Scribd
Upload
67 views3 pages

Title: Individual Rights Versus Collective Security / Benefit. Theme

Individual rights may conflict with collective security or benefit. Liberals like J.S. Mill argue that individual liberty should only be restricted to prevent harm to others, not for one's own benefit or the general welfare. Ronald Dworkin rejects utilitarianism and argues that political decisions should not favor any particular conception of a good life or what gives life value, and that individual rights constrain governments' pursuit of common interests. Rousseau believed that society functions when individuals have common interests, and that the state should pursue the common good as expressed by the general will of the people.

Uploaded by

Ruchi sharma
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
67 views3 pages

Title: Individual Rights Versus Collective Security / Benefit. Theme

Individual rights may conflict with collective security or benefit. Liberals like J.S. Mill argue that individual liberty should only be restricted to prevent harm to others, not for one's own benefit or the general welfare. Ronald Dworkin rejects utilitarianism and argues that political decisions should not favor any particular conception of a good life or what gives life value, and that individual rights constrain governments' pursuit of common interests. Rousseau believed that society functions when individuals have common interests, and that the state should pursue the common good as expressed by the general will of the people.

Uploaded by

Ruchi sharma
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 3

TITLE: INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS VERSUS COLLECTIVE SECURITY / BENEFIT.

THEME:
Individuals might reasonably expect the freedom to make their own decisions regarding
health and other lawful aspects. However, what happens when an individuals wishes conflict
with what is in the individuals best interest? And how far should an individuals rights be
restricted for his or her own benefit? Similarly, what limitations should be placed on an
individuals behaviour when that persons wishes go against what is good for the population
in general? I will be discussing about the issues that can arise when rights of individuals
conflict with population benefit in relation to epidemic or any kind of ban.
INTRODUCTION:
THE LIBERALS: (J.S.MILL: The simple principle of individual liberty; utilitarian
approach) Bigger questions: what is the one very simple principle of individual liberty that
Mill promises to announce? If it has to do with causing harm to someone else, what is the
harm that an individual must not do if he or she is to be left alone by society and the state?
The liberal political theory has always been concerned with individual rights and collective
interests liberals like J.S.MILL argue on utilitarian approach Liberals believe in government
action to achieve equal opportunity and equality for all. Most of the contemporary liberals
worry that individual rights could be overridden if they were left to stand or fall on the basis
of utility1."J.S.Mill writes that he will argue that the only time individuals or society as a
whole can interfere with individual liberty is for self-protection. Mill states that the
argument that a certain law or public opinion might be for an individual's own good or
welfare does not suffice to justify that law or public opinion as a coercive force; coercion
by the many toward the individual is only acceptable when an individual poses a threat
to others. It is fine to argue with a person about his actions, but not to compel him. Mill
writes, "Over himself, over his own body and mind, the individual is sovereign." With
the idea to reject utilitarianism the contemporary liberals have come forward with theories of
J.S.Mill called the abstract right2 (Mill notes that the right of liberty does not apply to
children, or to "backward" societies. It is only when people are capable of learning from
discussion that liberty holds; otherwise the people must be taken care of. Mill also notes
that he is not justifying the claim of liberty as an abstract right. Rather, he is grounding
it in utility, on the permanent interests of mankind.) The main idea here is that the basic
individual rights are not just derived from a consideration of what makes that community
better off; on the contrary such rights exist and should be honoured even when their exercise
makes the community worse off3.

1 http://www.jstor.org/stable/3504697
2 http://www.sparknotes.com/philosophy/onliberty/section1.rhtml

(LIBERALISM V. PERFECTIONISM: Political decisions must be, so far as possible,


independent of any particular idea of good life, or of what gives value to life4
-Ronald Dwokian
The main question now arises is what is the alternative option for the moral foundations
of individual rights available when the utilitarian approach is rejected. The orthodox
liberals like John Rawls, Ronald Dworkian argue against the perfectionist principles
(Perfectionism is the view that the distribution of resources and opportunities in a community
can properly be influenced by judgments made by the state about the value of different
conceptions of the good) in political theory Liberalism is frequently portrayed as hostile to
perfectionism because perfectionism seems inconsistent with allowing individuals to decide
for themselves what kind of life is worth leading. Individuals should be free to develop and
pursue their own convictions without the participation of the state in the evaluation,
enforcement or advocacy of particular ideals about what constitutes human excellence.
Moreover, liberals usually associate perfectionism with intolerance. In Dworkins statement
political decisions must be, as far as possible, independent of any particular conception of
the good life, or of what gives value to life 5 in this project I will try to critically anlayse a
liberal view of individual rights and collective interests and defend it by understanding from
the natural law theory I will be focusing on anti-perfectionist liberalism and in particular
work of Ronald Dworkin as he understands that individual rights constrains the governments
persuit to common interests. The anti-perfectionist argument, which states that the
enforcement of moral laws restricting the rights of citizens to make them morally
upright is unjust, for it violates a person's right to individual autonomy. The second is
the perfectionist argument, which treats autonomy as a good that the government
should protect and provide for its citizens; it should as much as possible avoid the use of
coercion in directing people's choices.
Rousseaus- idea of individuals interest in common; end goal realization of common good
Bigger questions: To what extent is states action in curbing individual liberty for common
good depends on the general will of its people?
Rights specify things that a government cannot do to a person even if there is any common
good6 while In Jean-Jacques Rousseau's The Social Contract, composed in the mid-18th
century, Rousseau argues that society can function only to the extent that individuals
have interests in common, and the end goal of any state is the realization of the common
3 See Ronald Dworkin, Amatter of principle (Cambridge:Harvard university
press,1985),p.350
4 Ronald Dworkian, Liberalism ,in public and private morality ,ed
StuartHampshire(Cambridge:Universitypress,1978),p.127

5 Ibid.,p.91

good. He further posits that the common good can be identified and implemented only by
heeding the general will of a political community, specifically as expressed by that
community's sovereign. Rousseau maintains that the general will always tends toward the
common good, though he concedes that democratic deliberations of individuals will not
always express the general will. Furthermore, Rousseau distinguished between the general
will and the will of all, stressing that while the latter is simply the sum total of each
individual's desires, the former is the "one will which is directed towards their common
preservation and general well-being." Political authority, to Rousseau, should be understood
as legitimate only if it exists according to the general will and toward the common good. The
pursuit of the common good, then, enables the state to act as a moral community7

6 Dworkin , Taking rights seriously (Cambridge; Harvard university press,1997


p.198
7 McArdle, Ann. Rousseau on Rousseau: The Individual and Society. The Review of Politics 39.2
(1977): 250279. Web...

You might also like