That term is invariably used to describe harming some individuals in order to promote some group's agenda. The group, through its individual members, decides that the individuals it targets are doing something that is "bad" for "society", and so they must be sacrificed. Sometimes the sacrifice doesn't result in the targeted individuals' actual, physical death, but other times it does.
And the murderers feel smug and get awards for the "good" they have done, while hiding behind the group, and lies, to avoid justice.
I never bought it, and I never will.
The only "greater good" is to respect the life, liberty, and property of every individual. Nothing can be greater than that, and that is the root of all good. Anything less great or less good is evil.
.
Hogwash. Does restricting a pilot's alcohol or drug use for the greater good prior to his flying a 747 mean we live in a police state?
ReplyDeleteThere is a greater good. It must be demonstrated and agreed to, and it must be restricted. This is why polio vaccinations were required and polio was wiped out yet there were those who argued against it. Sorry your argument just doesn't hold up.
Airlines can set their own rules regarding a pilot's alcohol or drug use without The State getting involved. Therefore that rule has nothing to do with police or state. If an airline didn't restrict that behavior in it's pilots, customers could choose for themselves whether they want to fly with a sober pilot or not. Alcohol and drugs are not the only things that affect performance. Emotions, lack of sleep, and many other things can actually have worse effects than a prohibited amount of alcohol or drugs. I would want the airlines to watch out for anything that would make a pilot less than ideal. (Not that I will ever fly again with the security theater, that now renders air travel both unsafe and tyrannical, in place.)
ReplyDeleteRequired vaccinations are ridiculous and a violation of rights. If they actually work then let those who choose to get them be vaccinated and let others opt out. There is a risk with all vaccinations, and some people will die. If you forced that unfortunate "statistic" to get the vaccine you murdered him/her. If vaccinations do what is claimed (and I think they usually do) then those who chose to be vaccinated will be protected and those who chose not to be can take their chances.
If you truly demonstrate that something is really "good", you will not need to use coercion to get people to go along. How many must agree to your notion of "good" before they can enforce it on those who are not convinced? 51% of the people who are "qualified" to vote, choose to vote, and have their votes actually counted? Or just a committee of bureaucrats somewhere who are only marginally, at best, accountable to those they make the rules for?
There is no such thing as the "greater good"- at least not as the term is used by people who believe in collectivism and using violence on non-violent individuals.