Does the common good ever take priority over basic human rights?

Asked by: MC1R
  • Yes It Does

    This this subject is hard to debate, I'd rather give one example. A common good would be world peace and in WWII the German's weren't complying with this by murdering Jews. A Jewish decent has a basic natural right to live. The German's weren't heeding warnings and thus forcefully had to be stopped and this required to violate their basic natural right to life. It was done in order to save the natural right of millions of others. To counter this would be to agree that the German's violation of a human's right to life was correct.

  • Ask a Soldier that question:

    In cases such as the survival of the human race, the common good takes precedence.

    Soldier and police are asked to risk and in many cases sacrifice their live for the good of their nation on a daily basis. If people are not prepared to step up and from time to time do what is necessary, a lot more people would be worse off.

  • Yes, well maybe

    To quote spock "the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few" especially when the few are themselves guilty of violating human rights. In-fact many would claim that in such situation you have a moral duty to act in such situation. My point is that if your unwilling to do even a little bit of evil to stop a lot of evil you will be guilty of allowing that evil to happen

  • Absolutely not in any way.

    Everyone has natural rights. These rights cannot be violated. Natural rights include freedom of belief, freedom of choice, healthcare, an education at least to graduate high school or a GED, the right to not be abused, the right to legal representation, the right to freedom of speech, the right to bodily autonomy. If you violate someone's rights, it will come back on you. Karma is a killer, man. Back in the day when I was a conservative, I bullied people all of the time, and it came back on me tenfold. How is this relevant? I am using an analagy to show that if you violate someone's rights, your own rights will be violated. Do not make my mistakes.

  • Human rights are 'inviolable' for a reason.

    Basic human rights are said to be 'inviolable' in all forms of ethical thought involving rights, and all international law. The right of an individual to have autonomy over their own body, the right to hold their own beliefs, the right to access the basic materials necessary to live, the right to live free of coercion and force, are all inviolable. Any infringement on these rights is wrong purely in itself, and as one is disregarding the rights of others by doing so counts as 'abdicating' their corresponding right by doing so.

    Taking forceful steps to correct violations of human rights is not 'for the common good', it is an act to restore the human rights that were forcibly violated by going against those who have chosen to disregard those rights. As they have chosen to violate the rights of others, they cannot meaningfully hold those same rights themselves, and thus their rights are not being violated by acting against them in this manner to restore the rights they themselves violated.

    Excuse me for the amount of times I used a version of 'violate'.

Leave a comment...
(Maximum 900 words)
No comments yet.