Thread: Atheism/Secularism + Human Rights

Here's my personal belief on the subject. I haven't heard this expressed before, but if it has, I'd be interested in reading any opinions on it.

There is a continuum that runs from a single individual to family, to community, to cities, to countries, to the world. We tend to make mental divisions in this continuum, dividing up where we think a line of rights should fall. The further we set this line towards one end of the continuum, the more the other end is neglected.

The rights of the individual are somewhat at odds with the rights of the larger communities of countries and the world. What's good for the individual is usually good for the family, somewhat good for the community, and extends upwards. But somewhere along the way, these rights start interfering at higher and higher levels. Progress at the highest levels demands sacrifice at the lower levels. And the corollary is that progress at the individual level demands sacrifice at the highest level.

We demand our individual liberties to such an extent that were we all to get our way, the world community would crumble. And the same is true of the demands of individual countries. Were the leaders all to get all of their wishes (both open and secret) human rights would perish.

If we are to expect success at both ends of the extreme, we must find solutions that maximize the help while minimizing the hurt at as many points on the continuum as possible. The easiest route to a successful society might include destroying the lives of individuals, but in this case, easiest is far from best.

Originally Posted by skysaw

The rights of the individual are somewhat at odds with the rights of the larger communities of countries and the world. What's good for the individual is usually good for the family, somewhat good for the community, and extends upwards. But somewhere along the way, these rights start interfering at higher and higher levels. Progress at the highest levels demands sacrifice at the lower levels. And the corollary is that progress at the individual level demands sacrifice at the highest level.

I see what you're saying and to some extent agree, but I think what we're seeing at the higher levels is actually conflict among the sub units magnified because of the greater number of sub units involved. It brings to mind game theory (as illustrated in 'A Beautiful Mind'--that's the extent of my knowledge of it); if individuals act competitively to get what they want, efficiency and success for the group decrease, but if they act cooperatively, efficiency and total success increase. What we see inhibiting the collective's performance when individuals have liberty is "foolish selfishness" on the part of individuals, pursuing short term benefits at the expense of the society and environment in which they must live for the long term. While likely ineradicable, I would like to believe such foolishness, and the conflict it produces in the collective, is reducible without the curtailing of liberty, and by more efficient means than oppression.

I think Nash's ideas do come to play within a few degrees of this continuum, however, I don't believe they are infinitely scalable. Or if they are, the workable solution is so immensely complex that we'd be lucky to merely get a hint of it.

So 1 atheist has an opinion on human rights? Seems like the consensus is 'no comment.'

Originally Posted by skysaw

I think Nash's ideas do come to play within a few degrees of this continuum, however, I don't believe they are infinitely scalable. Or if they are, the workable solution is so immensely complex that we'd be lucky to merely get a hint of it.

We don't necessarily need to design and implement a complete 'solution,' so much as promote cooperation and conflict resolution. Your continuum misses that the higher end is emergent of and draws its qualities from the lower end. If the subunits come into greater harmony by pursuing more cooperative, longterm goals, it should reduce total dissonance in society. Personal freedom only conflicts with societal progress if too many people use it poorly: an enduring problem of human collectives, but not a structural feature.

By definition, you could say I'm an atheist on principle, but I prefer to not subscribe to such separatisms.

So, I'll bring my opinion on the matter.

Firstly, everything can be taken to extremes or be corrupted if not thought out carefully. I shall use one example to illustrate this: Equality

Extreme Equality... everyone is viewed and treated equally to the point that there is no distinction between one person or another, regardless of whether they are male or female, able-bodied or disabled in some way, etc. You force equality in such a way that there is little to no consideration between differences in people. It wouldn't matter if one was educated or not, simply apply for a job and if they reject, you can always claim they were discriminating.. so employers get screwed over. Or, another case is a deaf kid is put into a language listening exam, but can't get someone to mouth the tape's/CD's content for him to lip-read, because it is unfair that he should get extra help compared to every other kid. Etcetera...

And how can this apply to Human Rights... well, there's always the extremes in which human rights are ignored or disregarded "for the greater good" of the nation, or that human rights are enforced in such a way that nothing gets done because everyone would try to get their own way. Polar extremes, basically. In this light, it is usually best to look for the solution that allows one's society/nation/etc to flourish and prosper whilst protecting one's individual rights. And this is where I stand. I believe in equal opportunities, not total equality, because the latter can be easily corrupted. And as with human rights, everyone is entitled to them, and the state must do what it can to make sure everyone's rights are protected. I also believe in secular laws, purely because that way, no one group is favoured nor discriminated against. There's a lot more I can add to this, but overall, it's idealistic.

