# the Individual or the Collective?? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [December 24, 2012, 9:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-individual-or-the-collective/645051 "2012-12-24T21:07:37Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 17\ **Page:** 14
**Author:** ![eschereal](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/eschereal/32/18939_2.png) [@eschereal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/eschereal)\ **Post date:** [January 11, 2013, 1:09am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-individual-or-the-collective/645051/261 "2013-01-11T01:09:07Z")
> [@wildorchid](#): > > … it’s easy to say collectivism is cool/ individualism is bad … This is an example of why you are being accused of presenting a false dichotomy. This is not a flat-out binary choice we have to make. To make a bad analogy, collectivism is like a bundle of dynamite, individualism is like a rifle. If you want to build a road through the mountains, you use the dynamite, if you want a nice fresh elk steak for dinner, you use the rifle. Each have their place in society, the same way any other tool has its place in your workshop, you use what works best for the task at hand. To arbitrarily reject what best suits one’s ends because the idea of it makes you uncomfortable is plain foolhardy, and often wasteful. Also, I personally am irked that you feel you have the right to tell me to fuck off and move to another country because you are bothered by what you think I might be doing to this one. Who are you to decide who should stay or go? Or is tolerance just another form of evil multiculturalist collectivism? ---
**Author:** ![wildorchid](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/82dd89/32.png) [@wildorchid](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wildorchid)\ **Post date:** [January 11, 2013, 1:10am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-individual-or-the-collective/645051/262 "2013-01-11T01:10:56Z")
> [@tomndebb](#): > > Since the U.S. is not on “an authoritarian slide,” it is pretty clear that it is not common knowledge. It may, indeed, be a common belief among a small sect of fairly ignorant people, but it is not “common knowledge.” > > You have presented no evidence that the U.S. is trending away from personal freedom, (probably because you could not find any genuine examples of such a trend). Similarly, there is no effort in the U.S. to move away from the dignity of the individual. So far, I have seen you falsely link fascism and Marxism, provide (twice) an incorrect etymology of the word liberal connected to an utterly erroneous claim about the status of slaves and free men in ancient Rome. (And when you had been corrected on your error the first time, you still repeated it and have made no effort to acknowledge your error.) You have made the claim that the U.N. Agenda 21 would suppress individual home ownership and refused, for pages, to provide evidence for that spurious claim. (Again, the reason being that it did no such thing.) > > Generally, when asked for evidence of your claims, you have presented nothing but opinion pieces by nutcases without providing any factual evidence to support their odd beliefs (aside from remarks such as the one about home ownership that are demonstrably in error). > > It is for these and similar statements that I deem that you have not provided a single reason for anyone on any of your several threads to view you as anything other than a crank who really has no idea what he is talking about. So, while it may make you feel good to rant about the abuse to which you believe you have been subjected, any objective observer would note that you have brought it all on yourself with your histrionic claims for an imaginary history and a projected future that bears no resemblance to the real world. …and the TSA will grab your junk now at the airport, but the Mexican military who do road side searches wouldn’t dream of touching the hat on your head out of respect for your personal space… This isn’t a move away from personal freedom? TSA also does road side checks now, outside of the airports… www.texasinsider.org/tsa-releases-vipr-venom-on-tennessee-highways why don’t we talk about the subject at hand, instead of attacking me (again, ad naseum)?? you are discussing whether i am an authority or not? who cares… it has no significance regarding the OP either way… that’s the route of an ad veracundiam fallacy, anyways; \>\> not every expert presents the truth, and not everyone who presents the truth is an expert\<\< if you are correct, then why are you even reading this? why go out on a limb? In fact, i have presented heaps of evidence. i can’t read it for you. it’s not up to me, and I’m having goal posts moved around; hearing demands to produce evidence that i dont need to… ---
**Author:** ![wildorchid](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/82dd89/32.png) [@wildorchid](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wildorchid)\ **Post date:** [January 11, 2013, 1:23am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-individual-or-the-collective/645051/263 "2013-01-11T01:23:16Z")
> [@For You](#): > > This is an example of why you are being accused of presenting a false dichotomy. This is not a flat-out binary choice we have to make. > > To make a bad analogy, collectivism is like a bundle of dynamite, individualism is like a rifle. If you want to build a road through the mountains, you use the dynamite, if you want a nice fresh elk steak for dinner, you use the rifle. Each have their place in society, the same way any other tool has its place in your workshop, you use what works best for the task at hand. To arbitrarily reject what best suits one’s ends because the idea of it makes you uncomfortable is plain foolhardy, and often wasteful. > > Also, I personally am irked that you feel you have the right to