Individualism: vice or virtue?

[Strivax]

So, I have noticed a theme that tends to split (North) Americans from Europeans. And this is it. The role of the self, and the role of society, in contributing to the ideal world. I do not wish to say that all US Americans think the state has no role, or that all Europeans think that the state should be supreme, in this endeavour. But there is no doubt that the US places far more emphasis of the 'freedom' of the individual, and Europe places far more emphasis on the democratic consensus of individuals, as expressed by the state.

So, where does the proper balance lie?

Cheers, Strivax

 

[HerCrazierHalf]

Like most philosophies or systems, an attempt at a "pure" version of either is no good.

For me personally, the individual is king. And from there we work out how to minimize or negative impacts on others.

What's the point of any society or live itself if the individual's desires can not be pursued?

 

[Eudaimonist]

So, where does the proper balance lie?

With individualism.

Yes, individuals are social beings, and constitutional democracy is the best thing going, but the bedrock of any civilization should be with individual rights alone, not with "democratic" theft and meddling in the lives of others.

Why? Because individualism rests on the moral principle of the prudent pursuit of one's own personal flourishing as an individual. I suppose that one could call it a personal virtue, but it is also a virtue (an excellence) of social systems. It is a virtue because it recognizes that government force is misguided when it attempts to force a utopia into existence. Force gets in the way of self-determination, and in extreme cases it can even cause the collapse of societies (see Venezuela). Human beings need personal liberty to self-actualize as rationally self-determining beings. It should be the actions of a free people that improve society, not the government as a social or economic engineer.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[Ana the Ist]

So, I have noticed a theme that tends to split (North) Americans from Europeans. And this is it. The role of the self, and the role of society, in contributing to the ideal world. I do not wish to say that all US Americans think the state has no role, or that all Europeans think that the state should be supreme, in this endeavour. But there is no doubt that the US places far more emphasis of the 'freedom' of the individual, and Europe places far more emphasis on the democratic consensus of individuals, as expressed by the state.

So, where does the proper balance lie?

Cheers, Strivax

IMO...the proper balance lies somewhere between like this...

Do what must be done to protect individualism, but not at the cost of the whole of society.

The is a point in the promotion or protection of individuals and individual rights when the power/wealth/influence/etc of the individual can become detrimental to the greater community (whether that be a town, city, state, or an entire nation) and said "greater community" must then take steps to reign in the power of the individual lest we all become little more than cogs in the machinery of their power.

 

[Ana the Ist]

With individualism.

Yes, individuals are social beings, and constitutional democracy is the best thing going, but the bedrock of any civilization should be with individual rights alone, not with "democratic" theft and meddling in the lives of others.

Why? Because individualism rests on the moral principle of the prudent pursuit of one's own personal flourishing as an individual. I suppose that one could call it a personal virtue, but it is also a virtue (an excellence) of social systems. It is a virtue because it recognizes that government force is misguided when it attempts to force a utopia into existence. Force gets in the way of self-determination, and in extreme cases it can even cause the collapse of societies (see Venezuela). Human beings need personal liberty to self-actualize as rationally self-determining beings. It should be the actions of a free people that improve society, not the government as a social or economic engineer.


eudaimonia,

Mark

I would agree if I were more optimistic about the human condition. I think some of the problems that we face today are directly linked to this notion of individualism.

It's not that an individual cannot be aware of the impact they have upon society and others...it's just that generally speaking, when we create a system that inherently justifies placing the needs of the individual above the needs of the group, why should they care?

 

[Eudaimonist]

when we create a system that inherently justifies placing the needs of the individual above the needs of the group, why should they care?

We should care because we are all individuals. Groups don't have needs. Individuals do. And when groups assert their needs above that of individuals with government force, you suddenly have a zero-sum game of benefactors and victims. With a free society, you can have a positive sum game.

That caring does require the right sort of perspective and understanding though. I'm not suggesting that it comes naturally. There is too much group-ism in modern culture (tribalism, collectivism, identity politics, etc), and so plenty of people just won't care because they've turned their backs on the individual in favor of group-interest politics.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[Noxot]

they are the same thing. the balance is just reality and what it becomes due to what people are. like produces like.

individualism often takes hold of societies and it is very dangerous most of the time because individual people who desire a ton of power and control are nuts. the world is nice when everyone plays nicely with one another and it sucks when they don't. therefore play nice with one another as much as possible.

oh boy can humans ever do some amazing things (good or evil) when they work together.

