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

[pppppppppppppppppp]

Hey guys; since Extra Credits is such an awesome show here, I decided to go see their videos back when they were on Youtube (yeah, a bit late to the party, I know). In the video on "Video Games and Morality", he talked about the need for moral choices beyond just "good" and "evil", and one of the choices he talked about was "the good of the many" vs "the rights of the few".

So what you guys think is generally more important, the former or the latter? You can roughly cut this a few ways depending on how you look at it: selfishness vs altruism, individualism vs collectivism, capitalism vs socialism ect...

Here's a link to the video for anyone who hasn't seen it yet:

 

[teebeeohh]

good of the many.
right of the few ultimately will always lead to a situation were life is very good for the few and horrible for everyone else. what's interesting is that a large number of people think of themselves as part of the few in order to justify their inaction toward a working system. As long as there is some minority to stomp on they are good, even if it gets really bad.

 

[Tanis]

Lets see...

Good and evil are subjective so lets skip that...

"Good" of the many and "rights" of the few don't always have to be at odds...

Did I miss something?

 

[pppppppppppppppppp]

Lets see...

Good and evil are subjective so lets skip that...

"Good" of the many and "rights" of the few don't always have to be at odds...

Did I miss something?

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?

 

[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.

 

[Tanis]

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.

 

[FalloutJack]

I really can't make a choice, because I'm one of those "It depends" guys. Sorry.

 

[spartan231490]

Hey guys; since Extra Credits is such an awesome show here, I decided to go see their videos back when they were on Youtube (yeah, a bit late to the party, I know). In the video on "Video Games and Morality", he talked about the need for moral choices beyond just "good" and "evil", and one of the choices he talked about was "the good of the many" vs "the rights of the few".

So what you guys think is generally more important, the former or the latter? You can roughly cut this a few ways depending on how you look at it: selfishness vs altruism, individualism vs collectivism, capitalism vs socialism ect...

Here's a link to the video for anyone who hasn't seen it yet:

Rights of the few. Personally, i can't imagine a situation where this is actually an issue, because taking away someones rights doesn't protect others from them, unless you take away everyone's rights, in which case it's rights of the many vs good of the few, and I choose rights. I value freedom over safety anyway.

 

[Falconsgyre]

The best way to secure the good of many is generally to secure the rights of the few.

 

[pppppppppppppppppp]

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.

Okay, here's an example: Would you have government control aspects of the economy if it meant that poor people would have better living conditions? (see: welfare and/or universal health care debate)

In that case, the rich few are denied their right to property by being forced to give to a cause they don't support, but the many poor people improve their lives by having some more money/access to health care.

 

[BRTurtle]

To answer your question neither, for me its case by case since in the end it is a shade of gray. It all comes down to the situation that is presented.

 

[Tanis]

Okay, here's an example: Would you have government control aspects of the economy if it meant that poor people would have better living conditions? (see: welfare and/or universal health care debate) In that case, the rich few are denied their right to property by being forced to give to a cause they don't support, but the many poor people improve their lives by having some money and access to health care.

Yes I would.
Remember when the government had NO say in the economy/regulations?
Yeah, 'The Jungle', massive monopolies, cocaine in 'legitimate' medication, more shit in meat than actual MEAT, ect.
Not 'good times'.
.
While I'm not for a pure Communist state - a purely Capitalist state is BAD for consumers.
.
.
.
With regards to that, the rich aren't being denied ANY 'rights to property' anymore than I am.
Do you honesty think I want my taxes to bail out banks and failed businesses, a failed war, and the salaries of jerks who don't give a FUCK about me?
-Where's MY rights...or am I not money enough to matter???
.
.
.
When it comes to 'the rich being forced to give'...

There are loopholes that 'the rich' tend to use - it's normally the middle class that's forced to shoulder the burden so I have no issue with 'the rich' being forced to pay taxes that equal things out.

 

[Princess Rose]

The Rights of the Few.

The many can protect themselves, and usually do.

Besides, when you're constructing a society, making sure that the few have rights is what keeps things like Slavery from happening. Or Monopolies, to use a less extreme example.

You protect people's rights before you guarantee their good.

 

[trooper6]

Rights of the Few.

Why? Because if may be very good for the many to enslave the few in order to have free labor. No one stands up for the slaves if you pick the Good of the Many over the Rights of the Few.

 

[TheLoneBeet]

Good of the many. The whole "You are within your rights to do anything that doesn't conflict with somebody else's rights" thing is bullshit. If everybody had to stop doing something because one person took offense, there'd be nothing to do.

EDIT: For anybody who reads this and immediately assumes I'm talking about "the right to not be offended".. I'm exaggerating. I'm very aware that isn't one of the rights detailed in any country for it's citizens.

 

[pppppppppppppppppp]

Yes I would.
Remember when the government had NO say in the economy/regulations?
Yeah, 'The Jungle', massive monopolies, cocaine in 'legitimate' medication, more shit in meat than actual MEAT, ect.
Not 'good times'.
.
While I'm not for a pure Communist state - a purely Capitalist state is BAD for consumers.
.
.
.
With regards to that, the rich aren't being denied ANY 'rights to property' anymore than I am.
Do you honesty think I want my taxes to bail out banks and failed businesses, a failed war, and the salaries of jerks who don't give a FUCK about me?
-Where's MY rights...or am I not money enough to matter???
.
.
.
When it comes to 'the rich being forced to give'...

There are loopholes that 'the rich' tend to use - it's normally the middle class that's forced to shoulder the burden so I have no issue with 'the rich' being forced to pay taxes that equal things out.

Oh, don't get me wrong, I completely agreed with you. That's just the logic that some libertarians have (though to be fair, they also apply that same logic to wars, bailouts and whatnot)

How about gun control? Is it more important to uphold the right to bear arms for those who want to buy guns, or for people to be safer overall buy reducing gun availability? (this one's a bit sketchy though because the correlation between gun availability and gun violence is disputed due to illegal weapons sellers and stuff. For the sake of argument though, assume that less guns legally sold means less gun violence)

 

[loc978]

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.

Okay, here's an example: Would you have government control aspects of the economy if it meant that poor people would have better living conditions? (see: welfare and/or universal health care debate)

In that case, the rich few are denied their right to property by being forced to give to a cause they don't support, but the many poor people improve their lives by having some more money/access to health care.

...that's quite a skewed example. You're talking about the many's livelihoods (and occasionally their very lives) versus the few's excesses. It's not generally that cut-and-dried.
Personally, this is so situational to me that I simply can't decide. In some cases the few are the controlling minority oppressing the many who have nothing, in some cases the many are an oppressive regime bent on the genocide of the few... and in some cases you've just got a case of generational hate where both sides are plainly wrong (see Sunni {many} vs Shia {few}).

 

[Lashus]

Good example from a news article I saw recently. There was a child in an elementary school that was severly allergic to peanuts, couldn't even be in the same room as peanut butter. The school banned all students from bringing peanut butter and jelly sandwitches to lunch as well as anything else peanut based.

Personally, I am against this type of 'rights of the few' thinking. If his allergy was that bad, he should not be in a public area. Home school the kid or find some other option.