ethics/political question

Who's more important, the individual, or the group of individuals he belongs to?

I came to this question when I was thinking over ethics, political theories and authoritarian/libertarian differences, and I decided the answer to this question was very pertinent but I'm not sure how to go about it.

Suppose you've got a man named A, and he's in a group consisting of himself, B, C, D, and E.

I never think it's moral to do something like, force A to pay B $5, unless A had stolen it from B before hand or something.  And I find it hard to come up with an example where I think it's justifiable to force A to pay $5 to B, C, D, and E, each, but I suppose that's what I'm asking.  Is it ever alright to forcibly sacrifice some of one individual for the rest of the group?

you're retarded

Calculate actions so as to maximize the amount of value. Sacrifice one individual, save two = net gain. It's math, mofo.

>>2
I'm not entirely opposed to you insulting me as long as you provide your justification or some sort of opposing argument.  Then again, I didn't argue in favor of anything, so I don't know what you'd oppose; other than that I've asked a question.

>>3
Would you ever want to be the guy who gets sacrificed?  I guess I'm asking essentially if people have certain rights you shouldn't ever violate, even if the apparent gains would be better if you ignored them for that person.

>>4
I'm pretty opposed to your unfounded attempt to reject my insult based on the fact you think I'm trying to oppose any part of your original statement.

>>1
A stole $5 from each of {B, C, D, E} -> forcing him to pay back is justifiable.

New thought experiment:
You enter a time machine on 8/1/2050 and go to 8/1/2007 [assume there are no time paradoxes].  Your knowledge of history shows that by a strange chain of events following Bob's existence on 8/2/2007, a bridge will collapse in 2008, killing 1000.  Furthermore, you know that his non existence on that day will prevent said bridge collapse.  Do you kill this otherwise innocent man to save 1000 others?

>>6
This scenario more directly approaches the heart of my question, thanks.

>>6
Can't you just take Bob to the day after the bridge is supposed to collapse and drop him off there? You'd save a lot of people, a bridge, AND Bob.

>>8
Good point.  For the purposes of philosophical discussion, we will assume that your ability to stay in the past is limited to 24 hours.

>>4
Whether or not I'd personally want to be sacrificed should be irrelevant to my objective considerations.

If people had these rights to be treated contrary to what logic would dictate, from where would these rights come from? Does someone dictate them and enforce them, apart from humankind?

My original statement in >>3 was a bit simplistic. The world is a lot more complex than that. The safety that results from the guarantee of such 'rights' is such a tremendous boost in life quality that can be worth it to agree, for example, that no one shall have their life forcibly taken, or their assets forcibly possessed. Whether to do or not do any individual action is a choice between two possible worlds. You just have to pick the one you like the most. (The real world is a bit more analog, though.)

Short version; rather than people having innate rights despite the common good, sensible rights to agree on are indicated by looking at the common good in a long-term perspective.

Sage because ethics is not a science.

Fuck.  Do you idiots even bother to post in the right category anymore?

>>11

Where does ethics go?

#12, considering the state of America today, obviously ethics goes right into the toilet.

>>12
Dunno, somewhere else entirely. If I were to take a wild guess at where political questions go, I'd say /newpol/. If you don't like it, consider your local debate group.

>>1
This depends on the nature of the group: its purpose, its method of operation, who runs it, and whether it's voluntary or compulsory.  If A, B, C, D, and E each AGREED to join the group permanently, and stated purpose was to redistribute wealth according to need, and B, C, D, and E needed the $5 more than A, then they would be justified in taking it.  The justification being that if A had needed money, he could have taken it from another member.  However, if a neutral party had forced the group to form, or, worse yet, B, C ,D, and E had forced A to join in order to have access to his higher net worth, then it would be simple theft.  (If A had stolen the money, it's a different matter entirely)

In >>6's scenario, you can justify killing Bob by assuming that if one were to gather all 1001 people into a room and say "1000 of you will die unless I kill the other 1" I would expect that they would all agree on killing the one.  But such decisions should be reserved for only the most extreme situations, namely when a great number of lives are at risk and seeking agreement from every affected party isn't feasible.

The needs of the many out way the needs of the few.

>>16
The needs of the many OUT WAY the needs of the few?

like that song, Move Bitch Get Out the Way

>>15

But what if you had 1000 asswipes and 1 great guy? Would you sacrifice the worthwhile individual to save the scum?

but really why is this in /sci/

>>16

What if an alien race contacted us and told that all the 7 trillion aliens would die, unless the 7 billion earthlings are killed? Would you sacrifice the human race to save an alien race?

>>21
everyone knows aliens lie, so clearly not.

The word pirahna, is all I can think of that rhymes with marijuana

Marijuana MUST be legalized.