The needs of the many VS The needs of the few?

[shyguysteve]

As a leader or someone in power, how would you respond to this argument, In many issues this appears as a fork in the road. Even today with all our knowledge we are tripped by this disturbing argument. Not always about people, sometimes nature vs humanity.

In a situation where you and your group are days away from safety and someone is lost or missing but presumed alive and is a child; the many of your group say leave them, while the few say stay. how would you respond as a leader and the person to be held responsible for your choices over the group and for the well-being of the group?

Waste time looking leaving the group at risk? or cut your losses and move on?

Do you practice democracy? or fall into dictation of your position in power?

I might not present this argument well, but its easy to understand the harsh reality of it.

[lemmingllama]

Well, I made a thread similar to this a little while ago. The concept you are looking for is called ultilitarianism. And I would desert that kid if it meant that my group would likely be at harm and could be safe otherwise.

http://forums.kametsu.com/showthread.php?t=25873

[Naterkix]

I'd leave the kid too. Was this topic in any way inspired by the events of the last few current episodes of the Walking Dead? I know lots of things that have done something similar but I think it's the most recent I've seen and the timing of the post is perfect.

[shyguysteve]

I'd leave the kid too. Was this topic in any way inspired by the events of the last few current episodes of the Walking Dead? I know lots of things that have done something similar but I think it's the most recent I've seen and the timing of the post is perfect.

yes it was, I was going to give a different scenario but this is was the first thing I thought of. But obviously there are many more scenario's and examples of this.

Well, I made a thread similar to this a little while ago. The concept you are looking for is called ultilitarianism. And I would desert that kid if it meant that my group would likely be at harm and could be safe otherwise.

http://forums.kametsu.com/showthread.php?t=25873

I've also made a similar thread, but I was asking the question in a more direct manner. The scenarios extend from the loss of one person into larger but smaller groups compared to the "many".

The initial point I asked this was would the small number of a few people be worth the remaining lives of everyone else.

Though people answer as if it would only be one loss, but it never is, peace however long it lasts is momentary and fleeting.

This is derived from the belief of democracy, in which everyone gets a say and the side with less would lose, Say your group has only 6 people and 3 people were slowing the group down, now the other 3 wanted to leave them behind, but as you all rely on each other for support losing those 3 would endanger the entire group, what would you do? you would be the tie breaker as the 7th person. And in politics these numbers are the millions, would the lesser million be worth the lives of other millions? when the numbers get to big they seem to be the same size. only the weight of the loss is much greater.

I used the example I did as just to paint the picture of the decision you would be faced with.

I myself would give up my power, not to escape the choice but instead as an alternative maybe I can do more for them if I'm not the one who makes the calls.

[kaoru]

Technically the needs of the few also encompasses the needs of the many. Balance is, all in all, the key.

Democracy is hipocrisy, but its so far the best we have considering any other alternative.

As for the kid, I'd go for him; bad call for the group, but it would matter for the kid. And if I went on my own, it wouldn't affect the questioned survivability of the entire group. As Nash said when he corrected Adam Smith's economical theorem "the best result comes when every individual is doing whats best for himself, *and* the group."