user24151: The topic is really the question.  In Buddhism, which is regarded as more important, the right of an individual or the greater good?  Perhaps there is no distinction made, I don't know.
Or does it depend on the circumstances?

user19480: Neither. All are equal. Mahākarunā.

user16635: If there is no self, how can there be separate individuals? If there are no separate individuals, how can there be a collectivity of such?
The concept of individual rights has always been a grievance more than an ideal (all the way back to the 16th century, that). It's an assertion to the effect that 'This stuff is mine'; a complaint that other people want to take it from me; a rationale for the idea that others shouldn't do that. The idea of collectivity has always been an expression of fear (all the way back before the beginnings of history). It asserts that 'These are my people (people like me), and those people are not'.
When we give up clinging to possession — that this is mine and we are ours — then we start to lose the distinctions between the individual and the collective. We obviate the question of whose rights and interests are more important, and gravitate to a sort of compassionate realism in which we want to satisfy needs rather than capitalize on them. Before we achieve that we are faced with a constant struggle to balance the needs and rights of one against the needs and rights of another. There's no answer to this question; there's only the ongoing struggle with the issue or the ultimate realization that the issue is so much smoke and mirrors.

user254: In some circumstances Buddhism recommends "a middle way" which means, "avoiding (the two) extremes".
Maybe in this context, "my rights or the greater good" is a false dichotomy.
There's doctrine which says that the best is practice which benefits "both self and others" -- better than one or the other, or neither.
There are some ethical precepts -- no killing, no stealing, no lying -- which (it says) benefit everyone.

24151: <p>The topic is really the question.  In Buddhism, which is regarded as more important, the right of an individual or the greater good?  Perhaps there is no distinction made, I don't know.</p>
<p>Or does it depend on the circumstances?</p>
 19480: <p>Neither. All are equal. Mahākarunā.</p>
 16635: <p>If there is no self, how can there be separate individuals? If there are no separate individuals, how can there be a collectivity of such?</p>
<p>The concept of individual rights has always been a grievance more than an ideal (all the way back to the 16th century, that). It's an assertion to the effect that 'This stuff is <em>mine</em>'; a complaint that other people want to take it from me; a rationale for the idea that others shouldn't do that. The idea of collectivity has always been an expression of fear (all the way back before the beginnings of history). It asserts that 'These are <em>my</em> people (people like <em>me</em>), and those people are <em>not</em>'.</p>
<p>When we give up clinging to possession — that <em>this is mine</em> and <em>we are ours</em> — then we start to lose the distinctions between the individual and the collective. We obviate the question of whose rights and interests are more important, and gravitate to a sort of compassionate realism in which we want to satisfy needs rather than capitalize on them. Before we achieve that we are faced with a constant struggle to balance the needs and rights of one against the needs and rights of another. There's no answer to this question; there's only the ongoing struggle with the issue or the ultimate realization that the issue is so much smoke and mirrors.</p>
 254: <p>In some circumstances Buddhism recommends &quot;a middle way&quot; which means, &quot;avoiding (the two) extremes&quot;.</p>
<p>Maybe in this context, &quot;my rights or the greater good&quot; is a false dichotomy.</p>
<p>There's doctrine which says that the best is practice which benefits &quot;both self and others&quot; -- better than one or the other, or neither.</p>
<p>There are some ethical precepts -- no killing, no stealing, no lying -- which (it says) benefit everyone.</p>
