Personal Freedom - Ethics vs. Aesthetics

[PayNSprayBandit]

In America, the debate used to be Group Rights vs. Individual Rights, which is a legitimate discussion that deserves to be debated. But the line has been messed with; mostly by people with an agenda. I want to talk about where the line is, where it should be, and why we even need a line to discuss.

Okay, so let's start with where the line is. When people today talk about individual freedoms the debate usually revolves around things like Homosexual Marriage, Abortion, Drug Prohibition and other nonsense of that nature. Now, I don't do drugs; Looking at two guys kissing grosses me out; and I'm not a fan of abortion in general. (I would just say I've never had one, but as a man I'm not sure that would impress.) However, I am in favor of all these things being legal; simply because they can't hurt anyone but those directly involved.

In a free society you don't need a reason to make something legal, you need a reason to make it illegal. The debate is supposed to be Group Rights vs. Individual Rights and as individual rights these things don't threaten group rights; thus removing them from the debate. It doesn't belong in the debate and yet it's here, why is this? Well, because political operatives know that the best way to win votes is to raise an issue or, better yet, create an issue, convince the people that it's important, and take the popular position. That is how you win elections. They are called wedge issues and the unwashed masses fall for it consistently.

So, a commonplace example of where the debate actually applies:

In an apartment complex of 23 tenants, three guys are having a party it starts at 5PM and is set to go until 2AM. Fifteen of the other tenants have work in the morning and need sleep. A reasonable person can see that the party has a right to be a little noisy at 5PM, but that noise at 2AM disrupts the community unfairly. At 5PM you've chosen Individual rights and at 2AM group rights. "Finding the line", so to speak, is determining the time at which they should lower the noise. Or to get even more specific, how loud they can be at each given time in between.

Group rights need to be protected for the same reason that anarchy is bad; a few crazy people can ruin life for everyone. Conversely, Individual rights need to be protected, because the majority, if allowed all the power, can be quite oppressive. It's all about balancing harm; the collective pain of the collective against the individual pain of the individual.

The ongoing debate is important, because we live in an ever-changing world and in all things, this line must be found.

- Ethics vs. Aesthetics

A major tool for manipulating this debate has been the reshaping of Aesthetics into Ethics. This is always a dead giveaway, so keep an eye out for it. Aesthetics is personal taste; I dislike the sight of tattoos, piercings, crazy hair, shorts that are too short, shorts that aren't up all the way, makeup, emo-anything, cleavage, most public displays of affection, PT Cruisers, horror films, insects, modern "art", the CW, along with many other things which I consider to be vulgar; BUT while I denounce and discourage these things I would never try to outlaw them, because that is a matter of taste. These things are aesthetics not ethics, the key is that while I find them visually unsettling they do not harm me and I am free to look away (and I do). Why would someone try to blur this line? (Beyond just "to get votes") Usually one of two reasons. Either they are a religious nut on the right trying to find a way to legislate Leviticus or they are a moral relativist on the left trying to lump drug use and tattoos into a category with general oppression to say that everyone is quirky so it's none of our business.

 

[PayNSprayBandit]

There isn't one person who has a single thing to say about this? Okay, but then I'm going to infer that it's because you all agree with me 100%; and I'm going to quote you on that.

EDIT:
Lets start with this:

Where do you agree or disagree?
How do we refocus the discussion?

Do you take a hard line one way or the other (Individual or Group)?
In America, historically, Republicans lean more toward Group and Democrats toward Individual, but it's been so long since we've seen a real debate on it that it's hard to know where center is.

Is there any issue where you think the line isn't talked about enough?
And where do you think it should be?

 

[Agayek]

Your second post basically summarized my position.

Though I do happen to think individual rights trump group rights every time, but that sems to be a semantic difference between what we see as "group" rights more than anything else.

 

[Avatar Roku]

Quite well said. I really don't know what else I can say. Maybe a discussion prompt...?

 

[PayNSprayBandit]

Quite well said. I really don't know what else I can say. Maybe a discussion prompt...?

Okay, I'll add something.

 

[Ultress]

You have put my jumbled thoughts into word form.Anti-abortion has always kinda perplexed me, no ones forcing a womon into an abortion and if a girl wants an aboration then let her, if the unborn child is unborn then I see it as it was meant to be. Same thing with gays, most of them aren't hurting/trying to hump me, just let them be, there are worse things to worry about like the middle east and Africa.

