Charles Taylor is a central figure in the debate between the atomists, you believe that society is built upon what they call the ‘primacy of rights’ and the Humanitarians, including Taylor, who believe that man must work as hard to support society as society works to better man. First I will outline what atomists and the primacy of rights are and then I will show how Taylor validates his own position.

Both sides of this debate agree that civilization is a device that exists to promote the advancement of man. The ‘primacy of rights’ is the belief that inside society every individual has many rights, but to say that with these rights man is obliged to uphold society is an unjustifiable incursion on freedom. On the side of the liberals there are a wide range of views, from the anarchists who simply want to do away with government, to more conservative groups who believe in government as an organizing force but believe it should place no requirements on its people. The weakness in this argument that Taylor attempts to exploit is that it is based on an assumption that man is born with many capacities that Taylor will attempt to prove are developed only in society.

Taylor claims that just as society accords all men rights, those individuals are equally responsibility to uphold society. Taylor first explains why it is that humans are accorded rights in ways that animals and objects are not. He argues this is because humans have “certain capacities [which] command respect or have worth in our eyes.” In other words, we as humans have abilities that hold a moral value and therefore we have a obligation to not infringe on these abilities. Up to this point the atomists agree with Taylor, but here they diverge. The atomists want to argue that these rights are essentially the entire relationship between man and society, that society exists so that man’s rights will be upheld and his capacities will not be hindered. Taylor argues that just as society exists to grant man rights, man in return must strive to preserve society in such a way that it can advance these capacities.

Taylor holds this to be true because man is what he calls a ‘social animal.’ He wants to assert that individuals are not self-sufficient outside of society. This is not to say that there are no men who could survive outside of civilization. Taylor’s point is that they “would survive only in the most austere sense that they would not succumb. It would not be living as we know it.” We could maintain our own lives, but would be incapable of expressing or nurturing those special capacities discussed earlier. In order for the simple task of survival to be made simple enough for us to focus our efforts on other endeavors, it is essential that we form societies.

Taylor uses this analysis to refute one of the atomists’ major claims, that the primacy of rights is an argument that stands by itself, that it needs not be based on any other argument that needs to be defended. Atomists want to take as a foregone conclusion that man is born with the capacity to make choices independently. Taylor undermines this with examples based on property. It is a basic human right that each man can do whatever he pleases with his property, assuming it does not impinge on the rights of others. The morals widely held through society might make claims about whether the choice a man makes is selfish or virtuous, but that does not make it any less his right to choose. Taylor argues that this ability to make independent choices is developed inside society. If this is true, if we would not realize such an ability outside of society, then it would stand to reason that we have an obligation to promote society so that each individual’s capacities are developed.

Taylor’s logical attacks on the primacy of rights are very rarely directed at the idea itself. Rather, he takes the underlying basis for the primacy of rights, which the atomists assume to be true and therefore do not seem to justify, and proves that the issues are not as simple as they seem. Whether or not the atomists can prove that the primacy of rights is valid starting from assumptions that the human capacity to choose is natural is irrelevant once Taylor proves that those capacities, which we must respect, grow only under the influence of society.