the individual vs the group

#28
#28
RespectTradition said:
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)
Click to expand...

It's a very tough debate because you have to limit the individual vs masses debate to situations that are hard to exist in real life.

You must clarify status in real terms of the individual vs the masses.

And I have no problem being the one used. I know very well if it was me and a bunch of other volnationers on an island I better have landed on the crate holding the guns or I'm screwed.

But if I do land on the crate holding the guns ...

:dance2:
 
#29
#29
RespectTradition said:
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.
Click to expand...

No.
 
#31
#31
NEOCON said:
Also are we talking morals or ethics cause the are different.
Click to expand...
I think he's talking about "moral" in the most fundamental sense and not so much in a developed sense. "Moral" basically being what is wrong to do to another person in violation of their will.

In different words, he's asking if individuals are sovereign as our founders believed or is the "state" as a "group" sovereign as believed by statists of various stripes. The statists most relevant to us are the Progressives and Socialists who rose out of the materialist/modernist/humanist ideals of the late 19th and early 20th centuries.

If you want the "Christian" answer... the individual is sovereign according to NT principle in the spiritual sense even when he isn't in the physical sense... but he should be in both. In the secular/pragmatic sense... systems in which the individual's sovereignty is most greatly respected and protected by the state are more peaceful, prosperous, and happy.

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.
Click to expand...
Not really. There's just a different source of accountability.
 
#32
#32
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...

this is the biggest reach I have ever seen, wow!
Posted via VolNation Mobile
 
#33
#33
OrangeEmpire said:
this is the biggest reach I have ever seen, wow!
Posted via VolNation Mobile
Click to expand...

I think I've made further reaches, but this is up there.

There are some similarities, but their differences are too great to discount. The largest difference, and something RT was trying to point out, is that if we were using nukes 3,4,5 times a year, while still being targeted by foreign nations, and if they were ineffectual, then they wouldn't be useful as a deterrent.

As it stands, though, you are right. It is a ridiculous attempt at a comparison.

At the same time, though, I really don't see China and Russia as forgoing invasion of the US, simply because of nukes. So... are they really a deterrent? Don't know.
 
#34
#34
fl0at said:
I think I've made further reaches, but this is up there.

There are some similarities, but their differences are too great to discount. The largest difference, and something RT was trying to point out, is that if we were using nukes 3,4,5 times a year, while still being targeted by foreign nations, and if they were ineffectual, then they wouldn't be useful as a deterrent.

As it stands, though, you are right. It is a ridiculous attempt at a comparison.

At the same time, though, I really don't see China and Russia as forgoing invasion of the US, simply because of nukes. So... are they really a deterrent? Don't know.
Click to expand...

having a boomer at your door step is a deterrant, we have never had to go nuclear.

putting someone on death row for 20 yrs is not a deterrant
Posted via VolNation Mobile
 
#36
#36
RespectTradition said:
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.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure what to think of this post. On the one hand, it has some merit; on the other hand, I think it was stumbled over by accident.

To say the "group" doesn't exist is like saying the picture of a mosaic doesn't exist, but it is simply a collection of bits of stone. It echoes Baronness Thatcher proclaiming "there is no society, only individuals," while one of her aides was desperately holding up a cue card "AND FAMILIES, AND FAMILIES." But we know what the Baronness really meant.

The view is seriously reductive and retrograde. I would say it is unsuited for our own historic time. Since "the group" can impose nothing upon the individual, it is the Law of the Jungle. It means, utgibbs wins - every time. It is up to you as individuals to stop me, which of course, you can't, as BPV knows well. Your imaginary cop-out then is not a cop-out at all. It is, in fact, the exact opposite.

Moreover, the real world outside the back door has some things to say about this as well. We are, by biology, social creatures. And history proves instructive to this truth as well.

Finally, the dignity and well-being of the individual is paramount. This you have stumbled upon. However, it is impossible to achieve this dignity and well-being without the group. How the group deals with every individual is, in the end, the only question of politics. And obviously, at times, it requires the coercion of individuals. To what end, that is question. Does not certain forms of coercion enhance freedom? (the rioters spring to mind, and ask many a pertinent political question)

The group is hardwired into our biology. It is very real - forms our culture, our language, our very way of perceiving the world. Even Thoreau returned from the woods (and wouldn't have made it without the group besides)....
 
