Individual vs Society

[Ana the Ist]

Hello all,

Its been awhile since I've created a thread so I decided to attempt to start a conversation about this topic which I've thought much about for some time. I'm not sure how successful it will be here since its not really a particularly lofty topic like so many created for discussion here in the philosophy section...but let's give it a shot, shall we?

It appears to me that one of the natural dichotomies of mankind is the individual vs society (or the group...it need not be an entire society as the word is commonly used). A lot can be said about the benefits of one over the other. I'm presenting them as opposites of each other, although their interests often overlap, because frankly it's a more interesting conversation this way.

The U.S. (my homeland) holds the individual up in the highest esteem. Indeed, it's often argued that my nation is founded upon the idea of the individual unfettered by restrictions and allowed to rise to the dizzying heights of the greatest achievements as an exercise of his own ambition, desire, and free will. The notion of all working together, as a group, united towards the same goals and same purpose is often looked down upon (as something embodied by socialism). It's a cultural notion that I've had to seriously reconsider in order to get past the propaganda, this cult of the individual we worship at, this paradise of the soloist. Is it really preferable?

On the other hand we the idea that mankind is at its best, it's strongest, it's most ideal, when we all work together. When each of us acts as a cog in the great machine of humanity, not standing out necessarily, but humbly striving towards what's considered best for all. "What's best for all" can be a nebulous, fuzzy notion...ever present and yet ever changing...but no matter the direction it can be argued we're at our best when marching in the same direction. What we can achieve together always seems greater than what the individual can achieve alone...

So what do you favor poster...and why? Is it more important to foster a culture that celebrates the individual and what he can achieve when the rest of us don't hold him back? Or is it more important to foster the development of the group and a sense of unity so that together we can all take steps forward...as one with none left behind?

And why?

Thoughts?

 

[Songsmith]

Groupthink can be a dangerous or fantastic thing. Who decides what goal we are to shoot for? Hitler or Enoch? They both got society to march to the beat of the drummer, one to death and one to heaven. I have trouble envisioning America as a unified nation striving toward a goal. The closest thing I've seen to it was shortly after 9-11. We, however briefly, were of one accord. In order for that to happen again we will probably have to have another drastic event. Nobody wants that. Onward individualist!

 

[ananda]

... On the other hand we the idea that mankind is at its best, it's strongest, it's most ideal, when we all work together. When each of us acts as a cog in the great machine of humanity, not standing out necessarily, but humbly striving towards what's considered best for all. "What's best for all" can be a nebulous, fuzzy notion...ever present and yet ever changing...but no matter the direction it can be argued we're at our best when marching in the same direction. What we can achieve together always seems greater than what the individual can achieve alone...

Who claims that "mankind is at its best" "when we all work together"?

Perhaps the opposite is true. The notion of "working together" (to me) implies work in the outer, external world. Perhaps the true work lies in our inner world, a place where only the individual can tread alone.

Or, perhaps a balance between working in the outer and inner world should prevail. Perhaps, in the outer world, one can learn lessons through which one applies to their work in the inner world.

I think America emphasizes work in the outer world far more than it does for the inner world, to the detriment of all of its people.

 

[GrowingSmaller]

i want the best of both. neglect either at peril of gods wrath.

 

[Paradoxum]

I'd tend to see myself as an individualist, but I support a mixed welfare economy. My individualism is about social liberties, and being free to live one's life how one wishes (within necessary boundaries).

To me, healthcare for all provides freedom to more people to live their lives how they wish. Also, this freedom is equally applied.. not only to those well-off.

But capitalism has it's place too, as it tends to be more efficient and good for general innovation (although public funding can be good for some types of innovation too).

So I'd say I'm individualist, but where the individual is empowered by social liberty and center-left policies.

 

[Chany]

Hello all,

Its been awhile since I've created a thread so I decided to attempt to start a conversation about this topic which I've thought much about for some time. I'm not sure how successful it will be here since its not really a particularly lofty topic like so many created for discussion here in the philosophy section...but let's give it a shot, shall we?

It appears to me that one of the natural dichotomies of mankind is the individual vs society (or the group...it need not be an entire society as the word is commonly used). A lot can be said about the benefits of one over the other. I'm presenting them as opposites of each other, although their interests often overlap, because frankly it's a more interesting conversation this way.

The U.S. (my homeland) holds the individual up in the highest esteem. Indeed, it's often argued that my nation is founded upon the idea of the individual unfettered by restrictions and allowed to rise to the dizzying heights of the greatest achievements as an exercise of his own ambition, desire, and free will. The notion of all working together, as a group, united towards the same goals and same purpose is often looked down upon (as something embodied by socialism). It's a cultural notion that I've had to seriously reconsider in order to get past the propaganda, this cult of the individual we worship at, this paradise of the soloist. Is it really preferable?

On the other hand we the idea that mankind is at its best, it's strongest, it's most ideal, when we all work together. When each of us acts as a cog in the great machine of humanity, not standing out necessarily, but humbly striving towards what's considered best for all. "What's best for all" can be a nebulous, fuzzy notion...ever present and yet ever changing...but no matter the direction it can be argued we're at our best when marching in the same direction. What we can achieve together always seems greater than what the individual can achieve alone...

So what do you favor poster...and why? Is it more important to foster a culture that celebrates the individual and what he can achieve when the rest of us don't hold him back? Or is it more important to foster the development of the group and a sense of unity so that together we can all take steps forward...as one with none left behind?

And why?

Thoughts?

I tend to lean more towards the individual, as whenever somebody starts talking about the "common good" in things outside philosophical texts (and even then...), they usually have some select goal that is justified by utilitarianism. And because utilitarianism is the enemy of the just society, therefore, talk of the "common good" usually involves something against a fair and just society.

Now, I do agree that there is a myth of the "soloist"- a person who, through nothing but her own individual effort and skills, achieves greatness. Humans are an interconnected social species; no person has ever achieved their own goals without some sort of aid from another human being in all but the most extreme cases. One might have a shot of surviving on their own outside of society (though incredibly risky for anyone), but they certainly cannot flourish in any meaningful sense in such an environment. An individual requires others to flourish; as such, we must work together in some manner, and even, as a collective whole, make some sacrifices towards the general benefit of all, even if we do not reap the rewards of said sacrifice as much as others do.

However, it is important to emphasize that the goal of society is to protect real individuals and protect the goals to flourish. The "common good" is often an abstract that is detached from this notion. In other words, actual people are made not the actual ends of actual needs, but actual people are used solely as a means towards a hypothetical good. If society (particularly the state) is treating real people, its purpose for existence and those who it seeks to protect and serve, in the present as goals towards some abstract future goal, then it will never succeed in that function, as it will always treat the next generation in the same way. Therefore, society must protect and serve people in the now, not in the indiscernible future through a vague promise of a better life for all. Part of protecting the people of the now is to respect their autonomy and individual aim of flourishing and actualizing their wants. Without this goal in mind in a real and present manner, society is unjust.

I think Rawl's veil of ignorance and original position are good starting points of how to view society. It is probably not a perfect method and needs some modifications, but I think it is good for a general feel as to how to approach the issue of the individual vs. society.