Please Change the Two Boxing Rule

[soup]

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.

[oddibemcd]

Originally Posted by soup [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

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.

You just aren't taking the concept "the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few" all the way. In principle, this maxim sounds worthy; resources should be diverted to the problems most encounter, instead of those faced by few people (which obviously doesn't happen, look at the disproportionate amount of health care dollars that go towards childhood diseases.) In practice, this concept does not work. A major problem is definign needs. Does each individual define what that individual needs? If so, a person's needs becomes almost limitless. Can one outsider determine the needs of all? Obviously not, for needs will sway to what the deciding individual values higher. (God needs to be worshipped, white males need the vote, Louis XIV needs Versailles.) Can the many determine what is needed? In state after state the majority has determined that society needs to have marriage as an institution only existing between one man and one woman.

Again, if five people need organs to live and can obtain those organs from one individual, don't the needs of the five outweigh the needs of the one? Both need the organs to live, but if one person is killed, five survive. If the healthy individual is allowed to keep his organs, five die. Under your theory it is just to kill the healthy person.