Interesting at the attempt at using China as an example of why atheism is a poor basis of government and society. What an oversimplification.

I could just as easily say, since the US is currently run by Christians and is predominantly so, and since the US has problems, Christianity causes those problems. Right...

Human rights? Well let's start off... what are "human rights?" That phrase in itself seems to project a sort of... almost religious point of view. "Human rights" suggest we all inherently have the same set of rights.

I often tend to turn to a utilitarian point of view when considering human rights. Pretty straightforward, but I don't see how my view is really that different from Christians. People tend to think atheists are uncivilized barbarians who think nothing of killing people and fetuses all the time. It is rather clear your viewpoint on atheists from "What secular basis is there, if any, for universal human rights?" Please respond to my question: Why would atheists possibly be less keen on human rights than Christians? In fact, I think it is rather weak to have a belief in a god -- or to be more specific, a fear of punishment -- be one's motivation for morality. Here is a favorite quote of mine: "Mankind will find strength in itself to live for virtue, even without believing in the immortality of the soul! Find it in the love of liberty, equality, fraternity . . ." There is little legitimate reason for an atheist to not have morals. And example tells us this, regardless of the technical explanation. How many "barbarian atheists" do you know? History tells us more wars have ever been fought in the name of religion than Atheism. In fact... more than anything. The atheist process does not go "Hey, there is no god. I will not be punished for what I do. Why not rape someone?" I would go ahead and say most atheists are much less likely to do this than Christians. Atheists consider life more sacred: we only get one. Immortality of the soul depreciates the beauty of life. Christians are comforted by a "second life." Furthermore, atheists can still see the beauty in things, have morals and ethics, realize why murder is bad. It is simply despicable to have morality solely for fear of "retribution."

Do you really believe religious-based morality derives (directly or indirectly) from more than fear of punishment?

Anyways,
The motivation to support human rights for me might be the same as Christians, but such a motivation should not come from religious reasons.

Wasup, you get a mulligan on this one because you wildly misinterpreted the OP. I've never been a Christian, but made up my own shamanic religion as a child which mostly gave way to Buddhism in adulthood, so I'm not advocating that government be based on any religious text or creed. In the Atheism vs. Religion debate I challenge people polarized on either side to open their eyes and minds to the middle ground.

In this thread, I'm observing that in the U.S., where the current concept of human rights was more or less innovated, the basis of that innovation was an appeal to divine authority. Also, where actively secular government has been attempted in the interest of progress and modernism, human rights have gone largely by the wayside. It seems relevant, therefor, to ask what secular basis people see for human rights, and whether it is a concept worth maintaining as we move forward.

My own view (which on this topic is a-theistic, theism having no relevance to it) is partly visible in my responses to skysaw. Violating others' rights is a bad idea regardless of government policy because of the natural consequences (karma, or what you and your situation become as a result) and for government to restrict or fail to protect the people's rights is a bad idea because it increases dissonance and frustrates progress in a society.

I didn't say you were Christian...

I simply used it as an example for religion, as it was rather appropriate considering its predominance.

Originally Posted by wasup

I didn't say you were Christian...

I simply used it as an example for religion, as it was rather appropriate considering its predominance.

I'm just trying to understand why your post was arguing with positions no one has presented here. In the OP, I didn't make any value judgements about China, secular government, the proper foundation for morals or support of human rights, or even whether human rights are good, bad, or indifferent.

Now that I have stated my support for human rights and some of their foundations, you're welcome to agree, disagree, or question my supporting statements, but what I'd really like is to hear what role you think human rights play or should play in society and what is your basis for supporting them or not.

This really is a hard question. In terms of individual success, it would be more logical for those with power to give as few rights to the masses as possible in order to secure their own material wealth. Unfortunately, that success is based largely on the labor of the masses, and therefore the masses must remain productive, something that is difficult to achieve if they are unhappy. On the other hand though, a population with too many rights to do whatever they want will not be as likely to remain focused on the common goal of driving the country forward, and instead will simply focus on their own happiness. In reality, the only people who 'deserve' rights are those that are in a position to take away the power of the government. Anyone who is capable to restrict the rights of others wins rights for themselves.

