Should we start making laws which address what is right for the human population as a whole instead of the what is right for the individual?

[foxsquirrell]

In view of the fact that there are so many different individuals all with there specific preferences and needs, I say that laws should be geared towards the welfare of the human race as a whole.

Its a never ending story trying to cater for everybody. There will always be someone complaining and left out as things are.

Under the law which puts the human population first many individuals will still be protected, because without human individuals there will not be a human population. But the approach is radically different.

YES the human population should be the focus

NO the individual should be the focus

[BetaBucks]

When you place the entire population's outcome as the sole factor, you automatically violate the rights of the individual. Did you know that if we executed everyone on welfare, the entire population would see a huge improvement to quality of life? Did you know if we euthanize all substantially disabled people, the entire population is better off? Did you know if we exiled entire ethnic groups, it would benefit the entire country?

Do you see these things as ethical? Hitler, Mao, Stalin, Pot, etc... saw things this way. Do we want to go down the path of genocidal maniacs, or would it be better to honor individual rights over the overall wellbeing of the population?

[foxsquirrell]

The individual per se is nothing (Nothing but an arrogant self loving creature). Exactly, that would be nature's way. Did you register that? NATURE's way.
Do you think you know better then nature? I'm pretty sure you don't. Or do you think nature is a Hitler?
Have you never heard the expression 'You have to be cruel to be kind'.
Look, there are some people who even though they have some sort of physical disability they can still contribute to society and enjoy there lives, BUT there are some who I prefer not to specify who should be euthanized at birth. It would be better for everyone including them first and foremost.

[BetaBucks]

When we formed civilization, we made a conscious decision to bypass nature and do what's unnatural. If you think that doing the cruel thing is right, then, by all means, you can believe that. But you won't convince me that this is ethical. But be clear here, do you agree with us doing the first few things I mention in my comment? If not, why?

[foxsquirrell]

I was not arguing that it is ethical or unethical at all. But if you want to include ethics I will. I think it is ethical to preserve and promote the human population as a whole, and not favor the individual at the expense of the human population as a whole. How about that? It is all a matter of how you look at things. You prefer to put the individual on a pedestal so to speak. I prefer not. I'm telling you that that view will run into unnecessary problems because of all the never ending cases of individuals who deviate from the norm but want to be treated with equal rights. It would be much simpler and correct to follow nature's model as much as we can.
Further more we did not do any conscious decision to bypass nature and go into civilization. Civilization happened gradually over thousands of years. So please do not throw seemingly profound statements which on inspection are found to be false!
If you don't want to agree with me its up to you. I am not surprised. The vast majority of people are like this. They don't like these radical ideas, they fear them, or they are too arrogant even though they don't admit it, and they try to argue against them without compromise. Herd mentality I think it is.

[BetaBucks]

These aren't radical ideas, these are common ideas that governments have been pushing, off and on, throughout recorded history.

There's nothing profound about the idea that civilization reverses nature. Monogamy, welfare, religion, etc... are all a means to go against what our natural instincts are. Please feel free to send over the results of your inspection that disprove what every one of us can see with our own eyes. Unless your argument is that it's natural to confirm to societal norms that contradict our instincts in the wild, but then what's the point of even discussing what humans are like in nature? Clearly the concept is about what we do in a civilization vs what we did prior to civilization.

I answered in terms of ethics, because, to me, it's an ethical debate. If it were just a debate solely focused on pragmatism, then I can't win. Yes, it's more pragmatic to genocide out the worst of our civilization. It's more pragmatic for governments to be totalitarian. It's more pragmatic to disregard human rights. On the other hand, maybe it's not so black and white, because rebellion and revolution are a thing too, and going too far with the disregard for individual, human rights, can backfire.

[foxsquirrell]

I believe I answered you already. No need to send you anything else. However, again I would like to emphasize that from an ethical point of view it all depends on how you look at it. You can see ethics from an individual point of view, and you can see ethics from a human population point of view.
I can ask you what do you understand by the term ethics after all! But its pretty useless to debate on such things like ethics. And I don't want to venture there. Its pretty much an opinion. Just like laws. They are not much more then opinions. Not scientific at all. For example the United States itself, for the same crime you have the death penalty in one state, and you have life in prison in another state. Go figure.
I repeat you can see ethics (whatever that might mean) from different point of views. You choose the individual, I choose the human population as a whole. After all in my view the vast majority of individuals will be protected by law because actions against them would be actions against the human population. There will be no human population without human beings obviously.

[BetaBucks]

Okay, fair points about the subjectivity of ethics. But let me ask you about YOUR ethical viewpoint. With an example. Genociding or exiling the US black population, amounting to about 1/8th of the population, would reduce our crime rate by more than half. It would drastically reduce, or even eliminate, our budget deficit too. This, obviously would be to the benefit of the US population, as a whole. Meanwhile, I lose my wife and my children, because they are black. This is the ethics part. Do you, with your personal viewpoint, believe that because it's a benefit to the entire population, it's okay to eliminate this small portion of the population? Would the elimination of their individual rights be palatable to you, because the rights of the entire population supercede their rights?

[foxsquirrell]

As they say if you want to make an omelette you have to break some eggs lol.
Of course favoring the benefit of the human population will come at the cost of some individuals. Is it ethical? If you regard the human population as more important then a minority of individuals then it is OVERALL ethical. Its basically like weighing weights in a scale balance really. It boils down to that.

[BetaBucks]

Lmfao jesus dude. Break some eggs? You're hardcore. To each their own, but it's just not something I can ever support.

[patois]

Let me guess, whatever you like is best for the human population, and everyone else should have their individual rights stripped so that you can be a happy dictator.

[foxsquirrell]

Exactly! Spot on!!

[AviatorTom]

Vulcans have a rule: The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the one.

[foxsquirrell]

Who are the Vulcans?

[AviatorTom]

Star Trek... Mr Spock is Vulcan

[foxsquirrell]

Ahh ok cool.

[Dargil]

The population is made of individuals. The human population HERE as a whole needs a supporting infrastructure. But individuals HERE need Liberty. The rest of the world should take care of itself.

[foxsquirrell]

The individuals there are special?

[Dargil]

Not special but there is a consensus on infrastructure and liberty we need roads and cops but we need to be left alone so long as we are lawful.

[Astarlessnightsky]

whats best for the population is also best for the individual.

[foxsquirrell]

Not so. Case in point the Corona pandemic. If they viewed the whole thing from a human population point of view, then they would not have made those restrictions to save old people. Because the vast majority of victims by far were the old. Instead they acted in a way to protect all individuals. At the expense of the human population of course, because now we have more old people then we would have otherwise had.

[Astarlessnightsky]

No. i don't see your point.

[Gent207-2]

Neither

The only two things humanity universally has agreed upon:

Murder bad

War is so-so

[exitseven]

No, the individual rights must take precedent. Live Free or Die, those are your options.

[dudegreat91]

Larger society is always the focus of laws not individuals

[foxsquirrell]

I don't think so.

[dudegreat91]

That is the basic principle of jurisprudence.

[foxsquirrell]

Is jurisprudence concerned with how the laws are created or how the law is applied?

[dudegreat91]

about how the laws are created

[Guacamole409]

No...

[Billlewis]

Uh, no.

[gorydetails]

Like what?