I think individuals matter more than society does because you can't have a society without individuals. societies can't think or feel, only individual people can. but an individual/s who are evil to others are thus a menace to society or individuals. I think that "society" is in some ways just an illusion. society is just a bunch of individuals doing things.

peoples self-righteous attitude have persecuted so many other people. the jails of the USA are full of people that did not harm other individuals. societies are very dangerous because who is to blame? so i don't think individuals need so much power, especially the ignorant and selfish ones. but societies often grant a few ideas and a few people a ton of power.

for the most part individuals have to co-exist with others. everyone should be equal. everyone should be acknowledged as basically the same. but people in authority do not often see themselves as "public servants". they should not be walked upon either, but they should not walk on others. equality should never be used to justify evils.

evil societies are just a bunch of individuals fighting for supremacy over one another. good societies get along one with another and do not heap up heavy burdens upon one another. the world is a mix of both. the individual is often a mix of both though individuals will be the first to stop the nonsense which is why they are more important than a collective of good and evil. societies are more than one person and so they are a more complex thing to solve/purify. the more individuals the more complex the problem becomes. the more the individuals are good the better the society becomes.

the lack of individual empathy for other individuals is often due to a collective with an agenda ( which ends up possessing individuals) that thinks/acts (consciously or unconsciously) it is more important than people are. the heavier the burden the harder it might become for individuals to play nice one with another.

 

[Jack of Spades]

But there is no doubt that the US places far more emphasis of the 'freedom' of the individual, and Europe places far more emphasis on the democratic consensus of individuals, as expressed by the state.

The European social democracy - ideas are far more selfish than that. Lemme explain:

Americans, especially on the right, seem to see the freedom to be a two actor business: it's individual vs the government. If government wins, individual loses freedom.

I tend to see it in a way that there are other players on the board, like for example big corporations who are immensely more powerful entities than average Joe. If left unchecked those players will rip off the little guy. So, to give government some power is actually a self-defense move. The government can keep corporations etc. in check, private citizens can't.

It's no use to have government give me my "freedom" if that freedom means being a slave to somebody else. It's better to make realistic "most freedom I can get from all the big players" - deal.

In my world view, removing one big player (government) from my life doesn't guarantee freedom. It might aswell guarantee a power vacuum, which is taken over by somebody else, like f.e. big businesses.

 

[Noxot]

the rich pay off those in power to serve their agenda. if someone is given freedom then that means they don't have freedom but they did get given "permission". everyone is already free, that is the natural state of human beings. it is why humans are capable of doing good and of doing evil. freedom is authority. there is no authority unless someone gives authority. however people can force others to do things or not do things to a limited degree but only because things like torture, punishment, death, and fear are such high authorities to many people. people who force themselves on others try to subdue/control them by partially taking their freedom away but you are not even a person anymore (in some sense) if you don't have freedom.

I don't think that most people really want freedom. freedom means you have to be responsible for your own actions. if people were responsible they would not force others to pay for their own mistakes. most people are selfish therefore they should not have power. but selfishness is part of what humans are. they need it in order to keep on living. selfishness does not have to be bad but it can become bad. it is selfish to not be free, it puts a burden on others. selfishness is bad when you think you are more important than any other person or thing. or when you think someone or something is more important than you. you can't get rid of yourself, you are what you are.

lack of unity and having to conform to inferior unities is what makes societies so bad. I think 'unity' is the problem that individuals and societies have. there is a unity regardless of what all the components of everything is since we all exist in the same reality. the quality of unity should be very high in order for individuals and societies to flourish.

 

[Ana the Ist]

We should care because we are all individuals. Groups don't have needs. Individuals do. And when groups assert their needs above that of individuals with government force, you suddenly have a zero-sum game of benefactors and victims. With a free society, you can have a positive sum game.

That caring does require the right sort of perspective and understanding though. I'm not suggesting that it comes naturally. There is too much group-ism in modern culture (tribalism, collectivism, identity politics, etc), and so plenty of people just won't care because they've turned their backs on the individual in favor of group-interest politics.


eudaimonia,

Mark

Of course groups have needs Mark...when all individuals of a group share the same needs, can we not say that those become the needs of the group?

