The debate has existed for hundreds of years. The arguments plagued the Philadelphia Convention in 1787. Political philosophers have discussed it for ages. "It" is the question of which idea is more important: My individual/natural rights vs. the good of the community. Which one is more important? Is it more important for my rights to be protected or should I give up some of those rights for the good of the community?
For this assignment, I would like for you to refer back to the video from class, "24". Do you agree or disagree with President Palmer? Which side is more important, the protection of your natural rights or the protection of the community/country/etc? Are there specific times when one is more important than the other? Please respond to this issue in a paragraph or two.
18 comments:
I think there are certain cases that one is more important. which one is more important? well that depends on the situation. If I had to choose, it would be the community/country,etc. that would be more important. I have always done my best to put the community before me, but the action of the community has never returned the favor. Anyways, I think what the president did in 24 was the right choice, that way he would many natural rights instead of few.
Jacob 1st period GOPO
It would depend on the situation. It would make more since to protect the communities rights over the Natural rights. The president on the series of 24 made the right choice for the country but not for the Natural rights. I have always tried to put the community before me. so I would agree with making the communities rights more important.
I agree sorta with his decision i think that they have a choice in front of them that they have to do something. I think its something that needs to be done in order to protect the citizens but ya. i agree with the president.
Giving up your rights would be good for the community. it would help everyone that isn't as equal and would make things better for everyone. you give and you get.
But keeping all your rights also seem like it would be good. If everyone was in it for themselves, things would be better for you, but not necessarily for someone else. it would also cause a lot of conflict, but each individual would be happy with what they got.
Well i agree with both. But it really depends on how bad they need me to give up my rights. Like i have to give up my rights for everybody to be U.S. then i would do that. But if its something stupid i wouldn't. I say that because everybody need a say in something. If nobody has a say in something everything would be boring.
Both are as important as the other. Sometimes when it calls for it you may need to give up your natural rights so you and the country can be safer to live in. But there is a point that just draws the line. If it calls for them to limit your natural rights the shouldn't take it to the extreme. There are very few times that your natural rights should be limited. So most of the time your natural right are more important but there are time when there not.
I think that its more important to protect my individual/natural rights than the good of the community. I think that if people's rights are not protected than the good of the community would be worse off.
I think it would be more fair to give up certain rights for the good of the community than to give up them all.
I think it is more important for the peoples natural rights to be protected than the countries. If the people's rights weren't protected, then there wouldn't be a good community or country for the people to survive in.
Yes i do agree that it is good to give up some of your rights for the country, but if you gave up too many rights then there would be no room for yourself. It would be all about the country.
I think depending on the rights we're giving up depends on if we do or not. If it doesn't conflict with the three natural rights. If it's for the good of our country, and the rights we're giving up are not major one's, then we should give up our rights for the good of our country.
I think depending on the rights we're giving up depends on if we do or not. If it doesn't conflict with the three natural rights. If it's for the good of our country, and the rights we're giving up are not major one's, then we should give up our rights for the good of our country.
depends on wat rights you are giving uppp.
Both are important, Personal rights vary from one person to another and the community rights help a larger group of people. So i would have to make the community rights more important
I think they are both important, individual rights vary from one person to another and community rights cover a larger group of people. So i would make the community rights more important.
Well, i agree with lauren's opinion, because i think it's depend on how and what they are giving up...
I believe that personal rights are more important in a critical situation because that is what John Locke established when he first created government. I think that personal rights such as property can be altered since owning property is not as important when in a strenuous time, but life and liberty are essential to the laws set by America.
Profit is everything, and you want to make your product in the cheapest price available and sell it at the highest. This is all good until people start breaking rules and regulations. I would do everything i could to make a profit with out doing something illegal.
Well, in my opinion, I don't think that the natural rights that people have should be given up for the good of the people... if people lose their natural rights, then what do they have? Unless if they are willing to give up their natural rights, they should not be taken away from people, because they are just that, rights that a person has naturally.
I think that its more important to protect my individual/natural rights than the good of the community. I don't don't understand why anyone should give their right up because we got them so we can keep them
Post a Comment