Agnostic.com

12 3

Let's discuss the conflict between individual rights and the greater good. Generally speaking, I favor taking away individual rights where objective evidence strongly shows there is a greater good to society. I believe vaccines should be mandatory, for example. I also think the libertarian position that taxation is theft is absolutely horseshit. We evolved as social animals and you can't reap the benefits of a cooperative civilization if you're not willing to contribute. Go live in a cabin in the wilderness if that's how you feel. Sex education should be evidence-based and required curriculum, no opting out! Any objections on religious grounds should be overturned where there may be demonstrable harm. No opting for faith healing over modern medicine! Your opinions? Anyone think of any individual rights that should be absolute under all circumstances?

IntellectualRN 6 Jan 28
Share

Enjoy being online again!

Welcome to the community of good people who base their values on evidence and appreciate civil discourse - the social network you will enjoy.

Create your free account

12 comments

Feel free to reply to any comment by clicking the "Reply" button.

0

I'm with you on this. What's good for one person may not what is best for everyone. Conservatives and libertarians have always believed themselves to be the center of the universe. From reading what many Libertarians post on agnostics, I'm having a really difficult time differentiating Libertarians from anarchists. Out of all of the countries in the world there is not one single example of a Libertarian Society.

1

I am a principled utilitarian. So I am not pure ends justify the means, but I do think the moral goal is to maximize the world’s happiness.

When it comes to individual rights and social engineering for society my approach is to maintain the choice, but control the default choice. In other words make the right choice the easy choice.

For example when you get a job it should automatically set you up for retirement savings transfers. Instead of doing the paperwork for signing up for a 401 think you should have to do paperwork to opt out.

With organ donation I would say the default choice is that you are an organ donor and you have to opt out in order to not be.

My high school made every senior apply for the local college - applying for college was the default choice.

Basically do social engineering by manipulating the default choice. You benefit society while still maintaining individual choice.

Myah Level 6 Feb 16, 2018
0

What's the "greater good" for whom and how do you find that out. Suppose that you were a British Intelligence officer in France working with the French Resistance. They have a prisoner, and they plan to kill him regardless of what he might say. You ask to speak to the prisoner to see if you can gent any useful information out of him. You ask the prisoner some questions and he tells you that he will not answer any of your questions unless you can guarantee that he will be taken to UK as prisoner of war:
Do you lie to him for the greater good?
Or does your integrity stop you from lying?
In fact this happened... the British Officer didn't lie to the prisoner.

cava Level 7 Jan 30, 2018
0

Abortion on demand for rape victims and anyone who seriously cannot cope - Not sure of vaccines being mandatory as some people die from having them and we don't seem to know yet how or why that happens so if not foolproof I'd say parents had the last say. I always thought a libertarian position was that property is theft - quite willing to pay my taxes but would like to see the upper class scroungers in my country do away with tax havens etc. I feel upset about the Plymouth Bretheren as my nephew nearly died from being denied hospital care. But I think life is always a risky business and no one can get it right for all of us all the time.

The number of deaths from adverse reactions to vaccines does not come close to the number of deaths that would occur from preventable diseases without them. Nothing is 100% safe, but it's pretty damn close. Close enough to unequivocally say the benefit is too large to ignore.

0

Taxation is theft if it is parasitic. Individual rights are already dismissed by imminent domain...and I would support that if the person compelled to give up a single square-inch of their lawful property--will never again pay federal or state income tax. The state fails to protect rights...then the state loses a tax payer.

0

Really? So you're fully for the Disenfranchisement of minorities and women?..and qualified freedom of speech?..how very white male of you M'Lord..
You sir are the reason we have Drumpf..by turning a blind eye to the massive voter suppression that the Rethuglican party has executed in many states..ever heard of "Gerrymandering"?.. But you Sir would rather have what? A test for intelligence,? Or perhaps ecocnomic status?..
Again, mighty white male of you..and shame on you..your arrogance is assumes that you have the right to limit a persons right to vote is abhorrent.
As for Freedom of Speech..I have Actively engaged in counter demonstrations against Nazis & White Supremacist here in Boston..I have No problem with people esposing their venon..but They Must be reminded that there are Consequences for that Speech...and if that includes confrontation that, sir, is one of those consequences..