 

[PayNSprayBandit]

You have put my jumbled thoughts into word form.Anti-abortion has always kinda perplexed me, no ones forcing a womon into an abortion and if a girl wants an aboration then let her, if the unborn child is unborn then I see it as it was meant to be. Same thing with gays, most of them aren't hurting/trying to hump me, just let them be, there are worse things to worry about like the middle east and Africa.

You and I are clearly in agreement, but I want to pick up on something you've said, "girl". Without hounding you for wording too much or focusing exclusively on this issue, I think it's worth mentioning that the rules are different when it comes to children. An adult should be free to live their life as they see fit and make their own mistakes, but in substantial number of instances children should be protected from their own inexperience.

 

[Agayek]

To further debate in here since I like this kind of thing, the way I see it, there should never be a time when "Group Rights" trump individual rights.

I believe each person should be fully allowed to do whatever they wish, provided they do not impinge on that same freedom of any other.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_equal_liberty

 

[Delicious]

There isn't one person who has a single thing to say about this? Okay, but then I'm going to infer that it's because you all agree with me 100%; and I'm going to quote you on that.

I pretty much do agree with you, though in fairness you did not pick a very controversial topic.

So I'll play devil's advocate.

Many things that are a matter of taste can cause harm. Preferring to be naked in public is a matter of taste, but can cause a lot of harm to a small child by forcing him to learn about adult material prematurely. Some "tastes" are so offensive that they are unacceptable, and the average person shouldn't have to ignore one or more of his five senses (which is impossible, in some cases) simply because one nutjob wants to wear a T-shirt with a dead baby displaying a swastika via a tattoo on its forehead.

 

[PayNSprayBandit]

To further debate in here since I like this kind of thing, the way I see it, there should never be a time when "Group Rights" trump individual rights.

I believe each person should be fully allowed to do whatever they wish, provided they do not impinge on that same freedom of any other.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_equal_liberty

That's what I was expecting, a John Stuart Mill (love that guy) extremist.

I am, as I tried to make obvious with my OP, a moderate in this field; which is really rare for me, this is really the only time I spend in the middle of the road. Now I tried to demonstrate why with my party analogy above, but I knew that wouldn't be enough to sway everyone. I get the argument that the individual's rights are equal to the individual rights of all those around him, so no one should be able to tell him what to do, but the other side is that the rights of two people should compound, justifying them twice as much say; democracy in a nutshell.

There isn't one person who has a single thing to say about this? Okay, but then I'm going to infer that it's because you all agree with me 100%; and I'm going to quote you on that.

I pretty much do agree with you, though in fairness you did not pick a very controversial topic.

So I'll play devil's advocate.

Many things that are a matter of taste can cause harm. Preferring to be naked in public is a matter of taste, but can cause a lot of harm to a small child by forcing him to learn about adult material prematurely. Some "tastes" are so offensive that they are unacceptable, and the average person shouldn't have to ignore one or more of his five senses (which is impossible, in some cases) simply because one nutjob wants to wear a T-shirt with a dead baby displaying a swastika via a tattoo on its forehead.

Well, I mentioned before that the rules are different when you start including children, but organizations and property owners can enforce dress codes. (Of which I am a big fan)

I take your point; it is a controversial topic, but my point is it shouldn't be. Then again, I don't see why we let any topic be controversial. Instead of getting worked up, one should find a rational argument.

 

[Agayek]

That's what I was expecting, a John Stuart Mill (love that guy) extremist.

I am, as I tried to make obvious with my OP, a moderate in this field; which is really rare for me, this is really the only time I spend in the middle of the road. Now I tried to demonstrate why with my party analogy above, but I knew that wouldn't be enough to sway everyone. I get the argument that the individual's rights are equal to the individual rights of all those around him, so no one should be able to tell him what to do, but the other side is that the rights of two people should compound, justifying them twice as much say; democracy in a nutshell.

Gah I'm too tired to fully organize my thoughts, so I apologize if this comes across as muddled.

Let's take your party example for this:

People participating in the party have the right to have their party, as it's not hurting anyone.
People living in the room have the right to get a full night of sleep.