tell me to fuck off and move to another country because you are bothered by what you think I might be doing to this one. Who are you to decide who should stay or go? Or is tolerance just another form of evil multiculturalist collectivism? i thought you would like it there. if you like winter sports, it’s a safe bet to guess you would like Vail, right? no harm there. excuse me for sticking up for American values… (individualism as opposed to collectivism according to Robin Williams 10 American core values.) I think America is about equal opportunity, and that the immigrants i meet are much much more truly appreciative of the American values that are still being embodied here. they arent as likely to take them for granted. they may have seen the results first hand of the lack of freedom where they come from. they arent bashing individuality and american core values like spoiled occupiers who think the governments job is to take care of everyone. ---
**Author:** ![wildorchid](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/82dd89/32.png) [@wildorchid](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wildorchid)\ **Post date:** [January 11, 2013, 1:32am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-individual-or-the-collective/645051/264 "2013-01-11T01:32:36Z")
> [@tomndebb](#): > > Since the U.S. is not on “an authoritarian slide,” it is pretty clear that it is not common knowledge. It may, indeed, be a common belief among a small sect of fairly ignorant people, but it is not “common knowledge.” > > You have presented no evidence that the U.S. is trending away from personal freedom, (probably because you could not find any genuine examples of such a trend). Similarly, there is no effort in the U.S. to move away from the dignity of the individual. So far, I have seen you falsely link fascism and Marxism, provide (twice) an incorrect etymology of the word liberal connected to an utterly erroneous claim about the status of slaves and free men in ancient Rome. (And when you had been corrected on your error the first time, you still repeated it and have made no effort to acknowledge your error.) You have made the claim that the U.N. Agenda 21 would suppress individual home ownership and refused, for pages, to provide evidence for that spurious claim. (Again, the reason being that it did no such thing.) > > Generally, when asked for evidence of your claims, you have presented nothing but opinion pieces by nutcases without providing any factual evidence to support their odd beliefs (aside from remarks such as the one about home ownership that are demonstrably in error). > > It is for these and similar statements that I deem that you have not provided a single reason for anyone on any of your several threads to view you as anything other than a crank who really has no idea what he is talking about. So, while it may make you feel good to rant about the abuse to which you believe you have been subjected, any objective observer would note that you have brought it all on yourself with your histrionic claims for an imaginary history and a projected future that bears no resemblance to the real world. if its not common knowledge here (a certain % of the population doesnt count because they can be relegated to being extremist kooks, or conservatives (read: real Americans)), then its common knowledge everywhere else because foreigners increasingly don’t want to travel here and suffer abuse at the hands of TSA, and tourism here is on a decline as a result. articles.cnn.com/2007-01-31/travel/international.travel\_1\_travel-industry-travel-business-share-of-international-travel?\_s=PM:TRAVEL ---
**Author:** ![eschereal](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/eschereal/32/18939_2.png) [@eschereal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/eschereal)\ **Post date:** [January 11, 2013, 1:54am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-individual-or-the-collective/645051/265 "2013-01-11T01:54:38Z")
> [@wildorchid](#): > > i thought you would like it there. > > if you like winter sports, it’s a safe bet to guess you would like Vail, right? > no harm there. Seen Vail, did not much care for it. Fine for the people that like it, not my thing. > [@](#): > > excuse me for sticking up for American values… (individualism as opposed to collectivism according to Robin Williams 10 American core values.) OK, I forgive you, now move on to something substantive. > [@](#): > > … arent bashing individuality and american core values like spoiled occupiers who think the governments job is to take care of everyone. Huh? Is that the Occupy message? I must have heard wrong, or maybe some _Disinformation_ has been spread around… ---
**Author:** ![tomndebb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9e5f3/32.png) [@tomndebb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomndebb)\ **Post date:** [January 11, 2013, 2:08am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-individual-or-the-collective/645051/266 "2013-01-11T02:08:07Z")
> [@wildorchid](#): > > …and the TSA will grab your junk now at the airport, > but the Mexican military who do road side searches wouldn’t dream of touching the hat on your head out of respect for your personal space… > This isn’t a move away from personal freedom? > TSA also does road side checks now, outside of the airports… Which is a(nother) silly claim, given that in your good old days, the police could roust you for any reason or no reason, but now, compelled by law and encouraged by culture, there are limits to how long they can hold you and to how they can treat you when you are being questioned. > [@wildorchid](#): > > why don’t we talk about the subject at hand, instead of attacking me (again, ad naseum)?? What subject at hand? You go haring off with wild claims at every paragraph, (if you would bother to even construct paragraphs). > [@wildorchid](#): > > you are discussing