Greater Good v. Individual Rights
I have my own views on the topic, but mainly I (with this post), would like to see your opinions on the matter.
For me, personally, my beliefs are of a greater good, although I would, again, like to see what you think :smile:
For me, personally, my beliefs are of a greater good, although I would, again, like to see what you think :smile:
Comments (34)
So I would subscribe to the belief that individual rights should be such that their exercisement should not impact the greater good.
As an example, private industry and things can still exist, but not to a point to where it harms a majority of people, like a monopoly, or debatably what is going on today.
Capitalism seems to me a mechanism to make people think they are working for themselves when they are actually working for the community. Unfortunately the lone predator mind set that capitalism fosters can be counter productive to the greater good - capitalism is not a perfect system in this regard.
Individual rights. Groups are always composed of individuals. Without individual rights there is no greater good.
That statement was all about drowning me in a pickle barrel, but sure I'll answer what I think you were implying.
Yes, I would be fine with sacrificing some personal wealth to help the greater populous. The fact of the matter is that personal issues are outweighed by those of a million personal issues. As a species, the domination of all other species could be considered an end goal, with the ever-evolving nature of species. With a focus on the greater good, our species can prevail more than with few or some rich individuals and a substantial poor base.
Well Big Aristotle, I tend to agree. However, I think @tim wood has a point in that your answer suggests the greater good ALWAYS takes priority...which would be problematic. Another similar problem would be related to who decides the "greater good"? Is there any chance we all agree?
Mr. Wood, I hope you set me straight if I misconstrued your position :grimace:
Behave as selfish as you can get without unnecessarily offending others has always been my motto and this has always served me well.
We are the dominant species on the planet and we are social / communal animals, not lone predators. So the selfishness approach has lost the evolutionary war - the mechanism of evolution should ensure that the most efficient societal model wins and our winning model is based on the hybrid approach of 'co-opertition' - even the selfish elements of human behaviour contribute to the furtherment greater good through the mechanism of competition. Capitalism, a product of social evolution, is an expression of this hybrid model - individuals behave in a selfish manner yet still end up contributing to the greater good.
Being too selfish is harmful.
Being too altruistic is harmful.
Goldilocks knows best.
I think the first world has hit saturation on capitalism's contributions to the greater good. Africa can probably still add to its greater good with capitalism (I am not sure which poor areas they will exploit to get the full gains of capitalism), but there hasn't been much "greater good" improvement in the US for 20 years or so (socially, there has been some improvement, but economically - bupkis).
While trashing the environment. That greater good has had to pay the price for our indulgences.
Quoting ovdtogt
I agree with the sentiment. I worry that we (or many people) will disagree on what exactly is "unnecessarily offending", "too selfish", or "too altruistic", but overall I hear you (and I am fairly certain you have good support in philosophy - Aristotle and the Buddha were into that golden middle stuff - I think).
In such matters I just refer to it being a personal choice. How hot does Goldilocks want her porridge?
Can we just analyze capitalism for strengths and weaknesses and try to regulate away the weaknesses?
A whole new system would be great, but what do we do in the meantime? Does progressive taxation count as a "natural" model of wealth redistribution? It worked in America in the 1940s and 1950s. I doubt that is what you mean, but all I can think of when it comes to natural is survival of the fittest where the winners take what they want (I would point out that capitalism is UNnatural because it largely took away the violent option of winning the game - yes, that is a good thing, but NOT natural - without police and a strong government, capitalism would not exist).
I might be off topic, but I guess the OP would know that an individual vs greater good argument would end up including capitalism?
But won't some things offend Goldilocks that do not offend me? For the greater good we might decide that no porridge can be over 100 degrees Fahrenheit...but Goldilocks likes it hot.
I just can't help but argue sometimes :grimace: I know we largely agree here. What I am saying would only really matter if we went to create an actual constitution based on this stuff.
I think evolution is about survival of the fittest species rather than the fittest individual. So we have socially evolved such that we are superior to other species specifically by moderating the 'winners take what they want' element - we recognise that each individual in society is a contributor and we must therefore take care of the weaker members of society. At the same time though, our system recognises and rewards the success of individuals.
I am a believer in progressive taxation but it has to be imposed globally else it just leads to economic refugees. That would require some form of world government... which we are quite a way from achieving.
Yes it is a huge frustration of having to conform to society. Often you have to abide by common rules that you totally disagree with. This has turned me into a grumpy old man who feels most comfortable staying indoors and chatting on forums. I feel like Goldilocks forced to eat cold porridge.
The problem with the "greater good" is that to serve the greater good is as likely to mean saving people as it is to mean killing them, as likely as it means to give people liberty as it is to take it away, as likely as it means to tell the truth as it is to tell lies.
