Individual and Community

[AnthArmo]

Which is more important?

An Individualist, such as the army of Anarcho-Cappies and Libertarians we've had flooding the OI forum, would argue that the needs of the individual are more important than the needs of the Collective.

And a Collectivist would argue vice versa. Saying that the individual should sacrifice certain freedoms if it makes the Collective unhappy. such as Utilitarians

I would probably argue for a middle ground based on the harm principle. You have the individual freedom to do whatever you want, so long as it doesn't harm the freedom of other Individuals.

Or in other words, an individual should have the freedom to enter a homosexual relationship, even if the collective doesn't approve of it. But they shouldn't have the freedom to go on a killing spree, or to exploit labour for a profit.

[Dervish]

An individual should be able to choose his own community - and by doing so, to choose the individual/community balance he wants.

But all of us need a community - it's a need that we can't escape (or only escape by private property and a wage-slave army) - none of us are able to produce ourselves what we need.

Edit: Remember that a community is a way to support the mutual interests of a group of individuals.

[Dervish]

When it comes to community, as long as you don't consider class relations in that "community" the question remains meaningless. That is, one should look at the classes composing any particular community and then decide based on that.

As far as the poll is concerned, how can you have individuals who're not in a community and how can you have community that is not composed of individuals?

When we are talking about which is more 'important' (the individual or the community) it is obvious that we're discussing the way we want things to be in a future, communist society. Such a question is completely pointless when discussing our current type of societies - it doesn't even make sense to ask it at all.

[Misanthrope]

Individual.

[Dooga Aetrus Blackrazor]

This is a conflict that heavily debated amongst philosophers. I don't have a clue how to answer the question. I'd say both are equally important, but I'm not sure that's true.

The community exists to serve the needs of individuals. However, it can become a classic utilitarian dilemma. The community is the individuals and the relationships between them. It's not just the individuals necessarily.

If preserving a sense of justice in the community required the imprisonment of an individual who was a threat to the society, it might be unjust to that individual to deny them the opportunity to live outside the society. Ideally, the society itself is reward enough that isolation would be a punishment itself. So maybe ideally solutions involve sacrificing neither the community or the individual.

In the absence of ideal situations, should we choose the individual or the collective? Should it be a case by case basis? I like a case by case basis.

If one individual felt threatened by the presence of electricity in his community, he has a legitimate claim. You're risking his safety (irrational only according to whom?) for the benefit of having electricity, which is great. I think it's naive to suggest we don't sacrifice individuals for the collective.

Sacrificing the ability for me, evil and crazy as I am, to stab you, is an infringement of my freedoms. I might like to be able to stab everyone I want with no consequences. To conceptualize individualism as purely negative in a libertarian sense is misleading. We already sacrifice individuals because they are acting "wrongly."

The issue is should we sacrifice individuals who did nothing wrong simply to improve the collective. If it maximized utility, could we sacrifice innocent people to harvest their organs? Utilitarians always like to escape situations like this. They tend to argue that some grander more long-term rationality makes this a bad idea. I don't know about that. If you do that, I think you're just a moral intuitionist. Whatever you think is right is, and then you justify it using utilitarianism and complex reasoning ability.

Can I sacrifice innocent little Johnny so 4 other people live? As a greater principle, he rolled the odds. He had a greater chance of needing a transplant than being killed. The pain from dieing is negligible because of sedatives.

Something still seems troubling about a case like this. However, would I be mad if someone eliminated my 1% chance of drowning by giving me a 1 % chance of dying by sedative. Not really.

Would I be pissed if I got chosen to be chopped of for organs? Probably. Would I run away and try to avoid it? Probably. However, that seems to be a testament to our selfishness rather than our morality. Socrates died on purpose for such reasons. I hated him for it, though.

I'd like to say that in the long run, it's a bad idea to sacrifice individuals. I'd like to use the typical escapism most utilitarians use. In the end, I really have no clue. The same type of argues are used against stealing from capitalists. "Stealing." Whether they deserve it or not, taking their wealth will upset them. They don't know anything they are doing is wrong (they aren't evil maniacs). Therefore, why harm them simply to maximize utility.

