The Instigator
ideae
Con (against)
Winning
3 Points
The Contender
jh1234l
Pro (for)
Losing
1 Points

Individual rights should be compromised for the benefit of the group

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 2 votes the winner is...
ideae
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 9/27/2012 Category: Politics
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 3,116 times Debate No: 25879
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (2)
Votes (2)

 

ideae

Con

Groups are nothing more than categories of individuals. It is the epitome of absurdity for a category to have the right to rule over a free individual.
When one speaks of group rights, he means a right granted to certain people fitting a certain criterion. Notwithstanding the fact that this is nothing more than a clear-cut violation of equal rights, it should also be stressed that the premise, that individual rights should be compromised for the benefit of the group, takes this even further, asserting that the rights of certain individuals should be compromised for the benefit of certain others.
A vital question to be answered for the proponent of this premise is what the benefiting individuals have that gives them the edge. Are the compromised individuals not as human as the benefiting? What have they done that they should lack the benefit others have? Do not all humans deserve rights? Is it not independent consciousness and self that sets apart an individual? Rights, in essence, all derive from this evident independence of people. Each individual has his own sense of self. It is going against human nature to claim that the rights of the group are superior to the rights of the individual.
jh1234l

Pro

Here are my arguments: (P.S. my keyboard is not really working well, so there might be words missing letters in my arguents.)
1. When someone does something that benefits the group, it may not benefit him or herself at first, though as he or she is also a part of the group, he or she will have a part of the benefit too.
2. I need a clarification: do you mean by the group banning a person doing something in person or as a part of the group?
Debate Round No. 1
ideae

Con

By the rights of the individual being compromised by group rights, I mean "tyranny of the majority" or "mob rule". It disregards reasoned arguments and possible weighed benefits and damages and considers nothing but the number of people supporting.
As an example, we may consider the censorship of minority opinions. The majority, prejudiced towards other opinions, denies the right to proclaim any other thing than what they think, with no debates or consideration of the very plausible fact that their opinion may not be infallibly true, and other opinions may be truthful as well. This claims that the majority can claim infallibility just by being the majority.
The addition of only 1 or 2 members can change a very large minority group from being fallible to being infallible; likewise, the removal of a member or two reverts the majority into a fallible minority, regardless of the members added or removed. This implies that the added or removed members are themselves infallible. Since the statement is supposed to hold regardless of the members chosen, all members must be infallible, which clearly contradicts the obvious fact that all humans are fallible, and also the assumption of this premise that the minority is fallible.
jh1234l

Pro

Here are your claims and my responses:
"By the rights of the individual being compromised by group rights, I mean "tyranny of the majority" or "mob rule". It disregards reasoned arguments and possible weighed benefits and damages and considers nothing but the number of people supporting.
As an example, we may consider the censorship of minority opinions. The majority, prejudiced towards other opinions, denies the right to proclaim any other thing than what they think, with no debates or consideration of the very plausible fact that their opinion may not be infallibly true, and other opinions may be truthful as well. This claims that the majority can claim infallibility just by being the majority."

Mine:This sounds like voting, where the majority wins and the minority does not. So, if a majority of the people voted for you, then they are "censoring the minority" according to you.

"The addition of only 1 or 2 members can change a very large minority group from being fallible to being infallible; likewise, the removal of a member or two reverts the majority into a fallible minority, regardless of the members added or removed. This implies that the added or removed members are themselves infallible. Since the statement is supposed to hold regardless of the members chosen, all members must be infallible, which clearly contradicts the obvious fact that all humans are fallible, and also the assumption of this premise that the minority is fallible."

So, in summary, you are saying that if there are two almost equal sized groups that hold different opinions are voting, one person can make the majority the minority.
This means that voting isn't very reliable, but is not related to this topic too much.

Now, let's say that all citizens in a country are a group, and the group bans people from doing certain things by writing a law. A majority supports the law, while a minority opposes it. But because the government cannot do two opposite things at once, to make more people happy, they pass the law.

Here is what you think:
The law violates individual rights
The government should go with the minority.

Which results in: less happy people
Crime is not counted as crime.
Debate Round No. 2
ideae

Con

Straw man. The mere fact that I don't support majority rule does not imply that I support minority rule. They are both collectivist ideas.

Utilitarianism can hardly be counted as a moral worldview. Happiness is not a moral authority, as it depends on the current feelings of humans and humans are fallible. If all but one people wanted the death of one person, they would be no more justified than if he wanted their death, even though the former would make more people happy.

