Society vs the Individual? Which side do you take?

[Sunstone]

One of the oldest conflicts known to history -- a conflict that almost certainly predates written history -- is the conflict between the needs and wants of the individual, and the needs and wants of society.

For most of history, I believe, complex societies have (with some exceptions) erred somewhat in favor of the collective. That is, they have prioritized the needs of society over the needs of the individual, except perhaps in the case of social and political elites (Social and political elites have tended to be more individualistic than communal oriented in most places at most times). Hunting/gathering groups -- the social groups we evolved to live in -- on the other hand, seem to have often enough struck a more even balance between the individual and the group than the balance struck by complex societies.

However, in contemporary America, a large percentage of the general population today seems to have taken individualism to absurd lengths. See, for instance, the very popular "philosophy" of Ayn Rand (perhaps only relatively philosophically ignorant Americans would consider her musings to constitute a genuine philosophy). The predominance of popular notions that we are in almost no way obliged to society for any significant measure of our well being is one of the more bizarre and telling inanities of our times.

I myself believe there is a dynamic balance to be struck between the needs of the individual and the needs of society. Fundamentally, I somewhat favor the individual in so far as I think the balance should be informed by the notion that the needs of society should be prioritized only to the extent that doing so is ultimately beneficial and/or necessary for the well being and flourishing of individuals. I tend to think that giving as much reign as possible to individuals promotes healthy individuals -- and healthy societies. This is because I believe that almost the highest goal in life is to be authentic, true to yourself, and that being true to yourself is greatly discouraged when societies become unnecessarily oppressive.

By the way, it seems to me societies have usually become unnecessarily oppressive because of the greed of individuals (e.g. elites) for more wealth and power than they need or can fruitfully use.

So, which side do you usually take? The side of society or the side of the individual? Do you try to strike some balance between the two? If so, according to what principle(s)?

Your questions, observations, mouth frothing rants, false accusations, and irrelevant comments please!

 

[Twilight Hue]

I go for a balance. I think individual freedom of movement and pursuit of happiness is important, yet the benefits of society are invaluable. So I think a mix of willingness and subservience benefits both.

 

[Jumi]

Individual comes first, but when individuals start forcing other individuals it's society's time to punish the transgressors.

 

[bobhikes]

So, which side do you usually take? The side of society or the side of the individual? Do you try to strike some balance between the two? If so, according to what principle(s)?

Your questions, observations, mouth frothing rants, false accusations, and irrelevant comments please!

The issue is part of the individuals needs require society. The easiest way for me to balance it is to do on to others as I wish them to do on to me.

 

[Stevicus]

One of the oldest conflicts known to history -- a conflict that almost certainly predates written history -- is the conflict between the needs and wants of the individual, and the needs and wants of society.

For most of history, I believe, complex societies have (with some exceptions) erred somewhat in favor of the collective. That is, they have prioritized the needs of society over the needs of the individual, except perhaps in the case of social and political elites (Social and political elites have tended to be more individualistic than communal oriented in most places at most times). Hunting/gathering groups -- the social groups we evolved to live in -- on the other hand, seem to have often enough struck a more even balance between the individual and the group than the balance struck by complex societies.

However, in contemporary America, a large percentage of the general population today seems to have taken individualism to absurd lengths. See, for instance, the very popular "philosophy" of Ayn Rand (perhaps only relatively philosophically ignorant Americans would consider her musings to constitute a genuine philosophy). The predominance of popular notions that we are in almost no way obliged to society for any significant measure of our well being is one of the more bizarre and telling inanities of our times.

I myself believe there is a dynamic balance to be struck between the needs of the individual and the needs of society. Fundamentally, I somewhat favor the individual in so far as I think the balance should be informed by the notion that the needs of society should be prioritized only to the extent that doing so is ultimately beneficial and/or necessary for the well being and flourishing of individuals. I tend to think that giving as much reign as possible to individuals promotes healthy individuals -- and healthy societies. This is because I believe that almost the highest goal in life is to be authentic, true to yourself, and that being true to yourself is greatly discouraged when societies become unnecessarily oppressive.