I don't think "objective evidence" would support that disenfranchisement, voter suppression, suppression of free speech, etc. serves the "greater good.". I'd expect to see the opposite, actually.

He's not saying take rights away indiscriminately, or arbitrarily. He's saying don't grant rights that we can unequivocally see bring harm to society at large--like letting people refuse to get medical treatment for their kids.

@stinkeye_a
Ahhh..well then He needs to describe Exactly what He means..If that's what he means than generalized opinions are unacceptable.
As the responce advises..Be specific..

So that took some illogical leaps.
First, I said I'm essentially a free speech absolutist. I was merely playing devil's advocate for a moment on that one.
Where did we get to arbitrary voter suppression for women and minorities? I never suggested anything of the sort. When did gerrymandering enter the discussion?
Pew research clearly demonstrates that higher education was a defense again casting a vote for President Cheeto.
[pewresearch.org]
What I said, while acknowledging that current socioeconomic conditions would not be conducive to fairness, is that I do support some kind of qualification exam for participation in government. I expect my doctor to be licensed, my mechanic to be certified, my barber to have undergone the appropriate training. This could be accomplished in high school. This is also why I strongly support social welfare programs to bring about equality of opportunity so nobody can say their birth circumstances prevented them from doing anything, including voting.

0

Really? So you're fully for the Disenfranchisement of minorities and women?..and qualified freedom of speech?..how very white male of you M'Lord..
You sir are the reason we have Drumpf..by turning a blind eye to the massive voter suppression that the Rethuglican party has executed in many states..ever heard of "Gerrymandering"?.. But you Sir would rather have what? A test for intelligence,? Or perhaps ecocnomic status?..
Again, mighty white male of you..and shame on you..your arrogance is assumes that you have the right to limit a persons right to vote is abhorrent.
As for Freedom of Speech..I have Actively engaged in counter demonstrations against Nazis & White Supremacist here in Boston..I have No problem with people esposing their venon..but They Must be reminded that there are Consequences for that Speech...and if that includes confrontation that, sir, is one of those consequences..

Questioning the necessity of the knee-jerk response...but appreciate your civility.

0

I'm with you--but I'm an uneducated dolt who couldn't begin to substantiate the argument, so I'll happily defer to the people who know more than I on the subject.

Therein lies a clue to my attitude about it: I accept that I'm not the best person to make certain decisions because I don't adequately understand the issues. In these cases I feel it appropriate to put my trust in those who do know better than me what's good for me. I don't think having to figure out everything on my own would be good for me.

0

For the greater good.

Not sure why libertarians would think taxation is theft, but how about the opposite - universal benefits. Anything you earn over lets say one million per year and any profits from large corporations goes directly to the government as tax and is spent on infrastructure, health and education. Any surplus pays for universal basic income.

0

If the health of the population is at risk, the matter should not be left to individual choice -- EVER!

1

I agree with your basic point, to a point. The tricky part is defining "greater good." There have been problems with imminent domain, which is claimed to be for societal good. Often there is vested business profit motive steering those claims. Whoever gets to set societal priorities gets to define "greater good," it seems.

2

Freedom of speech, Freedom to Protest, Freedom of the Press, Freedom to Vote..Freedom from illegal Search & Seizure, Fredom From Religion..

Unrestricted freedom of speech? Even hate speech? Inciting violence? I'm pretty much a freedom of speech absolutist myself, but I do see the danger. When it comes to protest, does that mean in any way you see fit? Protests that disrupt lives? Rioting? When it comes to voting, I do wish this was not a guaranteed freedom. I think it's why we have Trump. We really need some kind of qualification. I will grant that this would impact the poorer socioeconomic groups hardest if it wasn't coupled with massive improvements to welfare programs and education funding.

@IntellectualRN Alternatively make voting compulsory and easy. We've run with that system in Australia (along with some enforced truth-in-advertising laws) and it works well enough. It has the usual democratic flaws (Tony Abbott) but seems to work as a bit of a leveler.

Write Comment
You can include a link to this post in your posts and comments by including the text q:18982
Agnostic does not evaluate or guarantee the accuracy of any content. Read full disclaimer.