I beleive that by arguing in affrimation, it is bettering society, meaning yourself, thus acheiving the negative. What does anyone think on this matter?

"Resolved: As a general principle, individuals have an obligation to value the common good above their own interests." I'm sorry this is the topic!

doggy

Ayn Rand would have you hung.
In reality, both must be considered. Situations vary, so an extensive study in 'Game Theory' is what one would need to know. In some situations, serving yourself first is beneficial to all, but other times it is better to consider the common good first.

MD,

Don't you just hate replies that affirm the co-validity of both options?

Me too. However, I think Twister is right. Such judgements are necessarily reliant on individual circumstances, and therefore ad hoc in nature.

is it possible to value one over the other

doggy

quote:

---

is it possible to value one over the other

---

Is it possible? Yes.

As twister said:

quote:

---

In some situations, serving yourself first is beneficial to all, but other times it is better to consider the common good first.

---

We are students of words; we are shut up in schools, and colleges, and recitation rooms, for ten or fifteen years, and come out at last with a bag of wind, a memory of words, and do not know a thing-- Ralph Waldo Emerson

"And if anyone says in a loud voice "Bother, it's Eeyore" I can drop out again."

But in theory, if EVERYONE acted for the common good instead of themselves, wouldn't every individual's interests eventually be met?

Kind of like that example from A Beautiful Mind with John Nash and his economic theory, which he derrived from observing a group of girls. If all the guys went for the blonde (their own interests) only one of them would succeed, and the other girls would be offended and ignore the rest of the guys. But if they each agreed to go for the other girls first, then each of them would come out on top (the common good).

I don't know if that is a very good support for the argument......did that even really happen? I mean, that was part of a true story right? He did develop a theory like that in real life didn't he?

It just seems logical to me. However, it would be almost impossible to create a genuine common good system.

But to the original question....unless you are looking at it from a religious standpoint, no one really has an obligation. It is simply a noble idea that might work in theory.

I trust people. I just don't trust the devil inside them. - The Italian Job

the beautiful mind example is excellent! That was a true example.This is not a religious standpoint. If u had to argue for self intrest, how would u go about that

I think that people make up a community, so when the people are doing well the community is doin go.

doggy

the self intrest side should probably be upheld more becuae I think that people make up a community, so when the people are doing well the community is doin go.

doggy

Yes, but what if everyone in the community doesn't do well for themselves even if they try? Wouldn't that mean the commmunity isn't really doing well as a whole? Whereas if everyone first looks out for the good of the community, then everyone can reap the benefits individually.

I trust people. I just don't trust the devil inside them. - The Italian Job

Yes, but if u ever want progession in soceity, individuals could contribute there knowlegde for the betterment of common good

doggy

Please explain what you mean by "contribute their knowledge" and how it relates to serving one's self first.

I trust people. I just don't trust the devil inside them. - The Italian Job

The 'Beautiful Mind' example is actually of John Nash's contribution to game theory. It is wrongly portrayed in the movie and appears to be a theory that can be applied to all situations. In reality, his theory is designed for only specific situations (in simple terms: non-bargaining situations). It is merely one aspect of Game Theory.

In my personal opinion, the common good i.e the community should take precedence because a person could really reach there basic self interests in a corrupt community.

I would also like to bring up the prisoners delima, which also states that when self interest dictates us to do whats best for ourselves, but in the end hurts ourselves worst because if we do whats contary to self interest, when placing the common good ahead, u get benefited more. I can explain the dilima if anybody needs to know it.

doggy

MD12:

quote:

---

the self intrest side should probably be upheld more becuae I think that people make up a community, so when the people are doing well the community is doin go.

doggy

---

and...

quote:

---

In my personal opinion, the common good i.e the community should take precedence because a person could really reach there basic self interests in a corrupt community.

---

Did you just switch sides?? That's not allowed!!!! (just kidding of course)

I trust people. I just don't trust the devil inside them. - The Italian Job

would u have an argument for that - sorry for switching sides - didn't know - the problem is i have to argue for both of this topics at school and i don't understand them