#37
#37
only gibbs could say, with a straight face, that coercion (ie, the use of force against an individual or group) enhances freedom

that subscription to Granma comes in handy, doesn't it?
 
#38
#38
MG1968 said:
only gibbs could say, with a straight face, that coercion (ie, the use of force against an individual or group) enhances freedom

that subscription to Granma comes in handy, doesn't it?
Click to expand...

Actually, it is a view shared by almost all of philosophy, but who's counting? :dunno: It is clearly a supermajority view as well, otherwise, why police and armies?

In other words, the rioters in England should not have been stopped since the individual shopkeepers / owners could not do it.

In other words, the parents who did not keep their teenagers in the house shoulder none of the responsibility. They would have been coercing the individual teenager.

In actuality, the English riots are a fantastic vignette regarding the farce of the OP stance (and the vacuity of current bourgeois culture)

Clearly, the use of coercion can be abused, and abused in the most heinous ways. This is why the Sith Lord / Jedi views of the world on display on this board are so naive, and why a show like Firefly is so intriguing (and doomed for cancelation).

And besides, the group is imaginary.... just like freedom, I suppose. :/
 
#40
#40
MG1968 said:
only gibbs could say, with a straight face, that coercion (ie, the use of force against an individual or group) enhances freedom

that subscription to Granma comes in handy, doesn't it?
Click to expand...

I've said that, and agree, ghastly enough, with gibbs (edit: well, not with his post in response, just the concept of necessary coercion), in this case.

The reasoning, again, is that to obtain the level of freedom desired, or expressed by some as natural freedoms, would require such a buck against the status quo, that I don't imagine the majority of the population would support such changes.

Therefore, in order to implement such changes to freedoms, there would have to be coercion against the high number of individuals that currently enjoy the system they are in, encroached freedoms or not.

I simply do not see government as merely abandoning laws against encroached freedom without coercion, either to the people or by the people.

That is why I would also say that in order to increase our level of freedom, we would have to increase coercion. Not permanently, mind, but for much longer than a single election cycle. Or, a single revolution.

However, I also don't see the majority of the population favoring revolution, and nor should they.
 
#41
#41
fl0at said:
I've said that, and agree, ghastly enough, with gibbs (edit: well, not with his post in response, just the concept of necessary coercion), in this case.

The reasoning, again, is that to obtain the level of freedom desired, or expressed by some as natural freedoms, would require such a buck against the status quo, that I don't imagine the majority of the population would support such changes.

Therefore, in order to implement such changes to freedoms, there would have to be coercion against the high number of individuals that currently enjoy the system they are in, encroached freedoms or not.

I simply do not see government as merely abandoning laws against encroached freedom without coercion, either to the people or by the people.

That is why I would also say that in order to increase our level of freedom, we would have to increase coercion. Not permanently, mind, but for much longer than a single election cycle. Or, a single revolution.

However, I also don't see the majority of the population favoring revolution, and nor should they.
Click to expand...

I don't understand. What kind of force or coercion is necessary? Inaction requires no force or coercion to implement.
 
#42
#42
nbakerld said:
I don't understand. What kind of force or coercion is necessary? Inaction requires no force or coercion to implement.
Click to expand...

So the rioters did nothing wrong?

The parents of the rioters have no responsibility?

utgibbs rolling up and taking BPV's house (he was fine with that - believed in some sort of mano y mano justice) is fine?

Suddenly all the illusions are stripped away....
 
#43
#43
nbakerld said:
I don't understand. What kind of force or coercion is necessary? Inaction requires no force or coercion to implement.
Click to expand...

Just what kind of "inaction" is enough to end laws enacted by our government against:

drug usage, prostitution, government entitlement, marriage, removal of social security, removal of discrimination policies, income tax and generally encroached freedom of all kinds?

Sure, inaction was required in the first place, but there was action, not inaction. And now, in order to reverse the action, there must be more action.

I don't think the majority of the country would favor such extreme changes to government. Many are quite content with the systems we have now... and others want more entitlement.
 
#44
#44
utgibbs said:
So the rioters did nothing wrong?