There are the basics of course, like food, water, shelter...things we universally recognize as needs. A more practical example, when it comes to government, would be healthcare. We all get sick...we all eventually need healthcare of some kind or another. Should this not be considered as a "need of the group"?

The problem with healthcare here in the good ole U.S. of A. relates directly back to the question in the OP. We've decided somewhere along the line that we respect the right of the individual to profit from the needs of the group (not desires, like a new iphone....but a need like healthcare) that we've allowed individuals to profit from this group need at the expense of the group itself. As a result, healthcare is literally unaffordable in this nation. The cost of a major surgery or any sort of long term illness or condition is so great....the average person couldn't hope to pay for it. So we've allowed another group of individuals to sell insurance to pay for it...and their interests have nothing to do with healthcare or providing for the needs of the group. Their interests are profit and solely profit. As a result, many people who could afford the insurance are rejected (or were rejected...I don't know if insurance companies have found a way to reject those with pre-existing conditions again).

I could go on but I'm sure you see the point I'm making. Another point would be that some problems affect the individuals...but can only be solved at the group level. Whether we're talking about water shortages or pollution or climate change....asking an individual to act as a solution does nothing to solve these problems. These problems may not even be noticeable by the individual. Why should they act to solve a problem like climate change if they don't notice any climate change happening? No, some problems simply need group solutions....nothing else will help.

 

[Strivax]

Yes, there has been much wisdom in your responses. I am grateful for them. Clearly, you cannot have an ideal world that is not composed of ideal societies, in turn themselves composed of ideal individuals. This is not a case of either individual or society, but rather, what mix of both is ideal, and utopian. There are things a society does better than individuals, things that corporations do better one-man-bands. What powers should a utopian citizen delegate upwards to a utopian society, to create a utopian world? When should a utopian world and a utopian society step back, and demand the responsibility from its utopian citizenry?

And what compromises of our freedoms should the individual accept to facilitate this? Should we, for example, delegate our personal security to the police, better trained and equipped than we could ourselves hope to be, with our own livings to support in our disparate contributions to the world? Should we assume that climate change is best addressed by the myriad sacrifices of millions of people, rather than government action? Do we think we should educate our children ourselves, as if we ourselves were the ultimate authorities on the best than humanity has thought, and said, and done?

When is it moral and ethical to retain powers for the individual, and when is it moral and ethical to come together, and pool our resources, as communities, nations, and the world as a whole?

Best wishes, Strivax

 

[bhsmte]

So, I have noticed a theme that tends to split (North) Americans from Europeans. And this is it. The role of the self, and the role of society, in contributing to the ideal world. I do not wish to say that all US Americans think the state has no role, or that all Europeans think that the state should be supreme, in this endeavour. But there is no doubt that the US places far more emphasis of the 'freedom' of the individual, and Europe places far more emphasis on the democratic consensus of individuals, as expressed by the state.

So, where does the proper balance lie?

Cheers, Strivax

Difficult question.

As with most things, too much of either choice can cause problems and a blend of the two, would likely cause the most overall benefit, without intruding too much on individual freedoms.

 

[Paradoxum]

I'm not sure it is that obvious. The Netherlands, for example, tend to give people for personal freedom.

I'm British, and I believe liberty comes above equality, but I'm a liberal center-leftist, so obviously I believe in fairness in the economy.

I think personal liberty comes first, but that economic freedom doesn't come under this.

So, I have noticed a theme that tends to split (North) Americans from Europeans. And this is it. The role of the self, and the role of society, in contributing to the ideal world.

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

And how people think all over the world continues, just like in times past.

What if anything ever made a difference ? (for good)

What did Yhwh the Creator do, if anything, that made a difference for people (so that it became possible for anyone not to be utterly doomed) ?

(In His Own Words, Yhwh explained the difference (the one thing that set them apart from all the others) between the people He chose and the people He didn't choose (besides also that the chosen are potentially rewarded with eternal life, and those not chosen remain lost and without hope in the world). )

 

[Paidiske]

You ask really interesting questions, Strivax. I appreciate it.

On the whole I think Western (American) culture is far too individualistic. I see individualism, if not as sin in itself, certainly as foundational to a range of sin, because it denies the nature of human beings as beings-in-relationship and thus distorts those relationships.

