In the debate between individual rights and the collective good, I favor the collective good, “properly understood”
Getting a word in edgewise
In the debate between individual rights and the collective good, I favor the collective good, “properly understood”
both of those terms are terribly abstract and mushy, if not overlapping, so I don’t see how either can be favored in general over the other
Oh, they’re certainly vague and overlapping. But they do come into conflict.
And, text posts have a length limit. =)
I think that assertion is tautological. Certainly there exist different versions of the collective good, and someone could define any or some individual rights (including whatever you must have in mind) to be critical/arbitrarily valuable components of said good.
Hence the “properly understood”, ie, the way I see it.
Though I’m sure you’re aware there are people who don’t care about the greater good. Or just don’t get the concept.
the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the one?
Though sometimes the whole is better off when the individuals are free to pursue their own path.
What happens when the needs of the many conflict with the greater good?
If there is extreme ‘need’ on the part of the few, and weak ‘need’ on the part of the many, the greater good is ambiguous. Figuring out the greater good is tricky. It may be that the extreme need of the few (say, not to die at the hands of bigots) out weighs the weak ‘needs’ of the many (to kill those who alarm them.) But typically, the many define the greater good.
What value is the greater good based on? Need? Or happiness?
As long as you have a subjective way of measuring things, which “the greater good” seems to be, I think people should aim for better than subsistence with their moral decisions.
You’re right, need is a terribly low measure to shoot for. Happiness, with a very low rate of discount for future happiness.
That, I can agree with wholeheartedly. I make a terrible Libertarian, I suppose.