I hve been reflecting deeply recently on the intricate connection between our responsibilities to society and our personal liberties; and I would like to hear your thoughts. This phenomenon has been explored by various philosophers, from rousseau to sartre; and it appears to remain significant in contemporary times. How can we find equilibrium between our communityâs needs and our individual liberties?
it frequently seems that a paradox is at play. On one side; contemporary society encourages individualism; everyone should enjoy the liberty to seek their own happiness; make personal decisions; and stay true to themselves. , we are becoming more conscious of our interdependence, particularly regarding matters like social justice; public health; and climate change. This shared dependence suggests a degree of communal accountability, meaning that our individual liberties may occasionally need to be modified for the benefit of the entire community.
Consider the right to free expression;. We possess the liberty to articulate our thoughts; but we also have an obligation to prevent causing harm to others through our expressions; intentionally & unintentionally. Similarly, during a public health crisis, ought individualsâ freedom to travel be limited to protect the more vulnerable members of the community?
What do you think is the best way to address this tension? Is it possible to honor community obligations while also ensuring individual liberty simultaneously? Is there a common ground where both can coexist, & are there situations where one should clearly take precedence over the other?
I m particularly interested in how various philosophies address this equilibrium. In what ways could communitarianism; existentialism; & utilitarianism; for instance; tackle this issue? Do you think there are any contemporary philosophers & thinkers who provide valuable insights on this topic?
I would really want to get some help from a more experienced person Regardless of whether you strongly side with one opinion & like me; remain uncertain; I would love to hear everyoneâs thoughts.
The communityâs (all other individual stakeholdersâ) needs/liberties end where each individualâs private needs/liberties begin, and vice versa.
Ecmandu⌠please refer back to your rainbow rule (THE golden rule) & rerun your answer. The couple who doesnât care how their relationship influences the community should live outside of it, and the community who respects consent/personhood should honor & respect their decision & not get between (divide, separate) them.
True of all agreements/consents/groups that recognize consent. For those that donât⌠a house divided will not stand. Pledge your allegiance only to those who respect consent, and your allegiances will never be irreconcilable.
There are certain costs for which you are not accounting, which make your calculations retarded against reality. In fact, bragging rights are social capital. Conspicuous consumption whore.
. âCould anyone clarify the tension between individual freedom and collective responsibility?â
âŚthe latter, is undermining and obliterating the former, thus (intentionally or otherwise) eradicating or diminishing a personâs ability for self-determination and personal choice.
It depends on the sort of society a person lives in, as well as their own personal values. Asian societies are very big on collective responsibility over individual freedoms, while European societies and especially American society are big on individual freedom over collective responsibility. Of course both are always there and play some role. I tend to take an extreme view as pro-individual freedom, and I would say collective responsibility is a lie, a false concept because it is not foundational in the way individual freedom is; for one reason, the collective isnât alive, it isnât a being, whereas the individual is alive and is a being. The individual exists in a fundamental meaningful way that âthe collectiveâ doesnât. Furthermore, collective good has been used to justify so many horrors and abuses and tyrannies throughout time. It is accurate to see the collective as a secondary entity that emerges from the mass of individuals, while those individual people AS INDIVIDUALS are primary entities. Therefore philosophically and ethically speaking it makes little sense to violate the sovreignty, integrity and rights of the individual for the supposed good of âthe collectiveâ. In my view anyway.
Collective good can come from many directions. It can come from your neighbors, from your family. It can come from strangers giving to charity, it can come from churches and other local institutions and organizations helping out people in need. Collective good also comes from individuals working together for their own self-interest, which promotes a net value-increase for all parties involved IF all transactions are voluntary in nature as in free of coercion, fraud, theft and other kinds of force. If I sell you some food for $5 and you freely choose to buy it, then we both experienced net value-increase. I made $5 which is more than the cost of making or getting the food, and you received food that, to you and from your perspective, was worth more than the $5 you had in your pocket (otherwise you would not have exchanged it). After all you canât eat a $5 bill when youâre hungry.
Voluntary cooperation among individuals is the best way to have a system that, overall and emergently and over time produces a collective good that is optimized WITH individual freedom and not at their expense. Of course such a system must focus on the individualâs point of view and values-set which is why transactions and interactions being voluntary by nature is so important: each person must be free and empowered to make their own choices based on what they perceive as their own best wants and needs. When we are all doing that in a peaceful economic space, collective good will result. So laws can be focused on keeping the peace for the citizenry, i.e. police and jails for violent criminals and laws against theft, fraud, coercion and bribery. With that basic setup the state should step back and allow the people to govern their own lives and societies themselves. That is freedom.
