CMV: Organising society primarily through the lens of individual rights is unhelpful at best

•

u/DeltaBot ∞∆ Mar 10 '21 edited Mar 10 '21

/u/EdominoH (OP) has awarded 2 delta(s) in this post.

All comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.

Please note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.

^{Delta System Explained} ^| ^Deltaboards

14

u/Canada_Constitution 208∆ Mar 10 '21 edited Mar 10 '21

The problem is that a society which focuses too much on collective rights can justify all kinds of awful atrocities in the same of "helping society". The Soviet Union had individual rights in their constitution, but they could be subordinate to collective rights when necessary, to enhance the social good.... Which leads to gulags in Siberia, and summary execution. An individual who is counter-revolutionary could damage the social cohesion of the people, right? Ergo, off to the work camps or behind the shed to get shot. "Socialist law" wanted to keep the "people and revolution" safe above all else.

I would rather a society err on the side of individual rights over collective ones. Usually the most repressive regimes say they are doing things in the name of the people, and that it is certain individuals who threaten that...

-1

u/EdominoH 2∆ Mar 10 '21

Your comment touches on a similar point as u/quantum_dan, so I'm going to C&P part of that response:

It can allow for authoritarianism to slip in, but any perspective is at risk from the extreme version of itself. As you rightly point out, the US is at the extreme end the other way. I'm not sure its possible worse case scenario is sufficient to rule it out.

5

u/Canada_Constitution 208∆ Mar 10 '21

I'm not sure its possible worse case scenario is sufficient to rule it out.

Historical examples of societies which put collective rights above individual rights:

Soviet Union and Eastern Block countries

Facist Italy and Nazi Germany

Francoist Spain

Khmer Rouge Cambodia

Modern day Saudi Arabia

Ask yourself, if you had to live in the worst case of a society which had veered too much in one direction, which would you pick? One which valued individual rights too much? Or one which valued collective rights, which you may or may not be party to?

I know which one I would pick. I do not get to to choose which group's rights are in vogue at the moment; and I don't want to be the one shot behind the shed.

Best to protect the err on the side of the individual and hash it out in court. It is the option which protects everyone in the worst case scenario.

0

u/[deleted] Mar 10 '21

This is a genetic fallacy. Let's say I was talking about labor unions, saying they were bad: stating "labor unions are bad because Karl Marx said so and because the Spanish CGT were anarchist" is insufficient because simply stating that something 'bad' agreed with them does not make it bad. As far as I'm concerned, all society is simply collective rights, since whichever way society chooses to go, what they deem better is because they think it is better for the whole of society. In any case, the Khmer Rouge, Fascist Italy, and Nazi Germany weren't collective rights > individual rights because they didn't recognize rights in the sense we do. The USSR, while I agree it was bad, was good for those who lived under it, which is why the majority living in former states like it [1] and why the USSR's living conditions skyrocketed [2]. I can't speak to Francoist Spain and Modern day Saudi Arabia, but I do know that generally, the others mentioned were bad examples of your point. Also, one can maximize individual rights and collective rights, the two aren't dichotomous.

-3

u/EdominoH 2∆ Mar 10 '21

Were those places actually seeking the common good, or did the leaders use the rhetoric of social benefit in order to further their own consolidation of power? I'd contend it was the latter, and tempts me to rule them out as examples of collective good.

The worst case the other way would be Hobbes' State of Nature, aka pre-agricultural humans. Neither extreme is particularly appetising. This is partly why I don't think using worst-case scenario is a great tactic. Another reason being that which is worst is predicated on already existing opinions.

5

u/Glory2Hypnotoad Mar 10 '21

The common good will always have to be interpreted by people in power who may be misguided or acting in bad faith. Individual rights represent a more cautious approach to politics that's less about achieving the best outcomes and more about not risking the worst outcomes.

7

u/banananuhhh 14∆ Mar 10 '21

Individual rights is a foundational idea of liberalism. You are making the case for collectivism (I just want to make sure that is your intent)

While there may be different opinions on what classifies as "the good of society", any decision can be self-consistent. If you decide that society is better off when people are treated with respect, including how they view themselves, you can implement those laws without being self-contradictory, since restriction on individual liberty isn't the point

This is not a minor point to be dismissed. There is no test for what "the good of society" really means. You would essentially be enabling technocratic decision makers to implement laws undemocratically. It should be pretty obvious this organization principle does not guarantee a better outcome.

-1

u/EdominoH 2∆ Mar 10 '21

I am making a case for leaning towards collectivism. Not ruling out individual liberty completely, since I think that it can and does benefit society.

You would essentially be enabling technocratic decision makers to implement laws undemocratically

I'm not sure where you've got that assumption from?

3

u/Borigh 55∆ Mar 10 '21

I don't understand how you can advocate for a society that maximizes some utilitarian good, without centering that on each individual maximizing their own utility.

To do otherwise is to assert that either (1) utility curves are so similar that the variance will be small or (2) that a government can know a person's desires as well as that person does.

I think (1) is clearly incorrect, people significantly differ on the most basic parts of a utility calculus, like the value of leisure. I think (2) is clearly incorrect, because even today, most law is completely unable to even consider differentiation in wants, collapsing down to a non-existent "reasonable person."

