Individual Rights and Common Good: Conflicting or Harmonious Relationship - Essay Example

? Individual Rights and the Common Good: A Conflicting or Harmonious Relationship? Introduction The issue of the alleged incompatibility between individual rights and the greater good or the good of the larger society has been one of the most seriously and repeatedly debated in contemporary life; the very issue contrarily interpreted by Ayn Rand and Emmanuel Mesthene. These two intellectuals are both extremist— ‘capitalistic’ Rand, ‘collectivist’ Mesthene. Rand argues for individual rights, while Mesthene advocates the collective or common good. Examples of this clash between individual rights and the common good thrive. This essay argues that individual rights and the common good can be reconciled; that it would be disastrous to adhere to only one principle. For instance, some claim that the authority bestowed upon individuals by private property rights is very dangerous to the common good; criminologists claim that protecting the criminals’ individual rights is endangering the common good by letting criminals walk; advocates who are focused on the overall moral environment of the society claim that protecting the rights of individuals to take unsafe drugs will certainly challenge public moral standards, whereas others, who are interested in the market’s ethical standing, generally conveys displeasure with the right to freedom of trade and commerce, declaring that these sorts of freedom set free the forces of insatiability, greed, and materialism to the detriment of unity, peace, and civility. Reconciling Individual Rights and the Common Good The restriction of individual rights seldom takes place without asserting or demanding some public value from it. And leading scholars, such as Mesthene, and governing political forces use this public value to justify their agenda of restricting individual rights. However, the key questions are, should it have to be this way? Should individual rights go against the common good? Without a doubt, those who support the natural rights of individuals refuse to believe so. It was exactly to prove the harmony between individual rights and the development of the community. John Locke would definitely disagree that there should be a battle between these two principles. Indeed, the disagreement arises from a fundamental misinterpretation. This includes believing that the community is far from being “a community of human individuals who share certain community concerns which will best be served if each individual has his or her rights fully protected” (Machan, 1998, 154). The argument is that human nature brings people together into one community and establishes principles by which society could be completely unified, at least in theory. This is the very argument supported by natural rights scholars-- that the common good is most successfully protected by awarding each individual prerogative. Within such prerogative every individual is in all likelihood be able to achieve the best s/he can, bringing about the little or no damage in the process, for by denying individuals the power to meddle in other people’s business, the damage or immortality they do will almost certainly harm only them. This will absolutely work as dissuasion to misbehavior, which, consequently, generates benefits to the larger society. Even those scholars, who thought that preferably the most appropriate course of action for all individuals is to work for the society, also thought that the common good could be gained by means of private avarice, as long as specific ideals of liberty are respected. Even ancient philosophers, such as Aristotle, claimed that private property rights would benefit the common welfare. As stated by Aristotle (Machan, 2004, 73): That all persons call the same thing mine is the sense in which each does so may be a fine thing, but it is impracticable; or if the words are taken in the other sense, such a unity in no way conduces to harmony. And there is another objection to the proposal. For that which is common to the greatest number has the least care bestowed upon it. Every one thinks chiefly of his own, hardly at all of the common interest; and only when he is himself considered as an individual. For besides other considerations, everybody is more inclined to neglect the duty which he expects another to fulfill; as in families many attendants are often less useful than a few. In order to strengthen the argument that individual rights and the public good can be reconciled it is imperative to show the possible coexistence of individual rights and individual values-- that is, nobody’s objective values has to hinder the objective values of another, which, consequently, implies that the quest for individual values with regard to individual rights will lead to the utmost common good. However, as Mesthene asks, are individuals’ objective values can truly coexist, specifically, completely capable of being claimed for everyone? As mentioned by Rand (2008), some believe that