Socrates Exchange: Are individual rights more important than the common good?

The -needs- of the many outweigh the -greed- of the few. 2 > 1. N'uff said.

I think individual rights are by far and away more easily defined than "the common good". While there are no inherent rights within nature, the simple idea of "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you" is, at the least, a good basis for morality, and starting point for giving individual rights. But the idea of the common good is so ... subjective, and so twistable, that I am weary at best to say that the common good is more important than an individuals rights. Things like the Japanese internment camps during WWII and The Patriot Act were all done in the name of "the common good" while taking individuals rights away.

joel makes a good point. But our current economic meltdown is the result of individual power and greed with no regard for the common good. So there has to be a balance. Neither can trump the other. The question is how do we achieve that balance?

Those who claim that individual rights trump the greater good are operating from an very ego centric and limited understanding their world and the universe. No action ever occurs in a vacuum. Your actions and choices have a direct affect on other living beings and the environment.

The economic system is a prime example of a system that is ego driven. It's goals have nothing to do with fairness or consideration of the greater good. It is based on the pursuit of profits and blind consumption without regard for it's effects on other people and the environment.

The relation of parts and wholes is an ancient issue in philosophy, but it does not really apply to the distinction between individual and community interest.

Okkam's razor is too blunt an instrument to render essences. With every slice meant to "reduce" the matter to its essence some of its truth is lost. And when the process should be complete, and the essence revealed, there simply is nothing remaining at all, for all the truth has been sliced away with the false. The resulting crisis requires a change of mind, and of criteria of judgment, which results in a similar failure. But if each repetition is carried out rigorously the universe is filled in a plenum of reductive analyses which seems to tell us nothing about what indeed is there, and yet which structures all the terms and rules of that analysis.

From the Reformation on philosophy has sublimated the Calvinist conviction that moral and rational judgment is a matter of establishing positive truth and fact. This is a cul de sac which philosophy is currently hopelessly running itself around in. Reason does not prove anything philosophically meaningful, it can only disprove. But that disproof is anything but nihilistic or barren. It generates a moral crisis in which the mind must change or defy reason. But only as individuals is that crisis real and active. And if the individual chooses prejudice, in defiance of that critical moment, it is no better judge or response to that crisis than the community long entrenched in morally/rationally pathological habits of of judgment.

At a time when slavery was in full flower a man like John C Calhoun could argue vociferously that slavery is a virtuous institution. But without that community commitment to the institution of slavery it is hard to see how, on his own authority, he could justify such an atrocious view. Though the institution of slavery is gone, the enslaving mind is still very much with us in the form of fierce resistance to social spending, to universal health care, to a decent wage, to relief for working people caught in a lethal vice-grip action between landlord and employer. The crucial issue is not the scale of prejudices, but the capacity to respond to the rationally generated moral crisis. So long as there is community support in defying that crisis the difference between individual and community scales of interest means nothing at all.

Yes, there are differences between individual and community rights, but the essential thing is to realize how rights, per se, emerge from the capacity to respond to being found undemonstrable in one's judgments, at whatever scale of interest. That is, the individual is not superior to or more worthy than the community if he or she simply arrogates prejudice as that right. It is the ability to respond to being proved wrong, individual or as a community, that is the determining factor. Arrogation of interest at either scale of it is, simply, arrogance. The world can indeed change, and sometimes the community is ahead of the individuals within it. But even then it is the task, primarily, of individuals to bring the moral crisis necessitating that change home to individual and community.

Oliver Wendell Holmes gave a famous speech about tort and fraud law which may be apposite. It's title is: "The Path of the Law".

Perhaps I'm naive, but I've always been surprised at how many people I talk to seem to consider their personal desires more important than the needs of others. Especially for those of us who claim to follow any sort of religious ethic, concern for other people ought to be a top priority.

In local politics it's often at best an afterthought. I'm frankly outraged when I hear neighbors complaining that they shouldn't have to help pay for schools because they don't personally have children of school age, or that they're voting against support for the library because they can afford to buy all the books they want to read. And now we hear that many people who are content with their own health coverage feel actually threatened by the idea of a community (the government) taking responsibility for the uninsured, as if merely showing support for such an action equals sacrificing one's freedoms.