I don't see how someone can justify revolutionary politics without being somewhat collectivist in the long-run. I think we value individualism because it's our nature, and we should value it even though society would function better without individuality, most likely. The problem is individuality exist intrinsically, I believe. Therefore, we better find some middle ground.

[LOLseph Stalin]

I would say I'm borderline between the two. Sure, the collective is good, but there needs to be room for some individual freedom as well. Actions which benefit all should be phased, but many actions done individually shouldn't be condemned. For example, not everybody likes abortion or homosexual relationships. This can cause problems for alot of people, but if it makes those particular individuals happy to be in a gay relationship or get an abortion then let them go through with it. As most other people here would probably say, individual freedom should be limited on the basis of crime or exploiting others for profit. People can't just go running around murdering other people and such.

[scarletghoul]

Individual!
The whole point of community is to help individuals

[AnthArmo]

Just a quick point.

But the Nolan chart places Leftists as Socially Individualist and Economically Collectivist.

Which makes perfect sense for me. Economics and Labour is a Collective activity. Its the whole reason we come together as a society in the first place, so it would only be logical that we don't allow certain individuals the freedom to exploit others.

[Dervish]

Just a quick point.

But the Nolan chart places Leftists as Socially Individualist and Economically Collectivist.

Which makes perfect sense for me. Economics and Labour is a Collective activity. Its the whole reason we come together as a society in the first place, so it would only be logical that we don't allow certain individuals the freedom to exploit others.

But we won't allow individuals to rape or murder other individuals aswell - and these are social actions.

[WhitemageofDOOM]

I'm going to go with "How the fuck do you separate the two?"

A community is a group of individuals that join together for mutual benefit. There is no existance of the community other than through the individuals that comprise it, and as social animals our group affilitations is the core of our lives.


Utilitarians always like to escape situations like this. They tend to argue that some grander more long-term rationality makes this a bad idea. I don't know about that. If you do that, I think you're just a moral intuitionist. Whatever you think is right is, and then you justify it using utilitarianism and complex reasoning ability.

Can I sacrifice innocent little Johnny so 4 other people live? As a greater principle, he rolled the odds. He had a greater chance of needing a transplant than being killed. The pain from dieing is negligible because of sedatives.

Arguably. But i do have an answer for this. "Social Contract"
"Ok, so is everyone in preference that we not kill each other for organ harvesting to save more lives? Yes? Even if it's you or your loved ones? Ok good, greater utility is served by not harvesting people."

Seriously, shit like this is why rule utilitarianism exists. Perfect acts based utilitarianism is fundamentally impossible, utilitarianisms best use in the hands of humans is as a way to create the underlying moral and social framework of society.

[Trystan]

The individual. But as Aristotle (was it?) said, man is a social animal and if the society is bad, s/he will be unable to flourish. But I did vote for individual - I think that they should be able to choose their own paths ultimately . . .

[Schrödinger's Cat]

Unless human populations were reduced to one, I think it's a false dichotomy.

[Dooga Aetrus Blackrazor]

Arguably. But i do have an answer for this. "Social Contract"
"Ok, so is everyone in preference that we not kill each other for organ harvesting to save more lives? Yes? Even if it's you or your loved ones? Ok good, greater utility is served by not harvesting people."

Seriously, shit like this is why rule utilitarianism exists. Perfect acts based utilitarianism is fundamentally impossible, utilitarianisms best use in the hands of humans is as a way to create the underlying moral and social framework of society.

The greater good is the issue here. And yes, I am saying under this view, you would allow your family members to die. Here is the consideration.

If you had cancer and could give it to a stranger, it's unethical.
If you are living and your death will save multiple people, it's unethical because you're trading 1 life for those of many.

You can't actively or passively let people die (they are the same thing with respect to consequences). You have to way the circumstances.

Consider the family members case. Without the organ donation policy, you have a 25% of needing an organ and a 5% chance of dieing due to the policy. If you can reduce your odds of death by 20%, let's say, it's pragmatic to do so.

Across the population, the odds of death are decreased by 20%. It seems rational for everyone to enter. Then you have the person who died. Let's say they were gambling. They agreed to pay if they lost, and, by bad luck, they did. Now they don't want to pay? They seem to have a moral obligation to uphold their agreement.