The government, in nature, is collectivist. It, due to convenience, concerns the rule of a nation, not of individuals. As such, these collectivist problems will appear ubiquitously in any kind of government. The only true option for the benefit of all individuals without any compromised individuality lies in freedom.

As for crimes, individuality provides the best solution. As Joseph Brodsky said: "The surest defense against Evil is extreme individualism, originality of thinking, whimsicality, even"if you will"eccentricity. That is, something that can't be feigned, faked, imitated; something even a seasoned impostor couldn't be happy with."
Crime not being counted as crime is a complete straw man. The individual has no rights to violate those of others, which is equivalent to equal rights, hence there will be laws against violating the rights of others (crime), but there should not be laws that disobey these laws. Such laws are nothing but crime. It is not individualism, but collectivism that does not count crime as crime.
jh1234l

Pro

This is what you said:
"Straw man. The mere fact that I don't support majority rule does not imply that I support minority rule. They are both collectivist ideas.
Utilitarianism can hardly be counted as a moral worldview. Happiness is not a moral authority, as it depends on the current feelings of humans and humans are fallible. If all but one people wanted the death of one person, they would be no more justified than if he wanted their death, even though the former would make more people happy.
The government, in nature, is collectivist. It, due to convenience, concerns the rule of a nation, not of individuals. As such, these collectivist problems will appear ubiquitously in any kind of government. The only true option for the benefit of all individuals without any compromised individuality lies in freedom.
As for crimes, individuality provides the best solution. As Joseph Brodsky said: "The surest defense against Evil is extreme individualism, originality of thinking, whimsicality, even"if you will"eccentricity. That is, something that can't be feigned, faked, imitated; something even a seasoned impostor couldn't be happy with."
Crime not being counted as crime is a complete straw man. The individual has no rights to violate those of others, which is equivalent to equal rights, hence there will be laws against violating the rights of others (crime), but there should not be laws that disobey these laws. Such laws are nothing but crime. It is not individualism, but collectivism that does not count crime as crime."

Now that I know what your opinion is, I'll say mine.
You said that humans are fallible. That means that they are fallible whether they are in a group or as an individual. By the word "happy", I meant "agrees to". So, you are supporting people being only individuals and not in a group. Not even groups that fight for individual rights. You think that, the government is not supposed to be there as it is collectivist. Without the government, people have to decide on their own what should be done to prevent people from violating the rights of others. The hard thing is, one person might be supporting a rule, but another might not. As in this scenario there is no government, people have to decide as a whole or as individuals. When they decide as individuals, people have different opinions, and voting is not fair according to you. But if they decide as a whole, they still have different opinions, and it wont work either. As you say all humans are fallible, then they are fallable as a whole and as a group, so it is very hard to decide.
We are talking about whether groups should exist, not if "Individual rights should be compromised for the benefit of the group". I think we are off topic.
Debate Round No. 3
2 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Posted by daniel.droege5 4 years ago
daniel.droege5
Amendment 10 says to the states or the people.
Posted by One_Winged_Rook 4 years ago
One_Winged_Rook
CON, your argument does not support your resolution. I give the slight win to PRO, only becaues he didn't know what he had to argue... CON was clearly arguing CON democracy (dictatorship of the majority) which is a VERY different argument than a discussion on the sacrifice of individual rights in the name of the overall populace. If you want to argue PRO individual rights, you have to not only argue against dictatorship of the majority, but monopoly of power. In America, for instance, we have the Bill of Rights, that dictates that individuals have this list of rights (9 in total, if you don't count Amendment 10, as that's state's rights) that supercedes the rights of the collective people (for which the federal government represents). To support your resolution, you need to argue that the Bill of Rights (or similar) should not be compromised in the interest of the public good, regardless if you're living in a democracy or otherwise. If you wanted to argue against the Dictatorship of the Majority, you should made that the topic and not the resolution you proposed... for that.. i give the win to PRO
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by daniel.droege5 4 years ago
daniel.droege5
ideaejh1234lTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Reasons for voting decision: I don't vote on conduct, spelling, or grammar. No sources, so con with 3 points. Groups of people deciding law based upon their environment for other people who are not even born yet is stupid. Any system that depends on the right people to be in charge of it is destined to fail.
Vote Placed by One_Winged_Rook 4 years ago
One_Winged_Rook
ideaejh1234lTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:01 
Reasons for voting decision: Comments