By the way, it seems to me societies have usually become unnecessarily oppressive because of the greed of individuals (e.g. elites) for more wealth and power than they need or can fruitfully use.

So, which side do you usually take? The side of society or the side of the individual? Do you try to strike some balance between the two? If so, according to what principle(s)?

Your questions, observations, mouth frothing rants, false accusations, and irrelevant comments please!

I think society has gotten so complex and interdependent that it's next to impossible for an individual to live completely on his/her own. It was different back in times when someone could simply leave their town with a horse and a few tools, live off the land, build a cabin or farm, and be able to survive or even flourish. There were a lot fewer people back then, along with a lot more land which was relatively undisturbed and unclaimed.

There may be a few who can live like that nowadays. I've known some people who live out in the sticks, grow their own food, and try to live "off the grid." But there are very few people who actually want to live like that. Most people seemingly want a spouse and children, too, so true individualism and self-sufficiency go straight out the window at that point. In today's modern industrial urban society, economic and material individualism is an illusion. It's virtually impossible and unfeasible for most urban dwellers.

 

[LionLooking]

Society comes first.
Self-interest often causes hardship for others. If we work together for the common good, everyone benefits.
Having said that, we should all be free to pursue happiness - just as long as no one else suffers as a result.

 

[Grandliseur]

One of the oldest conflicts known to history -- a conflict that almost certainly predates written history -- is the conflict between the needs and wants of the individual, and the needs and wants of society.

For most of history, I believe, complex societies have (with some exceptions) erred somewhat in favor of the collective. That is, they have prioritized the needs of society over the needs of the individual, except perhaps in the case of social and political elites (Social and political elites have tended to be more individualistic than communal oriented in most places at most times). Hunting/gathering groups -- the social groups we evolved to live in -- on the other hand, seem to have often enough struck a more even balance between the individual and the group than the balance struck by complex societies.

However, in contemporary America, a large percentage of the general population today seems to have taken individualism to absurd lengths. See, for instance, the very popular "philosophy" of Ayn Rand (perhaps only relatively philosophically ignorant Americans would consider her musings to constitute a genuine philosophy). The predominance of popular notions that we are in almost no way obliged to society for any significant measure of our well being is one of the more bizarre and telling inanities of our times.

I myself believe there is a dynamic balance to be struck between the needs of the individual and the needs of society. Fundamentally, I somewhat favor the individual in so far as I think the balance should be informed by the notion that the needs of society should be prioritized only to the extent that doing so is ultimately beneficial and/or necessary for the well being and flourishing of individuals. I tend to think that giving as much reign as possible to individuals promotes healthy individuals -- and healthy societies. This is because I believe that almost the highest goal in life is to be authentic, true to yourself, and that being true to yourself is greatly discouraged when societies become unnecessarily oppressive.

By the way, it seems to me societies have usually become unnecessarily oppressive because of the greed of individuals (e.g. elites) for more wealth and power than they need or can fruitfully use.

So, which side do you usually take? The side of society or the side of the individual? Do you try to strike some balance between the two? If so, according to what principle(s)?

Your questions, observations, mouth frothing rants, false accusations, and irrelevant comments please!

That's impossible to answer unless you go very specific. In general, it has no definitive answer, imo. If you think that I would answer in the affirmative if someone like Mr. T. was president on society, I would have to be insane.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

I chose balance, but that's kind of a cop-out, since people's opinion of 'balance' varies.
Still, in the interests of clarifying, I favour empathetic behaviours, which tends to be more favourable to a collective, but prefer to give the individual choice where they are not causing direct harm.

 

[PureX]

I think society has gotten so complex and interdependent that it's next to impossible for an individual to live completely on his/her own. It was different back in times when someone could simply leave their town with a horse and a few tools, live off the land, build a cabin or farm, and be able to survive or even flourish. There were a lot fewer people back then, along with a lot more land which was relatively undisturbed and unclaimed.

There may be a few who can live like that nowadays. I've known some people who live out in the sticks, grow their own food, and try to live "off the grid." But there are very few people who actually want to live like that. Most people seemingly want a spouse and children, too, so true individualism and self-sufficiency go straight out the window at that point. In today's modern industrial urban society, economic and material individualism is an illusion. It's virtually impossible and unfeasible for most urban dwellers.