whether i am an authority or not? who cares… it has no significance regarding the OP either way… > that’s the route of an ad veracundiam fallacy, anyways; \>\> not every expert presents the truth, and not everyone who presents the truth is an expert\<\< I have not addressed whether you are an “authority” in any way. Why are you making up straw man arguments with which to attack me? What I did do, in direct response to one more whiny complaint that people were not taking you seriously, was to point out examples of ways that you have failed to make your case for whatever rant you are currently pursuing. > [@wildorchid](#): > > if you are correct, then why are you even reading this? why go out on a limb? I have to read a lot of this drek so that when it boils over I have an understanding of how to Moderate the discussion. Having read too much of it, I felt compelled to comment. > [@wildorchid](#): > > In fact, i have presented heaps of evidence. i can’t read it for you. > it’s not up to me, and I’m having goal posts moved around; hearing demands to produce evidence that i dont need to… As I have already pointed with no contradiction of substance from you, when you have posted “evidence” it has tended to come in the form of blogs from lunatics or unsubstantiated claims that you refuse to document, twisted history, and poor etymology. You have not posted enough actual facts in this thread, (much less your other threads), to support a third grade social studies class of 45 minutes. Instead, you have made sweeping declarations of non-factual opinion and then had minor tantrums that your lack of coherence and fact has failed to persuade anyone to your position. All I was doing was pointing out why your discussion has failed. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [January 11, 2013, 2:26am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-individual-or-the-collective/645051/267 "2013-01-11T02:26:26Z")
> [@wildorchid](#): > > excuse me for sticking up for American values… (individualism as opposed to collectivism according to Robin Williams 10 American core values.) Pardon me if you’ve already mentioned this in this thread, but who is this Robin Williams? Not the actor/comedian, I presume. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [January 11, 2013, 2:27am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-individual-or-the-collective/645051/268 "2013-01-11T02:27:56Z")
> [@wildorchid](#): > > …and the TSA will grab your junk now at the airport, > but the Mexican military who do road side searches wouldn’t dream of touching the hat on your head out of respect for your personal space… > This isn’t a move away from personal freedom? > TSA also does road side checks now, outside of the airports… Nobody here is defending the TSA’s practices, nor does it have anything to do with the topic. Authoritarianism != collectivism. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [January 11, 2013, 2:32am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-individual-or-the-collective/645051/269 "2013-01-11T02:32:35Z")
> [@wildorchid](#): > > that’s the route of an ad veracundiam fallacy, anyways; \>\> not every expert presents the truth, and not everyone who presents the truth is an expert\<\< [_Argumentam ad verecundiam:_](http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Argumentum_ad_verecundiam) > [@](#): > > “Provided you ensure that authority’s authority actually applies to the field in question, it’s as good a strategy as any.” > > —Julian Sanchez[1] > > **Argumentum ad verecundiam** or appeal to authority,[2] when correctly applied, can be a valid and sometimes essential part of an argument that requests judgement or input from a qualified or expert source. Frequently, however, it is often a logical fallacy consisting of an appeal to authority, but on a topic outside of the authority’s expertise[3] or on a topic on which the authority is not disinterested (the authority is biased). Almost any subject has an authority on every side of the argument, even where there is generally agreed to be no argument.[4] > > \ > > **Basic examples** > > Of course, the most basic of “good” arguments appealing to authority are those pertaining to research. When collected data has been organized into a paper by qualified researchers, some trust is required in taking either the conclusion or basic data results and organizing them into a coherent argument, even if you dispute their interpretation of the data or methodology. Not everybody has a fully-equipped lab, often very expensive supplies, monitoring equipment, enslaved graduate students and imagination for creating methodology to prove a hypothesis. To a certain degree, trust has to be put in the “authority” and good faith of said researchers, their equipment, their supplies, their staff, their Journal editors, their peer reviewers, and if some problem persists, (which it occasionally does) their email server. Those who reject every step of this line of appeal to authority usually end up looking like total idiots. > > With the rise of postmodernism (sigh) one must be careful with what qualifies as Peer Review research anymore. > > An example of misuse would be appealing to Albert Einstein, a noted authority on physics, to support one’s political or religious beliefs. While Einstein undoubtedly had political beliefs, he was certainly no politician or experienced in politics to the point where he could make a more informed judgement than most people. He, along with the likes of Stephen Hawking are often quote-mined as being either for or against the existence of God; and the fact that such “authorities” believed in it one way or another is cited as proof of one position being right and the other wrong. The fact that the same individuals can be selectively quoted to back up either position should give a good indication of how useful they are as genuine points in an argument. The opinion of an authority speaking outside his/her field is sometimes worth considering because that person is intelligent and knowledgeable about many subjects but its value is limited.[5] > > Thus, a more accurate phrase would be “Argument or appeal to **misleading** authority”. > [@wildorchid](#): > > if you are correct, then why are you even reading this? why go out on a limb? Same reason we **all** post here: It’s our kind of fun, we have nothing better to do, and some little part of us hopes it might actually change the world or something. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [January 11, 2013, 2:36am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-individual-or-the-collective/645051/270 "2013-01-11T02:36:24Z")
