From a utilitarian standpoint, being fair to the community is more important than being just to the individual as it means the greatest amount of people experience joy. In a modern society, we live in a community where we all have separate ideals, beliefs and backgrounds. However, no one is intrinsically better than the other, affirming that collective aims are more important than those of an individual. However, some critics will persist that individual rights are absolute and should always triumph over the needs of the community. Thus, this essay will affirm the fact that being fair to the community is more important than being just to the individual.
Keeping the aims of the collective community at heart allows for a more peaceful society. If we keep the majority stakeholder of society happy and well-treated, this thus reduces the possibility of uproar and protest which can disturb a harmonious society. This creates a positive cycle if more individuals are happy, there is less conflict, less conflict means an even greater proportion of people are happy and so on. Even more so, this duty to keep a community happy is essential to the government. To protect its civilians, governments must send their prisoners to jail and tax its richest members. Sure, this is most probably against the wishes of the respective individual, but benefits society as a whole as the streets are safer without convicts and money generated from tax can be redistributed to the NHS or state-funded education. In the long run, this mindset allows for more economic growth, as success isn’t limited to a small number of individuals, but is encouraged to be shared and developed with even the poorest members of society. This reaffirms the notion that being fair to the community is more important.
However, the rights of an individual should not be sacrificed to merely carry out some government policy. The ECHR clearly states that individuals are subject to 18 absolute articles which cannot be infringed upon. If we start bending these rules or making allowances in the name of ‘helping society’, it creates a slippery slope, as we cannot judge where to put a limit on the infringement of these rights. Moreover, this phenomenon can very easily lead to censorship, where the state is given ultimate power over the people, as well as what they see and what they hear. If we start censoring news channels and journalism from society with the justification we are ‘being fair to it’ and ‘ensuring its joy’, surely we are infringing upon Articles 9 and 10? The danger associated with prioritising the needs of the community versus the individual outlines that it is not more important.
In conclusion, being fair to the community is more important than being just to the individual, as without doing so we risk social cohesion. Prioritising the needs of a community allows for more equality within society, as well as the possibility to achieve long-term goals. Although critics raise a good point when addressing the possible slippery slope this phenomenon creates, it is undermined by the notion that prioritising the needs of the community can exist in combination with respecting the rights of individuals. This thus affirms the fact that it is more important to be fair to the community.
Written by Aurore
Comments