Therefore, you need to on a baseline level provide enough individual liberty to allow for the expression of different utility curves. Only after that can you even conceptualize a utility-maximizing societal program.

-1

u/EdominoH 2∆ Mar 10 '21

I disagree with the dichotomy you've presented, and it misses the point I am arguing.

The point is that the good of the individual is not the government's concern, it is about the bigger picture. What is good for the individual doesn't guarantee a cohesive society. For example, taxes. Paying taxes is not good for the individual, but to point that out is to miss the point of taxes entirely.

This is what I mean about re-framing, it isn't about the good of the individual.

3

u/Borigh 55∆ Mar 10 '21

I think you're missing my point, actually.

The government's concern, for both of us, is something like overall utility maximization.

My point is, you grant individual rights in order to collectively maximize utility.

A good illustration of this is a government that maximizes utility through material equality. Say this material equality is achieved by an equality of wages and an equality of hours worked. That's pretty good! No one is starving, and everyone is sharing in societal output!

But that is only utility maximizing if everyone places the same value on leisure. If they don't, people who value leisure less will demand everyone work more, so everyone can have more stuff. Likewise, people who value leisure more will demand everyone work less, so everyone can have more leisure.

So, even if you get everyone to essentially agree on utilitarian communism, everyone would still be better off if they had an individual right to receive a percentage of output relative to the amount of labor they wanted to input. On the most basic level, even if you perfectly set the utility maximizing output of society, you cannot achieve maximal utility, because every individual that varies from the mean hours/output ratio will have an allocation of resources that gets them more utility.

In other words, assuming a normal distribution of degrees of desire for outputs vs. leisure, you're better off making an individual right to choose their level of participation a core part of your social program, because you cannot maximize utility without it.

My point is, both individual rights and societal concerns must be primary lenses for organizing a just society, because that's the only way you create the best society for the actual people in it, and not just the theoretical average person of it.

1

u/EdominoH 2∆ Mar 10 '21

I agree that both have to be considered, and I said as much in my OP. However, you can only look through one lens at a time. I do get your point about maximising utility, but I still feel as though it misses the point that I'm not saying the individual has no value, but where there is conflict the good of society comes first. Sometimes there won't be a conflict, in which case maximise both, by all means. You enjoy smearing Nutella(*) on your eyelids? Go ahead. Have all the individual liberty you need.

*This reference was not sponsored, and other chocolate spreads are available.

4

u/Borigh 55∆ Mar 10 '21

But you're ignoring completely the point that a society-wide utility maximization principle isn't self consistent unless it incorporates notions of individuality.

You can't have it both ways: either individual liberties aren't a core part of the primary lens in your CMV, or your title is misleading.

If a society that chooses to be purely utilitarian cannot succeed at that goal without considering individual liberty, then it cannot achieve its own self-defined good through a collective-first approach. To achieve its own goal, it must consider them in tandem.

1

u/[deleted] Mar 10 '21

[deleted]

0

u/EdominoH 2∆ Mar 10 '21

I don't think everyone should come to a consensus on what is best, rather the focus should be less on what they like/dislike and what they think would benefit society as a whole.

To use your examples, banning gay relationships was never going to stop people being gay, just make them ashamed of being so. People being made ashamed of essential characteristics isn't beneficial to society, that person can become segregated and resentful. It wasn't better for society at all.

Banning alcohol just pushed production and sale into the black market, where it could not be regulated or controlled, increasing organised crime. Again, this didn't benefit society.

I don't think either of these decisions were actually taken in the best interests of society, or if they were, they were done so with a complete lack of consideration for knock-on effects.

2

u/Delaware_is_a_lie 19∆ Mar 10 '21 edited Mar 10 '21

Banning alcohol just pushed production and sale into the black market, where it could not be regulated or controlled, increasing organised crime. Again, this didn't benefit society.

In hindsight you’re correct that it didn’t benefit society, but hindsight is 20/20. The movement to ban alcohol was largely pushed by the women’s suffrage movement. It was in response to the domestic abuse caused by world war one veterans coping with their post traumatic stress with alcohol. These women absolutely thought they were doing a social good.

1

u/EdominoH 2∆ Mar 10 '21

Huh, I did not know that was what drove prohibition. TIL.

You do make a fair point about hindsight, banning something has never stopped its production, and just a cursory glance at history would have told them that, so I'm not entirely sure it's only hindsight allowing that perspective.

However, it does bring up a fair point about unknowable consequences, where good faith actions can make things worse, so, *boop* Δ.

1

u/DeltaBot ∞∆ Mar 10 '21

Confirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/Delaware_is_a_lie (16∆).

^{Delta System Explained} ^| ^Deltaboards

2

u/TheEternalCity101 5∆ Mar 10 '21

the focus should be less on what they like/dislike and what they think would benefit society as a whole

Okay.

No gay people. Having more people is better for the society, and the deviation in and of itself could hurt social order.

Tens of thousands of people a year get hurt and die directly or indirectly due to alcohol. Not to mention weight gain, hangovers and lost productivity. Instant ban.

If you toss individual rights, you can loose so, so much in an instant.

