[canadiancapitalist]

Within the context of society and the individual, do you believe group or individual rights should take preference? Should the needs of the many out weigh the needs of the few, or the one? What should be our defining moral principle here? Utilitarianism? Moral relativism? Marx? What should be our guidance?

[Dave]

The needs of the many outweigh the few, but in many cases individual "rights" can end up fulfilling collective goals better than group "rights" can. The right mix of "rights", of course, depends on the people and society in question. What is right for one group is not right for all. I think the philosophical moral principle should be pragmatism--that the truth can only be revealed by experience. What the end goal of that truth is, again, depends on the society in question. What is right and desirable for Americans is not necessarily so for Brazilians or what have you.

[Abood]

cc, let's not talk in abstract terms. Care to provide a few solid examples?

[canadiancapitalist]

I think one obvious example is the idea of a 'right' to health care for the indigent vs the right of an individual to retain property they own. It seems to me that these two "rights" are in conflict and we must choose one or the other or suffer cognitive dissonance.

[SpiderMonkey]

Its a false dichotomy.

The idea of a group is a subjective concept; it has no mass or volume or anything else you would associate with a real thing. By bunching the concerns of individuals (such as their own health) into a 'group' right and then comparing to the rights of people you choose to see as individuals. Essentially, you are classifying people and claiming one set have more rights than others.

[canadiancapitalist]

Essentially, you are classifying people and claiming one set have more rights than others.

Unless I am mistaken (highly unlikely) and group and individual rights are not in conflict isn't this necessarily going to happen?

[josephdphillips]

Within the context of society and the individual, do you believe group or individual rights should take preference? Should the needs of the many out weigh the needs of the few, or the one? What should be our defining moral principle here? Utilitarianism? Moral relativism? Marx? What should be our guidance?

That would depend on the terms of the contract between the individual and the group. In the United States, that contract is the federal constitution (not the Declaration of Independence, which has no legal significance).

[Paradigm]

I think it can be distracting to talk in terms of rights. What we're really talking about here is the good of the whole versus the dignity of the individual. Utilitarianism tends to go too far in one direction while the philosophy of natural rights goes too far in the other direction. I can't really say which one is more important. They're both important considerations. I guess what you have to ask is whether the individual is included in the good of the whole, and which individual liberties contribute to the collective good. When libertarians talk about people having the right not to be taxed, they're taking individual liberty to an extreme that is harmful to the common good. So I think a good question to consider is whether any individual is asked to take an excessive burden for the collective good. Some would say that progressive taxation would fall under such a category, but I disagree, since their burden is a correlated their blessings, and thus should not be considered excessive.

[canadiancapitalist]

That would depend on the terms of the contract between the individual and the group. In the United States, that contract is the federal constitution (not the Declaration of Independence, which has no legal significance).

The constitution has little legal significance either - it has either authorized the sort of government that America has today or it has been powerless to prevent it from occurring. It is a useless document, a fabulous and impractical pipe dream. The time has come to put away childish things.

[Abood]

I agree with SpiderMonkey.

cc, your statement is very ideologically driven. You believe that property rights are natural, and therefore argue that it is the right of the property owner to retain their property. Here, we assume that the workers are the "group", who shouldn't infringe on the "right" of the property owner.

The fact of the matter is, the workers are individuals too. If we are to stop presuming that property rights are natural, it'd be very clear that because the workers are more, maximizing liberty would require granting them their "rights".

The term 'social rights' makes individualists shudder: "Getting rid of individual rights?! HELL NO!" But the thing is, maximizing "social" rights just means maximizing individual liberty for the biggest number of people.

[Dave]

there is no reasoning in your post whatsoever, abood

-workers are people too!!! (whatever that means)

-and you claim to continue that social rights, which by definition are coercive, maximize liberty, when in fact they take away liberty--although they may (and should) increase positive freedom

[Average Voter]

What should be our defining moral principle here? Utilitarianism? Moral relativism? Marx? What should be our guidance?

