However, as I explained while discussing the limitations and promises of rational discourse on hot-button issues, logic can be defined more broadly than that to include both hypothetical logic (which is logic as such purists would define it) as well as premise theory (the study of how to properly establish premises and how much confidence to place in duly established premises).
This expansion of the definition of logic (as I explained at the gime) aligns it better with English Rationalism, which incorporates the empirical aspect which Continental Rationalism excludes. However, furthermore, this expansion of the definition of logic is also necessary to get logic to really work when you take it out of the realm of mere symbols (such as ‘A’, ‘B’, and ‘C’) and attempt to employ it in the real-world, where (far more often than many people realize) the distinction between a fallacy and a cogency can hinge on factors that lie outside the realm of hypothetical logic.
At any rate – Spock’s assertion of the needs of the many versus the needs of the few or one will not fly if your definition of logic is limited to hypothetical logic. But perhaps, with the inclusion of premises, that statement could indeed be validated. The question then becomes – is there a way to properly establish a premise that, if accepted, would logically lead to the conclusion that Spock asserts?
Premise theory, of course is an underdeveloped area in the study of logic. Aesthetic premise theory is especially undeveloped, and ethics are in the realm of aesthetics. That said, it’s probably a reasonable axiom that if an aesthetic viewpoint is common to the views of all parties in a conversation, then that aesthetic premise should be regarded as a valid premise unless it is somehow discredited in one way or another. But can this axiom provide us with an ethical premise that would lead to the affirmation of Spock’s assertion?
As it so happens, it probably can – at least as far as a conversation between Kirk and Spock is concerned. The ancient teaching of Cosmopolitanism asserts that all people are of equal inherent value. This teaching is part of the ancient philosophy of Stoicism. Seeing as Vulcan philosophy was based on Gene Rodenberry’s understanding of Stoicism, it is very likely that Vulcan philosophy includes a similar teaching as well. Therefore, since Spock is half-Vulcan and identifies primarily with his Vulcan half, it is likely that this premise would be an inherent part of his philosophy.
As for Kirk – he, too, is far more Stoic than many people realize. Popular culture has twisted him into a womanizer obsessed with “polishing his knob” as many people say. This view of him, however, is at odds with the actual portrayal of Kirk in pre-Abramatic Star Trek. Far from the womanizer that popular culture portrays him as, he is actually very dedicated to his duty as a Starfleet Captain (or in the case of this movie, Admiral) and to his duty as a human being. As a matter of fact, during the days of the original series, having Kirk chase skirts in violations of his duty was the surest way to get your script rejected. And in the episode Charlie X, Kirk expresses his Stoicism very powerfully in this quote:
At any rate, Kirk, being Stoic, would also accept this premise from Cosmopolitanism as part of his philosophy, as would (most likely) Spock. Therefore, between the two of them, that premise that all people are of equal inherent worth is a valid premise unless it can be somehow discredited, since it is an aesthetic premise that all parties to the discussion agree upon.
From this premise we can indeed derive Spock’s assertion. If everyone is of equal inherent worth, then let’s assume that we’re weighing the needs of fifty people against a mere six people. The needs of a mere six people among the fifty on one side of the scale is equal to the needs of all six people on the other side of the scale assuming that all the needs being discussed here are of the same order of magnitude. Add to the needs of these six out of the fifty the needs of the remaining fourty-four of the fifty, and altogether the needs of those fifty people clearly outweigh the needs of the mere six on the other side of the scale.
Of course, a few friends of mine with whom I discussed this matter raised the question of how we can presume that the needs of all parties involved are of the equivalent order of magnitude. My answer is as follows. Generally, when the term “need” is used multiple times in the same sentence, unless stated otherwise, it is referring to needs of the same order of magnitude – or at least needs which the speaker thinks (rightly or wrongly) are of the same order of magnitude. Otherwise, someone would refer to the lower-order magnitude needs as “desires”, “preferences”, “conveniences”, or something else – or at least explicitly spell out the fact that the needs are not of the same order of magnitude.
Still, while this pattern of how the term “needs” is used is often true, it might not be universally true. Therefore, it would generally be a good idea, when stating this conclusion about the needs of the few versus the needs of the many, to specify that it applies to situations in which all needs involved are of the same order of magnitude.
There is one more thing that could complicate the situation. If another being who doesn’t share the view that all people are of equal inherent worth, would enter the conversation, then Spock’s assertion would become a bit more controversial. However, between Kirk and Spock, it surely holds up – provided that all needs involved are of the same order of magnitude.
Also, as a final note, I must say something about that axiom that I propose about accepting premises based on the fact that all parties in the conversation agree with the premise. I can’t stress strongly enough that this axiom would only apply to aesthetic statements. Ontological statements, on the other hand, describe reality that exists beyond anyone’s perception – and all members of a group can very easily agree on an ontological premise in error. Therefore, ontological premises, unless they can be specifically backed up by reason and evidence, can’t be accepted as true by default. A group of people in a discussion can agree to accept an ontological premise on a hypothetical basis – but then any argument based on such a premise would be a hypothetical argument built on the assumption that those premises are true. The acceptance of ontological premises at any higher level must require that they be actually substantiated.