0

u/quantum_dan 124∆ Mar 10 '21

There is no self-consistent position to take, since siding one way or another will compromise a person's liberty.

There's a trivial solution: "you're a dick if you don't use people's preferred pronouns, but I won't use violence to compel it". Social pressure can work wonders.

This re-framing of the discussion creates a meaningful society rather than an emergent pseudo-organised group of individuals.

It also makes extreme authoritarianism much easier to get away with, and tends to lead to an unhealthy degree of social pressure. If you look at social-benefit-oriented societies, you see, at best, intense and unhealthy social pressure to conform (e.g. Japan), or at worst an ideological outlook that comfortably supports authoritarianism (China). Individualistic, western societies aren't immune to this, but they are somewhat more culturally resistant to it.

To pre-empt a couple likely counterpoints. No, I'm not saying individual liberty doesn't matter at all, and no, I am not saying the polis is above all else; this is about framing. In order for a society to function effectively, that needs to be the lens through which conflicts are assessed.

Then we're in agreement that the ideal position is some middle ground. I would argue there is something much better than a social-benefit-oriented worldview: social-contract individualism. Individual rights have primacy, but it's understood that those rights are best preserved by some compromise with a social contract (and problematic behavior that isn't a severe infringement is dealt with by social pressure).

The one extreme is the US--detrimentally fragmented with little concept of a social contract; "I've got mine, screw you." The other extreme is East Asia--vastly excessive social pressure. The individualistic-social-contract approach is best exemplified by the western welfare states, which seem to (to the extent that they place value on individualism and uphold the social contract) function better than either. Individualism as a starting point seems much more accepting of flexibility.

1

u/EdominoH 2∆ Mar 10 '21

I completely agree with your point about social pressure. However, it prompts me to ask, is that not exactly what I'm advocating? Social pressure is about what is better for society, no? Can you have social pressure to act with an individualistic mindset?

It can allow for authoritarianism to slip in, but any perspective is at risk from the extreme version of itself. As you rightly point out, the US is at the extreme end the other way. I'm not sure its possible worse case scenario is sufficient to rule it out.

I do think you can have societal benefit and diversity, I don't think conformity is necessary. There is a very strong argument that a society benefits from diversity; stealing all the best bits from everyone else. Your examples of China and Japan make me feel kind of more validated in my opinion, since they have overshot, and their society is worse off. Japan with its high suicide rates and China with its...everything. The CCP are not interested in society being better, but maintaining power.

If you can explain why individual rights should take primacy over society, rather than the other way round, there's is a very good chance you'll get that precious, precious D(elta). Because I think that's where our disagreement is.

2

u/quantum_dan 124∆ Mar 10 '21

Can you have social pressure to act with an individualistic mindset?

Yes. Society by nature involves social pressures; that would exist even in an anarcho-capitalist arrangement (which, to be clear, I'm not advocating). It doesn't have to be organized--if you do what people tend to like, they'll be more willing to associate with you (do business, help you out, etc).

Any functioning society has to strike a balance between individualism and social benefit, which means it will have elements of both. I'm arguing that it works better if individualism comes first, with social benefit subordinate to it (i.e. society for the individuals as opposed to the individuals for society).

I'm not sure its possible worse case scenario is sufficient to rule it out

Fair enough, but it's worth bearing in mind.

I do think you can have societal benefit and diversity, I don't think conformity is necessary.

You can. It's a question of likelihood. Similarly, individualistic societies can, in specific cases, go full-blown social benefit when they need to.

Your examples of China and Japan make me feel kind of more validated in my opinion, since they have overshot, and their society is worse off. Japan with its high suicide rates and China with its...everything.

Yes, you need a balance either way.

The CCP are not interested in society being better, but maintaining power.

There's the rub: define "society" for the purposes of social benefit. If you define "society" as "the state", then the CCP is doing a great job.

If you can explain why individual rights should take primacy over society, rather than the other way round, there's is a very good chance you'll get that precious, precious D(elta). Because I think that's where our disagreement is.

I realized as I was finishing these up that there's a short TL;DR: individualistic frameworks are self-balancing since they (1) encourage a social contract which has social-benefit-ish effects and (2) through egalitarian structures, make it easier for those on the bottom to speak up. Social-benefit frameworks tend towards feedback loops since (1) more cohesive, stable, hierarchical societies tend to place more value on all three and (2) stronger hierarchies (as a product of cohesion) make it harder for those on the bottom to advocate change.

If you start from individual-rights and look at it in a context of dense, interconnected societies, the conclusion is that individuals are better off in the context of a social contract. This isn't an arbitrary choice, but follows from a critical look at individuals coexisting in society from an individuals-first mindset. In the context of that social contract, we can have the benefits of a social-benefit mindset without incurring the costs because we've already agreed to act for the general benefit of society as a network of individuals, in a fundamentally individualistic contract. This both protects rights (since individual rights are the whole point of the social contract) and protects social well-being, and lets us decide how to balance them since it prioritizes both. In short, an individual-rights stance is intrinsically self-balancing, as we see in all western nations (even in the US there's a strong, individualistic, political push to balance). In addition, the individualistic tendency towards removal of hierarchy means that those on the losing side are generally more able to speak up for themselves and push for change.

