Poll: The Good of the Many vs. The Rights of the Few

[OneEyeX]

"First they came for the communists,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a communist.

Then they came for the trade unionists,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a trade unionist.

Then they came for the Jews,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a Jew.

Then they came for me
and there was no one left to speak out for me."

Just so we're clear on what happens when the Few go 'south'.

 

[-Dragmire-]

So you're asking me if I think it is better to have 80 people happy and 20 people miserable, or 20 people happy and 80 people miserable?

I think one is clearly better.

Depends on how you think of it.

Is it better to do painful experimentation on unwilling captives with the intention of curing cancer? More people might benefit from it.

I said the rights of the few because of the Fallout 3 example. I can't kidnap a child from (arguably) loving parents even with the child's potential as a cure for a plague. I can't be sure the experiments would have been ethical, and even if they were, I'm not sure I'd do it.

However, if I were suffering from the plague as well and I'd get a game over for not stealing the child for research, my sense of ethics might change, and suddenly the good of the many might mean more to me.

 

[SillyBear]

So you're asking me if I think it is better to have 80 people happy and 20 people miserable, or 20 people happy and 80 people miserable?

I think one is clearly better.

Depends on how you think of it.

Is it better to do painful experimentation on unwilling captives with the intention of curing cancer? More people might benefit from it.

Now you're twisting the original premise. You are saying people might benefit. I certainly believe in due process and I certainly don't believe two wrongs make a right, if that's what you are asking me.

I know enough about science and enough about the world we live in to know that you don't have to conduct awful experiments on human beings to find a cure for a disease. I know that there would be another way about it. I know it's a hypothetical question, but it is so outlandish it's hard to swallow.

I said the rights of the few because of the Fallout 3 example. I can't kidnap a child from (arguably) loving parents even with the child's potential as a cure for a plague. I can't be sure the experiments would have been ethical, and even if they were, I'm not sure I'd do it.

In regards to that specific decision (which was awesome, by the way) I stole the baby. I trusted that the experiments would be generally ethical and I did not like the baby's parents.

However, if I were suffering from the plague as well and I'd get a game over for not stealing the child for research, my sense of ethics might change, and suddenly the good of the many might mean more to me.

Well that's just natural human bias.

 

[TacticalAssassin1]

Yeah, good and evil are subjective, that's kind of the point of the video. I'm saying what's more important to you in cases when the rights of the few and good of the many conflict?

My point is I can't think of very many times when there is conflict.

Rights, like Civil/Human Rights/Liberties rarely - truly - affect the 'good of the many'.

Two guys getting married won't really 'do' anything to the majority of heterosexuals - for example.

The only exception I can think of for that would be when the 'many' religious people push their rights onto the few non-religious or those of a different faith. So for the atheists that voted 'good of the many', you just agreed that you can be treated like shit as long as it keeps the religious happy.
Also, if you went by this logic, scientists would be doing very unethical experiments on live humans, creating unbearable pain, because the discoveries that come from it may help those who aren't tortured in some lab somewhere.

 

[Farseer Lolotea]

I chose "can't decide." My actual answer is that "the good of the many vs. the rights of the few" is almost invariably a false dichotomy.

 

[-Dragmire-]

So you're asking me if I think it is better to have 80 people happy and 20 people miserable, or 20 people happy and 80 people miserable?

I think one is clearly better.

Depends on how you think of it.

Is it better to do painful experimentation on unwilling captives with the intention of curing cancer? More people might benefit from it.

Now you're twisting the original premise. You are saying people might benefit. I certainly believe in due process and I certainly don't believe two wrongs make a right, if that's what you are asking me.

I know enough about science and enough about the world we live in to know that you don't have to conduct awful experiments on human beings to find a cure for a disease. I know that there would be another way about it. I know it's a hypothetical question, but it is so outlandish it's hard to swallow.

I admit I'm trying to state this in a way that makes it harder to answer because that's what I think moral choice is all about, no right answer.

Even if there was no doubt that the loss of the few would benefit the many, I still don't think I'd support it.

Naturally, I want the majority of people happy, that being said, I'm not sure how much I'd be willing to let the few suffer.

 

[SillyBear]

So you're asking me if I think it is better to have 80 people happy and 20 people miserable, or 20 people happy and 80 people miserable?

I think one is clearly better.

Depends on how you think of it.

Is it better to do painful experimentation on unwilling captives with the intention of curing cancer? More people might benefit from it.

Now you're twisting the original premise. You are saying people might benefit. I certainly believe in due process and I certainly don't believe two wrongs make a right, if that's what you are asking me.

I know enough about science and enough about the world we live in to know that you don't have to conduct awful experiments on human beings to find a cure for a disease. I know that there would be another way about it. I know it's a hypothetical question, but it is so outlandish it's hard to swallow.

I admit I'm trying to state this in a way that makes it harder to answer because that's what I think moral choice is all about, no right answer.

Even if there was no doubt that the loss of the few would benefit the many, I still don't think I'd support it.

Naturally, I want the majority of people happy, that being said, I'm not sure how much I'd be willing to let the few suffer.

Well I just always believe there is another way around the problem. To combat terrorism you don't need to torture terrorists. To cure cancer you don't need to perform cruel experiments on people.

I think I agree with others when they say that the whole thing is a false dichotomy.

 

[Craorach]

Entirely subjective.

Sometimes, putting the rights of the few first will lead to a better quality of life for everyone. Prejudice of all types tend to fall under this.

Sometimes, putting the rights of the few first will lead to oppression and suffering for the many.

 

[Calbeck]

"Rights" are just that. They are not privileges, and not as such subject to the "good of the many" (which more often actually boils down to the "wants of the many").

"Good of the many" is an argument that's been used to support poll taxes, for example. To oppose labor rights during the earliest days of the union movements. To keep black citizens at the back of the bus and in separate schools.

Minorities are "the few", whether they are classified by skin color or the decision to carry a holstered firearm for self-defense. Whether they are women seeking equal pay, or a street preacher wheedling about damnation as you pass by. There is no "good of the many" argument that cannot be made regarding each and every right you yourself personally hold dear...and so I stand for your rights, so that you can determine the good for yourself.