Introduction
The tension between individual rights and collective needs lies at the heart of political philosophy, from John Locke's defence of natural rights to John Stuart Mill's harm principle. In an age when governments wield unprecedented power over their citizens, the protection of individual rights against majoritarian tyranny is more urgent than ever. This essay argues that in a truly just society, individual rights should indeed take precedence over the needs of the majority, as the erosion of individual liberties in the name of collective welfare has historically led to the most grievous injustices.
The protection of individual rights is the most reliable safeguard against the tyranny of the majority, which history shows is a persistent and devastating threat.
Explain
Democratic majorities are perfectly capable of oppressing minorities and dissidents when institutional protections for individual rights are weak or absent. The concept of 'tyranny of the majority,' articulated by Alexis de Tocqueville and John Stuart Mill, recognises that the will of the many can be as oppressive as the will of a tyrant if it is unchecked by constitutional protections for the few. A just society must therefore enshrine individual rights as inviolable constraints on majority rule to prevent the democratic process from becoming an instrument of injustice.
Example
The systematic persecution of Jewish people in Nazi Germany was carried out with the support of a significant portion of the German population, demonstrating that democratic popularity is no guarantee of moral legitimacy. The Nuremberg Laws of 1935, which stripped Jewish citizens of their rights, were enacted through lawful legislative processes and enjoyed broad public support, yet they represent one of the most monstrous injustices of the 20th century. In the United States, the Jim Crow laws that enforced racial segregation from the 1870s to the 1960s reflected the preferences of white majorities in Southern states, yet they denied African Americans fundamental rights to education, voting, and public accommodation for nearly a century.
Link
This demonstrates that individual rights should come before the needs of the majority, as the historical record makes clear that majorities, left unchecked, are capable of perpetrating systematic injustice against vulnerable minorities through perfectly democratic means.
Individual rights form the non-negotiable moral foundation of a just society, without which other social goods, including collective welfare, cannot be meaningfully pursued.
Explain
Rights such as freedom of speech, freedom of conscience, and the right to a fair trial are not merely preferences to be traded off against other social goals; they are the preconditions for a society in which any meaningful conception of justice can exist. Without the right to dissent, there is no mechanism to challenge unjust policies. Without due process, there is no protection against arbitrary state power. The subordination of these rights to majority preferences does not create a more just society; it dismantles the very framework within which justice is possible.
Example
The European Convention on Human Rights, ratified in 1953 and enforced by the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg, explicitly places individual rights above the will of national majorities. The Court has repeatedly overruled democratic legislation that violated individual rights, including the United Kingdom's blanket ban on prisoner voting, which the Court found to violate the right to free elections despite strong public support for the ban. In Singapore, the Constitution guarantees fundamental liberties in Part IV, including the right to life and personal liberty under Article 9 and the right to equality before the law under Article 12, recognising that these rights cannot be legitimately overridden simply because a majority demands it.
Link
This supports the view that individual rights should come before the needs of the majority, as the institutional architecture of just societies, from international human rights courts to national constitutions, explicitly recognises that certain individual rights are so fundamental that they must be protected against majoritarian override.
Prioritising individual rights fosters innovation, dissent, and social progress by protecting the unconventional thinkers and minority voices that drive human advancement.
Explain
Many of the most important advances in science, culture, and social justice have been driven by individuals and minority groups whose ideas were initially opposed by the majority. A society that consistently subordinates individual rights to majority preferences suppresses the very dissent and unconventionality that are the engines of progress. The protection of individual rights, particularly freedom of thought, expression, and association, creates the conditions in which new ideas can emerge, be debated, and ultimately improve society.
Example
The suffragette movement in the early 20th century fought for women's right to vote against the will of a male-dominated majority that overwhelmingly opposed female suffrage. Emmeline Pankhurst and other activists were imprisoned, force-fed, and socially ostracised for asserting a right that the majority of the then-electorate denied. Their eventual success, with the United Kingdom granting women equal voting rights in 1928, represents a triumph of individual rights over majority opinion that is now universally recognised as a milestone of justice. Similarly, Alan Turing's contributions to computer science and code-breaking during the Second World War were made despite his persecution under British anti-homosexuality laws, which reflected majority moral sentiment of the time but are now recognised as a grievous injustice.
Link
This illustrates that individual rights should come before the needs of the majority, as the protection of dissenting and minority voices is essential to the social, scientific, and moral progress that ultimately benefits all of society.
Counter-Argument
Opponents argue that public health emergencies like the COVID-19 pandemic demonstrate that collective welfare must sometimes take precedence over individual rights. Singapore's Circuit Breaker lockdown and mandatory TraceTogether contact tracing restricted personal freedom but contributed to one of the lowest COVID-19 death rates among developed nations, while the United States' stronger protection of individual liberty coincided with over 1.1 million deaths.
Rebuttal
While temporary, proportionate restrictions during genuine emergencies may be justified, the danger lies in normalising the subordination of individual rights to collective needs beyond crisis conditions. Singapore's own Internal Security Act, which permits indefinite detention without trial in the name of national security, illustrates how emergency powers can become permanent features of governance that erode the very liberties they claim to protect. A just society must insist that any curtailment of individual rights is strictly time-limited, proportionate, and subject to judicial review rather than treating collective welfare as a standing justification for overriding fundamental freedoms.
Conclusion
In conclusion, a just society must place individual rights before the needs of the majority, because history has shown that the most egregious injustices occur when governments sacrifice individual liberties for purportedly collective goals. The protection of fundamental rights, including freedom of speech, religion, and due process, is the defining feature that distinguishes a just society from a tyrannical one. While the needs of the majority are important, they can and must be met through means that do not trample upon the inviolable rights of the individual.