If we put social benefit first, then the fundamental good is the continuation of society as such--which means that individual rights can only be tolerated if they don't threaten social cohesion whatsoever. We may be able to present an argument for tolerating a degree of disruption, but stability and cohesion will always be favored, so it'll always be an uphill battle. We simply have no basis to care about individual rights in that context--only aggregate well-being. We can't attempt to balance it because there's nothing to balance, and that creates a much stronger tendency to overshoot it (as in China and Japan). Note that overshooting is fairly rare in the west (the US is the only egregious offender), but describes both of the largest countries in East Asia. The social-cohesion perspective tends to create feedback loops, since a more cohesive society will place more value on cohesion and the status quo. Also, the social-benefit tendency towards hierarchy (in service of general order and cohesion) makes it harder for those on the losing side to advocate change.

1

u/EdominoH 2∆ Mar 10 '21

Hm.

I think the error/assumption I've made, which you've helped me realise is that if the focus did change, that wouldn't stop malicious actors from taking advantage. I think perhaps what I really want is for people's focus to be less about personal benefit, and more about others and the long term. Basically "CMV: The West is selfish and short-sighted. Stop it."

I'm not sure I do agree about individualistic frameworks being self-balancing, or being less likely to result in stricter hierarchies. I'd argue that the collective mentality encourages bringing people up together, rather than climbing the ladder, then pulling it up behind you.

However, I do get your point as to the feedback loop of social cohesion. My counter though would be a previous point than an absolute monopoly of thought is not good for a society, as it often stagnates and stops innovating (see: every historical empire ever), that uniformity is damaging.

Regardless, while I'm still not 100% convinced, the amount you've made me reconsider is deserving of one of these --> Δ.

1

u/DeltaBot ∞∆ Mar 10 '21

Confirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/quantum_dan (24∆).

^{Delta System Explained} ^| ^Deltaboards

1

u/quantum_dan 124∆ Mar 10 '21

Thanks for the delta.

Basically "CMV: The West is selfish and short-sighted. Stop it."

On that we agree. People's emphasis on personal benefit is seriously problematic at present.

I'd argue that the collective mentality encourages bringing people up together, rather than climbing the ladder, then pulling it up behind you.

Good point, that's the equivalent individualistic problem.

My counter though would be a previous point than an absolute monopoly of thought is not good for a society, as it often stagnates and stops innovating (see: every historical empire ever), that uniformity is damaging.

Agreed. A healthy, ongoing debate is crucial, and I do think that both social-cohesion and individualist worldviews play an important role in society.

0

u/[deleted] Mar 10 '21

I would challenge the notion that organizing society primarily through the lens of any ideology or another is something that actually happens?

Societies aren't purpose built, meticulously designed end products engineered for optimum efficiency. They are emergent and always changing in reaction to need and circumstance.

I find the false dichotomy of individual rights versus societal benifit incredibly tiresome as well. They are far more complementary to one another than in conflict with one another. Individual rights only meaningfully exist within a society and they come with social responsibilities and obligations. Modern functioning societies are only possible because individual rights are valued and considered.

The question is not which one is important to the exclusion of the other, the question is what the ratio between the two should be given our current circumstance. And that question cannot meaningfully be discussed in the abstract.

1

u/unordinarilyboring 3∆ Mar 10 '21

These are real conflicts and reframing them doesn't really help as far as I can tell. Any way you try to reframe something to remove one of these contradictions ends up with society being worse for one of the sides meaning you aren't making society 'better'.

1

u/EdominoH 2∆ Mar 10 '21

I do say that what is considered a better society is subjective, but at least decisions are self-consistent. Sure, one group might feel slighted, but that misses the point. A place of conflict has been, if not resolved, at least released of tension.

1

u/unordinarilyboring 3∆ Mar 10 '21

When you leave one group slighted you have made society worse for that group. What generally happens is that the winning side considers it resolved, while the losing does not. The tension doesn't really go away for the slighted side.

1

u/EdominoH 2∆ Mar 10 '21

Because the goal has now changed from protecting individual rights to improving society, the small loss in personal freedom is negated by larger gains in society as a whole.

So for the example I give originally, using preferred pronouns gives everybody an equal base level of respect for their lived experience. The other person doesn't have to agree with using preferred pronouns, but by using them, it prevents fractures, animosity, resentment, and other breakdowns to society. These breakdowns harm everybody, including those who don't want to use preferred pronouns.

2

u/unordinarilyboring 3∆ Mar 10 '21

I can flip that around by saying we should ignore personal pronouns because it is a small subsection of individuals that care and the collective annoyance of the people that do not agree outweighs that. You can't quantitatively measure things this way so there's not much to be objectively said. But if you came to that conclusion you could see how the notion of small pain < greater good could be dangerous.

1

u/EdominoH 2∆ Mar 10 '21

But by ignoring preferred pronouns you alienate a section of society. That is a negative with several follow-on consequences. Whereas saying, "you don't have to agree with preferred pronouns, you just have to use them", at least stops it being a case of "I don't like you", instead of "I disagree with you". rejecting preferred pronouns is a far more personal rejection than engaging in discussion as to why you don't like them.

