Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
There are plenty of debates and discussions here, but I think many come down to two conflicting philosophies. I thought it would be interesting to see which option people pick, and why...
A) The rights of individual people matter less than the common good, or society as a whole.
B) The rights of individual people should be respected, even if violating them would benefit more people.
Which would you say is more in line with your views?
You are not comparing two philosophies.
You are essentially comparing Consequentialism with not Consequentialism.
The problem with Consequentialism is that any act can be justified if it benefits the most people.
Our system seems to work well.
Rights of the individual are beyond the reach of government, period.
You work bottom up and focus on the smallest minority possible the individual. Individual rights above all. More times than not violating individual rights does not even benefit the collective.
Using pesticides on your farm with a bee keeper downwind/stream.
Building a sea wall/jetty/groyne on your beach front property up current from someone else’s.
You choosing to drive a vehicle which leaks oil, belches smoke, etc and your neighbors having asthma or other health problems being compromised by such
I'm referring to human rights here, not legal rights, and I'd define a right as anything that doesn't aggress against others or their property (and a wrong is anything that does aggress against others or their property).
We could get into a debate over rights, but I don't think it's necessary for this question. We tend to not aggress against people or take their stuff if they're minding their own business, at least in our personal lives, and I'm asking if doing so is justified if it benefits the group as a whole, or if it's not justified.
I will sacrifice for the common good, but that goes for everybody.
Obey the law like it or not, no matter what your profession, no matter what country you live in. I am not going to follow extreme Islamic law so I won't go to a country that does.
Suck it up and learn English.
Stop wearing burkas that cover your whole face in public. Anybody remember the sign when you walked into a bank to remove sunglasses, hats and hoods? I still take off my sunglasses in public places, show some respect.
After 10 years of living here become a citizen, don't skip on your visa, don't stare at women like objects.
I hold the door for people in public and expect the same. Its funny when you trade off holding the door with someone else because of the crowd, makes me feel safe with like minded people.
Just for starters.
I think that's fine, but I'm referring more to things like...if someone has a lot of money, is it okay to take some of it if it benefits the majority? If a person won't move from their property, is it okay to forcefully evict them to build something that will benefit more people? Or even more extreme cases, like if killing or imprisoning an innocent person is justified if it will help society as a whole. Something that violates the individual to benefit the majority.
Rather than responding to everyone individually, I'll just do it here...
A lot of people are saying this is a false dichotomy, and that there needs to be a balance of the two. I disagree. You can technically say that it depends on the situation, sure, but that's very arbitrary and you run into contradictions and other issues. There's no consistent reasoning behind it.
I could say "I believe that alleged criminals should get a trial sometimes, but not other times. There needs to be a balance", but you can probably see some issues there. Why only sometimes? How do you decide? Is it just arbitrary?
We have the principle of innocent until proven guilty, and we apply it to everyone in every situation. I think the same applies to human rights.
You are essentially comparing Consequentialism with not Consequentialism.
The problem with Consequentialism is that any act can be justified if it benefits the most people.
Our system seems to work well.
Rights of the individual are beyond the reach of government, period.
You're right about everything below the first sentence, and I agree with you, but I was viewing it as the individualist philosophy vs. the collectivist philosophy. Individualists believe in respecting every human being's rights, and collectivists believe individual rights need to be sacrificed for the greater good in some situations.
There are plenty of debates and discussions here, but I think many come down to two conflicting philosophies. I thought it would be interesting to see which option people pick, and why...
A) The rights of individual people matter less than the common good, or society as a whole.
B) The rights of individual people should be respected, even if violating them would benefit more people.
Which would you say is more in line with your views?
How in the world would violating rights benefit more people? That's what I'd like to know. What would be an example of that?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