"Individualism" as a way of life has always been little more than a selfish fantasy for the vast majority of humans. Because most of us, as you've pointed out, don't want to live alone even if they could. And yet this fantasy of being a self-sustaining individual still persists, and all the more-so as our culture becomes more complex and inter-dependent. And it has reached the point of a delusional obsession.

And this delusional obsession with seeing ourselves as self-sustaining individuals, something that we clearly are NOT, is driving our insane obsession with guns, our insane obsession with pathological and systematized greed, our insane disregard for the well-being of our fellow humans, and our insane obsession with imposing our delusional philosophical self-image on the world around us.

I have always been puzzled by the fact that our most famous founding document proclaimed that every human being has an unalienable right to life, liberty, and the opportunity to pursue their own happiness, and yet even the men that wrote that, and most of the citizens of the nation then established, did not believe, or live, as if it were true. And instead, they lived by the darwinian ideal that no one owes anyone else, anything. That we have no right to life (or a living). That we have no rights at all that the state, and the powerful and wealthy elite that control it, doesn't oversee and bestow upon us.

If we really believed in the human right to life, we would have universal health care. If we really believed in the right to liberty we would have understood that it can only come with equality, and an active responsibility to each other. And if we really believed in the right of humans to pursue their happiness, we would not have created whole subclasses of people in our society being denied access to good basic and higher education. Even the founders, themselves, enslaved their fellow humans.

It is this insane obsession with self that ultimately destroys us as individuals, and that ultimately destroys us as a cooperative collective species. Because in reality, we are an inter-dependent cooperative. And as our delusions of selfishness have continued to blind us to this aspect of our own reality, it has brought down every attempt at civilization in human history. And when that attempt becomes truly global in scale and effect, and it fails yet again, I suspect it will be the last.

 

[Revoltingest]

Without supremacy of the individual, society is 2
wolves & a sheep voting on what to do for lunch.

 

[Stevicus]

"Individualism" has always been little more than a selfish fantasy for the vast majority of human. As most humans, as you've pointed out, don't want to live alone even if they could. And yet this fantasy of being a self-sustaining individual still persist, and all the more-so as our culture does become more complex and inter-dependent. And it has reached the point of near delusional obsession.

And this delusional obsession with seeing ourselves and self-sustaining individuals, something that we clearly are NOT, is driving our insane obsession with guns, our insane obsession with pathological and systematized greed, our insane disregard for the well-being of our fellow humans, and out insane obsession with imposing our delusional philosophical self-image on the world around us.

I have always been puzzled by the fact that our most famous founding document proclaimed that every human being has an unalienable right to life, liberty, and the opportunity to pursue their own happiness, and yet even the men that wrote that, and most of the citizens of the nation then established, did not believe, or live, as if it were true. And instead, they lived by the darwinian ideal that no one owes anyone else, anything. That we have no right to life (or a living). That we have no rights at all that the state doesn't oversee and allow us.

If we really believe in the human right to life, we would have universal health care. If we really believed in the right to liberty we would have understood that it can only come with equality, and a responsibility to each other. And if we really believed in the right of humans to pursue their happiness, we would not have created whole subclasses of of people in our society being denied access to good basic and higher education. Even the founders, themselves, enslaved their fellow humans.

It will be this insane selfishness that will ultimately destroy us as individuals, and as a species. As it has brought down every attempt at civilization in human history. And when that attempt becomes truly global in scale and effect, and it fails yet again, it will be the last.

Good post, and I agree with you.

On further reflection, I wonder if it's really "individualism" that people actually want. I think what people want in the US is social recognition by others about how great they are. They don't actually want to live alone in the wilderness, but their pride and vanity lead them into wanting the accolades and recognition of having "achieved" something or being a "self-made man," as some might put it. Individualism is often interpreted as being unique, or standing out from the crowd of "nobodies." In a highly competitive society like ours, it also means thinking of oneself as better than all the rest, as it is common for people to seek out status symbols of wealth and success. That seems to be what the Ayn Rand "individualists" are all about, the idea that "I'm better than others" and "I'm worth it."