The parents of the rioters have no responsibility?

utgibbs rolling up and taking BPV's house (he was fine with that - believed in some sort of mano y mano justice) is fine?

Suddenly all the illusions are stripped away....
Click to expand...

bpv would shoot u
Posted via VolNation Mobile
 
#45
#45
utgibbs said:
I'm not sure what to think of this post. On the one hand, it has some merit; on the other hand, I think it was stumbled over by accident.

To say the "group" doesn't exist is like saying the picture of a mosaic doesn't exist, but it is simply a collection of bits of stone. It echoes Baronness Thatcher proclaiming "there is no society, only individuals," while one of her aides was desperately holding up a cue card "AND FAMILIES, AND FAMILIES." But we know what the Baronness really meant.

The view is seriously reductive and retrograde. I would say it is unsuited for our own historic time. Since "the group" can impose nothing upon the individual, it is the Law of the Jungle. It means, utgibbs wins - every time. It is up to you as individuals to stop me, which of course, you can't, as BPV knows well. Your imaginary cop-out then is not a cop-out at all. It is, in fact, the exact opposite.

Moreover, the real world outside the back door has some things to say about this as well. We are, by biology, social creatures. And history proves instructive to this truth as well.

Finally, the dignity and well-being of the individual is paramount. This you have stumbled upon. However, it is impossible to achieve this dignity and well-being without the group. How the group deals with every individual is, in the end, the only question of politics. And obviously, at times, it requires the coercion of individuals. To what end, that is question. Does not certain forms of coercion enhance freedom? (the rioters spring to mind, and ask many a pertinent political question)

The group is hardwired into our biology. It is very real - forms our culture, our language, our very way of perceiving the world. Even Thoreau returned from the woods (and wouldn't have made it without the group besides)....
Click to expand...

Did you just manage a half dozen paragraphs without saying bourgeois even once?

Just for the record, the only morally acceptable use of coercion is to prevent coercion, destruction of property, or bodily harm, unless you are dealing with people not competent to make decisions: children, certains type of insanity, utgibbs...
 
#46
#46
I'm picturing a clint eastwood vs michael moore moment if gibbs tried to rob bpv.

Michael Moore starts blabbing away about the evils of capitalism the minute he steps out of his 300,000 dollar Bentley and Cliunt Eastwood just shoots him.
 
#47
#47
utgibbs said:
To say the "group" doesn't exist is like saying the picture of a mosaic doesn't exist, but it is simply a collection of bits of stone.
Click to expand...

I finally understand a lot of your perspective. Individuals are unimportant, just cogs in the machine. They are like the dots in an impressionist painting. Only from afar can you see beauty, up close its just random blobs.

How sad.
 
#48
#48
RT, correct me if I'm wrong but wasn't your point that the "group" with regards to "RIGHTS" is an artificial construct whereas the individual is genuine?

The libertarian shares the view of the founders that rights belong to individuals by command of natural law. Gov't cannot create a right only deny them. So when liberals attempt a case for "gay rights" or worker's rights or air traveler rights... those groups are artificial and therefore the claim to special "rights" invalid. Am I far off?
 
#49
#49
utgibbs said:
Finally, the dignity and well-being of the individual is paramount.

The group is hardwired into our biology. It is very real - forms our culture, our language, our very way of perceiving the world. Even Thoreau returned from the woods (and wouldn't have made it without the group besides)....
Click to expand...

RespectTradition said:
I finally understand a lot of your perspective. Individuals are unimportant, just cogs in the machine. They are like the dots in an impressionist painting. Only from afar can you see beauty, up close its just random blobs.

How sad.
Click to expand...

How sad to descend into such easily dismissed child's play.
 
#50
#50
OrangeEmpire said:
bpv would shoot u
Posted via VolNation Mobile
Click to expand...

NEOCON said:
I'm picturing a clint eastwood vs michael moore moment if gibbs tried to rob bpv.

Michael Moore starts blabbing away about the evils of capitalism the minute he steps out of his 300,000 dollar Bentley and Cliunt Eastwood just shoots him.
Click to expand...

I believe Michael is a rifling champion and card carrying NRA member.

BPV has already admitted he stands no chance and hopes the day never comes when utgibbs rolls up. He remains true to his principles though, and has said he will stand down for mercy and not involve John Q Law.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top