What If Freedom Doesn’t Serve The Greater Good?

[JBeukema]

Thought I'd mirror this guy's post here, as it should make for interesting discussion

What I am basically asking is are you a deontological libertarian (natural rights) or consequentialist libertarian (utilitarian)?
Of course you are probably a bit of both. You believe freedom is moral and that it also happens to serve the greater good.
Which is why I ask… what if it doesn’t? What if voluntary markets aren’t the best means to allocate resources? Are you still for freedom (based on principle) or would you be willing to accept a legitimacy for government intervention?

original

 

[Skull Pilot]

The individual is not bound to act in the greater good.

The only constraints on an individual's actions are in so exercising his liberties that he does not violate the rights of another individual. Whether or not his actions benefit some undefined greater good is a nonissue.

 

[editec]

The perfect government affords us freedom to act in our own best interests right up onto the point where such individual freedom creates a tragedies of the commons.

We don't have that perfect government by a long shot, but that's, in theory, what this nation stands for.

The problem as I see it is this...who decides when an individuals freedom to do as he chooses becomes a tragedy of the commons?

And reasonable men can disagree about that issue, too.

Pollution is a good example of that.

We ALL pollute the earth just by being.

But some of us pollute it more than others.

At what point does society have the right to say to one person or group of people:

What you are doing, the mess you are making, is effecting everybody else, ergo, everybody else (acting through the government) has the right to make you stop?

This is not as easy as question to answer as the radicals (of the libertarian or of the collectivist persuasions) would like us to think.

But individual FREEDOM often does not serve the greater good. Often individual freedom actually is a malignancy to the commonweal. (Crime is perfect example of uncurtailed freedom, for example)

And so we creates laws to curtail our personal freedoms in defence of the collective good.

No society can exist in a state of absolute freedom.

Not even the most wild eyed libertarian would want to live in such a state of anarchy.

But total freedom IS anarchy.

 

[Avatar4321]

If freedom doesn't serve the great good it's because people are ignorant to what's in their best interest. And such people will destroy themselves whether they are free or in bondage. So it's better to be free.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

If freedom doesn't serve the great good it's because people are ignorant to what's in their best interest. And such people will destroy themselves whether they are free or in bondage. So it's better to be free.

Freedom has nothing to do with a societies greater good. We are not free in the US because that is for the greater good. We are free because it is the right thing to do.

The US has never been a collective and claiming one must be for the greater good and that freedom must serve the greater good is all about collective.

I have a right to be as free as I can be so long as my freedom does not harm another's freedom. That right was bought and paid for by our Founding Fathers, numerous wars and lots of dead and maimed soldiers.

No one has the right to remove my freedom because of some Greater Good. And I will fight to protect my right be free from anyone that tries to take it, even claiming it is not for the greater Good.

 

[Ravi]

What is freedom?

I would like to have the freedom of living on an un-polluted shoreline but apparently I don't because some think that the greater good means drilling off my coast.

 

[JBeukema]

The individual is not bound to act in the greater good.

The only constraints on an individual's actions are in so exercising his liberties that he does not violate the rights of another individual.

-because that is good?

 

[JBeukema]

I love how people say you shouldn't have to do that which is 'good' or 'moral', yet they then claim that their anarchy is good and moral and claim the moral highground for their arguments.

 

[JBeukema]

Freedom has nothing to do with a societies greater good.

It's not good for a society to be free? It's not moral and just?

We are not free in the US because that is for the greater good. We are free because it is the right thing to do.

right=good

The US has never been a collective

save for the whole federation thing...

and claiming one must be for the greater good and that freedom must serve the greater good is all about collective.

like roads, police, and a common military defense?

No one has the right to remove my freedom because of some Greater Good.

say the anarchist and the murderers.We lock up rapists and deny them their freedom and liberty for the greater good of the community.

 

[Skull Pilot]

The individual is not bound to act in the greater good.

The only constraints on an individual's actions are in so exercising his liberties that he does not violate the rights of another individual.

-because that is good?

No. it simply is.

The individual good does not necessarily have to be the greater good. The term greater good usually implies that one act not with one's own individual wants and needs at the forefront but rather works for another's benefit.

An individual has no obligation to work for the benefit of another. His only obligation is to not violate the rights of any other individuals.

Maybe you should start by defining your terms.

