Individual Rights and Responsibilites: Three Different Perspectives

There are a multitude of views concerning how an individuals rights and responsibilities in a society should be conceived, advanced through the years by successive generations of political philosophers. In the twentieth century, there have been three main schools of thoughts about the individual and society: anarchistic, liberal, and communitarian. Anarchists believe that individuals should be utterly free from constraint by society, free to follow their consciences wherever they might take them. Liberals believe that individuals deserve certain rights and that it is society's job to protect them by enacting laws. Communitarians hew the middle ground by believe that linked social responsibility within a society allows individuals to be autonomous while respectful of others. I believe that none of these ideas has a monopoly on the truth. However, this paper will explore all three concepts of individualism and show why the liberal concept is closest to the truth.

Thoreau is considered by many to be the father of the anarchistic conception of individualism. This is not exactly an accurate portrayal of his point of view, however. In his most famous political work, the Treatise on Civil Disobedience, Thoreau vehemently defends the individual's right to conscientiously object to unjust laws. While this has been taken by many to be a direct appeal for anarchy, Thoreau was really advocating for a better government not no government and for the individual's right to objec

Related Essays

Individual Rights vs. Public Order Concentrating more on public order than individual rights would decrease, the crime rate, fear of crime, and terrorism in the United States. .... (2100 8 )

Individual Rights vs Public Order In this report, the notion of individual rights and public order are examined and an argument advanced in favor of the primacy of public order over the rights .... (1840 7 )

PUBLIC ORDER VS. INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS Concentrating more on public order than individual rights would decrease, the crime rate, fear of crime, and terrorism in the United States. .... (2134 9 )

Digital Civil Rights .... This emerging field of discourse takes as its point of departure the protection of individual rights and protections vis-a-vis government and corporate .... (1503 6 )

Conflict between Private and Public Rights of the Law .... Utilitarianism seeks to maximize happiness for the greatest number of individuals, but does dos by recognizing that individual rights are integral to society .... (693 3 )

which he called the state of nature. The state of nature was a state of anarchy, in which individuals could do what they wanted. However, this meant that nobody was safe because anybody stronger could come and take away their property or their life. The strong were also not safe, however, because the weak could gang up on them. Out the state of nature, then man created a political society based on the social contract based on an individual's consent to be governed by certain laws in exchange for the saftey of their property and life (Tuckness). In more recent times, liberal scholars such as Ronald Dworkin have pointed out that "We live in and by the law. It makes us what we are: citizens and employees and doctors and spouses and people who own things. It is sword, shield, and menace" (Dworkin, Preface). The law, in Dworkin's conception, is what keeps people in their designated role in society. It is what gives us the security that our wages will be paid, that our landlords will maintain our homes, and that serial killers cannot indiscriminately hunt us down without legal repercussions. I agree with the Liberal perspective up to a certain point. I believe that laws are necessary in order to maintain a stable society. I

Category: Government - I