the individual vs the group

#1
RespectTradition

RespectTradition

Well-Known Member
Joined
Dec 18, 2010
Messages
1,831
Likes
7
#1
Here is a philospohical question that I think determines a lot about our political outlook. I will post the question, then give you my answer. Please share your thoughts.

Here is my question:

Is it moral for the group to do something that it is immoral for the individual to do?

I used the word moral, but I think in this particular context, we can substitute ethical, acceptable or right if you prefer a different term.

Here is my answer:

No. The group is nothing but individuals. The group is actually an imaginary concept. If ten of us are on an island, is it a group of ten or two groups of five? That depends on how we choose to divide ourselves. The group is actually fictional. It is only individuals that choose to associate. Bearing this in mind, it is apparent to me, that all actions by the group are actually actions of individuals. If, for example, NEOCON is one of the people on our island and the rest of us decides that he snores too much and his feet stink :p and we vote to send him to the other side of the island (which will tear him up since we are on the right side of the island and now he will be on the left :) ) and that one of us has to take him and carry him over there if he refuses to leave. The one who picks him up has, as an individual, decided to defer to the wisdom of the group and decided to physically confront NEOCON. That individual has made decisions and taken actions. The idea that some imaginary group has the authority to validate his actions is a cop-out.
 
#2
#2
What if everyone in the group, using light as a feather, stiff as a board, carries their fair share of the weight as they ferry him across the island?

Is it now acceptable?
 
#3
#3
fl0at said:
What if everyone in the group, using light as a feather, stiff as a board, carries their fair share of the weight as they ferry him across the island?

Is it now acceptable?
Click to expand...

To me? No. That is still an individual choosing to act and carrying 1/9 of NEOCON's weight. The fact that the other eight people are also doing it doesn't change that.
 
#4
#4
Let's be honest about this.

Within weeks of me being "left alone on the other side" I would find all the banana trees on the island, take the bananas, then train the monkeys to realize I had all the bananas therefore making me their god. I would then have these monkeys and gorrillas protect me and cut off all fresh water supplies to you guys making me therefore your ruler if you wanted to live.

I would also know who wanted me gone ( you're screwed now) and those who didn't and fought for me to stay ( your now employed by Island Processing INC and not screwed) so showing your hand in forcing me to the other side actually helps me know who can trust and who not to for future reference.
 
Last edited:
#5
#5
fl0at said:
What if everyone in the group, using light as a feather, stiff as a board, carries their fair share of the weight as they ferry him across the island?

Is it now acceptable?
Click to expand...

Do you think that makes it acceptable? Does a group of people have a lower threshold of morality than an individual?
 
#6
#6
RespectTradition said:
Do you think that makes it acceptable? Does a group of people have a lower threshold of morality than an individual?
Click to expand...

Absolutely not. But at the same time, an individual doesn't have a higher threshold of morality than a group.
 
#8
#8
NEOCON said:
Let's be honest about this.

Within weeks of me being "left alone on the other side" I would find all the banana trees on the island, take the bananas, then train the monkeys to realize I had all the bananas therefore making me their god. I would then have these monkeys and gorrillas protect me and cut off all fresh water supplies to you guys making me therefore your ruler if you wanted to live.

I would also know who wanted me gone ( you're screwed now) and those who didn't and fought for me to stay ( your now employed by Island Processing INC and not screwed) so showing your hand in forcing me to the other side actually helps me know who can trust and who not to for future reference.
Click to expand...

:salute:
 
#9
#9
fl0at said:
Absolutely not. But at the same time, an individual doesn't have a higher threshold of morality than a group.
Click to expand...

Sorry, I'm a little slow today, woke up way too early. What does that mean? Are you agreeing with me? or am I missing something?
 
#11
#11
Also are we talking morals or ethics cause the are different.

The ehtics for what is allowed by a minority is not always the same as the group.

It is unethical to call in sick for any reason whatsoever as an employee. As an owner you can call in sick whenever wanted. I understand this is a situation specific analogy but there are times when what is ethical for one is not ethical for the group.

It could also be flipped in your island analogy. 21 land safely on the island. 16 are wounded and dying. 7 are ok. The 7 decide is is best for the 7 to not take care of the dying 16 because it will not save them and only prolong their own fate.
 
