek's Mr. Spock: "Logic dictates that the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few".
So, on an originality scale, you get a 0.
|
Which, of course, doesn't fit with most modern discussion. Slavery is a prime example. The need for a cheap labor pool negatively effecting a few does not give the many the right to place those into slavery. The need of five people for a kidney, a heart, a liver, a lung and a face does not allow those five to kill a universal donor and harvest that person's organs.
The American system has been generally successful at protecting the populace from the majority view, but has failed as well. Are the referendums that remove the right of gays to marry positive? Is that a good reflection on the needs of the many (to not have the sanctity of marriage violated) outweighing the needs of the few?