I feel as likely to agree to fight for one person's "greater good" as I am to fight to stop someone else's. I cannot imagine one can be wise and knowledgable of history while also thinking that the 'greater good" should trump individual rights. It's what people who complain about democracy and capitalism don't understand, they don't understand why these things and liberty are so valuable. You cannot trust your government, you cannot trust the people who claim to have your best interests at heart, the ideologues who claim to speak for you. No promise that requires the sacrifice of individual rights can be trusted. Rights really just serve to curtail the evil nature of power, where rights are limited, power becomes corrupt.
Of course, I talk about modern rights protecting liberty in the West, nothing like "the right to own a slave" or some shit.
In other words, if the droplets of water aren't valued as much as the ocean itself, if they ocean is being treasured more, for example, then the droplets would decay, thus the ocean would decay.
However if you treasure each droplet individually, as much as the ocean, in a positive manner (it's not black and white), then the ocean itself, along everything that it is made of, will evolve and progress.
You can't have a society without social animals.
Hmmm. I would think it is both...and neither...depending on context.
Quoting Devans99
Evolution wise, it would be difficult to measure "superior" species. Wouldn't organisms that can survive high radiation environments, or the vacuum of space, be at least in some way "superior" to humans? Also, framing evolution as a competition between species is problematic...most species rely on many other species to survive.
Quoting Devans99
Isn't this exactly the opposite of evolution as it TYPICALLY exists in nature? The lions pick off the weaker members of the heard leaving the strong to pass on their genes? Human society has transformed "survival of the fittest" within our species to just "who wants to breed?" Nearly every human will have the opportunity to pass on their genes...heck nowadays, even someone born without the tools for reproduction could possibly even have genetic material removed from themselves and passed to the next generation. I am NOT suggesting we should change this moral regulation of our "evolution". But we have to recognize that our morality may interfere with other aspects of our "fitness".
Quoting Devans99
Quoting Devans99
Now I am confused...how are the "weaker members of society" being taken care of if not by the government? Surely, charity has not shown anywhere near the capacity to accomplish this...so without progressive taxation how do we fund government? Or are you just saying everyone should pay the same 50-60%?
Because, to me, what you said here is a great way to ensure that there is never a progressive tax (or not for centuries until a global government actually exists...as you admit).
Random genetic mutations, the mechanism of evolution, take place during reproduction. Beings however have to survive to the point where they breed. So I guess there is an element of both, but I feel over the long term, it is the fittest species that survives - teamwork triumphs over individual efforts.
Quoting ZhouBoTong
I believe we are ahead in evolutionary terms of such organisms - not only are we evolving physically like them, in addition, our society and technology is evolving too.
Quoting ZhouBoTong
We are living in a knowledge-based economy. The intelligent should have access to greater financial resources - which are required to facilitate reproduction - so the reproduction of the strongest members of society should still be happening.
I think you are correct however that we are losing something in evolutionary terms through not embracing a mechanism such as eugenics. Here we are handicapped obviously by the dreadful legacy of WW2. Still, with time, I feel the human race is likely to embrace genetic engineering with a resultant great acceleration in our rate of evolutionary progress. This is what I mean about us being the most successful species - we are evolving not only in the original manner of random genetic mutations - our society and technology is evolving too.
Quoting ZhouBoTong
I live in a country with a welfare state that does, to a limited degree anyway, care for the weaker members of society.
Until a meteor hits the part of the planet full of team-working people :grimace: .
I think teamwork should be prioritized as matter of morals (I can't think of a better way to say it - I think it is a worthy thing to strive for). But I think we need to see the results of this "teamwork" over the course of a few million years before I am convinced it is evolutionarily "better" than crocodiles and cockroaches.
Evolution takes place over eons and is drastically affected by massive events. We are still decades (at least) away from being able to avoid the same mass-elimination as the dinosaurs (a few may survive and become the "birds" of the future - but effectively, extinction).
Quoting Devans99
Unfortunately, our intelligence gives us access to statistics that tell us the exact opposite is actually true. The highly educated breed at FAR lower rates than the uneducated. I think this is fairly commonly accepted (it was the basis for the movie Idiocracy - not that that suggests it is right, haha), but definitely let me know if this is the first you are hearing...I am sure I can find the stats.
Only VERY minimal resources are required for reproduction. Even those with severe handicaps can reproduce, let alone the bottom half of the knowledge base. You are right that the strong will always have access to reproduction. Unfortunately, many of these "strong" will choose to not have children. Many more will only have one or two as that is what happens with planning. Meanwhile, the "weak" will continue to spit out litters.
Quoting Devans99
Agreed...unfortunately eugenics had such an ugly history that it may (rightly) take a while before people are willing to give that another go.