Each of us is connected to others, in our families, our communities (our faith communities, if we have them), and so forth. From a Christian point of view each of us is also connected to God. Deny any of that and seek only self-actualisation, and you have distortion of human nature. I'm not against self-actualisation but the way I see it, that can only be achieved within our relationships, not apart from them. (I'm very heavily influenced here by Orthodox theology in general and the writings of Metropolitan John Zizioulas in particular).

Now that doesn't speak immediately to questions of politics, but it means that if we choose to organise ourselves into nation-states and operate within the political systems of nation-states, those systems become another of the networks of relationships which constitute our identity, and so to seek to minimise them is potentially damaging.

I completely do not understand, for example, why Americans would seek to actively prevent their government providing for their healthcare needs. They are needs; this is a level of relationship which can meet those needs. But somehow individualism means it must not? I can't get my head around it.

 

[Jack of Spades]

I completely do not understand, for example, why Americans would seek to actively prevent their government providing for their healthcare needs. They are needs; this is a level of relationship which can meet those needs. But somehow individualism means it must not? I can't get my head around it.

As a fellow non-American who was once just as baffled about this, I believe I can explain the ideas behind it, now that I've done my time figuring it out:

1) It's the ideology of power struggle between a man and the government, everything government does in individuals life, means government gains control over the man. So the government providing healthcare is not seen as a good government helping people, but it's an evil government seeking ways to make people dependent of itself, in order to control their lives. First it gives you healthcare, the next day it might ask you to give away your religious freedom and you can no longer refuse as easily because it can now extort you by maybe cutting the healthcare.

2) Then, on the other hand, providing healthcare costs money, which means more taxes. People don't want to pay taxes to fund somebody else's needs, instead there is a high emphasis for ideology of individual responsibility. In American optimistic worldview, every individual is capable of providing for themselves, if they just work hard for it. So, having government interfere would be "feeding those who don't want to work". To put it bluntly, those who can't feed themselves, deserve what's coming for them, because they had the choice to do differently**.

3) Also, there are economic theories saying that taxes must be low for long-term maximum gain for everyone. It's believed that when there are little taxes, the economy grows more and in the end everybody will end up better off by the growing economy. So, increasing public spending, like healthcare, and raising taxes to fund it means, according to the theory, jeopardizing everyone's well-being in the future.

**note: These are not my thoughts, just trying to explain what I think the American rightists think.

So, Americans, have I done my homework well?

 

[Cearbhall]

So, I have noticed a theme that tends to split (North) Americans from Europeans. And this is it. The role of the self, and the role of society, in contributing to the ideal world. I do not wish to say that all US Americans think the state has no role, or that all Europeans think that the state should be supreme, in this endeavour. But there is no doubt that the US places far more emphasis of the 'freedom' of the individual, and Europe places far more emphasis on the democratic consensus of individuals, as expressed by the state.

It's curious to me that you chose to contrast the U.S. and Europe. The majority of Europe is a region of individualistic culture, whereas collectivist culture is strong mainly in Asia and Africa.

 

[jayem]

2) Then, on the other hand, providing healthcare costs money, which means more taxes. People don't want to pay taxes to fund somebody else's needs, instead there is a high emphasis for ideology of individual responsibility. In American optimistic worldview, every individual is capable of providing for themselves, if they just work hard for it.

Americans give lip service to individual responsibility. But we really, really like what collectivism we have. How far do you think a candidate would get if he ran on a platform of eliminating Medicare and Social Security?

 

[Paidiske]

1) It's the ideology of power struggle between a man and the government, everything government does in individuals life, means government gains control over the man.

Thank you. I think this was the bit I was missing. I think that is quite mad. Especially in a democracy!

 

[Jack of Spades]

It's curious to me that you chose to contrast the U.S. and Europe. The majority of Europe is a region of individualistic culture, whereas collectivist culture is strong mainly in Asia and Africa.

I think there is plenty of misunderstanding about the social democracy - ideals of Northern Europe in America. It's not so much that people have a good heart and want to help everybody, it's as much calculated thinking to try to make functional society for ones own benefit.

If the theories are correct and work in practice, it ends up also benefiting the people who pay more than receive, by having less risk to be victims of crime, having backup if oneself goes ill etc. The stereotype of "let's be nice to everyone" is just a stereotype, and often wrong. It's often about just being practical and wanting a safe and stable society for ones self.