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.
If someone wants the freedom to litter lit cigarettes in the forest, violating that right could very well prevent a forest fire that would endanger surrounding communities.
lol What in the world? You don't have the freedom to destroy property. Why would you think an individual would have the right to throw a lit or unlit cigarette anywhere?
Only because you believe they're different. But logically they're the same. If you permit "the people" the power to, for the common good, limit or eliminate the rights of some or all, for any reason, it becomes point "A".
Even the US constitutionally protected rights, are subject to laws and amendments that can restrict or eliminate them. So even the US is option A. Indeed as a government the US violates rights without any evidence the actions taken have any net positive impact to the overall benefit of the majority.
lol What in the world? You don't have the freedom to destroy property. Why would you think an individual would have the right to throw a lit or unlit cigarette anywhere?
... because the faux "outraged" will say anything to make a point of ignorance.
A) The rights of individual people matter less than the common good, or society as a whole.
...
C) The rights of individual people should be respected, except for critical cases such as
Case A - the rights of the people matter less than the common good...no qualifier.
Case C - the rights of the people matter less than the common good...with qualifier.
They are synonymous, and only differ in the qualifier predicate. The society dictates how much and in which cases the rights of the people matter less than the common good. That is the baseline thinking of both cases, period. After that, one adds a qualifying statement in an effort to use a predicate to trick the reader into thinking the subject had changed, but it did not. The bottom line is the collective defines both the common good and how much individual rights of the people matter, with one example being slightly more specific about HOW the collective will decide that.
There are no exceptions. If the state can subordinate one right, then it has the self-granted power to subordinate ALL rights because it has decided that it has powers/rights that not one individual themselves actually possesses. Case A and Case C are synonymous. Actually, Case C is a specific subset of Case A.
There is no difference between "pregnant." and "pregnant because she was drunk." Pregnant is the commonality, and the qualifier in the latter case does not change the subject one bit. Pregnant = pregnant.
the rights of the people matter less than the common good = the rights of the people matter less than the common good.
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?
B. Remember, this country was not founded on the idea that the majority gets everything they want when they want it in the manner in which they want it. This nation was founded on the idea that all of us, as individuals, have certain rights. There are checks and balances to ensure we each recognize our individual liberties. This protects both the majority and the minority.
I had to give this some thought.
I decided that:
The rights of individual people matter less than the common good, or society as a whole.
My reasoning is that you wouldn't put an entire society in danger to save one person.
If one person had to die to save the lives of a thousand people, you would have to make that choice.
However, it's a really tough question.
I will give it some more thought and be interested to see others responses.
It’s really not that tough at all. That you believe it is, is proof that giving this matter more thought is precisely what you need to do. Now, you may not realize this, but what you’ve done here is rationalize murder. That’s right .... in some hypothetical scenario in which one innocent person must die in order to save everyone else, you believe the choice is clear and self evident ... you would “have to make that choice”. Unfortunately, no matter the reason that may be cited to justify it, the act of killing an innocent person is cold blooded murder. And I would be remiss if I did not point out to you that THE MOST FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT we have that must be protected at all costs, is the right to life. Take that away, and there is no such thing as a right left to defend.
This is the very essence of the pure evil of collectivist ideology. For a very eye opening example of what this ideology always leads to, study what transpired in the USSR under Stalin. Collectivism is the foundational theme of communism, and leads to the same outcome, every single time. History is replete with examples, so there should be no confusion about this, even though there sure seems to be about 30% of the polled individuals here suffering the same confusion.
Something else you might want to consider, within the context of your hypothetical scenario ... what if it required more than one person dying to save the rest? How many people would it be OK to murder, in order to save the rest? Would it be ok to kill 5 to save a 1000? How about 100? Maybe 250? I mean, hey, if we killed 250, we’d still be saving 750, wouldn’t we? So, at what point would it become unacceptable? 501? This philosophical dilemma exists only because you didn’t consider the first murder unacceptable.
We don’t even need to use such an extreme hypothetical to recognize the fallacy of collectivism and the greater good concept. We can use today’s modern version of “eminent domain” where the local government can seize your land under the premise of the greater benefit of the local community’s economic interests. This is theft every bit as mush as murder is in the more extreme, previous example. So, now we have murder and theft justified by collectivist thinking. What other evils could we conjure under the “greater good” ideology? The list is endless, and therefore, the reasons to reject the concept of the greater good is also endless.
One rather obvious example that is playing out right before our eyes today, is the idea that thoughts and words are a danger to society .... truthfully, it might be more appropriate to call this a “claimed danger”. Freedom of speech is under full assault today, under the absurd claims of someone being offended. Unfortunately, there seems to be no end to what some people can be offended by. One city in California has decided to take this to such an extreme as to change the references to “manholes” as “maintenance holes”, so as not to infer gender bias! This is pure, unadulterated insanity, so if anyone wants to suggest that it is possible to place limits on such collectivist ideas and restrictions of rights, I have an endless list of examples proving the fallacy of that idea, too.
You can’t even type many words on this forum that isn’t automatically ****** out
Last edited by GuyNTexas; 07-23-2019 at 05:53 PM..
Only because you believe they're different. But logically they're the same. If you permit "the people" the power to, for the common good, limit or eliminate the rights of some or all, for any reason, it becomes point "A".
Even the US constitutionally protected rights, are subject to laws and amendments that can restrict or eliminate them. So even the US is option A. Indeed as a government the US violates rights without any evidence the actions taken have any net positive impact to the overall benefit of the majority.
So I dismiss your assertion.
You are absolutely correct. And most of the problems we face as a society and a nation today can trace its birth to a violation of the Constitution, and the original intent of the words and statements therein.
As an example, any gun law that limits or restricts the right to keep and bare arms is in direct violation of the 2nd amendment. That being the case, there are virtually no government institutions, either local or federal that are not in violation of that law. What do you have when the government is allowed to violate the law? You have a lawless government, being run by criminals.
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.
