Should personal freedom be forgone for the protection of the society as a whole, is a question that has been argued from the time of Aristotle and Plato. (Velasquez et al, 1992) While there are several valid arguments that support both of the conditions mentioned above, there is obviously severe concern over how much of each is acceptable. ?How much? personal freedom should be given up to preserve ?how much? common good? Furthermore, there is even disagreement over what is common good. All members of the society do not share the same needs or wants and therefore it is difficult to establish a single list of characteristics that represent common good. (Velasquez et al, 1992) Even if the common good is established, there are three issues that support protection of individual freedom over the protection of society as a whole. These are; all individuals will modify their lifestyle due to the deplorable acts of few criminals, rights of minority citizens may be sacrificed to establish and enforce common good, citizens that don?t abide by the law will benefit from the protection of society as a whole. However, it should be noted that this does not mean that this will always be the case; i.e. that personal freedom will always outweighs the common good or vice versa.
In a society where common good takes precedence over personal freedom, citizens would have to make changes to their lifestyle to accommodate the rules of the common good. For example, a society decides that upon an 11pm curfew to save and protect the citizens of the society because a killer commits murders after that time. Although the benefit is that the citizens are safe, they lose the right to enjoy social company and control over how their night and time is spent. In this case the entire society must alter their lifestyle and sacrifice their freedom of conduct because one person?s attempt to commit a crime. Furthermore, the greater issue is the fact that the killer is not punished or not as severely punished as the society by this curfew. In the movie Minority Report, all citizens sacrifice their right to privacy as all behaviours of all citizens are monitored by the agency due to few murderers. Thus, everyone must bear the consequences (i.e. loss of privacy) of the acts of few therefore unfairly punishing everyone, which is contrary to the purpose of the common good.
The needs of the many or majority will outweigh the needs of the few or minority in a society where the protection of the society as a whole exists. This is because of the fact that when the common good is established, it will be made to benefit the majority of citizens. For example, a government must reduce tax spending to release pressure off citizens. Taking the interest of majority in mind, the government cut their spending on programs for the disabled or cut recreational programs that benefit the majority. The recreational programs benefit the majority and allows them to maintain a healthy lifestyle which further reduces tax spending on healthcare. Whereas, spending on programs for the disabled benefits only them and not the society in any manner. Should the government then cut the spending on these programs to ?protect? society?s health? Is it okay to for government to deny life and freedom to the disabled for the betterment of the majority citizens? Clearly, these actions are wrong as it would mean that one human?s life is more valuable than the other and benefiting one life at the expense of another. If this were true, a murder of an able person would be punished more severely and of greater significance than that of a disable person. Therefore, in this case, the protection of personal freedom takes precedence over protection of society.

If the protection of the society trumps the protection of personal freedom, it requires a collaborative effort from all citizens involved to ensure that there is equality in the burden on all citizens. However, even if some don?t participate in the protection of the society, they will still benefit at the expense of others contributions. For example, there is a society where most movements are monitored to protect citizens. In this society, citizen A kills citizen C without being caught and is later attacked by citizen B for an