Are we merely selfish, or are we actually afraid of community? Why do so many people equate concern for others, concern for the environment, etc. with loss to themselves? Is it possible for us to begin to understand that what we offer to the common good is also for our good? Aren't we all part of the same commonness?

The previous posts seem to come at this topic with a different, more secular, vent then how I will respond. As a faithful Catholic, believing all that my faith teaches me, though God the Father (old Testament) and Jesus Christ (new testament), I come looking at this arguement from a different perspective. When one has a strong religious faith, fully immersed in that faith, not cherry picking the low lying friuts that we want to follow, you have a release from what the unfaithful, common man finds to be so reprehensible in their life. I look at the hard times as a way for learning. It is an opportunity to overcome and better myself as a man. The harder the tragedy, the more difficult the situation I must endure and see through, ultimately, the better person I become. So how does this relate? If everyone, I mean every last person man and woman on Earth held strong to a morally correct faith, all the ills of the Earth would not be. Unfortunately, this will not likely ever happen as it has never happened yet. Additionally with man's fallen nature (Judeo-Christian belief), we will never attain godhood. I still believe that individual rights trump the common good. Though we are our brother's keeper, we cannot and should not run our brother's life. We can and should be there to GUIDE our brother's life for the better, but to do more than that would be living their life for them. When an alcoholic betters their life by going to rehab and AA, then falls off the wagon, is it our fault or was it his choice? It was his choice. Although not a good choice, it was the one he made for whatever reason. We can be there to again guide him back into sobriety, but it is his life an his decision to stay sober. Does all of the welfare programs that our government loves to give to the poor really help them to get back on their feet and lead a productive, self suffient life or does it enable them to be lazy and allow others to run their lives? Before the 20th century in America the welfare was handled by the churches and religious organizations. They themselves had only limited resources to offer and they offered just enough to the poor and needy to survive. It was up to them to pull up their boot straps and improve their own situations. God helps those who help themselves.

It is Calvinism, not Roman Catholicism, that sees signs of 'god's providence' in the success or failure of individual choices. It amuses me to see American Catholics expressing such patently Protestant beliefs!

"Punish the poor, reward the greedy" is Christianity inverted.

The poor are poor because they do not get the reward they deserve for the tremendous effort they invest in the economic health of the community. A good reason to get drunk, in my view. A little private handout here and there just adds insult to injury. But if, as Christ claimed, people deserve a decent life in virtue of being persons at all, and not for some imagined divine imprint as evidenced by a successful career or lucky inheritance, then the community has a responsibility to see to it that such 'signs of [private] grace' be mitigated by public recognition of the worth of each person in the form of measures taken to elevate the poor above the pittance the rich would bestow as wages or alms.

But the real point between individual and community is which one speaks for all. Which one of us is 'us'? Which one of us is 'we the people'? Responsibility, and grammatical voice, is always an unfinished project and never alone. It's the way that voice changes that is the measure of the relation between part and whole. And the community as a whole has no actual voice but through the way we change individually under the influence of our fellow citizens. It is therefore most crucial to assure that that discourse does not restrict access of those who are most pertinent in what they might bring to it. The poor are simply not heard. Their survival may seem adequate proof of an adequate life to a devote Calvinist, but survival, scraping by, is hardly the measure of an adequate life, especially in view of how hard some of us have to work for it!

Mr Washburn comes accross to me a bleeding heart liberal, correct me if I am wrong. As I expected, my point would be missed, as it is hard to express in this short space the entirety of the point I was trying to get across, so please excuse me for my failure to do that well. The point I wish to bring across is that the poor are poor because we tell them they are poor. Does the tribal bushman in the jungles of South America know he is poor? Likely not. He knows the jungle offers him the substanance he needs, he just needs to go and get it. He is unconcerned with how many downloads he has on his Ipod, the size of his car or how big his bank account is. As long as he has food and shelter, which it is up to him to get from what has been provided by the jungle, and the love of his family (and village), he is a happy man. How many of what we call poor in this country are really poor? The person may earn under the poverty line, but how many of them have cell phones, Directv, Sirius radios, a rockin new ride with 22" rims and low profile tires? I have been poor and those items were of no concern to me. Food, shelter and family are what should be important to everyone.