#12
#12
I also see this progressing into a utilitarianism debate whcih I do not believe in.
 
#13
#13
RespectTradition said:
Sorry, I'm a little slow today, woke up way too early. What does that mean? Are you agreeing with me? or am I missing something?
Click to expand...

Essentially, there is no threshold of morality. There either is, or isn't, morality. There is right conduct, or not.

There is no, "he held himself to a higher morality than his peers." The individual and the group both have the same line; moral, or not.
 
#14
#14
fl0at said:
Essentially, there is no threshold of morality. There either is, or isn't, morality. There is right conduct, or not.

There is no, "he held himself to a higher morality than his peers." The individual and the group both have the same line; moral, or not.
Click to expand...

like I said, knew it would end with a kant debate.

reality is what is moral for the masses is not what is always more for the leader or individual.
 
#15
#15
NEOCON said:
like I said, knew it would end with a kant debate.

reality is what is moral for the masses is not what is always more for the leader or individual.
Click to expand...

I disagree. To use your example earlier about sick leave. The boss is not answerable to anyone, for the sake of argument, and therefore does not have to justify or lie about his use of time. An employee has no moral restrictions on his use of sick leave either. However, he has a moral restriction against lying or fraud. The boss also has a moral restriction against lying or fraud. The difference in this example is who would be lying or committing fraud.

(btw, you know I just wanted to use someone from the board in my original example and I picked you because you have a sense of humor and thick skin)
 
#16
#16
fl0at said:
Essentially, there is no threshold of morality. There either is, or isn't, morality. There is right conduct, or not.

There is no, "he held himself to a higher morality than his peers." The individual and the group both have the same line; moral, or not.
Click to expand...

So, if someone committed an action that you deemed worthy of death, is it as moral for you to execute him as it would be if the group decided, a la a trial?
 
#17
#17
RespectTradition said:
So, if someone committed an action that you deemed worthy of death, is it as moral for you to execute him as it would be if the group decided, a la a trial?
Click to expand...

You are asking a question with no established principle.

Is execution moral? Not legal. Not acceptable. Is it moral?

If yes, then yes, it would be moral for me to perform the execution. However, it might not be legal.

However, if moral and legal, then we have no issue beyond personal desire.
 
#18
#18
fl0at said:
You are asking a question with no established principle.

Is execution moral? Not legal. Not acceptable. Is it moral?

If yes, then yes, it would be moral for me to perform the execution. However, it might not be legal.

However, if moral and legal, then we have no issue beyond personal desire.
Click to expand...

I don't think execution is moral ever. I used it as a hypothetical because it is one area that most people who approve of capital punishment consider wrong for the individual, but acceptable for the state.
 
#19
#19
RespectTradition said:
I don't think execution is moral ever. I used it as a hypothetical because it is one area that most people who approve of capital punishment consider wrong for the individual, but acceptable for the state.
Click to expand...

At the risk of starting a discussion I am not likely to finish, I will say that I find capital punishment to be moral.

I don't, however, always find its usage to be justified.
 
#20
#20
fl0at said:
At the risk of starting a discussion I am not likely to finish, I will say that I find capital punishment to be moral.

I don't, however, always find its usage to be justified.
Click to expand...

Sorry, wasn't trying to start a capital punishment debate. I am just curious about how others here view the relationship between the individual and the state and the rights of each.
 
#21
#21
in the immortal words of mr spock, or shamelessly by sentinel prime, the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few or the one........
Posted via VolNation Mobile
 
#23
#23
OrangeEmpire said:
our version of capital punishment as a deterrant is laughable
Posted via VolNation Mobile
Click to expand...

Extraordinarily laughable. Given events in the last decade, our possession of nuclear weapons as a deterrent is laughable.

Should we get rid of them (and the practice), or keep them around (and the practice), just in case?
 
#24
#24
fl0at said:
Extraordinarily laughable. Given events in the last decade, our possession of nuclear weapons as a deterrent is laughable.

Should we get rid of them (and the practice), or keep them around (and the practice), just in case?
Click to expand...

Nuclear weapons as a deterrent only work if everyone believes we will use them. Do you know anyone (sane people) who thinks we will actually nuke someone who pisses us off?
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top