Introduction
While individual rights are a cornerstone of modern liberal democracies, the absolutist claim that they should 'always' come before the needs of the majority is both philosophically untenable and practically dangerous. Societies are cooperative enterprises in which the well-being of the community necessarily places limits on individual freedom. This essay argues that individual rights should not always take precedence over the needs of the majority, as a just society requires a careful balance between personal liberty and collective welfare.
Public health emergencies demonstrate that the needs of the majority must sometimes take precedence over individual rights to prevent catastrophic harm.
Explain
The COVID-19 pandemic provided a stark contemporary illustration of the necessity of prioritising collective welfare over individual freedom. Lockdowns, mandatory quarantines, mask mandates, and vaccination requirements all curtailed individual rights, yet these measures were essential to protecting public health and preventing healthcare systems from collapsing. An absolutist commitment to individual rights in the face of a pandemic would have cost millions of additional lives and disproportionately harmed the most vulnerable members of society.
Example
Singapore's response to the COVID-19 pandemic involved significant curtailments of individual liberty, including the Circuit Breaker lockdown of April to June 2020, mandatory mask-wearing enforced with fines of up to $300 for first-time offenders, and the TraceTogether digital contact-tracing programme that required residents to check in at public venues. While these measures restricted freedom of movement and privacy, they contributed to Singapore maintaining one of the lowest COVID-19 death rates among developed nations, with approximately 1,700 deaths by mid-2023 in a population of 5.9 million. By contrast, the United States, where individual rights were more strongly prioritised over collective measures, recorded over 1.1 million COVID-19 deaths, disproportionately affecting minority and low-income communities.
Link
This challenges the view that individual rights should always come before the needs of the majority, as the pandemic demonstrated that the temporary curtailment of individual freedoms in the interest of collective health was not only justified but morally imperative in saving lives.
The absolutist prioritisation of individual rights entrenches existing inequalities by protecting the privileges of the powerful at the expense of collective welfare.
Explain
In practice, the language of individual rights is often invoked not by the vulnerable but by the powerful to resist redistributive policies, taxation, and regulation that would benefit the majority. The right to property, freedom of contract, and economic liberty have historically been used to defend exploitative labour practices, oppose public healthcare, and resist environmental regulation. An uncritical prioritisation of individual rights over the needs of the majority can therefore serve as a shield for privilege rather than a sword for justice.
Example
In the United States, the Supreme Court's 1905 decision in Lochner v. New York struck down a law limiting bakers' working hours to ten per day, ruling that it violated the individual right to freedom of contract. This absolutist defence of individual economic rights came at the expense of the health and welfare of working-class labourers who lacked the bargaining power to negotiate reasonable conditions. More recently, the fierce opposition to the Affordable Care Act by those invoking individual rights and freedom of choice has left millions of Americans without adequate health insurance, with the Commonwealth Fund estimating that 27 million Americans remained uninsured in 2022. In both cases, the rhetoric of individual rights served to protect the interests of the economically powerful while denying the majority access to basic protections.
Link
This demonstrates that individual rights should not always come before the needs of the majority, as the absolute prioritisation of individual freedoms can entrench inequality and deny the collective welfare measures that a just society requires to protect its most vulnerable members.
A just society requires shared sacrifice and collective responsibility, which are impossible if individual rights are treated as absolute and inviolable.
Explain
Every functioning society depends on its members accepting certain limitations on their individual freedom for the common good. Taxation, military conscription, environmental regulation, and public planning all require individuals to subordinate their preferences to collective needs. If individual rights were truly absolute, no government could levy taxes, enforce zoning laws, or require jury service. The philosophical traditions of communitarianism and civic republicanism argue that rights are not pre-social entitlements but exist within a framework of mutual obligation and shared responsibility.
Example
Singapore's system of National Service, which requires all male citizens and permanent residents to serve two years of compulsory military service, represents a clear case in which the needs of the majority, specifically national defence, take precedence over the individual right to personal freedom and choice of occupation. While conscription undeniably curtails individual liberty, it has been widely credited with building social cohesion, instilling shared national identity across ethnic lines, and ensuring the security of a small, vulnerable nation. A 2020 survey by the Institute of Policy Studies found that 73% of Singaporeans considered National Service essential to national identity, reflecting broad acceptance that collective security justifies this limitation on individual rights.
Link
This illustrates that individual rights should not always come before the needs of the majority, as Singapore's National Service demonstrates that shared sacrifice in service of the common good is not only compatible with a just society but essential to its survival and cohesion.
Counter-Argument
Proponents of individual rights argue that the Nuremberg Laws, Jim Crow segregation, and the persecution of minorities throughout history demonstrate that democratic majorities are perfectly capable of perpetrating systematic injustice when individual rights are not constitutionally protected. They contend that rights exist precisely to shield the vulnerable from majoritarian tyranny.
Rebuttal
While the protection of minorities is essential, framing individual rights as absolute and inviolable ignores that every functioning society depends on citizens accepting limitations on their freedom for the common good. Singapore's National Service, which requires two years of compulsory military service from all male citizens, curtails individual liberty but has been instrumental in building social cohesion and ensuring the security of a small, vulnerable nation. The absolutist prioritisation of individual rights would make taxation, conscription, and public health measures impossible, ultimately harming the very citizens it claims to protect.
Conclusion
Ultimately, the insistence that individual rights should 'always' come before the needs of the majority is an absolutist position that no functioning society can sustain. Justice requires not the supremacy of the individual over the collective, nor the collective over the individual, but a dynamic and contextual balance between the two. A truly just society is one that protects fundamental rights while recognising that the common good sometimes demands reasonable limitations on individual freedom, negotiated through democratic processes and subject to the rule of law.