If someone in our great country is considerd poor, but they are happy in their poverty, who are we to say other wise? Is it our responsibility to make sure everyone one of us haS everything that society says we need to have to have a happy life? I have met many people who are happy with a 1200 sq ft house or a 350 sq ft apartment. They do not have an Xbox, BMW, 58" plasma TV with Dolby surround sound, a second home at the beach or a closet full of Armani suits. They may have just enough food to get by on and a simple roof over their heads, but they have the love of their spouse and children and a warmness in their heart that they are content with themselves. Must we all conform to the "ideal" that someone has set for us to achieve?

The Catholic principles I expressed in my previous post are further backed by Buddist beliefs. Though I have not studied in depth Buddism, my basic understanding is that they too believe that the soul is here to achieve a higher exhistance, to better itself before it can rise to the next level, to ultimately go to the highest level and be in eternal bliss. I believe Buddism predates Christianity so Washburn's Protestant theory falls short here.

Does all of this mean that it is right for the wealthy to lord over everyone their wealth? Certainly not. Should we take their weath from them to "spread the wealth" ? Also, certainly not. As previously stated, if evryone conformed to right moral life, the wealthy would freely offer their prosperity to others, not have to have it confiscated from them. If that doesn't happen, so be it. Many wealthy people are unhappy in their wealth, because they are missing, perhaps, that sense of achievement in earning all of it or the true love of the Creator in their lives. Many rich men (and women)gain some understanding of this when they come to an epiphany and give their money away to better the lives of others. That's called philanthropy.

So no matter how you wish the world to be, no matter how much you try to legislate the world to be, no matter how many names you call people and try to browbeat them into doing your will, it cannot be done. God Himself has tried, and because He gave us FREEWILL, every man has to see his own destiny through. I am guess Washburn has little or no faith in a higher being- God, Jesus, Allah, Buddah or whomever. The lives of many of the (Christian) saints are examples of happiness in poverty. Was Mother Teresa unhappy? By society standards she was poor. Should we have forced her to take the wealth of others or conform to the standards established by another man? By all accounts of her life, she was happy in her self imposed life of poverty, though she came from a weathy family. She learned the joy created in her life by helping others. So in some perhaps selfish way, she enjoyed and gained pleasure by helping the poor, but because of the cyclical nature of her efforts, it was a benefit to society and to the poor she helped. Many a story has been chronicaled of the lowliest caste man, thrown to die in the street that was taken in and nutured by Mother and her nuns. Many of these men would die, but in their death, felt the love of simply another human being shown to them and ultimately died happy in knowing that love. Are all of the clergy in most of the accepted faith that take a life of poverty or spartan living, poor? I say no. Many have achieved, to some level, that happiness I speak of. They have elevated their life by focusing on something greater than themselves, in a purely voluntary commitment.

This leads further to the collective aspect of it. When these people lead their lives this way, does society not gain from it? Is there anyone that wants to doubt Mother Teresa's contribution to society? When one gains this understanding in their life, they are almost forced to share it with the world. Failure to share it would, in fact, show that they have actually not learned anything and are still selfish and self indulgent.

I think the dichotomy between the individual and the common good is an illusion; the illusion is that the "many" consist of something other than an aggregate of "ones."

How can a large group of people benefit if the indeviduals in the group don't? How can an indevidual pursue personal benefits at the expense of the group to which he or she belongs (that would be like stealing from yourself). A muddling of this question ultimately makes aggressive greed easier to conceal.

This is a topic that needs to be looked at on a case by case basis. On the whole, however, I feel that a decent individual is willing to make certain sacrifices for their society and a decent society is willing to give certain liberties to its individuals.

I personally feel that the individual should be selfless enough to be willing to sacrifice at least certain partial rights,because the protection of many is truly more important than the selfishness of the individual,and with the release of those certain right by the individual, the whole gains the ability to then restore those rights

But how does the community derive its interests and its voice? The voice of the community is hermetic, but the voice of the individual is hermeneutic. Even a bully must learn how others understand him if he wants to be effective at his bullying. But what parallel to this dynamic in the community?

