Personal freedom, or the greater good?

Here's a vague philosophical issue for you to ponder. I'm not going to reference specific political issues here, but take from it what you will.

What do you believe is more important - personal rights and freedoms, or the greater goood? Is it more morally sound to suspend personal freedoms in the interests of working towards a collective good, or to allow people rights and freedoms but have society not be functioning ideally?

This is a complex issue with no real clear-cut answers, but I'm curious as to what you have to say.

having the primary motive be for the 'greater good' never works out, because it winds up with what we've got now: a police state.

freedom increases. A good example of this is Denmark; it has what most here would call a true "nanny state" government, yet it's people have the freedom to pursue the careers they most enjoy, all have access to health care, a top notch educational system and higher education, plus they are all secure in knowing that they'll each have a comfortable retirement. Denmark has the highest "happiness index" rating on earth. There's something to be said for caring for all and leaving no one to suffer. Keeps crime way, way down to boot.

I don't understand why these two things must be in opposition.

Moreover, the protection of personal rights _is_ a part of the greater good.

It is only valid if one assumes that the only important freedom is the freedom to exploit others.

Such as the freedom *to* make money and the freedom *from* economic exploitation.

The freedom *to* consume whatever your heart thinks it desires (oil, electricity, tires, foods, clothing, etcetera) and the freedom *from* having to live in a collapsed eco-system because of bad personal choices made by other people.

While not ignoring the greater good.

so signally misused the freedom of choice (ironically, I'd written "greedom") given to him, he was cast down to Hell, there and then, an event (like a lightning bolt from Heaven) preternaturally witnessed by Christ prior to his incarnation.

However, since Satan's very busy here and has been since the Fall, the mystery of the "intersection" of time and eternity arises. Nevertheless, there is no question that disobedience to the divine laws are, to say the least, "frowned upon". And it surely goes without saying that the public good is sovereign in God's eyes. That is the Christian perspective.

Now, finally, after decades of utter lunacy, in which it was touted by the far right that feeding the fathomless greed of the Have Yachts, who had taken total control of the large corporatiosn and much of government, would further the common good, the truth is descending on us like, well, in Condoleeza Rice's immortal phrase... a mushroom cloud. Let's hope and pray that the apparently looming, economic neutron bomb is averted.

bring an increase in personal freedom.

the gay rights movement is a very good example of that.

without equal protection under the law -- i belong to a community that the 'masses' would certainly continue to persecute.

of us truly free? In America it seems like the only "free" Americans are wealthy Christian heterosexual males. With the wage gap as enormous as it is, "freedom" really only belongs to those who can afford it. The rest of us are wage slaves just struggling to keep from going under.

Very well said.

Personal freedom for the greater good. Within a social and economic framework to protect the populace, especially the underserved, the vulnerable, the voiceless, with an intent to eliminate injustice and oppression.

The human condition is the human condition. For instance, I, for one see war as a pathological state--whatever "adaptive" value it once had long gone. Yet we still have war. When (especially)leaders use personal judgment and freedom of decision to use war as the first solution, I want a framework in place to at least question it, and stop it if possible. Not a great analogy, but personal freedom is a big concept, that can cover a lot

I really like this response. :)

:blush: :hug:

It's a good question to think about

Our Constitution has been gutted for the "Greater Good". In this case the "Greater Good" would seem to be our would be dictators and their friends. This doesn't seem to be working real well for the general population, now does it?

That leaves Personal Right and Freedoms. This country was doing fairly well in the advancing of the Personal Rights and Freedoms department until the year 2000. Eight years of "Greater Good" has set us back over 225 years in the Personal Right and Freedoms department.

If 'We the People' are to regain our freedoms, If this country is to remain a free country, we can not afford to let the criminals go free again. George Walker Bush, Richard Bruce Cheney and their accomplices need to be rounded up and tried for their numerous crimes. If we can't or won't do it, then the obligation rests on the rest of the world. The criminals themselves have already set the precedent on how this can be accomplished.

Not everyone across the aisle is trust worthy enough to be to be offered a hand in healing. We need to be careful who we include from the other side.

"Freedom is the absolute right of all adult men and women to seek permission for their actions only from their own conscience and reason, and to be determined in their actions only by their own will, and consequently to be responsible only to themselves, and then to the society to which they belong, but only insofar as they have made a free decision to belong to it." Mikhail Bakunin

The suspension of personal rights and freedoms makes people in to means rather than ends and the accomplishment of great projects becomes possible. Are they a collective good is, however, another question. The pyramids are great but are the a collective good?

your reasoning for greater good is the rights reasoning for greater good, different issues, different direction. greater good can NOT be forced on a person.

IF you are religious, even GOD does not believe in the forcing of greater good. hence free will.

a parent knows they cannot force greater good a child has to come to it on their own.

my reasoning for choices i make may not make sense to you on greater good, but in my mind, it works better than those that dictate to me greater good. yet still i know i cannot force you on greater good.

I think not. But it's sure worth a try.

Then the sticking point becomes WHAT constitutes "ideally".

Personal freedom in the non-hedonistic sense could contribute to the furtherance of the greater good; however, if personal freedom is viewed as one's having the right to do whatever he/she wants to do whenever he/she wants to do it, then I vote for some restraints.

Much of this argument depends on how personal freedom and the greater good are defined.

The responses so far are very interesting.

It's part of our inborn sense of ethics. We don't kill for instance, and no one would want to uphold the personal freedom to take another life (except in cases of war, which are mostly seen as benefiting the greater good, even if the idea is fundamentally delusional). We'd instinctively give our lives for those of our children, because the impetus to protect our progeny, which will become the future of society (the greater good) is all encompassing.

The only instance in which we can be truly free, is when an individual manages to live alone, far from civilization. Add just one other person to the mix, and concessions are negotiated for the greater good.

while protecting our security have no business governing.

to educate others and promote common-good causes.

Systemically, forcing people to behave in way that benefits all is bad; asking people to behave in a way that benefits all is good.