The thing to keep in mind with Star Trek is Roddenberry has this viewpoint that human beings drive decision making both from emotion and logic.
You've got McCoy on the show as the representative of Emotion and Spock is there as the representative of Logic.
Kirk represents Humanity - listening to the advice of these two and then acting. Spock and McCoy are both unbalanced zealots in Roddenberry's world, and his whole point is sometimes the emotional side is right and sometimes the logical side is right and sometimes you need to get creative and blend the two. Star Trek doesn't consistently adhere to this "needs of the many" philosophy, and my guess is Roddenberry wouldn't defend it absolutely and wasn't trying to set this up as the right moral standard. What I see him doing in this story is demonstrating that both Spock and his friends end up putting themselves in harms way for each other. Though they have different motives (Logical versus Emotional) for their actions, he shows sometimes the logical and the emotional sides are not in conflict at all - both lead you to the same answer.

It's wrong, wrong, wrong, and I don't care how many Socrateses, Kants, Marxes, Rawlses, Marcuses, and Spocks dance on the head of a pin and proclaim that it's right.

I never tried to over-think “Star Trek” My opinions were first formed in childhood ‘from-behind-the-couch viewings. Kirk, Spock, and McCoy made even Nazi uniforms look hot. There, I said it.

That the films raise the question, explore the topic, and ultimately demonstrate that the heroes DO value productive individuals is instructive.

The problem I see is in the use of the word "need".

Cheryl Taggart needed a moral sanction that she could not get from her education, her family, or the company of Jim or his friends, and while she eventually received one from Dagny, it was too little, too late. To me, her fate is even more heartbreaking than that of Eddie Willers. Granted these casualties were required to make Atlas Shrugged whole, and I doubt any of us would want to fake a reality where they would not have perished as a consequence of the strike. ("Do children go to heaven?" - blank out)

I think it is a mistake to demonize the word "need" entirely, and thus take it out of context.

Dagny struggles with the same moral dilemma as Spock when she claims that if just one great mind is saved from disaster, it is worth sacrificing herself to return to the railroad in an attempt to prevent that disaster. The risks/actions are equivalent-- what is missing is the translation of the word "need" to "life". Note that it is "the needs of the many" that is in question, not "the needs of all". Note also, that "the many" most often represents the men and women who have achieved the right and the privilege to work aboard the Enterprise due to their ability.

Is there any doubt that anyone in Rand's Galt's Gulch would jump on a grenade to save 5 others there with full knowledge and acceptance that it is in line with their values? I think the debate is valid among truly moral men. Isn't this the essence of the tension between Ragnar and the others concerning his choice to place himself in harm's way?

Great article. After watching this episode I was wondering how the issue is expalined under Rand's phiosophy. It was nice to find an article that went into detail.

Better...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hYvlhHPL...

When Spock appeared to sacrifice himself for the ship and crew, because, as he said, the needs of the many outweighed the needs of the few, or the one, he did not completely destroy himself. He deposited his consciousness in McCoy.

Then, the other half of the equation was fulfilled when Kirk and the crew went to rescue Spock's body on the Genesis planet, risking themselves because the need of the one outweighed the need of the many, and they were thus able to put Spock back together again.

The important point is that all these were voluntary acts on the part of the participants. They deemed the goal of their actions a high enough value to take the risk. Of course, these are fictional lifeboat emergencies and not how people need to act in normal life that doesn't require sacrifices.

There was another episode where sentient robots made a joint decision that one of them would remain behind and perish so everyone else could get off the ship. Roddenberry was brilliant in making every episode into a morality play promoting humanistic values, even while using aliens to disguise real-world conflicts.

In those movies it makes more sense if you replace "logic" with "utilitarianism". Spock's decision to enter the reactor room, the crew's decision to break the law the save him, and Spock's suggestion to rescue Chekov aren't based only on utilitarianism, but the show never says that. The show implies it's utilitarianism vs. emotionalism. I don't think they meant to make that philosophical claim. If the plot had the opportunity to murder an innocent person to save many, I don't think they would have carried on with the notion it's logical to commit murder b/c of utilitarianism.