PDA

View Full Version : Individual Rights vs. Group Rights


FreakyLocz14
October 13th, 2011, 04:02 PM
I told myself I wouldn't make a political thread, but this is more philosophical than political.

Anyway, should we look at rights in terms of groups i.e. LGBT rights, women's rights, black right's, etc. or should we look at them simply as equally applied individual rights, paying no heed to group membership?

My personal view is that we should view rights as individual rights. That way, the rights of certain groups would come naturally without special treatment that may infringe on the rights of other minorities or majorities. In order to achieve full equality, we need to stop placing people into groups altogether and see each person as an individual.

I don't believe in positive rights. I only believe in negative rights. That means that I don't believe that people are entitled to anything from society or from the government. I believe that, unless someone's actions will harm, defame, or restrict the liberty of others, that society and the government should not prevent them from doing what they want.

What do you think? Discuss.

deoxys121
October 13th, 2011, 04:09 PM
I think individual rights is the best way to look at it. That way, you don't have to worry about giving any certain group special privileges, nor do you have to worry about certain groups being discriminated against. Everyone deserves the same rights no matter what, whether you're white, black, Hispanic, Asian, middle-eastern, straight, gay, bisexual, man, woman, Christian, Jewish, Muslim, Buddhist, Hindu, or anything else. In the United States, we're getting there slowly but surely. First it was religion, then there was gender, then there was race, and now there's sexual orientation in the process. We'll get there eventually, I'm sure.

lx_theo
October 13th, 2011, 07:06 PM
It should be seen as rights for individuals and the groups they identify with.

Lance
October 13th, 2011, 07:10 PM
I don't believe that people are entitled to anything from society or from the government.
I do however, believe people are entitled to certain things. I believe that our service men & women who defend our very freedom, who bleed and make the ultimate sacrifice for their country are entitled. I believe first responders and firefighters, who knowingly and willingly sacrifice their very lives, are entitled. I believe teachers, who grade papers til early hours of the morning, and who can touch the lives of our children for the better, are entitled. Doctors and nurses, who sacrifice much of their own free time, and who save lives, are entitled. The single mother of three, working 2 jobs to make things better for her kids, and to give them a goddamn fighting chance in their own lives, is entitled. The college student, working several jobs, on very little pay and sleep, trying to make it in the world, is entitled. The elderly of this country, who preserved and protected our freedom, who fought war after war against terrible foes, who gave us this great country, are entitled. The people we oppressed and vilified for centuries, Who were driven mercilessly from their homes and sent West, who were wrongly imprisoned and sent to internment camps during WWII, who fought for basic human rights in the 60's, and who were lynched by the dozen, are entitled. The government serves and takes care of its own people. That is its purpose. For the people. Good luck to you if you think you can tell those people they aren't entitled to something for the sacrifices they make for this country.

Lalapizzame
October 13th, 2011, 08:51 PM
I enjoyed Mr. Wire's appeal to emotion.

However, my opinion is that action should only be taken as a reaction. There is no need to protect something that is not being tampered with, to poke a sleeping beast (unless you intend to kill it immediately), to harvest fruit before it has shown any signs of growth. I am more sympathetic towards Freakylocz's views in this case.

Esper
October 14th, 2011, 09:16 AM
Ideally we'd go with individual rights, but since this isn't a perfect world and certain groups get the short end of the stick in one way or another we have to have group rights to counteract the bad influence of discriminatory people.

Really, whatever works best to make sure everyone gets their fair and equal share is what I'd like.

FreakyLocz14
October 14th, 2011, 11:59 AM
Ideally we'd go with individual rights, but since this isn't a perfect world and certain groups get the short end of the stick in one way or another we have to have group rights to counteract the bad influence of discriminatory people.

Really, whatever works best to make sure everyone gets their fair and equal share is what I'd like.

I understand your concern, but seeing all people as individuals is true equality. Sure, you can try to advocate for expanded rights for certain groups, but by seeing them as groups and not as individuals, you are viewing them as being different from the start.

twocows
October 15th, 2011, 09:08 AM
I enjoyed Mr. Wire's appeal to emotion.

However, my opinion is that action should only be taken as a reaction. There is no need to protect something that is not being tampered with, to poke a sleeping beast (unless you intend to kill it immediately), to harvest fruit before it has shown any signs of growth. I am more sympathetic towards Freakylocz's views in this case.
Pardon, but what's not being tampered with? These groups wouldn't exist if they thought their rights (individual or whatever) weren't being infringed.

I agree that a group does not inherently have rights, only the individuals in it. For instance, corporations should not have the same rights as the individual people in the corporation.

FreakyLocz14
October 15th, 2011, 02:19 PM
Pardon, but what's not being tampered with? These groups wouldn't exist if they thought their rights (individual or whatever) weren't being infringed.

I agree that a group does not inherently have rights, only the individuals in it. For instance, corporations should not have the same rights as the individual people in the corporation.

Corporatism is a prime example of how collectivism can go wrong.

Mr. X
October 15th, 2011, 03:03 PM
A group is nothing more then a varying number of individuals the same, or shared, goals.

Groups do not need rights as the individuals in the group already have them.

Melody
October 15th, 2011, 03:04 PM
The rights of an individual, shall not abridge the rights of a group nor shall the rights of a group abridge the rights of an individual.

I believe that's what our founding fathers INTENDED. Why do you think we can vote for our representatives who roughly represent the rights of the individual and face against the Senate which often represents the rights of the many in the nation, like the states as a whole, and the country overall.

What I mean is that some groups, like say for example some anti-gay christian group, claims a right which was not lawfully granted to them like "Protecting the Sanctity of Marriage".
Now in my opinion, that obstructs any happy same-sex coupling from legally flexing their "Pursuit of happiness" right, which WAS lawfully granted to them.

Hence "The rights of a group shall not abridge the rights of an individual"

Now, it might be a different story if the group in my example had claimed a right that was lawfully theirs, like the power to refuse same-sex couples from using their church, or their pastor/minister to marry them. In that case, "The rights of an individual shall not abridge the rights of a group"...even if it is just a totally phobic and jerk move in my view.

To say the rights of the group and the rights of an individual are the same is like saying apples are oranges. It doesn't fit. The rights of the group are determined by majority, where the rights of an individual are not.

Oryx
October 15th, 2011, 03:12 PM
I'm on Scarf's side on this one. When one group is being discriminated against and abused because of being part of that group and no other reason, it's reasonable to assert that their rights apply to them as a group. In an ideal world no one would be grouped either negatively or positively, everyone would be judged by their own merits, but this world isn't ideal so we can't rely on ideal solutions. Giving a group rights is not intended to give them rights that they deserve solely because they are part of that group; it's rights that they deserve as an individual that we refuse to give them because they are part of that group.

FreakyLocz14
October 15th, 2011, 05:07 PM
I'm on Scarf's side on this one. When one group is being discriminated against and abused because of being part of that group and no other reason, it's reasonable to assert that their rights apply to them as a group. In an ideal world no one would be grouped either negatively or positively, everyone would be judged by their own merits, but this world isn't ideal so we can't rely on ideal solutions. Giving a group rights is not intended to give them rights that they deserve solely because they are part of that group; it's rights that they deserve as an individual that we refuse to give them because they are part of that group.

But if we had the political power to grant the rights as a group, be it through sympathetic judges or enough sympathetic member of Congress, couldn't those same people just as easily grant them their individual rights on the basis that they are individuals that do not currently enjoy those rights? As the old cliche goes: Justice is blind.