This is a big part of the reason why democracy seemed so appealing to the founders of this country (the U.S.). Ideally, if everyone has an equal say, then everyone has equal rights. Unfortunately, there are people who are willing to trade away their rights so that they can be taken care of (fewer responsibilities). The people that they give their rights away to end up with disproportionate power shares and the rest of the masses lose by default.

Logically, the best way for this question to be answered is to make as many people as possible believe they have whatever rights they desire, take as many real rights away from the masses as possible (without them realizing) and make sure that anyone who has an issue with it is not in a position to retaliate or otherwise jeopardize the status quo.

Originally Posted by Taosaur

I'm just trying to understand why your post was arguing with positions no one has presented here. In the OP, I didn't make any value judgements about China, secular government, the proper foundation for morals or support of human rights, or even whether human rights are good, bad, or indifferent.

Now that I have stated my support for human rights and some of their foundations, you're welcome to agree, disagree, or question my supporting statements, but what I'd really like is to hear what role you think human rights play or should play in society and what is your basis for supporting them or not.

Well to be honest to me it sounded as if you were someone challenging atheistic morality. For example your presentation of the failure of China as an a secular state and saying "What secular basis if any is there for atheistic morality?" I suppose you were just playing devil's advocate, then? Perhaps I have been conditioned to recognize such comments as antagonistic by being on this board, so if it wasn't meant as such I'm sorry.

He actually mentioned China as the most successful secular society, and said nothing about failures.

Originally Posted by Taosaur

In the US, their foundation is theistic: 'all men are created equal' and 'endowed by <their> creator with certain inalienable rights.

Technically, wasn't it deistic instead of theistic? Maybe a minor point, but the vague Jefferson-Einstein type of "universe/creator" type god is a lot different from vengeful sky-god theism in practice. I think they had to get past theism to progress to that idea of "inalienable rights", just as they had to get past the justifications of slavery in the bible to get past that.

I don't know why morality without a magic rule book is alway seen as such an impossible dilemma by religious people. How about:

--Don't do things to other people that you wouldn't want them to do to you.
--Recognize everyone's right to engage in any activity that is peaceful and honest.
--Don't worry about other people's sex lives.
--Don't initiate force.
--Maybe add the Bill of Rights to the list.

What more do you need? I know that leaves out a lot ways to exercise control over people, which is probably why theists can't seem to grasp the concept of morality without an all-powerful enforcer--too much freedom for them.

It's interesting, Wasup and Moonbeam, that you both took "human rights" as a synonym for "morality," or assumed that general atheist morality is what I was getting at. I really was looking for rationally supported viewpoints on the specific issue I brought up.

Originally Posted by wasup

Well to be honest to me it sounded as if you were someone challenging atheistic morality. For example your presentation of the failure of China as an a secular state and saying "What secular basis if any is there for atheistic morality?" I suppose you were just playing devil's advocate, then? Perhaps I have been conditioned to recognize such comments as antagonistic by being on this board, so if it wasn't meant as such I'm sorry.

Are you beginning to see how much your reading was distorted by bias? I'm not attacking you here, but trying to promote clarity.

I never said or implied China had failed as a state, only that the PRC has demonstrated disregard for human rights. Again, I made no judgement on the desirability or morality of supporting human rights, but only asked for others' reasoning on the matter. I wasn't playing the devil's advocate because I wasn't advocating anything. When I asked, "What secular basis is there, if any, for universal human rights?" what I meant was, "What secular basis is there, if any, for universal human rights?" I'd be interested to hear your response.

Originally Posted by Xaqaria

Logically, the best way for this question to be answered is to make as many people as possible believe they have whatever rights they desire, take as many real rights away from the masses as possible (without them realizing) and make sure that anyone who has an issue with it is not in a position to retaliate or otherwise jeopardize the status quo.

So you're saying social progress of any kind is illusory and civilization is little more than dark comedy? Or that social progress serves only ruling classes? Or that the interests of a state or society are solely the narrow self interest of members of the ruling class? What are you saying?

Originally Posted by Moonbeam

Technically, wasn't it deistic instead of theistic?

Taking into account "We hold these truths to be self evident," it seems more Universalist than deist, employing "Creator" as shorthand for the inherent mystery of human existence and the natural order, by whatever names you want to call them. The political reality, however, is that they invoked divine authority to supersede the authority of the king.