this is impossible, because they believe that there is no such thing as ‘rational morality’; that being rational and being moral are two completely different things. This idea implies that a rational person is individualistic, whereas a moral person is collectivistic. And so, individuals’ objective values will strongly contradict morality and, in turn, the common good. But Rand begs to differ, for she believes that (Readings in Technology, 4): A rational process is a moral process. You may make an error at any step of it, with nothing to protect you but your own severity, or you may try to cheat, to fake the evidence and evade the effort of the quest—but if devotion to truth is the hallmark of morality, then there is no greater, nobler, more heroic form of devotion than the act of a man who assumes the responsibility of thinking. And thus, Rand believes that the individuals should be given the freedom to ‘think’, and that the government should not intrude in this arena. On the other hand, Mesthene believes that a coexistence of individual rights and the common good is not possible. In order to prove his idea, he uses the case of technology. He claims that the negative effects of technology are brought about by individualistic attitude on the part of key decision-makers. Hence, Mesthene, one way or another, believes that individualistic attitude within society should be regulated or restricted. But then again, he also has some reservations about regulating technology (Readings in Technology, 1): Measures to control and mitigate the negative effects of technology, however, often appear to threaten freedoms that our traditions still take for granted as inalienable rights of men and good societies: the freedom of the market, the freedom of private enterprise, the freedom of the scientist to follow the truth whenever it may lead, and the freedom of the individual to pursue his fortune and decide his fate. There is thus set up a tension between the need to control technology and our wish to preserve our values. It appears that in the end the right of individuals to protect their interests will simply go against the common welfare. Hence, it becomes apparent from Mesthene’s argument that the most cherished individual rights, such as freedom of expression, freedom to pursue one’s happiness, freedom of commerce, appear not to be rights but special, significantly restricted freedoms that can and should be invalidated by government every time core societal values are being endangered by them. In order to fully make sense of this debate, the key concepts therein should be analyzed—inalienable rights and values. Are inalienable rights eternal, unchanging? Inalienable rights are ‘natural’ rights, or, rights that exist before and on top of human-made law and hence cannot be awarded or invalidated by government. Yes, inalienable rights are eternal and unchanging. As stated by Ayn Rand, “When we say that we hold individual rights to be inalienable, we mean just that: inalienable means that which we may never take away, suspend, infringe, restrict or violate—not ever, not at any time, not for any purpose whatsoever” (Rand, 2013, para 1). On the other hand, value can be temporary and evolving. Value, according to Rand (2008), is “that which one acts to gain and/or keep” (Uyl & Rasmussen, 1986, 103) such as money, career, relationships, etc. Actions are basically directed toward these values. Public care is an example of an inalienable right. Everybody should have equal access to quality and adequate healthcare. This is what liberty rights are all about, the traditional rights to life, liberty, and property. However, the alleged right to healthcare is somewhat different. It is not only the right to act, such as to pursue healthcare, and take part in transactions with healthcare providers, free from the intrusion of a third party. Right to healthcare is a right to a good—genuine, tangible care, no matter whether a patient can afford it. The supposed right to healthcare is part of a wider group called welfare rights. Generally, welfare rights are rights to goods: for instance, a right to employment, education, food, and so on (Huth & Murray, 2006). Biomedical technology does not elevate public health care to the stature of an inalienable right because the right to healthcare has already been an inalienable right even before the advent of biomedical technology. Biomedical technology employing information systems, genomics, and other innovate and useful means to provide medical care only enhances the quality and outcome of public care, but it does not, in any way, justifies the inalienability of the right to healthcare. As stated by Mesthene, provision of quality, sufficient healthcare is a ‘right rather than privilege’ (Readings in Technology, 1). Biomedical science and technology merely facilitated more convenient and effective treatments. As argued by Benjamin Disraeli, “The health of the people is really the foundation upon which all their happiness and all their powers as a state depend” (Huth & Murray, 2006, 145). This statement implies that health care is a natural entitlement, an inalienable right. So if public health care is an inalienable right, then how do one reconcile the conflict between the public’s demand for free health care ‘as a matter of right’ and the right of the health care professional to sell his/her skills and knowledge on the open, free market? This is where government intervention should come in. The government is the mediating agent between the public’s right and individual rights. It is not a matter of choosing whether to serve the public welfare or the individual interest; it is a matter of balancing the costs and benefits, and without a third party to intercede, a reconciliation is more likely impossible. Both the right to healthcare and the right to trade in the open, free market are subsumed in a ‘social contract’. According to Thomas Hobbes, in a social contract people equally and collectively consent to build a state, merely granting it sufficient authority to safeguard their interest and welfare (Morris, 2000, ix). But after the power is handed over to the state, the people afterward abandon any right to that power. This is the cost inherent in the social contract-- the people have to give up that power for the protection they seek. And thus the state has the responsibility to fulfill the demand for free health care and, at the same time, compensate healthcare professionals for losing their right to trade in the process. Therefore, if public health care is an inalienable right and it has cost, who shall pay the cost? Those who can afford to pay taxes should. Rand resents this idea: “The man at the top of the intellectual pyramid contributes the most to all those below him, but gets nothing except his material payment, receiving no intellectual bonus from others to add to the value of his time. The man at the bottom who, left to himself, would starve in his hopeless ineptitude, contributes nothing to those above him, but receives the bonus of all their brains” (Readings in Technology, 6). Yes, it is exactly what Rand calls it, the ‘exploitation’ of the strong. It is not ‘exploitation’ per se, but a ‘duty’. As argued by Peter Singer, prosperous individuals have a moral responsibility to help the poor and incapable. It is not ‘charity’, according to Singer, but a ‘duty’ (Mason, Hooker, & Miller, 2000, 96). A healthy society is not one that is composed only of physically, emotionally, and intellectually strong individuals; it is a dystopia. Besides public healthcare, in Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, everyone has also “the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers”. The right to access information is an inalienable right, and thus an industrial technology that has made productive enough to allocate significant resources to the purchase of public goods and services is information and communication technology (ICT). The Internet and other ICTs have facilitated access to one of the most important public goods today—information. These significant resources, like health and information, belong to everybody, to all members of the society. Conclusions What this essay has tried to demonstrate is that the disagreement between common good and individual rights is simply apparent. And this must not come as a surprise. Generally, what is special about individuals is that they are innovative, reasonable, and free human beings. However, similar to any other breathing creatures, they also thrive successful in societies rather than alone. In fact, because they have the capacity to reason, the presence of other people will almost constantly be capably beneficial to individuals. Therefore, being part of a community is a natural aspect of humanity. The individualism that Rand emphasizes and hence individual rights should be treated not as a hindrance to but an integral prerequisite for a stronger common good. Basically, a healthy society is a combination of Mesthene’s practical insights and Rand’s utopian ideals. References Huth, E. & Murray, T. (2006). Medicine in Quotations: Views of Health and Disease Through the Ages. New York: ACP Press. Machan, T. (1998). Classical Individualism: The Supreme Importance of Each Human Being. London: Routledge. Machan, T. (2004). Putting Humans First: Why We are Nature’s Favorite. UK: Rowman & Littlefield. Mason, E., Hooker, B., & Miller, D. (2000). Morality, Rules, and Consequences: A Critical Reader. UK: Rowman & Littlefield. Morris, C. (2000). The Social Contract Theorists: Critical Essays on Hobbes, Locke, and Rousseau. UK: Rowman & Littlefield. Rand, A. (2008). Atlas Shrugged. New York: Paw Prints. Rand, A. (2013). Inalienability. The Ayn Rand Column. Retrieved November 29, 2013, from http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/inalienability.html Readings in Technology (2013). Technology, Rights, Values and the Free Society. Tech 5385: Lecture Notes. Uyl, D. & Rasmussen, D. (1986). The Philosophic Thought of Ayn Rand. Illinois: University of Illinois Press. Read More