Individuals always sacrifice their rights to be part of a community, in exchange for certain benefits. Yet, there will be inevitable clashes between the interests of the community and the individual. In this essay, I will argue that being fair to the community is more important than being just to the individual, yet the complete disregard of an individual would be hypocritical of the purpose of ‘community’.
The deterrence principle is a key example of where being fair to the community is more important than being just to the individual. When criminals commit crimes, measures must be taken to prevent these crimes from happening again. The government is responsible for creating a harmonious society where people feel safe and secure. As such, harsh sentences should be given to criminals to disincentivize others from doing the same. Although this disproportionately punishes the individual to benefit society, it is necessary to enforce such rules for the protection of more people. This instills confidence that the government is tough on crime, and can help communities function. Hence, being fair to the community is more important, especially since the individual will eventually benefit from being part of that community.
In an ideal world, an infinite supply of money would render us able to benefit both communities and individuals, but this is not the case. It has been long established and assumed that tax systems are necessary for the betterment of society. Welfare programmes, free education, healthcare benefits, are all examples of where we have regarded communal rights as more important than individual rights. We take away people’s freedom to spend all their earned incomes to benefit the less fortunate. This is more fair for the community, as they are in a more vulnerable position than individuals being taxed. Individuals who are self-interested would never donate money to help communities, and hence the government sees the need to uphold communal interests at the expense of individuals. Doing so helps lift more people out of difficult situations and boosts productivity, cohesion and prosperity. This is the same feature of democracy – we serve the interests of majority to improve the overall situation of society.
However, some may argue that governments may use “collective interests” as an excuse for undermining individual rights, citing censorship as an example. This would erode the very nature of community, which is to unify voices and improve the wellbeing of most members concerned. Furthermore, being fair to the community requires people to make sweeping generalizations about each unique member, which may be unfounded and untrue. Yet, such argument is extreme. Even when discussing censorship, there are cases where governments must protect national security to uphold the rights of communities, rather than individuals. This improves wellbeing of members in the long-run, despite short-run concessions of free speech. At the same time, the government has to make generalizations and assumptions when serving its people, for there cannot be laws that take into consideration every single member in society – this would be inefficient.
In conclusion, being fair to the community is oftentimes more important, as seen in the society we live in. However, if individuals are completely neglected, it defeats the purpose of a community – which is to further the rights of all members. Hence, it is ideal for these rights to coexist wherever possible, yet in cases of deterrence and tax, concessions must be made.
IB Wisdom 