> [@wildorchid](#): > > if its not common knowledge here (a certain % of the population doesnt count because they can be relegated to being extremist kooks, or conservatives (read: **real Americans))**. . . :rolleyes: Do **not** go there. [Eugene Debs](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eugene_Debs) and [Norman Thomas](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norman_Thomas) were **at least** as real Americans as you. So is [Bernie Sanders.](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bernie_Sanders) All socialists. (America being what it is, ya gotta hunt for 'em.) ---
**Author:** ![Marley23](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@Marley23](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Marley23)\ **Post date:** [January 11, 2013, 4:59am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-individual-or-the-collective/645051/271 "2013-01-11T04:59:05Z")
> [@wildorchid](#): > > no, i’m saying that people who _seem to favor the idea of collectivism_ should put their $ where their mouth is, that’a all. I think if you’re interested in actually discussing the idea, you should ask if they favor collectivism or collectivist ideas rather than telling people “go to North Korea!” if you think they’re insufficiently individualist. > [@](#): > > I’m just trying to point out that it’s easy to cheerlead from the sidelines… > it’s easy to say collectivism is cool/ individualism is bad; individuals = unabombers. Which nobody in this thread has done, of course. Not even close. > [@](#): > > If it hadn’t been glossed over in public schools that 5 million dies of starvation right after the triumph of the Bolshevik revolution, or of Mao presiding over the deaths of 80 million, making Hitler look small-time, then maybe it wouldn’t be as cool and trendy to be a ‘socialist’. It’s not cool or trendy to be socialist, and that stuff isn’t glossed over in schools. > [@](#): > > good luck with that position. mountains of evidence suggest otherwise. I guess the Washington Times is supposed to be an improvement from that Rapoport psycho, but you’re really scraping the bottom of the barrel here. The ---
**Author:** ![Human\_Action](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/ac91a4/32.png) [@Human\_Action](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Human_Action)\ **Post date:** [January 11, 2013, 6:43am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-individual-or-the-collective/645051/272 "2013-01-11T06:43:34Z")
> [@wildorchid](#): > > human: > have you ever talked to people from the occupy movement? > or did i imagine them and they aren’t real? Oh, they’re real. There are real people out there who hold exactly the positions that you fear. Those positions _should_ be feared. I have a good friend who self-identifies as Communist, and if his ideas were to sweep the nation, I’d either be fleeing it or fighting in the streets. **However** , authoritarian socialism is an exceedingly small political movement in the U.S. We do have honest-to-goodness socialists, but they’re of the democratic type these days, like ol’ **BrainGlutton** , and not in the mainstream either (nor am I, as a moderate libertarian). You seem to attribute capital-c Collectivism to anyone left of yourself, but I assure you, that’s not an accurate picture of the political scene in this country. I’d like to address some points you’ve made, and the assumptions that underlie some of them, in an even-handed, insult-free manner. Many of these points have already been addressed, but please bear with me. First, all functioning societies have a degree of individualism, and a degree of collectivism. Any state with a legislature has some collectivism to it, because the vast majority of laws deal with citizens as a group (or groups, in some cases). When your government collects tax revenue to lay in a new highway, that’s collectivism in action: it’s impractical for everyone to pour their own road, so we do it collectively, through government. It’s impractical for everyone to defend the nation individually, so there’s an army run by the government. Collectivism occurs outside of government as well. If you join the AARP, for instance, your funds are used to lobby for a unified agenda, a concretion of what other members want, not an individual agenda. In lobbying, as in national defense, group action can achieve results that individual action cannot. A charity can do more good than diffuse individuals might, at the price of each donor giving up some control of the money donated. The issue isn’t collectivism, it’s the _degree_ of collectivism and how it is applied. It’s not an either/or situation, all societies have a balance of the two forces. I’d place the dividing line much closer to the individual than most others here, but that doesn’t mean that collectivism is bad, any more than police are bad. Both are tools used by societies to achieve desired ends, and become destructive only when misused. Thus, I think your arguments would be better served by an emphasis on the abuse of collectivism, or the dangers of its excessive application, that arguing that the concept itself is wrong. Secondly, very