None of those seem to work as a moral guidance for the collective good because nobody knows what the heck is good for the whole. Utilitarianism is not a moral principle; in fact it needs a moral principle to be utilized. A moral principle of which utilitarians to this day are never able to agree upon, nor justify to the rest of us.

Moral relativism is completely individualistic, and cannot guide a community without the authoritarian rule of an individual with complete disregard to the demands of the people. If we are looking for a collective aim for the common evil, look towards moral relativism for guidance.

I don't know if Marx was a moral philosopher or is considered a moral authority. You could go with Kant, but his moral system was held by the free will of the people, making an authoritarian involuntary collective an entity unable to conduct moral decision. He was also a liberal, understanding the importance of the liberty of the individual.

In the end the good of the people is understood individually. You can tax somebody as much as you want, but doing such doesn't convince such people the values of giving to the community. You could be an individual and love the community by contributing to it, which actually teaches the community a moral alternative, or you could be a collective authoritarian and love your neighbor by taxing another neighbor. How inspirational.

[josephdphillips]

The constitution has little legal significance either - it has either authorized the sort of government that America has today or it has been powerless to prevent it from occurring. It is a useless document, a fabulous and impractical pipe dream. The time has come to put away childish things.

This is obviously satire, but I don't understand why it is being offered.

The United States Constitution is central to the psyche of every American citizen. It is something we talk about every day. I can understand why, as a Canadian, you can't appreciate that.

[josephdphillips]

I think it can be distracting to talk in terms of rights. What we're really talking about here is the good of the whole versus the dignity of the individual. Utilitarianism tends to go too far in one direction while the philosophy of natural rights goes too far in the other direction. I can't really say which one is more important. They're both important considerations. I guess what you have to ask is whether the individual is included in the good of the whole, and which individual liberties contribute to the collective good. When libertarians talk about people having the right not to be taxed, they're taking individual liberty to an extreme that is harmful to the common good. So I think a good question to consider is whether any individual is asked to take an excessive burden for the collective good. Some would say that progressive taxation would fall under such a category, but I disagree, since their burden is a correlated their blessings, and thus should not be considered excessive.

At one extreme every man lives on his own island, literally or figuratively, and on the other extreme there is no concept of individual liberty at all (i.e. communism). Since group behavior is so dynamic, the question is whether a drift toward one extreme is better, or more socially desirable, than the other.

As a libertarian, I obviously prefer to think in terms of what is best for an individual citizen, without regard to what is good for the whole of society. My problem with the do-gooders is that they do not know when to stop.

My other philosophical problem with collectivism is its diminution of personal responsibility in favor of collective responsibility. Thus when someone brutally murders children, it's our fault, not his.

That point of view offends me. That's not the way I was raised, and to the extent this mindless fixation with collective responsibility permeates American culture, every American is worse off for it.

[canadiancapitalist]

This is obviously satire, but I don't understand why it is being offered.

The United States Constitution is central to the psyche of every American citizen. It is something we talk about every day. I can understand why, as a Canadian, you can't appreciate that.

Perhaps you need to read a little Spooner. I think I understand your people better than you do. I appreciate the point of view of Constitutionalists. I understand that the Constitution is a unique document because it's purpose was to restrain government and preserve individual liberty. It is beautifully written. The idea of enumerating the powers of the federal government is brilliant. Here's the problem.

It's just a piece of fucking paper.

That paper has no magic powers to restrain the state - as has been amply demonstrated over the last couple of hundred years. Where was the constitution during the alien and insurrection acts? What did it do to stop Lincolns near dictatorial abuse of power, or FDR's socialization of the American economy, or Wilson's introduction of adventurism to American foreign policy? Did it stop Johnson's guns and butter? Did it prevent the CIA from funding and creating Al-Qaeda (Muhajadeen). No. It didn't because it has either authorized a government like you see today or it has been powerless to prevent it's formation.

The idea of the American constitution is beautiful, but like all belief in false prophets it will lead you astray.