Here's a case that might be more concrete: Parents have an interest in maximizing the opportunities open to their children, but this activity tends to limit that opportunity to those children whose parents are effective at providing it. The community, however, has an interest in mitigating, if not reversing, this imbalance by leveling opportunities for all who have the aptitude to develop them. The Claremont case is a graphic example. But the issue gets vitiated by "community" measures which entrench disparity while claiming to rectify it. "No child left behind" is a good example of this.

There will be no individual rights if there is no common good. What would one's individual rights be under Stalin or Hitler or Kim Jong-il or Saddam Hussein, or any other dictator who rose to power by running rough shod over the common good. Once we establish and guarantee a common good through rule of law (whatever the laws of the social group), then we can work to balance individual right versus common good.

Whatever private distinctions one would make between people individually, the community must be extremely circumspect about judging the merits or conditions of any individual life. It is not a question of whether we get enough to be content with our lot in some abstract sense, it is a question of whether the so called laws of the marketplace really do indeed sustain an equitable exchange. In terms of private and community interests, we need to ask whether nominally public interests are really the devious expression of private interests, a deviousness a slightly different Supreme Court recently betrayed by siding with developers in the demolition of a working-class community, in Connecticut, in favor of a more affluent replacement. How can this be a community interest? Or whether nominally private interests are really a devious expression of an entrenched community view, as in resistance to gay rights. As for Mother Teresa, I think a modest health care system would be a more effective measure than the pathos of an overworked group of private volunteers. Whether she was happy is hardly pertinent to the suffering she tried to mitigate. Not a lot of room for happiness among her charges! Subsistence cultures are gravely injured by neocolonial "development" regimes, and many of Teresa's patients were victims of the "Green Revolution", and are now being produced on an even larger scale by GMOs. Development and economics is a bottom-up, not a top-down thing. Engineering communities that serve private interests is at the root of the suffering Teresa tried to lessen. And as for Buddhism, I think the teleology of individual virtues ("every day in every way...!") are a recipe for the entrenched disparities I have been warning about. Believe me, I am not so sanguine about judging my own virtue! But I do know this, the measure of it is neither private and individual, nor public and communal, but is the dynamic of an intimation that happens between us as we critically evaluate each other and in so doing engender community interests. But the justice of that intimation has everything to do with the justice of that community, and we need not get maudlin or mystical about it.

Someone commented "There will be no individual rights if there is no common good." I disagree; and it leads me to ask, can the "common good" even exist, if individuals have no rights?

You may think forced altruism is for the "common good" but what about the individual who disagrees, what about his/her rights as a human being?

With all the entitlement programs we have today under the guise of "common good", what individual right are you honoring by forcing these programs upon individuals regardless of any objections they may personally have? Sorta reminds me of the Amish and the objections they had to Social Security Insurance, which they at one point had been forced, against there individual rights, to take part in. How was this for this groups "common good", if they regarded insurance as a "sin" You certainly did not make them feel "good".

What right does the collective have to force individuals to give what they earn to others they may deem un-worthy of there personal sacrifice? In simpler terms, why should I be forced against my will to give up some of my labour & property equally to every degenerate in society? What if I as an individual wanted to give charity to a poor single parent family in my community instead of an unknown family on the other side of the world? Would I not be acting for the common good, or just the good of my direct community? I suspect the latter, because as I outlined, the former is not always good to all the inviduals involved.

Without strong and strict individual rights, and the right for every individual to pursue there OWN life, liberty and pursuit of happiness, "Common good" is just an illussion to make the majority feel better about themselves as a group, regardless of how many minorities of individuals may feel horrible.

Forced altruism stinks, glad to see Atlas on the recommended reading list, thanks NHPR!!

I think the recommended reading list could do a lot of these commenters some good.

Today's society has become so individualistic that is is hard to say whether such a thing as the common good even exists anymore. And, if it does, who is to way what the common good is other than a group of individuals sharing the same idea as to what is good for themselves? The common good, in short, is a decision based upon individualistic benefits.