What exactly do you mean to be the "greater good"?

 

[G.T.]

This is a question for the ages man.

The problem is that it can never be solved because there's millions of things that would have to be decided on if they do or don't serve the "greater good," and also the "greater good" would have to be defined, and choosing the definers is a leap of great faith. Although, many people live by Religious code based on.....faith.


But anyways, I think that total freedom cannot exist for a species to coexist, regardless. Freedom is not natural. The food chain is a prime example of this. Consequence is the antithesis of freedom. A gazelle isn't free to enter the lion's den without consequence.

 

[JBeukema]

An individual has no obligation to work for the benefit of another.

Oh? So if you're lying in a pool of your own blood, dying slowly, I've no moral obligation to at least throw you a towel?

Bourgeois Liberalism: the right to exploit and the justification for the suffering of others

Pray for your sake that it's a Leftist and not a Liberal who finds you the day you're wounded.

 

[xsited1]

What If Freedom Doesn’t Serve The Greater Good?

I'm a Christian so I have to serve the greater good.

Damn you religion!!!!!!

 

[Skull Pilot]

An individual has no obligation to work for the benefit of another.

Oh? So if you're lying in a pool of your own blood, dying slowly, I've no moral obligation to at least throw you a towel?

Bourgeois Liberalism: the right to exploit and the justification for the suffering of others

Pray for your sake that it's a Leftist and not a Liberal who finds you the day you're wounded.

No you don't. If I am dying does it really matter if I have a towel?

The only obligation an individual has is to not violate the rights of another. If we had an obligation to work for others then every time you drove by a guy with a flat tire, you'd be committing an immoral act would you not?

If you refused to put money in a homeless guy's can, you'd be committing an immoral act.

Etc etc.

 

[JBeukema]

If I am dying does it really matter if I have a towel?

You'd not have the bleeding stopped?

Did I forget to mention the towel's covered in quickclot?

The only obligation an individual has is to not violate the rights of another.

Why? Where's that obligation come from? Is it some sort of moral obligation? Suddenly you want me to act in accordance with your morals?

If we had an obligation to work for others then every time you drove by a guy with a flat tire

If you had the ability to help, it would be of a minor moral wrong to refuse. There is the wrong of inaction and there is the wrong of action. While the man who sets your house on fire is guilty of a greater wrong, i am also wrong if I refuse to call 9-1-1 or step out the match that's about to ignite your home.

If you refused to put money in a homeless guy's can, you'd be committing an immoral act.

I don't give homeless people money; that's not how you help them. Handouts don't help the homeless, a hand up does,and you cannot help those not ready to help themselves and seek out a program that aids in gaining employment and bettering one's state.

I've seen the handouts in California. There were people at that shelter who'd been in and out for years. They ate twice a day and showered every day. They had no motivation to improve their condition.

In Az, I've seen a hand up that really works- you have to prove you're serious by not being a minute late a single day, by wearing the provided business attire, by dmeonstrating that you're contacting potential employers, etc. If you're serious and you really try, they'll see to it that you have what you need to get on your feet so you can support yourself.

Handouts keep people poor. A hand up lets a man stand so he may carry himself.

 

[Skull Pilot]

If I am dying does it really matter if I have a towel?

You'd not have the bleeding stopped?

Did I forget to mention the towel's covered in quickclot?

Doesn't change my answer. You would not be arrested and tried if you did not help a bleeding man. You would be if you were the cause of the man's injuries.

The only obligation an individual has is to not violate the rights of another.

Why? Where's that obligation come from? Is it some sort of moral obligation? Suddenly you want me to act in accordance with your morals?

Not my morals. The law.

If we had an obligation to work for others then every time you drove by a guy with a flat tire

If you had the ability to help, it would be of a minor moral wrong to refuse. There is the wrong of inaction and there is the wrong of action. While the man who sets your house on fire is guilty of a greater wrong, i am also wrong if I refuse to call 9-1-1 or step out the match that's about to ignite your home.

You're the one making moral judgments not me. One man is not morally bound to do anything for another.

If you refused to put money in a homeless guy's can, you'd be committing an immoral act.

I don't give homeless people money; that's not how you help them. Handouts don't help the homeless, a hand up does,and you cannot help those not ready to help themselves and seek out a program that aids in gaining employment and bettering one's state.

