Individual Rights vs Society Rights

[luiz]

I'd like to ask the opinion of the CFC OT community about which is above: individual rights or society rights?

For exemple, if the majority of a society decides to hang certain innocent individual, should they have the right to do so?

If the majority of a society decides to segregate certain ethinicity, do they have the right to do so?

Is the will of the majority above everything?
Or are there some individual rights that must be respected regardless of the majority's will?

 

[thestonesfan]

Absolutely not. Society has no rights.

 

[NewbieHere]

Well, it depends on the situation:

1. The society is basically in an ideal Communist situation, where everyone is equal, then I'd say it's society rights are above everything else.

2. The society contains poor and rich individuals, basically like a feudal situation, then I guess whoever's rich will have more individual rights than those who are poor, in this case the society has little power (except for civilian uprising).

3. A true democracy, like the US (or better), then you'll have to take both into consideration; it'll be limited individual rights such as the right to live, the right to eat three meals a day, etc. with society's laws, such as the death penalty, etc.

 

[Marla_Singer]

Originally posted by thestonesfan
Absolutely not.

I totally agree. Individualism is above society or communauties. There's no reason to ban gay weddings, there's no reason to let girls forced by their father to wear a veil at public school. Same thing, individualism has to be promoted.

Moreover, I should add individualism isn't something we are born with, it should be promoted. Many ideologies are considering the law of the communauties to be above the law of the individuals and we must fight against all those ideas because it's pure and simple totalitarism. Without individualism, there's no democracy.

 

[ShiplordAtvar]

Originally posted by luiz
I'd like to ask the opinion of the CFC OT community about which is above: individual rights or society rights?

For exemple, if the majority of a society decides to hang certain innocent individual, should they have the right to do so?

If the majority of a society decides to segregate certain ethinicity, do they have the right to do so?

Is the will of the majority above everything?
Or are there some individual rights that must be respected regardless of the majority's will?

Depends on the situation, I'd say. But for the most part, I'd say individual rights, so long as those rights aren't used to interfere with the rights of others. My right to swing my fist freely ends where your face begins. That sort of thing...

 

[Bozo Erectus]

Theres a big difference between having a right and being right. The majority can write all sorts of laws that give it legal cover for oppressing minority groups. So within the framework of their own legal system, they can say truthfully that they have the right to do these things to the minority, but it wont make it right, just legal. Now as to individual rights, the individual has the right to life liberty and the pursuit of happiness etc, but this is granted to him by the larger society around him, provided he agrees to live by the laws and conventions of that society. As a member of the society, the individual has certain obligations, paramount among them is respect for the law. Convicted felons serving jail time have been percieved to have broken the laws of society, therefore the society has withdrawn most of their rights and sequestered them away from the larger society. Society bestows rights upon individuals, and what society giveth, it can also taketh away.

 

[Mazarin]

One has to look at which individual rights are questioned: basic human rights like human dignity and the right of physical integrity may not be violated under any circumstances...this is why I'm opposing any kind of humilation, torture or capital penalty. Other rights -like the right to property are also linked with responsibilities towards society, so a society can demand taxes according to individual wealth to insure protection of the basic rights mentioned above for less wealthy members.

 

[carlosMM]

You need to find a balance between full individual freedom and the next guys freedom being hurt.

society as a whole has no rights whatsyoever, it is a balance of individual rights, no more, which MAKES it a society.

 

[MrPresident]

Originally posted by thestonesfan
Society has no rights.

Society, of course, has rights. An individual does not have absolute freedom because to do so would infringe on the freedom of others. Therefore the restriction of the absolute freedom of the individual is for the greater freedom of many individuals, or society. So restricting an indvidual from shouting 'fire' in a crowded theatre when there is no fire, for example, is based on the right of society to ensure the safety of the other theatre goers. Another example would be the right of society to interference with the private sector, be it either state (or public) education or regulation in the form of work safety.

Originally posted by luiz
I'd like to ask the opinion of the CFC OT community about which is above: individual rights or society rights?

It depends entirely on the situation and the person asked. Since the only possible answer to this question is a subjective one. For me the rights of the individual are more important than the rights of society in most private matters, such as religion, sexual behaviour, smoking and so on. However there are instances within those where the rights of society supercede the rights of the individual. For example I do not think an adult should be allowed to have sex with a minor even if the minor has given his/her consent since I consider it detrimental to society as a whole. The same could be said for the use of hard class A drugs such as heroin or crack. There is a constant struggle between the right of the individual and the rights of society in which no two people share the exact same opinion. Therefore a compromise has to be reached where, for most cases, a simple majority will suffice. However on controversial issues such as the death penalty or segration I favour a 2/3s majority.

 

[RoddyVR]

the concepts or right and wrong are HUMAN MADE concepts, so when the majority sais that something is wrong, its wrong. when the majority sais that something is right, its right.

so if the MAJORITY of people say that someone should be humiliated, tourtured, poked in the eye and then made to push a rock up a mountain, its right.
mostly cause it aint like you could find a bigger bunch of people to fight the majority on the issue. they could always force it if needed.

having said that, by majority i do NOT mean what the elected officials or highly visible special interest groups think. i mean what an actual majority of the physical PEOPLE think. figuring out a majority here would be very difficult (ie, in a vote, you'd need a number of votes equal to half the population, not half the voters).