In this case, I would say the rights of the people to get a full night of sleep > the right to a party, just because of standard operating hours for most people, and common courtesy.

That's more because of common courtesy than any legal institution though.


I'm just very much anti-government, so I can't support any sort of legal ramifications for anything other than direct action against another person.

Now, if the people in the building asked the partiers to keep it down, at least a few times, and were ignored, and the same situation occurs on a fairly regular basis, then I would support legal action against them, if only because they're consciously being dicks.

 

[ZZ-Tops89]

There isn't one person who has a single thing to say about this? Okay, but then I'm going to infer that it's because you all agree with me 100%; and I'm going to quote you on that.

EDIT:
Lets start with this:

Where do you agree or disagree?
How do we refocus the discussion?

Do you take a hard line one way or the other (Individual or Group)?
In America, historically, Republicans lean more toward Group and Democrats toward Individual, but it's been so long since we've seen a real debate on it that it's hard to know where center is.

Is there any issue where you think the line isn't talked about enough?
And where do you think it should be?

You're doing the kind of thing I do; make a point and expect people to respond to the point, even though the point is simply an interesting and insightful truism. This isn't to say that the truism isn't interesting and insightful, and I definitely find the analysis intriguing, but don't expect people to argue with a truism. This isn't saying the point is bad, just that you shouldn't expect a ton of agreement and most people only post in an internet forum in order to disagree with the initial claim (because let's face it, we're all argumentative little trolls on the inside!).

 

[PayNSprayBandit]

That's what I was expecting, a John Stuart Mill (love that guy) extremist.

I am, as I tried to make obvious with my OP, a moderate in this field; which is really rare for me, this is really the only time I spend in the middle of the road. Now I tried to demonstrate why with my party analogy above, but I knew that wouldn't be enough to sway everyone. I get the argument that the individual's rights are equal to the individual rights of all those around him, so no one should be able to tell him what to do, but the other side is that the rights of two people should compound, justifying them twice as much say; democracy in a nutshell.

Gah I'm too tired to fully organize my thoughts, so I apologize if this comes across as muddled.

Let's take your party example for this:

People participating in the party have the right to have their party, as it's not hurting anyone.
People living in the room have the right to get a full night of sleep.

In this case, I would say the rights of the people to get a full night of sleep > the right to a party, just because of standard operating hours for most people, and common courtesy.

That's more because of common courtesy than any legal institution though.


I'm just very much anti-government, so I can't support any sort of legal ramifications for anything other than direct action against another person.

Now, if the people in the building asked the partiers to keep it down, at least a few times, and were ignored, and the same situation occurs on a fairly regular basis, then I would support legal action against them, if only because they're consciously being dicks.

Yes. I, too, am a lover of liberty over government control, (it's why I chose the Republican Party) and repeat offenses are to be taken less leniently, but while I'm not about to make Emily Post attorney general, turning courtesy into law, as with the party, can be fitting should it protect people's rights. I get not calling the cops right away, try to reason with someone, sure, but the officials should be around to deal with the unreasonable. When you make something a law that doesn't mean that the penalty is devastating; a speeding ticket is the equivalent of being charged with a misdemeanor. It's just not that big a deal.

Last, and I was hoping we'd end up here, what if I work at night and sleep from 2PM to 10PM? I have a friend who does. In deference to your perceptually extremist rhetoric you seem to be rather reasonable, acknowledging that sometimes a person has to turn down their music if everyone's asleep, because that's the convention, but what about the individual who defies convention, just because someone has to work the night shift?

 

[Agayek]

Yes. I, too, am a lover of liberty over government control, (it's why I chose the Republican Party) and repeat offenses are to be taken less leniently, but while I'm not about to make Emily Post attorney general, turning courtesy into law, as with the party, can be fitting should it protect people's rights. I get not calling the cops right away, try to reason with someone, sure, but the officials should be around to deal with the unreasonable. When you make something a law that doesn't mean that the penalty is devastating; a speeding ticket is the equivalent of being charged with a misdemeanor. It's just not that big a deal.

Last, and I was hoping we'd end up here, what if I work at night and sleep from 2PM to 10PM? I have a friend who does. In deference to your perceptually extremist rhetoric you seem to be rather reasonable, acknowledging that sometimes a person has to turn down their music if everyone's asleep, because that's the convention, but what about the individual who defies convention, just because someone has to work the night shift?