And yes I shifted the onus here a bit away from collective responsibility to collective good on that side. I would say the notion of collective good is the real justifiable basis for the notion of collective responsibility. But keeping it very simple here, we have a responsibility to the group insofar as we follow the golden rule, follow the law and do not violate the rights and freedoms of other individuals. So from this point of view there is really no deep conflict or tension between individual freedom and collective responsibility, once you frame and contextualize collective responsibility in terms of individual freedom itself.
If all the men collectively has a conference call. And the men decided women have no more liberation. Thereâs nothing all the women in the world could do about it.
Now. Hereâs the kicker.
The ONLY reason women have liberation anywhere is because men are sexually possessive and jealous people.
In Arab societies men have agreed not to liberate women. Thatâs the collective.
I know this for a fact. The best way to get or stay out of hell is to liberate everyone.
There are tons of reasons why this is true.
I have the power to remote control the entire species with my spirit alone. Your spirits are not as powerful as mine. Thatâs ok. Donât feel bad for it.
Everyone eventually gets their chance to be as powerful as me. Thatâs one of the reasons you should treat people kindly .
I own all your souls right now.
You didnât want me to forgive everyone no matter what they do forever.
âŚas far as responsibilities go, there are some individuals who pass their responsibilities onto the collective. When itâs rich people, they call it capitalism. When itâs poor people, they call it socialism.
They donât wanna talk about the third thing. But itâs Christian anarchism, or the only true deism. Everybody takes responsibility for their own burdens, and then they trade it & co-carry. Itâs mutual consent respect⌠global personhood recognition.
Ichthus77 & Ecmandu BFFs, love always, etc etc etc etc (catches glimpse of Bri Bri solemnly strumming on the periphery, soulfully and mournfully confessing and apologizing to his mom as his guitar gently weeps) (their life flashes before her eyes, and she is grateful he kept that divorce therapist on retainer) (atomic bombs break through the setting sun, covering his sobs as he reveals the slights his mother never suspected) (he lays his head in his motherâs lap, and sighs, âHer hips are crowding me out all the way from the west coast to here, east of the Mississippi, and sheâs not even here in spiritâ and his mom whispers, in a very raspy, manly, yet soothing, tone, âThere there, Brian, go get me another vape.â) (he glares toward the west. Zappa winks back, offering no help) (Brian puts his hands in the air like he just doesnât care, but wouldnât have done so if he didnât actually care)
The individual could not exist without the collective because the individual has parents and the parents have parents and so on and so forth. & thatâs just the simplest basic part. The collective parents are responsible for the liberation of the child into responsible (freedom protecting) adulthood and finding its collective counterpart⌠To keep that fire going.
I mostly agree with you otherwise. I donât wanna talk about money and food.
I would like to begin with mapping the fault lines between individual freedom and collective responsibilities in other words a harmonious social relationship. There are four main areas / circumstances such rifts are cultured and nurtured.
1 . Foremost is developing family values when kids are growing up . Respect for community values can hardly be visualized without a total harmony among the all family members , parents , grandparents and children . The children growing up in loving and cultured families remain big assets to community . Itâs the family that gives first lessons in rationalizing individual freedom vis a vis collective responsibility.
2. Education is not merely for making students job worthy or teaching skill sets. The social commitments and continued interaction between parents - teachers shapes the concept of healthy Ideas about individual freedom and collective responsibility.
3. Political class needs to be watched seriously as often for gaining votes they divide societies by their provocative speeches , misinterpretation of historical facts and exploiting divisions in various classes .
4. Last but not the least is the dangers posed by Press and Social Media in distorting concept of individual freedom and decaying culture of social responsibility !
Tensions breed and grow in the four sectors mentioned , unless they are nipped in bud this problem is going to be severe in coming days .
Well you are partly right. But what you really mean to say is that the individual cannot exist without other individuals, i.e. the parents and others. Talking about other individuals as some vague âcollectiveâ is muddying the waters here. There is really no collective, just other individuals.
And yes of course each human individual requires to have other individuals create him/her, and then care for him/her because human babies are very dependent for so many years. We are also required to be taught language and some culture, values, etc. to really mature into an individual with our own identity. I do realize that humans raised alone in the wild become feral, but that does not mean that we need to put value or faith in some vague âcollectiveâ. It just meansthat human individuals make, care for and help other human individuals.
A collective is a group of individuals. That is why the individual is the primary concept and unit here. Which is also why any talk of sacrificing the individual for the sake of the collective is madness, philosophically and morally speaking.
.
By the age of 14, the dependent is already becoming a self-sufficient young adult⌠the once cared and provided for, now becoming the carer and provider.
âŚin the West we are anyway, so if this differs from the rest of the world then what works for one continent or peoples wonât work for another⌠so a tailored approach is then needed, to quell the individual/collective divide.
IOW⌠you canât treat grown people like an adult child, or know whatâs best for the global whole en masse.