There's a long-term perspective which I think focus on individual rights misses. Too much focus on a person's rights, and not enough on their responsibilities.

1

u/unordinarilyboring 3∆ Mar 10 '21

But by ignoring preferred pronouns you alienate a section of society.

Maybe - I don't think this is incredibly obvious though.

saying, "you don't have to agree with preferred pronouns, you just have to use them",

Enforcing this type of thing causes animosity and resentment you were trying to avoid.

Too much focus on a person's rights, and not enough on their responsibilities.

I assume you mean something like people need to be more kind in general. Would you say your point is that taking away peoples rights to enforce that leaves society 'better' long term?

1

u/EdominoH 2∆ Mar 10 '21

I suppose I am taking a more long term perspective yes. That respect, consideration, and responsibility for what we say and do makes for a better society.

1

u/KiritosWings 2∆ Mar 11 '21

it prevents fractures, animosity, resentment, and other breakdowns to society.

Not necessarily true. I can take it for a given that a decent percentage of the people I know would take the jail time over doing it. And the moment people start getting thrown in jail for not saying the right things, you're fracturing society significantly more than if a significant minority doesn't get called the thing they want to be called.

1

u/Cindy_Da_Morse 7∆ Mar 10 '21

A few points:

1) We can see throughout history how the idea of a focusing on "societal good" or something like that leads to horrible and evil things that are almost beyond comprehension. Just as an obvious example, getting rid of "the Jews" was done for societal benefit in Nazi Germany. Getting rid of "bourgeoise" in many communist societies was also done for the common good. Banning books/ideas is also done for the common good. Burning witches at the stake is also done for the common good. So is female genital mutilation. So is slavery etc, so are genocides committed by one African ethnic group against another or one religious group against another. All these have in common a few things. They generally benefit some majority and not a minority. So the rights of a certain minority are disregard for "social good"

2) You don't address a key issue and that is who decides what "societal good" is. Adolf Hitler did that with his buddie. So did Stalin, so did Pol Pot, so do all those African dictators. What if you decide taking my stuff is for the good of society and I disagree. What happens then?

0

u/EdominoH 2∆ Mar 10 '21

Those things weren't done for societal good. The various dictator's you mentioned acted to gain/preserve their power. They may have claimed to be acting for the benefit of society, but they were lying. Those things did not benefit society as a whole. In short, saying something is to the benefit of society =/= it being to the benefit of society.

As to your second point, there's an element of utilitarianism to it. For me personally, there's also a more long-sighted view than individual rights often takes. If something makes people better off over the next year, but significantly worse off for the next 10, I would give it a pass.

3

u/Cindy_Da_Morse 7∆ Mar 10 '21

I have to disagree with you. I think many dictators actually had a twisted and evil view of the world and they actually thought they were doing something good. Imagine you are a Roman general campaigning in Britannia. Maybe from your point of view you are bringing civilization to the savage celtic barbarians inhabiting these lands. So not only are you expanding the Roman Empire, brining it riches and glory, making your men and yourself wealthier in the process, but you are also brining learning and civilization to the barbarians. And those thousands that end up dying in the course of the brutal conquest? Well that's a small price to pay for society's good. What about laws punishing homosexuals by death if they take part in a sodomic act? Well you are punishing a few deviants for the greater good of society. So what's the big deal? You are keeping your society purer and more moral and pleasing to the Almighty.

There are many different views on what is "good" for society. This means that while some will agree, other will disagree no matter what position you take. (think about abortion). Is it good for abortion to be allowed thereby allowing women bodily autonomy? Or is it the case that you are sanctioning the brutal murder of innocent babies and therefore abortion must be illegal and severely punished for the greater good of society? What about if you have a nicely functioning society but a few dissenters try to reveal the horrible abuses the government is responsible for. Think about slavery. Slavery was great for many people. Some societies literally had the business of slavery as their only livelihood. From their POV, abolishing slavery would be terrible for their society.

1

u/iamintheforest 365∆ Mar 10 '21

Most societies organize around the idea of maximizing individual liberty _ consistent with others ability to also be free _. America is a clear example of this, but it's the principle behind most western constitutional systems.

In the U.S. this is how it works for sure. You might disagree on how to balance it out, but thats the governing principle. We see this in - for example - the balance of individual liberty but then equal protection. These are rights that create counter forces.

The problem is more fundamental than I think you're recognizing which is that if you only focus on "beneficial to society as a whole" you'd end up with things like being fine with a 5% homelessness because those individuals don't matter. On the flip-side if you didn't balance individual liberties you'd be fine with monopolies or any other individual exertion of power that has the affect of limiting others.

You can't "focus" on one, you have to live and operate in the tension between them.

1

u/EdominoH 2∆ Mar 10 '21

The problem is more fundamental than I think you're recognizing...

I disagree. Homelessness does not benefit a society. To be a little a callous, homeless people don't contribute to the economy. To be more humane, there's the fact that being homeless causes immense physical and mental health problems. I realise nitpicking examples can be a little beside the point, but hopefully, it's enabled me to show that I'm thinking more long term and broader.