I don't know why morality without a magic rule book is alway seen as such an impossible dilemma by religious people.

Therefor, banana .

The only texts cited prior to your post have been The Declaration of Independence and the movie A Beautiful Mind, and the only people who brought up morality are you and Wasup.

How about:

--Don't do things to other people that you wouldn't want them to do to you.
--Recognize everyone's right to engage in any activity that is peaceful and honest.
--Don't worry about other people's sex lives.
--Don't initiate force.
--Maybe add the Bill of Rights to the list.

How are a series of just-so statements based on nothing superior to a series of just-so statements based on a text? This thread addresses a specific, historically recent, far from universal, political and perhaps moral code: human rights, the proposition that humans have or should be guaranteed "certain inalienable rights." The most prominent supports of this code are its "self evident" nature and divine provenance. From points of view which renounce or dismiss divinity or any analogue thereof, do human rights remain "self-evident," and if so on what rational basis? I'm not making a value judgement or anticipating an answer here. You can copy my answer if you like. I'm just looking for a statement of support, conditional support, rebuttal or analysis with some reasoning behind it.

I did respond to "what secular basis for human rights is there?" above.

Originally Posted by Taosaur

How are a series of just-so statements based on nothing superior to a series of just-so statements based on a text?

Say what?

Originally Posted by Taosaur

The most prominent supports of this code are its "self evident" nature

Exactly.

What bases do zebras and apes have for their codes of morality? What scripture passages do they obey?

Originally Posted by wasup

I did respond to "what secular basis for human rights is there?" above.

This sentence?

I often tend to turn to a utilitarian point of view when considering human rights.

What is that utilitarian point of view? Everything else in that post conflates human rights with generalized morality and makes an argument for why Christianity is a poor basis for morality in general, but offers no secular basis for human rights, unless I've missed something.

Originally Posted by Moonbeam

Say what?

I'm not looking for a support for all the moral positions you listed, but I am pointing out that you listed them unprompted (i.e. off topic) and with no rational support. I would like to see a rational support of human rights, as your post implies (but does not clearly indicate) that you support them.

Originally Posted by Moonbeam

Exactly.

So you're accepting, sincerely and with no hint of irony, "It's just so, obviously," as the sole rational basis of your support of human rights? I think skysaw's, bluefinger's, and Xaquaria's posts all belie the obviousness of your position, as they do not appear to find it "just so."

I didn't thing I was asking such a difficult question. If you have a rational basis for supporting human rights (to whatever degree, or not at all), then even if you haven't thought long and hard on the matter, you should be able to provide some rudimentary reasoning. Isn't this the same proof you ask of religious people? I'm not even asking you to prove your view is true or right, simply to provide some rational context for how you arrived at it.

Originally Posted by Taosaur

So you're saying social progress of any kind is illusory and civilization is little more than dark comedy? Or that social progress serves only ruling classes? Or that the interests of a state or society are solely the narrow self interest of members of the ruling class? What are you saying?

I wasn't really addressing social progress whatsoever. I was merely attempting to describe the most logical set of rights that a successful ruling class should impose without any influence from a higher moral code.

Originally Posted by Taosaur

How are a series of just-so statements based on nothing superior to a series of just-so statements based on a text?

Originally Posted by Moonbeam

Say what?

Originally Posted by Taosaur

I'm not looking for a support for all the moral positions you listed, but I am pointing out that you listed them unprompted (i.e. off topic) and with no rational support. I would like to see a rational support of human rights, as your post implies (but does not clearly indicate) that you support them.

Tao, I think you misunderstood Moonbeam's remark. "Say what?" is a standard response to something that is worded in a confusing way. I didn't understand that original sentence until I read it a few times either.

Originally Posted by skysaw

Tao, I think you misunderstood Moonbeam's remark. "Say what?" is a standard response to something that is worded in a confusing way. I didn't understand that original sentence until I read it a few times either.

Exactly. I get it now, but the first time I read it I'd had some wine and it just didn't make any sense at all to me, no matter how many times I read it. My fault, sorry.

Originally Posted by Taosaur

I would like to see a rational support of human rights, as your post implies (but does not clearly indicate) that you support them.

Oh go read a philosophy book on the subject then; I'm surprised you haven't already. How's this for rational: Don't hit other people, because they have feelings too.