Quoting Devans99
Well, that answers my "people can't evolve that fast" objection :smile:. If I have access to genetic engineering, I might actually be interested in reproducing, haha. Unfortunately, people have a strange aversion to genetic engineering (heck, even the movie Gattaca basically said that the unmodified human was somehow superior to the engineered).
Quoting Devans99
But our societal evolution somewhat impedes our biological evolution...by allowing ALL genes to be passed on. None are culled. No one type of person regularly fails to reproduce. Freak accidents and choice are the only impediments. Now as you say, targeted genetic engineering would certainly compensate for this trend...for those willing to participate (and assuming we don't accidentally engineer away some key feature that leads to our extinction).
Overall, I agree that our technological and societal evolution APPEAR to outweigh any biological inferiority, but I will need a few million years before I am thoroughly convinced.
Sorry, this got long...I guess that is what happens when I can't decide whether I agree or disagree :smile:
I was not aware of this - I stand corrected. However, I think it is probably a transitory evolutionary phase that we are going through and genetic engineering will pull us out of this phase (of sub-optimal selection during reproduction).
Dang...I have never been believed so readily, thanks :smile: And sorry if all of my writing sounds as snarky as that line you quoted (I am sure much of it does :yikes:)
Here is a quick link just for third parties to know I wasn't just making it up...https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fertility_and_intelligence
Quoting Devans99
This seems reasonable, but I think there is one key point...the educated may CHOOSE to not have kids. The uneducated just have kids. There is rarely a decision making process. Uneducated people assume traditions are important. Educated know why they (traditions) are important or they dismiss them as mere tradition (I bring this up as having kids is the ultimate tradition). How many 13 year olds say they will never have kids? It requires a certain level of complex thought (not that that makes it right or anything).
Quoting Devans99
I like the idea of genetic engineering...but we would have to ban "natural" births to prevent the "negative" genes from being passed on, or, most likely, we would end up with 2 (or more) very different groups of humans (and not like our current idea of tall/short or smart/dumb - the smartest humans would see the dumbest in the way we currently see dolphins or chimps. Sure they are "smart", but not our kind of smart).
Quoting ZhouBoTong
If this continues to be the case, then it seems to fall to government to ensure the continued successful evolution of the species - a government sponsored program to produce genetically enhanced, super intelligent, offspring maybe required. That may sound quite like Brave New World, but then I did not find that book to be a completely dystopian view of the future.
I have not read 'Island', the utopian counterpart of Brave New World, but I understand it introduces the concept of mutual adoption clubs (MACs) - formed of fifteen to twenty-five couples. This is the type of approach that might be required in combination with genetic engineering. I believe the MAC approach would result in a lessor impingement of personal freedom - through the economies of scale applied to child rearing - than the traditional 2 parent family approach, so the better educated in society would be more attracted to it.
Quoting ZhouBoTong
Yes that might be a step too far. As you point out, the natural born community could get left behind by the genetically altered community. I think however, both the natural and genetic communities would speak the same language and I am only really advocating genetic engineering for increased intelligence, not extra limbs or anything like that. I think it would be an extension of situation we have today, people with IQs ranging from 50 to 250 all live in the same community, it is just there would be a concentration of genetically altered folks at the high end of the spectrum.
Fantastic. That is always my goal...but I often get so engaged with the argument that I forget I am talking to another human :grimace:.
Quoting Devans99
I agree. I often read or watch distopian fiction and actually think it is almost utopian, with one or two easily fixable problems. Most educated people would never accept the genetically engineered classes of Brave New World. It is hard enough to get people to accept genetic engineering. To say that we are going to intentionally create upper and lower classes using genetic engineering is obviously going to be a huge problem. Unless we engineered away any sense of morality, MANY of the smart people at the top would say the system is BS...but with some minor adjustment it could be a wonderful system (the "happy" drugs would be for those who CHOOSE to go through life that way...and then they can be assigned the "lower" jobs in society because they don't care as being happy is more important).
Quoting Devans99
Dang, I am not even sure if I have heard of that...I may have to check it out. I wasn't a huge fan of Brave New World, but it was interesting.
Quoting Devans99
Seems reasonable to me.
Quoting Devans99
If you haven't watched "Gattaca", it is right on track with what we are discussing (and compared to reading a book, less time consuming). I think like me, you will think the distopia has a good bit of utopia in it, but it also highlights some likely results (and potential problems) of different genetic classes. I am definitely with you that we should try :smile:
Technological progress leads to the replacement of manual labour jobs by machines. Hopefully this trend will continue - we will become more and more a knowledge-based economy - and there would be more pressure on people to have intelligent, genetically engineered children. So a subclass of less gifted, natural people, might only be a transitory phase.
Quoting ZhouBoTong
Sounds interesting, I will probably take a look.