Lorgar-Aurelian
Active Member
So which is more important? When I speak of the greater good i'm talking about things like making laws that restrict certain actions or monitor certain actions so people can be kept safe kind of deal.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
What is more important safety / the greater good or individual liberty?
- Thread starter Lorgar-Aurelian
- Start date
-
- Tags
- debate greater good liberty poll
Twilight Hue
Twilight, not bright nor dark, good nor bad.
It's a good question.
Personally I feel there needs to be a balance of the two. Both equally important for happiness and individual expression coupled with reasonable restraint so as to prevent anarchy and undue harm.
Personally I feel there needs to be a balance of the two. Both equally important for happiness and individual expression coupled with reasonable restraint so as to prevent anarchy and undue harm.
A Vestigial Mote
Well-Known Member
I think it's conditional, given the person/people who are the target of retracted liberties, the circumstances, and those to whom it is considered "the greater good" that something take place.
Ever see the movie "Cabin in the Woods?" The whole movie (and especially the ending) is extremely tied to this theme. Personally, I would have been giving the "protagonist" (who was sort of a protagonist turned antagonist(?) in the final scenes of the film) the advice of just letting it all fall apart. The alternative was to sacrifice himself to afford "liberty" to a world stuck performing evils on an ongoing basis "for the greater good."
Ever see the movie "Cabin in the Woods?" The whole movie (and especially the ending) is extremely tied to this theme. Personally, I would have been giving the "protagonist" (who was sort of a protagonist turned antagonist(?) in the final scenes of the film) the advice of just letting it all fall apart. The alternative was to sacrifice himself to afford "liberty" to a world stuck performing evils on an ongoing basis "for the greater good."
Thief
Rogue Theologian
you must be free....
to defend yourself and your property
that means the right to keep and carry arms
free to accumulate wealth
free to come and go at will
free to worship
free to speak your mind
free to write and publish
our founding fathers would be appalled at law signed recently into play
(anyone see the gun confiscations after Katrina?)
Thief
Rogue Theologian
personal restraint?.....or enforced?
granted....doing serious harm might need some action dealt
but otherwise
do whatever you will
Twilight Hue
Twilight, not bright nor dark, good nor bad.
Enforcement plays a role. So does education, so I'd say personal and enforced applies within reason.
I have no issues over a person doing what they will. In fact, I encourage it. However lines need to be drawn in light of consideration for others in likewise fashion
Imo.
I couldn't vote because the simplicity of the choices leaves out a crucial aspect of issue.
Giving the power to restrict, monitor, and enforce to any agency (like the government) means that agency becomes a potential threat that needs to be kept close watch on and prevented from abusing the power.
That requires an engaged and informed citizenry. And that's a lot of work and investment. People oftentimes get lulled into a false sense of security. Like in the USA at this time for example.
Tom
jonathan180iq
Well-Known Member
While the individual is important, it is vastly overvalued in modern culture. The individual is destined to be a forgotten aspect of History. The greater good is our only hope for remembrance.
Give me liberty or give me death.
Probably why they need enforcement to keeps folks like me from running amok.
Father Heathen
Veteran Member
How does one define "greater good" and in what instances would individual liberty be at odds with it?
leibowde84
Veteran Member
I would say that Liberty is of upmost importance. The OP is a bit vague, so there are obviously exceptions in extreme circumstances such as traffic laws, the welfare of children / education, taxation, etc. But, "the greater good" can be extremely subjective, so it is a dangerous road to go down. The government should not be in the business of legislating morality, for example. Their interest should be in protecting the liberty of everyone both from government intrusion and from each other. If liberty is protected, the greater good kind of works itself out.
I agree with those who see both as important, although it often depends on how one defines "safety," "greater good," and "liberty." Liberty is seen as leading to a greater good for all in society, as long as it's practiced equally. I don't believe safety is as big a concern as it is a matter of public order and law enforcement.
You mean "They need enforcement to prevent you from interfering with the liberty of others" I believe.Give me liberty or give me death.
Probably why they need enforcement to keeps folks like me from running amok.
I don't know of another important meaning for the term "running amok" than interfering with your neighbor's liberty.
Tom
I don't think the question is very well-formed. The notion of "the Greater Good" is particularly loose, because in my view there couldn't be such a thing without liberty. For too much of human history, we have tried to control what others believe, or don't believe, what they may read and what they must read, who the may love and who they may not, how they ought to dress, even with whom they may associate.
We humans are a very diverse lot, and each of us is an individual in so many different ways. And because (in my view, anyway) we only get to live once, then we absolutely require the liberty to live the way that works best for ourselves -- each of us.
Nothing is absolute, however. I cannot be granted the liberty to deliberately do harm to others, nor to abscond with their property. So of course laws are necessary, to help to protect all of us against that sort of thing.
The trick, in my view, is to make only such laws as are necessary without getting into over-kill. I need no law telling me that I shouldn't cut the corners of my beard, or what kind of shawl to wear during prayers. I need no law to tell me who I ought to call my friend, or my lover, nor whether I should go to this church, that synagogue -- or neither.
We humans are a very diverse lot, and each of us is an individual in so many different ways. And because (in my view, anyway) we only get to live once, then we absolutely require the liberty to live the way that works best for ourselves -- each of us.
Nothing is absolute, however. I cannot be granted the liberty to deliberately do harm to others, nor to abscond with their property. So of course laws are necessary, to help to protect all of us against that sort of thing.
The trick, in my view, is to make only such laws as are necessary without getting into over-kill. I need no law telling me that I shouldn't cut the corners of my beard, or what kind of shawl to wear during prayers. I need no law to tell me who I ought to call my friend, or my lover, nor whether I should go to this church, that synagogue -- or neither.