I've seen the handouts in California. There were people at that shelter who'd been in and out for years. They ate twice a day and showered every day. They had no motivation to improve their condition.

In Az, I've seen a hand up that really works- you have to prove you're serious by not being a minute late a single day, by wearing the provided business attire, by dmeonstrating that you're contacting potential employers, etc. If you're serious and you really try, they'll see to it that you have what you need to get on your feet so you can support yourself.

Handouts keep people poor. A hand up lets a man stand so he may carry himself.

[/QUOTE]

So if you walk by a homeless man and do not render aid by whatever means you see fit, you are committing an immoral act.

Do you ever get to where you're going I wonder. All that stopping to improve the greater good because of your moral obligations must make it tough to get anywhere on time if at all.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Here are the REAL questions: how are we defining "greater good", and who gets to define it? Is there an objective, universal definition and understanding out there of "greater good", or is it a matter of perspective?

 

[Avatar4321]

Here are the REAL questions: how are we defining "greater good", and who gets to define it? Is there an objective, universal definition and understanding out there of "greater good", or is it a matter of perspective?

I would argue that the only one who could define it is God.

 

[JBeukema]

You would not be arrested and tried if you did not help a bleeding man.

Who ever claimed otherwise?

Are you seriously equating morality and legality?

Not my morals. The law.

Where does the law get its authority?

The People

In addition to self-interest, what is a major motivation when they create law?

common morality

You're the one making moral judgments not me

oh, but you have made moral judgments- you've judged what acts were moral and which were not and what moral obligations you feel you do and do not have.

I am not a sociopath, as you very well might be. I am not amoral or totally lacking in empathy and you might be. Some of us have this thing called a 'conscience' that tells us to help an injured person and not merely walk away. You seem to lack that, much like the Liberals.

Here are the REAL questions: how are we defining "greater good", and who gets to define it? Is there an objective, universal definition and understanding out there of "greater good", or is it a matter of perspective?

Are not all concepts of 'good' subjective?


You're the one making moral judgments not me. One man is not morally bound to do anything for another.

If you refused to put money in a homeless guy's can, you'd be committing an immoral act.

I don't give homeless people money; that's not how you help them. Handouts don't help the homeless, a hand up does,and you cannot help those not ready to help themselves and seek out a program that aids in gaining employment and bettering one's state.

I've seen the handouts in California. There were people at that shelter who'd been in and out for years. They ate twice a day and showered every day. They had no motivation to improve their condition.

In Az, I've seen a hand up that really works- you have to prove you're serious by not being a minute late a single day, by wearing the provided business attire, by dmeonstrating that you're contacting potential employers, etc. If you're serious and you really try, they'll see to it that you have what you need to get on your feet so you can support yourself.

Handouts keep people poor. A hand up lets a man stand so he may carry himself.

[/quote]

So if you walk by a homeless man and do not render aid by whatever means you see fit, you are committing an immoral act.

Do you ever get to where you're going I wonder. All that stopping to improve the greater good because of your moral obligations must make it tough to get anywhere on time if at all.[/quote]

 

[Skull Pilot]

You would not be arrested and tried if you did not help a bleeding man.

Who ever claimed otherwise?

Are you seriously equating morality and legality?

You're the one who brought morality into this. My first post did not mention morality at all.

Not my morals. The law.

Where does the law get its authority?
The People

And?

In addition to self-interest, what is a major motivation when they create law?

common morality

Laws protect the individuals' rights. Or at least they should. In so protecting the rights of each individual, the rights of the collective preserved

oh, but you have made moral judgments- you've judged what acts were moral and which were not and what moral obligations you feel you do and do not have.

Please look back and see who brought morality into this discussion first. it was you.

I am not a sociopath, as you very well might be. I am not amoral or totally lacking in empathy and you might be. Some of us have this thing called a 'conscience' that tells us to help an injured person and not merely walk away. You seem to lack that, much like the Liberals.

Ah the ad hominem attacks. I was wondering what took you so long. You have no idea what I do or do not do do you? Unlike you I don't expect others to do anything for me but that does not necessarily mean I do not help another.

You see the idea of respecting individual liberties precludes the concept of projecting your thoughts and ideals onto another.

Are not all concepts of 'good' subjective?

Which is why i asked you to define your terms. You haven't.