I think that neither individual rights or the common good outweigh one another. Both are very important to sustaining a healthy lifestyle and a good government. If an issue arises where someone's individual rights needs to be violated for the safety of him/her or others then we should not think twice to do it. I feel we are excessively individualistic. We can't seem to give up our rights for a little bit just for the well-being of the country.

If we were meant to be individualists we would be isolated by nature. We are together. This forces us to communicate our individual needs, which are then subjected to societal judgment and rule. As it stands currently, individual needs cloud our every move. The collective is just a bunch of people with individual wants and needs, but with the connections and perseverance to be heard. Thus, the people who can't get out and be heard rely on the needs and wants of those who can to communicate their own wants and needs. Unfortunately, the group that can communicate their wants and needs is becoming further and further detached from those who can't, which means their needs are becoming less and less represented. Who will represent the helpless when those who can are too concerned with themselves?

I believe that individual rights do not exceed the importance of the rights of the common good. We as individuals search for satisfaction in this world. This is what sets us free, this feeling of satisfaction is what gives us relief. We all wish that we were the most important, but no matter how hard we try it's something we can't achieve. No one person is the most important. I'm sorry, but no matter what anyone says, no one person is better than everyone else in every facet of their life. If we want that satisfaction, the best way for us to reach it is through everyone else. If the world falls into a point in which happiness is an improbable feeling, then the ability of the individual to reach a point of happiness and satisfaction will follow the suit of the rest of the population.

I believe that even if it seems unethical to put your individual rights before the rights of the common good, it's human nature to think of what benefits you before what benefits everybody else. You are going to worry about your health before you worry about somebody else. It may seem selfish, but it is your human nature to worry about your health. In some circumstances, you can put your will second, but even then you're still benefiting yourself in some way.

The problem with Capitalism is that people are not happy when the laws of the market state that they ought to be. This is a lethal flaw in the system and its theory. It only works, in fact, if it entails the right of some to require unhappiness of others. Which is to say, it is ideology, not science. There can be no just and honest community value to such disparities of rank. And yet, ironically, the perennial claim of the libertarian, licentious capitalist, is a contradictory appeal to private rights that are publicly sustained and justified. There can be no concept of private property right that is not the product of public consent or factional coercion. And it is hard to see how the ability to require unhappiness of others can be justly consensual among those made unhappy by it. What is the theoretical basis for the idea of private property right? It is not inalienable, the US Constitution says so. And yet licentious capitalists speak of it routinely as if it were inalienable. Is this error or deceit? The notion of private property rights libertarians assert is really a garbled claim of the rights fairly associated with personal property, not capital property. Personal property is protected as associated with inalienable rights because the value of that property is hermetic to the person owning it, whereas capital property is really publicly evaluated and supported in that valuation, and only held in private in trust to that public system of evaluation. The libertarian notion of private property is less than three centuries old, and would have been treated as an alien concept before the work of John Locke. But his justification of it is fallacious.

But, enter religion. Luther took a look at "Holy Mother Church" and found it corrupt. What else is new? From the state of that corruption, the wanton sale of "indulgences" that were touted to ease the way to 'salvation', he had the unremarkable insight that you can't buy your way into heaven. From this, however, he came to the fallacious conclusion, which he preached doctrinally, that only "by faith alone" can one achieve 'salvation'. The only relation that mattered for 'salvation', then, was the relation between the individual and his or her god. This, apparently modest reasonable and decent notion of individuality, though fallacious to the point of insanity, rendered the relation of the individual to the community hopelessly, irresolvably enigmatic. In Europe this doctrine has now been overthrown for strong balance between individual and community values, but in Britain, and via there the US, the doctrine stood as a bulwark against rendering justice to the vast majority languishing under feudal, and later, capitalist rule. The strangely smooth transition in the Anglo-Saxon world from feudal to capital estates stands out spectacularly against the backdrop of 'republican' and revolutionary Europe. And today any discussion of the community/individual divide, and of the rights of privately held capital property, is fraught with religious doctrine and deeply embedded ideology that tends to find ways of thwarting rational argument.