But that's not true individualism, since it still relies on the ego gratification derived from being better than others.

I think of this when I see the imagery common in our popular culture. We think of the typical rags-to-riches story which carry the lesson that America is such a great place where hard work, persistence, and ambition will pay off, and those who are at the bottom deserve it because they are "lesser human beings." Winning is everything, and let the losers rot. This is our philosophy. It's based on a just world fallacy.

Even in movies and TV, how many stories are there about the rugged individualist, such as the Old West gunfighter who single-handedly destroys the gang of outlaws and saves the town of helpless, ungrateful people who are ostensibly too stupid, weak, and cowardly to band together to save themselves. The idea is conditioned into people's heads from a very young age that they need the lone gunfighter, the Jedi Knight, "The One" single individual who will save them and protect them from evil. It seems to tie in to the idea of destiny and that we need some "Chosen One" to be some sort of messiah.

The mentality of individualism even seems to affect how people understand history and the reality of the world in which they live, both in the positive and the negative. Our understanding of reality seems to revolve vicariously around individuals, both evil and good, as being the drivers of human history and the creators of our society. Some people might pose hypothetical questions like "What if Hitler had never lived?" Such a view dismisses the causes and effects of history and puts events in the hands of a few single individuals who make or break everything.

Even nowadays, even here in this forum, I see thread after thread about Trump, as if this one single individual human being is the focus of all that his happening in this country. I personally have grown frustrated at the immense cognitive dissonance which goes on whenever I see these discussions where people ignore everything else and think "it's all about Trump." I saw the same mentality at work when people talked about Saddam Hussein, or when they talk about Putin or Kim Jung Un. People draw the wrong conclusions about history and the realities of this world because they've been so heavily conditioned and inculcated with this idea about "individualism."

The contradiction is humorously depicted in this scene:

Brian: Look, you've got it all wrong! You don't need to follow me. You don't need to follow anybody! You've got to think for yourselves! You're all individuals!
Crowd: [in unison] Yes! We're all individuals!
Brian: You're all different!
Crowd: [in unison] Yes, we are all different!
Man in crowd: I'm not...
Crowd: Shhh!

One guy in the crowd actually gets it, while the rest are just like lemmings. That sums up the idea of "individualism" in today's society.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

For most of history, I believe, complex societies have (with some exceptions) erred somewhat in favor of the collective.

Could you offer some examples? It seems to me that for most of history society has been highly asymmetric and that what we've seen is, on the one hand, efforts to mitigate the reach of the rich and powerful and, on the other, the collapse of those efforts.

 

[Quintessence]

This is interesting to think about, because the side I prioritize is actually a third, unmentioned side that probably needs mentioning much more often. Humans think it is all about them and ignore the rest of the world when considering what they do. This, especially now, has got to stop. Above and beyond all the other human squabbling, humans need to start minding the rest of the world and how their behaviors impact it. Not just for their own selfish sake, but because one species being the driver of a mass extinction is so ethically reprehensible I have no adequate term to describe it.

I suppose if I must be anthropocentric about it, my focus on the rest of the world means I tend to focus on the broader community. In the context of humans, that translates to a focus on human societies, not human individuals. But framing this as "taking sides" in general just strikes me as wrong. There are no sides - everything is interconnected, everything is part of planet earth. There is no considering human individuals without considering human societies, and there is no considering human societies without considering ecological communities. It is all interrelated, and failure to address all levels is not a wise course.

 

[Sunstone]

Could you offer some examples? It seems to me that for most of history society has been highly asymmetric and that what we've seen is, on the one hand, efforts to mitigate the reach of the rich and powerful and, on the other, the collapse of those efforts.

That seems to me spot on.

