After Leonard Nimoy died, I saw a flood of memes based on one of his character Spock's famous lines. Here's one of the more complete ones; most I've seen omit the first clause.
Logic doesn't dictate, clearly or murkily, that the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few. If someone wants to make this claim, they need to support it with an argument of some kind, and I haven't seen one. One reason to reject Spock's diktat is that Kirk counters it by declaring, equally without supporting reasons (though Kirk isn't expected to be logical), that the needs of the few, or the one (namely Spock), outweigh the needs of the many, and this formulation is supposed to win the day. One could say that the conflicting statements cancel each other out; I'd say that they are both true, because moral judgments are not logical.
When you encounter two clashing claims that both seem valid, you have to start thinking. This, of course, is too much trouble, but let's do it anyway. Spock sacrifices his life in The Wrath of Khan in order to save the Enterprise and its crew, his comrades and friends. In The Search for Spock Kirk and some of Spock's friends take great risks to bring Spock back to life. (Remember, Spock cheats: he doesn't really sacrifice his life, he downloads his Self into Dr. McCoy so it can later be uploaded to a new Spock body. Would he have chosen to save the Enterprise if he'd known he really would die in doing so, or if he wasn't also saving himself along with the others? Logic, it seems, dictates covering your ass.) Logic can't really help us here. These are choices that people make, not conclusions dictated by logic. (I therefore disagree with this Randite commentary on Spock's choice. But then, Rand was another person who claimed to be rational but was not.)
It's odd for Kirk to dismiss Spock's choice, since in a military situation like Starfleet individuals are expected to sacrifice themselves for the good of the many: their comrades, the folks back home, their country. (It's notorious that in Star Trek many hapless crew members are sacrificed by the writers for the needs of the Plot.) Heroes are generally people who've done just that. At the same time, the team doesn't abandon its fallen comrades, even if great risk to the team is involved. So decisions, judgments, choices must be made. You might fail, you might die yourself and your comrade might be lost, but that doesn't mean you made the wrong choice: it only means you weren't able to carry it out. Within the world of Star Trek and most popular entertainment / propaganda historically, this is hardly controversial. Not either/or, the many/the few, but both/and. The two films, taken together, make the point explicitly. It's interesting that fans never seem to give Kirk's version any credit, though it triumphs in the end with Spock's resurrection: a Google image search turns up no memes using it, but many based on Spock's, even when I searched for Kirk's.
I might have ignored these memes if it weren't for the "discussion" they inspired, mostly of the "Take that, Republitards!" variety.