Philosophy Why Individualism is False

Doomsought

Well-known member
The duties which a person has are in accordance to their relationships. This relationship may be with a group entity, but it does not allow an easy transfer of duty from the entity to the individual.

However there is a flaw in the notion of common good, as it require what is good for one person to also be good for all other people. This inconsistency quickly decays into the greater good, and then the good of my preferred group.
 

The Name of Love

Far Right Nutjob
The duties which a person has are in accordance to their relationships. This relationship may be with a group entity, but it does not allow an easy transfer of duty from the entity to the individual.
There exists within traditional philosophy the idea of the moral person (as opposed to the physical person). While a physical person is an individual human being, a moral person is a society of human beings organized in such a way that they have a common end and some of the rights and duties that human beings have. It is in this sense we can say that collectives have duties. For example, the United States government has the right to tax its citizenry and the duty to protect the citizens from all threats, foreign and domestic. While individual human beings -- members, office holders, employees, etc. -- are always the ones who carry out the actions of moral persons, moral persons exist over and above the individual people who happen to be the members, office holders, employees, etc. at any one time. A state or corporation can maintain the same basic character, policies, rights, responsibilities, etc. generation after generation, over many centuries.

However there is a flaw in the notion of common good, as it require what is good for one person to also be good for all other people. This inconsistency quickly decays into the greater good, and then the good of my preferred group.
A common good is a good shared by all without being diminished. For example, the common good of an army is winning a battle. If you hold that all goods must be individual and private, how do you explain the existence of such common goods like "winning a battle"?
 

Doomsought

Well-known member
A common good is a good shared by all without being diminished. For example, the common good of an army is winning a battle. If you hold that all goods must be individual and private, how do you explain the existence of such common goods like "winning a battle"?
Multiple persons can have similar relationships, but this is never a universal. The duty to win a battle is exactly why the common good cannot exist. Killing someone is not to their benefit, it is the benefit to my, my family, my culture or my nation.

Nations, corporations, and even cultures are not people. They are machines and must be judged in a different way than people. Machines do not have rights; rights exist without ownership. Rights are universal moral principles that are relevant to the judgement of social machines. Nothing more, nothing less.

The problem you are running into is that irreducible complexity exists. There are ways to correctly summarize universal complexity. You need to internalize first order logic and use algebraic principles.

The problem you, specifically, often run into is that you do not pay attention to the destinction between and .
 

The Name of Love

Far Right Nutjob
Multiple persons can have similar relationships, but this is never a universal. The duty to win a battle is exactly why the common good cannot exist. Killing someone is not to their benefit, it is the benefit to my, my family, my culture or my nation.

Nations, corporations, and even cultures are not people. They are machines and must be judged in a different way than people. Machines do not have rights; rights exist without ownership. Rights are universal moral principles that are relevant to the judgement of social machines. Nothing more, nothing less.

The problem you are running into is that irreducible complexity exists. There are ways to correctly summarize universal complexity. You need to internalize first order logic and use algebraic principles.

The problem you, specifically, often run into is that you do not pay attention to the destinction between and .
This is a difference between us, and it has nothing to do with my grasp of logic. It has everything to do with the premises.

You seem to be arguing that "all common goods must be common to all of humanity, or else they aren't common." Is this a correct interpretation of your argument? If it is, then I must ask "why?" Given how I defined a common good in an earlier post, where can you draw this conclusion?

If it isn't, then what is your argument?
 

Scottty

Well-known member
Founder
By your logic, parents don't have a duty. After all...
Unless you can say that everyone has a duty to raise a particular child, nobody has a duty to raise that particular child.

No, the universal true moral axiom would be that each couple of parents has an obligation to raise their child.
These things can have variables, wildcards and conditional branching, you know.

Not that I necessarily agree with the idea that a moral principle must be universally valid. There can be exceptions, based on specific circumstances and conditions.
 

The Name of Love

Far Right Nutjob
No, the universal true moral axiom would be that each couple of parents has an obligation to raise their child.
Then it's arguably not a universal axiom, since it's not a universal good they are pursuing. This is sort of the difference between a private good and a common good. My being a good parent is different from your being a good parent. But the common good of (say) winning the battle is the same for every soldier in an army.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top