 

[ShiplordAtvar]

Originally posted by Dumb pothead
Now as to individual rights, the individual has the right to life liberty and the pursuit of happiness etc, but this is granted to him by the larger society around him, provided he agrees to live by the laws and conventions of that society.

You could also say that in some schools of thought, these rights (life, liberty, pursuit of happiness) are an inherent part of all of us and cannot be granted by anything outside (eg society, government).

 

[Bozo Erectus]

Originally posted by ShiplordAtvar
You could also say that in some schools of thought, these rights (life, liberty, pursuit of happiness) are an inherent part of all of us and cannot be granted by anything outside (eg society, government).

Absolutely, I agree. I believe humans are born with certain rights. Why do I believe that? Because of the society I was born and raised in. On a philosophical level, yes, we are all born with certain inalienable rights. But on the practical level down here on Earth, individual rights dont exist in a vacuum. Without a society, there are no such things as rights.

 

[funxus]

MrPresident sums up my thoughts.

There are some basic freedoms that you shouldn't be able to take away from anyone, no matter what the majority thinks.

 

[luiz]

Originally posted by RoddyVR
so if the MAJORITY of people say that someone should be humiliated, tourtured, poked in the eye and then made to push a rock up a mountain, its right.
mostly cause it aint like you could find a bigger bunch of people to fight the majority on the issue. they could always force it if needed.

According to that logic, when the strongest nation bullies a weak nation it is right, because you would not be able to find a stronger nation to fight the agressor. "Whoever has the most powerfull artillery is right", that's what you're saying.

 

[luiz]

Originally posted by funxus

There are some basic freedoms that you shouldn't be able to take away from anyone, no matter what the majority thinks.

I very much agree with that.

But who should say what those basic freedoms are? The majority?(in which case the will of the majority is again above individual rights)

 

[cgannon64]

Originally posted by Dumb pothead
Theres a big difference between having a right and being right. The majority can write all sorts of laws that give it legal cover for oppressing minority groups. So within the framework of their own legal system, they can say truthfully that they have the right to do these things to the minority, but it wont make it right, just legal. Now as to individual rights, the individual has the right to life liberty and the pursuit of happiness etc, but this is granted to him by the larger society around him, provided he agrees to live by the laws and conventions of that society. As a member of the society, the individual has certain obligations, paramount among them is respect for the law. Convicted felons serving jail time have been percieved to have broken the laws of society, therefore the society has withdrawn most of their rights and sequestered them away from the larger society. Society bestows rights upon individuals, and what society giveth, it can also taketh away.

Exactly.

 

[newfangle]

Society has no rights.

As usual, people make the false assumption that individuals need to have their rights reduced so they don't go around spraying bullets at people. This is of course, ridiculous, because individuals never actually have this right in the first place.

First the concept of 'right' must be explored. I would wager a Sunday bagel that very few people here actually have a definition of 'right' and even fewer can identify the one single right that all conscious beings earn.

Man uses his mind to survive. Therefore, an infrigement on his ability to survive is an infringement on his existence, and is violating his only right (to his life). How is this right assigned? Because it is the only garantee that man may live in accordance with his nature. We are not savages (well, some of the socialists may be....). We do not use violence to survive. We use our volitional consciousness, a concept unique to humanity on this planet (as far as we know).

Volitional conscious is NOT societal. Society CANNOT think, society is not a universal brain, in fact, society has no existence apart from what is made of it in the minds of people (e.g., a subjective existent). I would be really interested in finding out how someone can arbitrarily assign a right to an existent of the non-real.

Humans are individuals, humans are rational, humans live in an objective realty (their minds cannot control their environments). There is no rational basis for assigning a right to a collection of individuals, without first allowing the basic right of ther individuals themselves. Reality is reality. The facts are the facts. There is no basis for the enslavement of the individual in the effort to further the interests of society, because these things are corollaries, with the basis being the individual.

 

[RoddyVR]

Originally posted by luiz


According to that logic, when the strongest nation bullies a weak nation it is right, because you would not be able to find a stronger nation to fight the agressor. "Whoever has the most powerfull artillery is right", that's what you're saying.

its not the same (close, but not the same). i'm not saying who's stronger, i'm saying who there's more of.

i bet you think that if the UN sais that a certain nation should have sanctions against it, that its right. why? because its a lot of nations agreeing.
while if one nation invades that same nation its not right. why? cause its only one of many, and is abusing the fact that its stronger.

 

[Free Enterprise]

If you don't believe an individual is naturally endowed with certain rights I do not see how you can argue for any rights whatsoever. If you believe all opinions are of equal weight (extreme relativism) then why not consider all governments equal?

I am arguing that if you believe there is no morality then why would you believe any rights exist at all? If you believe there is a objective and absolute morality then that could be an explanation for these natural rights. If you therefore as a result of lacking a morality, think no rights exist, then why would you criticize any action taken by any individual or government? I do not support the side which believes there is no morality in case that wasn't clear to this point.

 

[thestonesfan]

Originally posted by newfangle
Volitional conscious is NOT societal. Society CANNOT think, society is not a universal brain, in fact, society has no existence apart from what is made of it in the minds of people (e.g., a subjective existent). I would be really interested in finding out how someone can arbitrarily assign a right to an existent of the non-real.

Well put.