The Individual vs. The Common Good
Posted: Mon Jul 12, 2010 5:29 pm
A very simple question:
When the individual and the "community" come into conflict (i.e. when their interests are not held in common), which takes priority and why?
Is the "life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness" of the individual more important, or communal values and interests? If an individual fails to comply with what is commonly understood to be for the "greater good," should he be forced to? Should an innocent person's home be seized, or should his life be taken, etc. for the sake of the community without his consent if it comes to that?
I have deliberately made the question broad. We will see where discussion takes us.
--------------------------------------------------
I will briefly state my own perspective. I believe that, with very few exceptions, individual rights (that is, life, liberty, and property) take priority over any "community" interests, because the community is a non-entity without individuals, from whom it attains its legitimacy.
This does not mean that individuals should not be punished for their crimes; indeed, the desire to punish comes from an innate disgust for people violating each others' rights. What it means is that the innocent (that is, people who have violated no one else's rights) always have some level of supremacy and any and all action taken against them, even when it is perceived to be for the greater good, is wrong.
I will expound on this as people post in this thread, since I do not want to bog down the first post.
When the individual and the "community" come into conflict (i.e. when their interests are not held in common), which takes priority and why?
Is the "life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness" of the individual more important, or communal values and interests? If an individual fails to comply with what is commonly understood to be for the "greater good," should he be forced to? Should an innocent person's home be seized, or should his life be taken, etc. for the sake of the community without his consent if it comes to that?
I have deliberately made the question broad. We will see where discussion takes us.
--------------------------------------------------
I will briefly state my own perspective. I believe that, with very few exceptions, individual rights (that is, life, liberty, and property) take priority over any "community" interests, because the community is a non-entity without individuals, from whom it attains its legitimacy.
This does not mean that individuals should not be punished for their crimes; indeed, the desire to punish comes from an innate disgust for people violating each others' rights. What it means is that the innocent (that is, people who have violated no one else's rights) always have some level of supremacy and any and all action taken against them, even when it is perceived to be for the greater good, is wrong.
I will expound on this as people post in this thread, since I do not want to bog down the first post.