Who is more important?

  • Thread starter Thread starter fakename
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
F

fakename

Guest
Who is more important:
  1. the family or the individual that is part of it?
  2. the individual or the nation?
And who should give-in to who when conflicts arise?
 
Sounds like a loaded question. 😉

It depends on what is meant by “more important”. The dignity of the individual must never be compromised for whatever or whoever.

As to who should “give in”, there is no way to answer that question out of the context of the particular conflict.
 
fakename said:
Who is more important:
  1. the family or the individual that is part of it?
  2. the individual or the nation?
And who should give-in to who when conflicts arise?
Click to expand...
1- the individual- each is saved according to his own deeds; can’t share what you don’t have
2- the individual

The one that is wrong should give in to the one that is right.

I know there are many dependencies but I figured I would at least answer your question.
 
shocktrooper said:
1- the individual- each is saved according to his own deeds; can’t share what you don’t have
2- the individual

The one that is wrong should give in to the one that is right.
I know there are many dependencies but I figured I would at least answer your question.
Click to expand...
Does it not beg the question as to who defines what is right and what is not right, as well as calling into question what to do with situations where there is no right and wrong, just a matter of disagreement?
 
There are 12 shipwreck survivors in a leaking lifeboat: a doctor, a pregnant woman, a priest…
 
a few replies to the above replies:

first, thanks for the replies.

second, granted that the individual has dignity, shouldn’t that mean that the family -which is a collection of individuals -should have more dignity?

third, granted that situations dictate who is correct, and not family status or individuality, still are there any rights which families have alone that privilege them in some respect over individuals and vice-versa? And do these privileges have any relevance vis-a-vis conflicts between individuals and families?
 
Newbie2 said:
Does it not beg the question as to who defines what is right and what is not right, as well as calling into question what to do with situations where there is no right and wrong, just a matter of disagreement?
Click to expand...
God decides what is right and wrong. Not the individual or the family. There may not always be a right or wrong conflict but there is always a better and lesser way of doing something. I don’t consider a simple disagreement a “conflict”. I consider it sharing.
 
The individual, assuming all dignity is maintained, exists for the family.

Without the family, the individual has no purpose (this includes the faith family). Without the individual though, the family cannot exist.

I don’t know how to answer this question, or if it can even be answered!

A nation is a different story, because it doesn’t generally have any spiritual relevance. It’s importance would take a back seat to anything that effects the immortal soul of an individual or the souls of a family.
 
I just conclude and think (last word, at least for me) that the family has some inherently superior quality that the individual doesn’t, again because the family is a multiplicity of individuals who themeselves have innate dignity.

So understanding that the two parties both have just claims, it’s not true that the family should always win out over the individual and vice versa.

So then taking an analogy from the idea of the just state, the just family has to be one where the good of the members supports the good of the whole and vice versa.

But the good is variable so then how do we define it? The just state supports a “common” good while the members of the state support their “private” goods.

The next question is what is common as opposed to private goods? The state is formed only to do things that only it can do alone. The common good is something that the state supports, so the common good is something that no other organization can do.

Likewise the family is for something that is above the competence of the individual, so what things are above the competence of individuals? I’m assuming raising kids are above the competence of just father and mother alone, that educating kids must also fall under that head, and negatively considered, the survival of a person is impossible without the help of that person’s parents. Anything that the family member can do on his own is his right that the family cannot trespass.

Do you all think that this is a good compendium of the rights and importance of the family and its members? Is the argument correct? thanks
 
shocktrooper said:
God decides what is right and wrong. Not the individual or the family. There may not always be a right or wrong conflict but there is always a better and lesser way of doing something. I don’t consider a simple disagreement a “conflict”. I consider it sharing.
Click to expand...
Yes, of course, there are many situations where there is no objective “right” or “wrong”, there is simply a disagreement.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top