Me Vs We

Jeremy Bentham is most associated with utilitarianism a philosophy which can be boiled down to "the greatest good for the greatest number"

It is the basis for any number of rationing systems with Pharmac and drug buying being a good example in this country.
Some drugs don't get purchased and some people go without treatment because the drugs are really expensive and would therefore use up the budget which could be better spent helping a larger number of people with less expensive drugs. Until the day that you need the expensive drugs people generally accept this as a reasonable basis for decision making, the greatest number of people are assisted within the budget available.

The rights of the individual have an even longer history which from an english law perspective can trace their origins back to the Magna Carta signed in 1215 which established the rights of the subjects vs the powers of the king.

But which is supreme, the rights of the individual or the rights of the society, or group. How you answer this question may well tell me which side of the political spectrum you are likely to fall on.

Those to the right of the spectrum tend to champion individual, you know individual responsibility, reward for effort, my money not the states taxes, small government, big market (a collection of individuals effectively)

Those to the left tend to champion collective goods or groups, increased taxes to assist... (insert group of choice) Protection of the enviroment, gay rights, womens rights etc.

Of course these domains are not clear cut and plenty of "right wingers" can be concerned about gay rights etc but if you listen to the way the ideas are discussed it is effectively group (we) vs the individual (me).

The possible reason why left wingers seem more virtuous as they care about "others" or groups, right wingers appear to care only for themselves "individuals"

This is a bit simplistic though isn't it, both groups seek to advance all, it is where the emphasis goes that counts.

Just Give Me The Facts

So I have been having an email debate with a colleague over some different ways you can manage an economy. In his latest email he listed a number of “facts” that were clearly wrong. So after burying these ideas with some independently verifiable sources I pronounced myself the winner of that portion of the debate. But no he responded with “well that may all be so but I believe it would be better if...”

This sort of thing drives me nuts, let’s ignore the facts in favour of “beliefs” and people do it all the time. I was particularly reminded about the vaccination “debate” (debate in quotes because I believe there is no valid counter position). Now I am happy for people to have beliefs but this does not make them a valid criteria for decision making.

This got me thinking about “facts” that are subject to challenge or if you will the nature of “facts”. On the face of it what is a fact should be straight forward so I tried to think of things that all of us would agree on. It struck me as harder than I first thought. For example presumably we agree on basic human needs, eg people need to eat, sleep, and drink. (well if they want to stay being people). But perhaps we couldn’t even agree on this as there are examples of people who don’t sleep and eating comes in many forms so potentially even drinking is optional (you might be able to get all your fluid needs from food). So maybe facts are harder to find than I thought.

Then there is the “fact” that there is global climate change, according to a lot of people this is so but I don’t “believe” this fact. There are those words again and I think I have “facts” to back up my belief but not everyone agrees with my facts as I don’t agree with theirs.

Perhaps on second thoughts beliefs are more solid than facts, for example I believe that human life has value. Something that a lot of people would agree with, especially if it is phrased regarding their own life. Do I have “facts” to support my belief. Err well no not really and my belief would be open to challenge in certain situations. (eg sacrificing some lives for the greater good). In fact if we look at the whole concept of human rights this seems more founded on belief than on facts. For example sexual orientation is considered a human right (something I don’t have an issue with before any one sends me hate mail) but I think I could construct an argument that sex without children is potentially a negative idea as that is basically the point right, otherwise the species would die out which is counter to our basic drive.

So where does all this get me, well it makes it more understandable that we debate things that in my mind don’t need debate because the answer is clear. Potentially the answer is clear because of the “facts” I am basing my arguments on, if people won’t accept your facts then you are doomed in your arguments.

Now I don’t think we should throw away scientific enquiry which has at its heart understanding the facts, quite the opposite to agree on the facts or to have aligned beliefs is to agree on the way forward more likely as not. So lets keep our minds open to the search for the truth the whole truth and nothing but, however I guess we need to leave some room for beliefs assuming of course that they don’t conflict with the facts.