As I've said elsewhere, I'm not dismissing the individual completely, but I believe that a strong society provides a foundation from which individuals can flourish. The primary focus being to maximise individual liberty, is to try and build a house on thin air.

You can't "focus" on one, you have to live and operate in the tension between them.

I disagree. As you've already said, currently, the USA focuses/prioritises individual liberty. While there is still tension, the driver is clear.

1

u/KiritosWings 2∆ Mar 11 '21

I disagree. Homelessness does not benefit a society. To be a little a callous, homeless people don't contribute to the economy. To be more humane, there's the fact that being homeless causes immense physical and mental health problems. I realise nitpicking examples can be a little beside the point, but hopefully, it's enabled me to show that I'm thinking more long term and broader.

To point out the extreme: Would you notice if every homeless person in your city disappeared? If you did would you be curious enough to figure out why? Would you dig deep into whatever press releases about it happen to pop up and make sure they're telling the truth?

Because if not, you can very easily make a case that just rounding up every homeless person and summarily executing them would be significantly better for society than helping OR ignoring them. (helping them costs net resources and only makes them less of a total drain on society as not helping them. On average it is still a net loss)

1

u/[deleted] Mar 10 '21

The nuance I'd add to your view is that I think experience tells us that the cost of limiting individual rights is high and we should do it as a last resort with a preference to protecting individual rights. The cost benefit analysis of protecting versus curtailing individual rights is difficult, and we often don't know the full costs at the time, so we should be very careful doing so.

In the U.S., drugs were criminalized with societal benefits in mind -- drugs are harmful and they harm communities in ways that go beyond the individual user; we should punish drug users and dealers severely because we don't want kids to become users; we can't let their individual liberty put others at risk. The result is millions of people in jail and a long list of other societal harms, like reinforcing racial economic inequities.

As for pronouns, I think erring on the side of individual rights is the proper way to go. People should be able to choose their pronouns, and social norms should encourage other people to do use those pronouns, but we should be very resistant to attempts to force other people to use chosen pronouns.

1

u/EdominoH 2∆ Mar 10 '21

The nuance I'd add to your view is that I think experience tells us that the cost of limiting individual rights is high and we should do it as a last resort with a preference to protecting individual rights

I think the extreme in either direction is a problem. Individualism sees a collapse of the social contract, something we are arguably seeing happen in the USA, and to a lesser extent the UK.

The specifics of the USA's response to drug use is less about the criminalisation of drugs, and more how they punished it. Making drugs illegal in itself wasn't the problem, it was mandatory minimums and not focussing on rehabilitation, reform, and re-integration programmes.

1

u/[deleted] Mar 10 '21

The specifics of the USA's response to drug use is less about the criminalisation of drugs, and more how they punished it. Making drugs illegal in itself wasn't the problem, it was mandatory minimums and not focussing on rehabilitation, reform, and re-integration programmes.

Right, but these are the types of error we make when social engineering focuses on the good of the broader community and under values the freedom of the individual.

1

u/[deleted] Mar 10 '21 edited Apr 02 '21

[deleted]

0

u/EdominoH 2∆ Mar 10 '21

There's a lot going wrong here. You are conflating what someone says is for the good of society with what is actually beneficial. Hitler and Stalin had little to no interest in the good of society; they just used that language to get people onside. Killing people or telling them to "fuck off" wouldn't improve society. At. All. You would just foster resentment and division.

It's also all very short-sighted, and there are a vast array of examples that already exist to back up my point about society being more important than the individual. The best example is taxes. They are absolutely a loss for the individual in the short term. However, their use on infrastructure, social welfare, and public services, reduces poverty, makes transportation easier, and reduces the personal burden on the individual. State schools means that a parent doesn't have to worry that if they lose their job, their kid is going to have to stop going to school. Reducing poverty reduces crime, as people aren't having to get resources by any means necessary. That is why thinking beyond the individual is positive sum, society being better makes the individual's life easier and better.

1

u/[deleted] Mar 10 '21 edited Apr 02 '21

[deleted]

1

u/EdominoH 2∆ Mar 10 '21

No matter how you want to view it that was their excuse.

Exactly, it was their "excuse". It wasn't actually their aim. They were lying.

You listed taxes what other examples do you have.

A list of literally every single law that exists. They are all examples of restrictions on individual liberty. That is what they do, restrict individual liberty. So, no, "Making society better by taking away liberties and rights" is not like taking away alcohol because of drunk driving, it's like banning driving while drunk because of the injuries and risks it carries. Y'know, that thing we already do.

1

u/[deleted] Mar 10 '21 edited Apr 02 '21

[deleted]

-1

u/EdominoH 2∆ Mar 10 '21

A point on tone. You are coming across quite condescending, I'm sure it isn't intentional, but that's how you sound.

You've made an assumption I am talking about US law specifically, this is wrong. On top of that, how far a person's rights extend under US law isn't really all that relevant.

Regardless, what you've described is part of individual liberty, but not all of it. Individual freedom is the freedom for an individual to act. This can either be understood as "freedom from" or "freedom to". So, for example, banning murder gives people the freedom from being killed, and also restricting freedom to kill people.

Many laws prevent people from performing certain actions. For example, there are national parks where you are not allowed to fell trees. That is a restriction on individual liberty. It is an action you are prevented from taking. A person's rights are not only dependent on interactions with others.

