If the rights of the individual are paramount we have a fragmented atomised society. If the good of society is paramount we have an oppressive society. One example is that one has a great violinist sharing your kidney. If detached from your kidney he will die. However, you have no obligation to keep him attached to your kidney.

At this time I don't know how I would resolve this question. Whose right is paramount - the right of society to enjoy the genius of the violinist or your right to be free of a person attached to your kidney.

How would you resolve the question?

.

Dear David,

.

« Whose right is paramount - the right of society to enjoy the genius of the violinist or your right to be free of a person attached to your kidney ? »
.

You will recall that my definition of “a fundamental human right” (page 2), is that it is a natural right.

I am therefore free to chose to continue to share my kidney with the violinist or to detach it from him because, as you rightly observe, I have no obligation to continue to allow him to be attached to it. The kidney being an integral part of my person, attributed to me by nature, it is my “fundamental right” to do with it as I wish – “without or despite any outside influence”.

However, because of the risk of death of the violinist following detachment of my kidney, before taking any such action I would do everything in my power to help him find an alternative solution.

The fact that he happened to be a “great violinist”, highly appreciated by society, would not be a determining factor in my decision. What would be a determining factor, though, is if he happened to be either somebody very dear to me or, on the contrary, an Adolf Hitler or the like.

Allow me, however, to take a step back to your first premise :

« If the rights of the individual are paramount we have a fragmented atomised society ».

No doubt you will agree that nature has created a society in which each individual is unique. Nevertheless, by cooperating with each other in a myriad of relationships, most of us usually constitute a fairly coherent and efficient society. The fact that the rights of each individual happen to be “paramount” does not, in my view, detract from the coherence and efficiency of the group as a whole.

It seems to me that the exercise and respect of individual rights do not produce a “fragmented” society but rather a “composite” society – despite the inevitable cleavages on a number of specific issues.

.

.

Dear plantagenet,

.

Thanks for the link to that “politically correct” speech of Tony Abbott.

No risks taken, nothing gained but, more importantly of course, nothing lost either !

.

Thanks Banjo Paterson

Yes our great leader sang from the correct song sheet. Sadly forgettable.

To do him credit he has not felt entitled like any normal Aussies.

His private jet has taken him to Paris today.

Pete

Banjo Paterson wrote: "The fact that the rights of each individual happen to be “paramount” does not, in my view, detract from the coherence and efficiency of the group as a whole."

Dear Banjo,

Paramount = predominant. We have different views. My view is that if the rights of each individual happen to be “paramount” we cannot have any sort of society.

.

Dear David,

.

« Paramount = predominant. We have different views. My view is that if the rights of each individual happen to be “paramount” we cannot have any sort of society. »
.

I agree with your definition of “paramount” and have a great deal of respect for your opinion, all your opinions - whatever the subject - as I have observed that you never make assertions about anything of which you are not sure.

Perhaps I am a Utopian, but, for all practical purposes, rightly or wrongly, I see present-day Australia as a composite (multicultural) society in which the fundamental human rights of individual citizens are largely respected – despite the (regrettable) absence of a constitutionally entrenched national bill of rights and the recent curtailment of a certain number of individual rights necessitated by the threat of global terrorism.

As regards the latter, I suspect that I am not alone in thinking that it is in the common interest to forgo certain liberties in order to allow the state to make inroads into private domains which are normally strictly out of bounds to it.

The citizens of Australia have invested the state with an imperative obligation to protect them from aggression from whatever quarter, including terrorist attacks.

Provided Montesquieu’s checks and balances continue to apply in order to allow legitimate power to govern and good ideas to be implemented, while abuse of power, corruption, and oppression are minimized, though I find it highly regrettable, I see such inroads of the state into the private domain as a “lesser evil”.

It seems to me that in such abominable circumstances, pragmatism becomes an imperative necessity.

Might I add that according to the Human Rights Risk Atlas 2015, Australia and Canada appear to be the only countries in the world classified as “low risk”. By comparison, the US and all the European countries are classified as “medium risk” :

http://maplecroft.com/portfolio/new-analysis/2014/12/03/human-rights-deteriorating-most-ukraine-thailand-turkey-due-state-repression-civil-unrest-maplecroft-human-rights-risk-atlas/

But perhaps I have missed your point. If so, would you be so kind as to accept to elaborate just a little further.

.