The people who do end up working hours like that usually don't make a whole lot of noise, and/or are in places where noise doesn't bother anyone. It's the same kinda thing. Do what you're job requires, but try to keep the noise under control in residential areas, and don't be a douche.

I'm not really sure where government should/would get involved, and personally I'd be rather ecstatic to get to the point where the government doesn't need to get involved, but the limits above should be what's imposed. Basically, do what you need/want to do, but don't be a dick about it.

 

[PayNSprayBandit]

The people who do end up working hours like that usually don't make a whole lot of noise, and/or are in places where noise doesn't bother anyone. It's the same kinda thing. Do what you're job requires, but try to keep the noise under control in residential areas, and don't be a douche.

I meant should the guy whose asleep during the day be allowed to make every else be quiet when he's sleeping?

I'm not really sure where government should/would get involved, and personally I'd be rather ecstatic to get to the point where the government doesn't need to get involved, but the limits above should be what's imposed. Basically, do what you need/want to do, but don't be a dick about it.

We'd all love to live in a society where no laws were needed, but people aren't anywhere near evolved enough for that, yet.

 

[Agayek]

The people who do end up working hours like that usually don't make a whole lot of noise, and/or are in places where noise doesn't bother anyone. It's the same kinda thing. Do what you're job requires, but try to keep the noise under control in residential areas, and don't be a douche.

I meant should the guy whose asleep during the day be allowed to make every else be quiet when he's sleeping?

That's where it gets tricky. I would say if the people around knew he worked nights and slept days, they should try to be at least somewhat cognizant of it and not consistently being excessively noisy. It all basically comes down to the "don't be a douche" thing. Sometimes making noise is unavoidable and/or significantly more convenient, and in that case I'd say go for it. Just be aware that someone's trying to sleep and to try and keep it to a dull roar.

 

[hypothetical fact]

I am in favour of group rights. As a species we have the right to society yet as individuals we have the right to as many children as we want. This individual right is out of control and is causing spiraling demand for resources and space which is only getting worse every year. Eventually there will not be enough resources for the individuals and societies will destroy eachother to get what is left.

China, the posterboy for this problem is limiting the individual right to spare the group rights but there are plenty of activists who protest this because the only way it can be enforced is brutally. Even then the problem isn't solved because one child means an aging population; the only way to fix the problem is to cut off individual rights entirely with mass culling. No one suggests this because it causes anarchy as everyone follows their survival instinct.

So I am in favour of group rights because the group can insure the general safety of the majority while the individual cares about their rights first.

 

[Scarecrow38]

I think your example of group verses individual rights isn't a very good example at all (because I chose group rights/ utilitariansim both times and got to your conclusion) but that is besides the point. I can't tell you my view on group rights versus individual rights because either choice leads to bad results in some circumstances. Most of the time group rights are better (in the sense that you aren't allowed to steal cars tomorrow) but individual rights can sometimes be better ( if a homeless man steals a loaf of bread).

 

[Perticular Elk]

I live in America and I don't understand why people believe abortion or Gay marriage is a "right".


We live in a society where it is acceptable for a Gov't decide what you can and can't do with your body (i.e. prostitution is illegal and so is drug use. Not to say the legality of these things can be debated but it institutes presidence. Since abortion is not a right included in our founding documents, therefore the Government, especially state Government, can make laws against it. And what about the rights of the unborn child. In Biology, the most basic form of life is a cell so this establishes the that from conception you are alive. Also, you have DNA unique and distinguishable from the mother which makes you a soveign person. In the Declaration of Independence it states that citizens are entitle to life, liberty, and property and the Bill of Rights states ( believe the 5th) that you cannot be killed without due process of law. Even though the Supreme court gave the right to have an abortion in this country in Roe vs. Wade, I think that they do not have the legal power to dictate the terms of human life like the Court did in the Dredd Scott case where they said negro people are not human.

the Classic Feminist, Susan B. Anthony opposed both slavery and abortion because they (paraphrase) both diminished human life to a comodity and an object which could by exploited and disposed of by the convenience of others.

Thats my legal and cultural agruement against abortion.