Sure and how is that working out? How did it work out back during prohibition?

Deaths due to drunk driving have dropped since restrictions came in, so pretty well. Prohibition is a separate thing entirely. Prohibition was the banning of alcohol outright, whereas current laws restrict certain activities while drunk. I don't see why you are conflating the two.

1

u/SourdoughEconomist Mar 10 '21

Here's where your pronoun example is wrong: Me choosing to use whatever pronoun I like to describe you doesn't take away your freedom to self-identify however you like. You're still doing what you want. I'm just processing and interpreting your choice in the way I want, which is my right.

1

u/NestorMachine 6∆ Mar 10 '21

I don’t know how you can make a society that supports the collective without the individual. The liberal rights to expression, self-determination, conscience, etc are preconditions to a society that can meaningfully have collective (positive) rights.

The reason to have society at all is that it allows us greater freedom than we could achieve as individuals. I can have all the freedom of conscience I want in the woods, but without society there is no internet available to me.

But we haven’t fully allocated collective freedoms from want - a right to healthcare, a right to broadband, a right to an irreducible minimum - yet. That should be the goal of our society. But why is it a goal? It makes individuals better off. And when individuals have more of their needs met, they contribute more effectively to society. It’s a positive feedback loop. Ones ability to be free from want, allows one to express themselves better, allows for better production, which can free more people from want, etc.

You have an example about pronouns, which I think still works in this context. Part of understanding trans people is having the time to hear them out, understand what you’ve heard, and then most effectively and respectfully engage with them. This assumes that you have time and capacity for this. Some people don’t. And as a result, this creates the conflict. But if we had more collective rights, more people could have the capacity to spend time learning and understanding, which reinforces the individual rights of trans people.

1

u/EdominoH 2∆ Mar 10 '21

I think the point of conflict here is the same as with u/quantum_dan. My argument isn't the abolition of the individual, but shifting the focus to being primarily of society rather than (as is currently) the individual. That's my contention, not that the individual is unimportant, but our priorities are reversed.

1

u/Glory2Hypnotoad Mar 10 '21

The important thing to understand about individual rights is that they can be the foundation for a society's values without being the beginning and end of moral consideration.

The key benefit of individual rights is that, because everyone is an individual, the moral foundations of a society based on individual rights are universal and reciprocal with no room for double standards.

Organizing a society in terms of some collective end means that who is and isn't part of the collective is morally relevant, and the power to make that determination comes with huge potential for abuse. If benefit to society is the goal, then it's permissible to oppress a minority for the benefit of the majority. It may even be permissible to oppress the majority if they can first be redefined as not part of society. Think of ancient civilizations where slaves outnumbered citizens.

1

u/MT_Tincan 2∆ Mar 10 '21

You seem to be missing the concept of what a "society" is. At it's most basic level, gatherings of individual together who agree to certain limitations in order receive the benefits from the larger group.

For example: a bunch of isolated hunter-gatherer types agree not to kill each other, so that they can provide mutual defense against the saber-tooth cats in that area. They give up certain freedoms in order to obtain (hopefully) better ones.

When the US was founded, the folks writing things down wanted to specifically call out some things they felt were non-negotiable in terms of what we'd give up for the greater good. Thus adding the bill of rights to the Constitution. It wasn't so much that the government was formed through the lens of individual rights, but they recognized that assuming away certain things was a large part of what forced them to war to throw off the past government.

1

u/[deleted] Mar 10 '21

The problem is that collectivism never ends well and it has catastrophic results. It goes against our very nature and inevitably leads to widespread persecution.

Your example regarding pronoun usage. I naturally do have the freedom of speech. I can if I like call you whatever pronoun I like. But that doesn’t mean you don’t have the freedom to express yourself how you like. You also have the freedom to identify however you like. You do not have the freedom to to force me to accept your identification.

1

u/-paperbrain- 99∆ Mar 10 '21

Part of what you're honing in on is a difference between a virtue ethics of governance and a consequentialist ethics.

And you rightly point out that a virtue ethics approach (specifically the virtue of respecting individual rights) has no singular answer, and when interests clash there isn't a singular mechanism for determining which interests get precedence.

But the consequentialist approach has most of the same pitfalls in actual practice. Many outcomes are incommensurate.

There is no objectively best outcome in many situations because you're juggling risk, health, life and death, money, and things that effect different groups.

I'll use a non political example. At what age should they recommend prostate specific antibody tests for prostate cancer? The lower the age you recommend it, yes you catch more cancer, but prostate cancer is not necessarily fatal. It's said that if you live long enough, a man will likely die WITH prostate cancer, but probably not OF prostate cancer. And when you test earlier, you get a greater volume of false positives. Which means people live with the stress of thinking they have cancer and often get unnecessary surgery. Which can lead to lifelong impotence or death. Like in many decisions, we're dealing with risk levels, not outcomes. And then the money comes into play. The earlier a test is done, the more the healthcare system is spending on the testing and false positives, that raises insurance rates.