Rule Utilitarianism is problematic because utilitarians do not believe in inherent rights. Everything comes from pleasure and pain. Therefore, every action has to conform to "maximizing utility." If the presence of rules maximizes utility, it's the same thing as act utilitarianism.

We still have to show why a rule that prevents this kind of arrangement does not maximize utility in the long-run. If it does, we have to agree that such an action is morally justifiable.

In the Death of Socrates (Plato's Apology I believe), Socrates actually utilizes this kind of reasoning to justify his death. In that case, he was upholding a contract despite that arguably not maximizing utility. If it did maximize utility, what would we say of Socrates?

Perhaps freedom is the greater good, here. However, if you made the organ donation system voluntary, everyone should rationally agree as it reduces the chance of death. Therefore, is it still problematic?

[RMHaggis]

im with the community...for now and future society being that you cant have 'society' without it being a community of people (im not sure if that makes sense i know what i mean...) and i think the needs of the masses are more important than the needs of the individual, i.e in 100 people 2 think mudering is good 98 dont so you decide overall its bad and outlaw it, laymans terms mabye but thats basically how i see it

[fiddlesticks]

In a perfect world, whats good for the individual is good for the community.

[Ned Flanders]

I don´t see any antagonism between the two. a society is nothing but a collection of individuals, but for the basic needs of each individual to be fullfilled he needs to be a part of a community. So the individual and the community can´t be separated. Still I despise phrases like "the greater good" or "the interests of the whole". In a class society, the ruling class always presents it´s private interests as something that "benefits everyone".

[Pogue]

I am the most important. For everyone.

[Steve_j]

In a perfect world, whats good for the individual is good for the community.

I was going to put it the pther way around... but yeah either way works

[Pol Pot]

I would have to say both are equally important because humans are both individual and social beings. Although we would not 100% identify with just anybody and any idea we would identify with those that we can find the most sense in and we can identify with those people we care about and connect with.

You cannot create a nice community if people cant express their individuallity in any level although you also cannot let community be destroyed just because people dissagree on some things. :thumbup:

[Luís Henrique]

:confused: :huh:

There are no "communities" that aren't composed of individuals, nor are there any individuals that are not part of society.

The egg, or the chicken?

Luís Henrique

[Radical]

Humanity must come first before anything.

Fuck anybody who believes otherwise

[Comrade Anarchist]

They are both important because its 1984 without the individual and without the collective people can rise above and master others

[Comrade Akai]

The pieces are only as good as the whole, and vice versa.

[gla22]

Both are important and there needs to be balance between the two. I think it is a farther left society that provides a healthy balance.

[berlitz23]

Well if communism and marxism ostensibly wants to extirpate and eradicate any individual tendencies, then I would immediately disassociate from its oppressive and spurious ideology: Community First. Now I am a huge advocate of community, yet I think "Difference" should be of paramount concern in terms of how we should affirm, recognize and embrace it in all shapes, form, presences, rather than simply follow the dialectical notion of the other and negation. I think we should stress individuality as much as possible and many of you will scold and scope on my keywords "stress" "as much as possible" but it is integral through individuals that we could work collectively through our heterogenous mindsets and cogitations to find an equilibrium. Can I outline and delineate that concept on a macro-level? No but personally working with people on community events, I find it rewarding when someone personally offers and pitches ideas in a totally new and innovative light that benefits and enhances the entire configuration of the charity or event. Now I fathom that is a micro and minute example of how individual and community are symmetrical, yet I think if we make concerted efforts to eliminate anything that is incongrous with community policies then we have planted the seed for hiearchy, marginalization and fascist outlook. Rather, we should attempt to understand each of our individual perspectives, characteristics, abilities,differences and make an ensemble effort to find common ground and balance on some level. There is a tone of compromise in what i say, as i grasp that my views are prone to be a bit chimerical and like many flawed yet it is difficult for me and others to demarcate the boundaries for what we want as a "healthy balance."

[Orange Juche]

The needs of the community and individual are, in my opinion, equal and symbiotic. We can not have a society that truly respects and enhances the needs of the community without doing such for the individual, and vice versa.