different ideologies can share planks. As has been noted, the Communist Manifesto argued for progressive taxes and public education. Taken alone, such positions are not Communist positions. For example, look at the [Libertarian Party platform](http://www.lp.org/platform). You’ll see this: > [@](#): > > We support full freedom of expression and oppose government censorship, regulation or control of communications media and technology. We favor the freedom to engage in or abstain from any religious activities that do not violate the rights of others. We oppose government actions which either aid or attack any religion. Does that make freedom of expression and religion inherently Libertarian ideas? No, they are merely _ideas_, to be embraced or discarded. I’d wager anything that **BrainGlutton** ’s social democratic views include a very similar idea. A sufficient density of _similar_ ideas forms an ideology. The ten planks of the Communist Manifesto, for instance. But pulling out the two that have been adopted the most by non-Communist nations as evidence of Communist thought is simply not an accurate criticism. Thirdly, the point you may be overlooking about austerity plans is that while they _may_ be and often are accompanied by tax increases, they need not be to be austere. Lastly, this notion: > [@BrainGlutton](#): > > Morally, you need to start thinking in terms of consequentialism, not deontology. Your ethical code is not apparent from this discussion, but just for the record, I assure you that deontological ethics are perfectly valid, and in no way inferior to consequentialism. ---
**Author:** ![Human\_Action](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/ac91a4/32.png) [@Human\_Action](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Human_Action)\ **Post date:** [January 11, 2013, 12:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-individual-or-the-collective/645051/273 "2013-01-11T12:40:00Z")
> [@BrainGlutton](#): > > Pardon me if you’ve already mentioned this in this thread, but who is this Robin Williams? Not the actor/comedian, I presume. It’s the sociologist, Robin M. Williams Jr. [Here’s an obituary.](http://www.news.cornell.edu/stories/June06/Williams_obit.gl.html) ---
**Author:** ![eschereal](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/eschereal/32/18939_2.png) [@eschereal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/eschereal)\ **Post date:** [January 12, 2013, 1:39am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-individual-or-the-collective/645051/274 "2013-01-12T01:39:24Z")
> [@Human\_Action](#): > > … I assure you that deontological ethics are perfectly valid, and in no way inferior to consequentialism. But how is it of useful value? Given that the application of a liberty-based ideology will ultimately produce the same basic society overall as a collectivist ideology, either democratic or autocratic, does the motivation really matter? Most of the people will suffer, either under tyranny or through avarice, is misery somehow better because one is free? ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [January 12, 2013, 1:45am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-individual-or-the-collective/645051/275 "2013-01-12T01:45:18Z")
> [@For You](#): > > But how is it of useful value? Given that the application of a liberty-based ideology will ultimately produce the same basic society overall as a collectivist ideology, either democratic or autocratic, does the motivation really matter? Most of the people will suffer, either under tyranny or through avarice, is misery somehow better because one is free? That’s consequentialist thinking, that is! ---
**Author:** ![eschereal](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/eschereal/32/18939_2.png) [@eschereal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/eschereal)\ **Post date:** [January 12, 2013, 2:29am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-individual-or-the-collective/645051/276 "2013-01-12T02:29:35Z")
> [@BrainGlutton](#): > > That’s consequentialist thinking, that is! It is also rather defeatist. There does not appear to be an ideology the defines any other path, at least in practical terms. Perhaps large-scale social structures are simply not workable for humans, but on the other hand, smaller scales have been problematic as well. It seems pretty obvious to me that social engineering should begin by accounting for the peripheral effects of a socio-economic system and leave the citizens to duke it out with each other as they see fit. ---
**Author:** ![Human\_Action](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/ac91a4/32.png) [@Human\_Action](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Human_Action)\ **Post date:** [January 12, 2013, 1:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-individual-or-the-collective/645051/277 "2013-01-12T13:53:34Z")
> [@For You](#): > > But how is it of useful value? Given that the application of a liberty-based ideology will ultimately produce the same basic society overall as a collectivist ideology, either democratic or autocratic, does the motivation really matter? Most of the people will suffer, either under tyranny or through avarice, is misery somehow better because one is free? Deontological ethics are based on intent, duty, and the rights of others. Like consequentialism, it’s an ethical position to evaluate the morality of actions. Liberty-based ideology isn’t inherent to it, nor is it inherent to consequentialism. It entered this discussion because **wildorchird** lamented a perceived increase in moral relativism. **BrainGlutton** attributed this to deontological thinking by **wildorchid** and urged a switch to consequentialism. Moral relativism can be applied under deontology or consequentialism, however. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-individual-or-the-collective/645051.md?page=13)