Unfortunately, my remarks were rather confusing. I had in mind how the elites in most societies have tended to represent themselves, their interests, wills, and so forth as the interests, wills, etc of society. And also how they have tended to rally significant chunks of the people around their "views" so that there can be at least some substance to their claim to represent society. Thus, when I said that I believe complex societies have erred somewhat in favor of the collective, I meant that they have erred somewhat in favor of the rich and powerful elites who, for the most part, control the societies, maintain the social order, and to one extent or another -- and too often unnecessarily -- oppress common individuals in the name of the people or society. That was rather clumsy of me. Perhaps I should have said that, through out the history of complex societies, the elites have tended to have the upper hand in oppressing the common person or individual, and that they have frequently done so while operating in the guise of society or some part of it.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

One of the oldest conflicts known to history -- a conflict that almost certainly predates written history -- is the conflict between the needs and wants of the individual, and the needs and wants of society.

For most of history, I believe, complex societies have (with some exceptions) erred somewhat in favor of the collective. That is, they have prioritized the needs of society over the needs of the individual, except perhaps in the case of social and political elites (Social and political elites have tended to be more individualistic than communal oriented in most places at most times). Hunting/gathering groups -- the social groups we evolved to live in -- on the other hand, seem to have often enough struck a more even balance between the individual and the group than the balance struck by complex societies.

However, in contemporary America, a large percentage of the general population today seems to have taken individualism to absurd lengths. See, for instance, the very popular "philosophy" of Ayn Rand (perhaps only relatively philosophically ignorant Americans would consider her musings to constitute a genuine philosophy). The predominance of popular notions that we are in almost no way obliged to society for any significant measure of our well being is one of the more bizarre and telling inanities of our times.

I myself believe there is a dynamic balance to be struck between the needs of the individual and the needs of society. Fundamentally, I somewhat favor the individual in so far as I think the balance should be informed by the notion that the needs of society should be prioritized only to the extent that doing so is ultimately beneficial and/or necessary for the well being and flourishing of individuals. I tend to think that giving as much reign as possible to individuals promotes healthy individuals -- and healthy societies. This is because I believe that almost the highest goal in life is to be authentic, true to yourself, and that being true to yourself is greatly discouraged when societies become unnecessarily oppressive.

By the way, it seems to me societies have usually become unnecessarily oppressive because of the greed of individuals (e.g. elites) for more wealth and power than they need or can fruitfully use.

So, which side do you usually take? The side of society or the side of the individual? Do you try to strike some balance between the two? If so, according to what principle(s)?

Your questions, observations, mouth frothing rants, false accusations, and irrelevant comments please!

IMO, the rights of the group or the society are derived from the rights of the individual. I don't believe in societal rights at all.

Where I disagree with the likes of Rand is that they ignore the rights of individuals (e.g. the right not to die of starvation if we can help it). Help for the poor and destitute - even when people are compelled to give it - is justified on the basis of individual rights: taxing me is less of an affront to individual me and my rights than letting someone starve would be an affront to them and their rights.

Sure, we need a social infrastructure and people will organize into groups for different reasons, but the rights of the government and these groups is derived from the rights of the individuals in them.

I reject the idea that some circumstance can benefit "society" while harming the people in it overall. The well-being of a society is tied to the well-being of the people in it.

 

[metis]

I voted for "both..." as the vast number of people on Earth are not living the lifestyle of a hermit but also that a "society" is made up of "individuals". Each society has to try and figure out what the best combination is for them, so a "one size fits all" approach would be nonsensical.

 

[Buddha Dharma]

Society. Because I think a healthy society includes an idea of individual that isn't extreme and is informed by a good education. We've taken individualism to an extreme.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Perhaps I should have said that, through out the history of complex societies, the elites have tended to have the upper hand in oppressing the common person or individual, and that they have frequently done so while operating in the guise of society or some part of it.

But to say that those in control tend to control and seek to protect and expand the means of control seems to say very little while focusing on the unremarkable at the expense of the remarkable, i.e., the fact that ...

The arc of the moral universe is long, but it bends toward justice. - Theodore Parker​

 

[syo]

we need a society with all it's citizens happy. and this is easy if we all see each other as brothers and sisters with jesus christ as our guide.

 

[Orbit]

I voted "both". The social contract is between social institutions and the individuals in them, and it should be for mutual benefit.