In a politically liberal society no issue can be more important than what amount of attention should be devoted, to our duties as members of a society or our own individual rights and liberties. Each individual, their surrounding society and the government responsible for overseeing them must ask this question. Which of these spheres should be granted more devotion, the society or our own individual selves. Individualism became an issue when we as people began increasingly to demand more individual freedom and started to place more value on self-chosen individual achievement over mandated national achievement. Ever since these ideas were formed into governmental ideology, as John Locke first did, conceptions of individual and civil rights and duties have come into conflict in matters of public policy. They have not so much conflicted on the grounds of their incompatibility. More frequently they have caused disputes as to where the respective boundaries of each should lie, and/or which should be given greater respect by people and their governments. Before continuing I would like to state that this is not an important issue in all societies,

Then one must asks, what is societies role in securing my rights? What are my duties to society? This in turn brings up a discussion of societies' purpose. One could ask what provoked man to first enter into a civil organization. In discussing any of the above-mentioned topics, the issue of morals plays a significant role. Whether one simply states that rights are based on moral principals, or that all decision making is somehow carried out using moral principals, it would be impossible to remove it from scope of the discussion at hand. Also important in deciding which sphere has greater importance, civil or individual, are self-interest and the degree to which they have influence over this decision. Are we motivated completely by self-interest, or is there another factor that facilitates our motivations? Is civil interest distinct form individual interest or does it exist only as a method of protecting individual interest. Further topics and phases may arise when discussing the question and its related issues. Those such as laws, citizenship, public good, and ethics may possibly appear in my discussion.

I have neither given nor received assistance in formulation this work

I will in this paper, attempt to discuss the American ideological opinion on this question of civil versus individual rights and duties. In attempting to do this I will discuss the view of some of Americas more influential political theorist, as presented in their books, on the issues as they arise. My goal is to tackle as many of the issues above as possible, while making clear and concise a statement as possible. This is a very diverse issue and keeping the discussion simple will be my ultimate challenge. But I hope to conclude with my view while leaving you with a clear understanding of the case I have presented.

rather it is "the" issue of liberal societies, almost always democratic ones. The issue as I address it in this paper is one based on ideas almost, but not completely, unique to the western world, Europe and the Americas. Here I will inspect the American perspective.

It would be helpful to point out here that while Sumner and Croly have similar ideas about competition and the necessity to earn rights and privileges, they have one big difference. While Croly believes in equality of opportunity, Sumner did not. And this brings up an important issue that of morals and the role they play in determining what rights we are granted. Sumner asserts that morals play no role in decision making. He states that "nothing but might has ever made right" and nothing else ever will. (Sumner,367) On these grounds Sumner defends the use of inherited wealth and other unearned benefits. Paine believed that morals and truth were a key factor in the role of government (194), this is likely what produced his conception of a total equality of rights. Sumner provided no room for morals in his theory of rights, because that is not how rights were determined in a realistic setting. The "right" behind rights comes from force. Instead Sumner asserts that in making decisions we often rely on mores and folkways. A folkway is based on tradition, it is a matter of habit. But when we apply science and reason, (when we become capable of doing so), we can adapt these folkways and they then become mores. These play a role in decision making but morals and "ethics have no role in economics or politics." (Sumner,326) Moon on the other hand based his entire theory on solving the problem of moral pluralism. He felt that morals ultimately played a role in every aspect of our lives. The dominance of morals and their conflict with the moral beliefs of others make public policy a complicated issue in his opinion. He was very concerned with individual rights, to the point that his theory was designed to narrow the scope of government so as to allow people to participate in a political community without coming into conflict on issues where moral views would cause conflict.

Some common words found in the essay are:
Sumner195 Moon, Europe Americas, Sumner207 Sumner's, Sumner326 Moon, Paine119 Moon, Sumner Croly, Calhoun197 Summer, Calhoun555 Calhoun, Final Paper, Calhoun374 Moon, rights duties, individual rights, welfare rights, equality opportunity, rights exist, own individual, civil duty, equality believed, respect rights, individual freedom, total individual freedom, rights power exercise, individual civil rights, society own individual, versus individual rights,
Approximate Word count = 3318
Approximate Pages = 13 (250 words per page double spaced)