Any help would be great
---thankyou

doggy

Cooperation, Community and the Common Good

The benefits of cooperation are obvious. You help her and she helps you. As Bob Burg puts it, you enjoy a "win-win" situation.
The benefits of cooperation are greater than you may think. The benefits to you as an individual increase substantially when you cooperate with members of a self-interest group, thus building a strong community.
The benefits of your self-interest community cooperating for the common good with other self-interest communities, are great enough to prevent terrorism.
Individual and Community
We, in the United States, believe in individualism. We therefore tend to avoid community building. But merely by becoming more involved in a community does not make you any less of an individual. There is no conflict between individuality and community. The individual vs. community conflict is a myth.
I want to emphasize this. As an individual, you have many rights. None of these rights are impacted when you voluntarily decide to work for a community. On the contrary, the more you work for a community, the stronger the community becomes, and the more the entire community can better protect your rights as an individual.
The Common Good
Though it may not be in fashion today, the common good should be a major concern of all citizens. As Montesquieu has said:
"The virtuous citizen was one who understood that personal welfare is dependent on the general welfare and could be expected to act accordingly."
For years the common good has been the subject of intense debate. At one time those who were toiling to improve the lot of low-paid workers insisted they were working for the public interest or the common good; business people claimed they were working for their own self-interest. People working for the homeless believe they are working for the common good, though many consider these selfless individuals as part of a self-interest group. Even civil rights lawyers are considered by some to be part of a self-interest group.
The question, then, is: "What is the common good?"
I am sure that anyone who lived through the events of September 11 would agree that preventing terrorism is a common good. Terrorism has harmed, not only the families and friends of those killed, but employers and employees throughout the land. Our soldiers have gone to war and some were killed. Industries have suffered. Tourism declined precipitously. Relationships among people have changed. Many of us live in constant fear of the next terrorist attack.
Because the September 11 attacks affected all of us, preventing such a catastrophe from happening in the future is a common good.
Community Breakdown
If you analyze the September 11 massacre, you will come to the realization that it was caused by a breakdown in the community - the world community. If, indeed, there were a thriving, cooperative world community, I believe such an atrocious attack would not occur. There is no real world community. The globe is divided into many different nations, each working at its own so-called self-interest. Competition rules. Terrorism results.
Self-centered actions occur at all levels, not merely among nations and religions. Because each person is concerned only with himself, there is a complete breakdown of the community. This happens with reference to individual members of a community and also with reference to specific groups within a larger community. The resulting terrorism occurs at all levels:
• When the Columbine High School community broke down, Harris and Klebold killed their fellow students
• When the business community broke down, Ken Lay and the other "barons of bankruptcy" (as the Financial Times called them) caused over 90,000 people to be thrown out of work and investors to lose over $200 billion, which resulted in economic terror
• When the national community broke down, Timothy McVeigh bombed the Oklahoma City Federal building and terrified Oklahoma and the rest of the country
• When the world community broke down, Atta and the other 18 suicide bombers produced the outrageous September 11 attack against the U.S.
Community Harmony
If community breakdown is the cause of terrorism, building community harmony should be an excellent way of preventing terrorism. To achieve community harmony:
• Stop thinking as an individual. None of us is alone. We are all members of society.
• Learn to cooperate with members of your group in order to make the group a true community.
• Instead of always being focused on self-interest, get your self-interest communities to seek the common good.
• Work together with other communities - including antagonistic ones - to achieve mutual goals, thereby encouraging harmony.
• Act as a Global citizen. Consider the common good for the world, not merely for your country.
As a citizen of the Globe, going about your daily business and other activities, you can prevent terrorism by being more cooperative, building communities and working for the common good.

doggy

Plagiarisma Non Grata

Masterdebater, you are still reasonably new here and so you might not know about Quoteland's attitude toward plagiarism. If you read the Quoteland Constitution, you'll find it is pretty much one of our most seriously frowned-upon misbehaviours.

You entire post above was taken, without attribution, from the website of the Learning Fountain, a learning resource created by Paul Siegel. Ironically perhaps, his site's motto is "Excellence, Honesty, Ethics"

I'll give you the benefit of the doubt this time , but next time if you use someone's stuff (and you are usually free to do so), say whose it is, supply a link, or otherwise make it clear that it's not your own work. Or face a ban from this site.

It's just that serious.

Davdoodles
XXX

PS, the stuff you posted makes some interesting points, and is certainly controversial and unique. You should read and think carefully about what Mr Seigel has to say. You might agree with it or not, but it's always good to learn other's points of view. - Dav XXX

masterdebater12, no worries. Just let everyone know that your apparent use of plagiarism was, in fact, a deliberate act of civil disobedience. The more tolerant, and less judgmental, residents of Quoteland will think you a hero. And it will be their privilege to extend a laurel, and hardy handshake !

OBTW, that was from Blazing Saddles.

Men prefer to believe what they believe to be true.
F. Bacon

I think the problem is the premise. It's not really an obligation if it's only applicable as a general principle.

---

I'm the bad guy here, let's not forget that.