Originally Posted by Taosaur

So you're accepting, sincerely and with no hint of irony, "It's just so, obviously," as the sole rational basis of your support of human rights?

Yea, pretty much. (Does that make me simple? I know I am in some ways. But sometimes things are made overly complex for no reason too.)

Originally Posted by Taosaur

If you have a rational basis for supporting human rights (to whatever degree, or not at all), then even if you haven't thought long and hard on the matter, you should be able to provide some rudimentary reasoning.

Was that rudimentary enough for you?

Originally Posted by Tasoaur

Isn't this the same proof you ask of religious people? I'm not even asking you to prove your view is true or right, simply to provide some rational context for how you arrived at it.

As usual (not you as usual, theists as usual), you are mixing up what is, and what you would like there to be. Asking for "proof" that people should be treated fairly is not the same as asking for "proof" that a magic creator exists. The first is philosophical, and obviously not universally agreed upon. The latter is scientific, and open to debate of course, but may be resolved past a point of reasonable doubt. I realize these areas may overlap somewhat, but no one can give you hard proof that "human rights" exist, obviously.

I say your questions are meaningless. Maybe I still don't understand. Let me look at the original one again.

Originally Posted by Taosaur

Are human rights inevitable with progress? Are they necessary to progress?

What do you mean by "progress"? I would assume improved human rights to be the definition of progress.

Originally Posted by Taosaur

What secular basis is there, if any, for universal human rights?

There is none, rape and pillage at will.

Originally Posted by Taosaur

This sentence?



What is that utilitarian point of view? Everything else in that post conflates human rights with generalized morality and makes an argument for why Christianity is a poor basis for morality in general, but offers no secular basis for human rights, unless I've missed something.

I think it is rather clear you did not read my post... the whole largest paragraph addresses your question.

Originally Posted by skysaw

Tao, I think you misunderstood Moonbeam's remark. "Say what?" is a standard response to something that is worded in a confusing way. I didn't understand that original sentence until I read it a few times either.

Originally Posted by Moonbeam

Exactly. I get it now, but the first time I read it I'd had some wine and it just didn't make any sense at all to me, no matter how many times I read it. My fault, sorry.

Sorry about that, and thanks for the assist, skysaw--I was running on 3-5 hours sleep 3 days in a row, so my syntax may have suffered.

Originally Posted by wasup

I think it is rather clear you did not read my post... the whole largest paragraph addresses your question.

mkay...

Originally Posted by wasup

Human rights? Well let's start off... what are "human rights?" That phrase in itself seems to project a sort of... almost religious point of view. "Human rights" suggest we all inherently have the same set of rights.

I often tend to turn to a utilitarian point of view when considering human rights. Pretty straightforward, but I don't see how my view is really that different from Christians. People tend to think atheists are uncivilized barbarians who think nothing of killing people and fetuses all the time. It is rather clear your viewpoint on atheists from "What secular basis is there, if any, for universal human rights?" Please respond to my question: Why would atheists possibly be less keen on human rights than Christians? In fact, I think it is rather weak to have a belief in a god -- or to be more specific, a fear of punishment -- be one's motivation for morality. Here is a favorite quote of mine: "Mankind will find strength in itself to live for virtue, even without believing in the immortality of the soul! Find it in the love of liberty, equality, fraternity . . ." There is little legitimate reason for an atheist to not have morals. And example tells us this, regardless of the technical explanation. How many "barbarian atheists" do you know? History tells us more wars have ever been fought in the name of religion than Atheism. In fact... more than anything. The atheist process does not go "Hey, there is no god. I will not be punished for what I do. Why not rape someone?" I would go ahead and say most atheists are much less likely to do this than Christians. Atheists consider life more sacred: we only get one. Immortality of the soul depreciates the beauty of life. Christians are comforted by a "second life." Furthermore, atheists can still see the beauty in things, have morals and ethics, realize why murder is bad. It is simply despicable to have morality solely for fear of "retribution."

Do you really believe religious-based morality derives (directly or indirectly) from more than fear of punishment?

Anyways,
The motivation to support human rights for me might be the same as Christians, but such a motivation should not come from religious reasons.