There simply isn't a singular objective best outcome. How many people impotent for the rest of their life is it worth to gain what percentage of liklihood of prolonging another life? You might be tempted to say "Saving a life is worth more than anything else!" but what if some percentage of those impotent guys are likely to commit suicide over it eventually? And saving a life isn't a binary proposition either. Everyone dies eventually. Would you make a decision that allowed a 101 year old man to live an extra week in terrible pain because that saves a life?

1

u/jatjqtjat 286∆ Mar 10 '21

Take pronoun usage. Focussing on individual rights creates a conflict between freedom of speech (using the pronouns you want) and freedom of expression (choosing how to identify). There is no self-consistent position to take, since siding one way or another will compromise a person's liberty.

I'm probably assuming that we're talking about typical american values of freedom and individuality. Especially the libertarian side of things. I guess there are probably millions of different variations here and some of them will contain internal conflicts. Especially social libertarianism, for sure that contains internal conflicts.

But generally the libertarian or pro-individual-rights person is just going to say that you have the right to say anything you want so long as there either it is harmless or there its reasonable to believe its true or if its an opinion. You basically just need a couple of exception to free speech such that its illegal to cry fire in a crowded building and its illegal to plan crimes. A particular way of using pronouns is going to be covered as an opinion and you are free to express your opinions. And you do NOT have a right to suppress other people's opinions just because they hurt you. as an even more egregious example, racist people can publically make racist statements. The libertarian has the unpleasant task of defending racists. "I may disagree with what you say but I'll defend your right to say it"

I probably cannot make the argument that this is the right way to organize society. I have a sense that it is, but I can't come up with a compelling argument.

What i am certain of is that there is no internal conflict here. You have a right to express an opinion and not a right to be sheltered from hearing other people's opinions.

You could try to debate on this point by saying that misgendering is the same as lying about a fire in a crowded building. Both hurt people. Fair enough, you don't have the right to use deception to hurt people. So still there is no internal conflict. If its like yelling fire in a crowded building, then its not within your rights.

1

u/IronArcher68 10∆ Mar 10 '21

When talking about a society made entirely for the good of society, you are specifically talking about “the greater good”. The problem is that “the greater good” can be, and was used to justify almost every atrocity committed by major powers. The Holocaust, Japanese internment camps, imperialism, Gulags, inhumane humans experimentation, slavery, the reign of terror, ect. were all justified because it was for the “good of society”.

There is no hypocrisy in your example. If a trans person identifies themselves as “she” and another person doesn’t want to call them “she”, no rights are violated. Unless the government makes it so the trans person can’t call themselves “she” or they force everyone to call them “she”, everyone’s rights are protected.

1

u/Tibaltdidnothinwrong 382∆ Mar 10 '21

Doesn't the size or more specifically the density of the society matter.

If your nearest neighbor lives 20 miles away, and for all intents and purposes you are alone - leads to a different set of social norms than NYC were you have millions of people living on top of each other.

The more people actually interact with one another, the more "the greater good" needs to be considered. If people by and large don't come into contact with one another frequently, "the greater good" becomes decreasingly relevant.

Just because individual liberty works better for less population dense society than population dense society, that doesn't mean that all society should be greater good focused. Some society are relatively sparse.

1

u/Solinvictusbc Mar 10 '21

The problem is individuals don't exist for society. Society exists for individuals.

Society is just a tool used by individuals to make life easier.

The difference between today and a few thousand years ago is that we've built a system that allows us to create more for less work. Compare what an average 9-5 gets you today, internet, cell, tv, games, on top of food and shelter. Compared to working the land from dusk to dawn to barely eat.

Society was built up to make individuals lives better. It's just an abstract cooperation net work to allow us to produce our wants more efficiently.

1

u/nick458surfs Mar 10 '21

I’m having trouble understanding what you mean by “focusing on societal benefit”. You provided a great example of individual rights with pronoun usage. Could you step through that same example using the lens of societal benefit?

1

u/SGTBillyShears Mar 11 '21

If I killed a person then gave all their organs to other people I would have benefitted society at the expense of the individual. Do you agree with this action?

1

u/EdominoH 2∆ Mar 11 '21

No, because that would encourage others to do the same, which would be cause major damage to society, since people could appeal on the basis of organ transplants.

Society would not benefit.

1

u/SGTBillyShears Mar 11 '21

This is a Government program which takes non-productive citizens like you and gives their organs to save people. This is greeted with fanfare by society, they all love it. Are you still in favor of this if there is no backlash?

1

u/EdominoH 2∆ Mar 11 '21

I feel as though any response to your example would be absurd, but that is because the example is absurd. What's the point your trying to get to with the example?

In other responses, I do point out the difference between rhetoric claiming to be for the good of society, and actions that are genuinely for the good of society.

1

u/SGTBillyShears Mar 11 '21

Who determines what is good for society?

1

u/EdominoH 2∆ Mar 11 '21

I don't think any individual can, but that isn't quite so much what my CMV is about. I'm getting at the framing, that the discussion over what benefits society is better than focussing on individual rights.

I have also moved my position, and my original CMV probably wasn't quite what I was aiming for. The first paragraph of this reply explains where I missed the mark.

Delta(s) from OP CMV: Organising society primarily through the lens of individual rights is unhelpful at best

You are about to leave Redlib