Quote:
Originally Posted by oddibemcd
[You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]
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?
|
You take the concept in a really weird direction. I think a more reasonable way to look at it (and more in the spirit of what it is supposed to mean) would be to say that if you had those 5 organs available, and one person who needs all 5 as well as having 5 people who need 1 of each, then you should save the 5 people rather than the 1. (lets ignore the fact that if you're needing to have 5 organs transplanted you're not going to live)
The gay marriage part doesn't make any sense though, since you would be supplying to the needs of the few without harming or taking anything away from the many.