I bolded everything that seems somewhat relevant to the question, and it doesn't amount to much of a "rational basis." Your belief in human rights (and you seem to be asserting one, despite finding the concept "almost religious") is utilitarian (though you don't say how), derives from a "love of liberty, equality, <and> fraternity," (this comes closest to a rational basis, but is in fact a value judgement) and "might be the same as Christians." The rest of the post argues the Atheism vs. Religion talking point "atheists don't have morals," which no one brought up.

I'm just offering an opportunity to articulate your views on the matter, not in opposition to Christianity or religion, but in terms of your own reasoned basis for what you believe.

Originally Posted by Xaqaria

I wasn't really addressing social progress whatsoever. I was merely attempting to describe the most logical set of rights that a successful ruling class should impose without any influence from a higher moral code.

Ah, that gives me a little better context for what you were saying. The interesting thing to me is that you immediately broke the issue down into a class struggle and assumed the ruling class would want nothing but more personal wealth and power. I wouldn't call those values "logical," as I would expect them to lead to greater suffering for both the ruling and the ruled, but certainly there are people in power all over the world who hold those values.

Originally Posted by Moonbeam

Oh go read a philosophy book on the subject then; I'm surprised you haven't already.

Discussions with philosophy books are rather one-sided, and I'm interested in a diversity of opinions and reasoning on the matter. It's odd that everyone so quick to tout their well reasoned, well informed views on life, the universe and everything suddenly vanish when asked to show their work on a single softball question that doesn't appear on the standard A. vs. R. curriculum.

You, Wasup, and UM all tried to divert the issue back to the vetted talking points as surely as Baptists quoting scripture.

Originally Posted by Moonbeam

As usual (not you as usual, theists as usual), you are mixing up what is, and what you would like there to be. Asking for "proof" that people should be treated fairly is not the same as asking for "proof" that a magic creator exists. The first is philosophical, and obviously not universally agreed upon. The latter is scientific, and open to debate of course, but may be resolved past a point of reasonable doubt. I realize these areas may overlap somewhat, but no one can give you hard proof that "human rights" exist, obviously.

Yes, I see. Your emotional, intuitive belief reinforced by experience is completely different from their emotional, intuitive belief reinforced by experience, because you can say theirs in a way that sounds silly. In what sense is the perception of an overarching intelligence at work in human experience and the natural world more "scientific" than the question of human rights? Yes, the more literal, scriptural interpretations of that perception are pretty ridiculous, but so is discarding a huge body of human wisdom because it doesn't fit the currently fashionable scientific paradigm. I know, "But science is the one authoritative source of truth!"

Originally Posted by Moonbeam

I say your questions are meaningless. Maybe I still don't understand. Let me look at the original one again.

I tried to keep them open ended and offer a number of approaches so people could define their own terms and express their own rationales. Only skysaw and Xaqaria so far have been willing to do that.

Originally Posted by Moonbeam

What do you mean by "progress"? I would assume improved human rights to be the definition of progress.

I would agree that they are a vector of progress, though I would say our relationship with the rest of the natural world and our general well being figure pretty prominently as well. "Improved or expanded human rights are a foundation of social progress" could be the beginnings of a rational, secular basis for supporting human rights. Wasn't so hard, was it?

Originally Posted by Moonbeam

There is none, rape and pillage at will.

I am nowhere making the assertion that there can be no rational basis for human rights. I assume people have numerous different reasons for supporting them, opposing them, or finding them irrelevant.

Every thread I make addressing avowed atheists leaves me with less faith in the rationality of the position and the people who espouse it.

Originally Posted by Taosaur

Ah, that gives me a little better context for what you were saying. The interesting thing to me is that you immediately broke the issue down into a class struggle and assumed the ruling class would want nothing but more personal wealth and power. I wouldn't call those values "logical," as I would expect them to lead to greater suffering for both the ruling and the ruled, but certainly there are people in power all over the world who hold those values.

My reasoning is that most often, any system of government is set up by those who are the most motivated to secure their own beliefs and wellbeing. It is not very common for those who grab at power to have the best interest of the whole in mind. Therefore I was trying to come up with a method for gaining control based on personal interests but keeping control based on the illusion that they have the interest of every individual in mind. Even in an ideal situation in which the governing body believes they are doing what is best for the whole, they will inevitably have to undermine the interests of a signifigant portion of that whole as a sacrifice for the greater good. The key to success is to hide these sacrifices from those they effect directly and to put a positive spin on them for those that might feel sympathy.