Is the individual more important than the collective?

In Better Angels, we call these red facts and blue facts. Tim and One Guy are using facts, oneguy is distorting them wildly. It’s kinda late for a dissertation though.
There's always another day to explain which facts I'm distorting.
OneGuy: “In an evolutionary sense the collective is more important, but evolution has also given rise individualism.”

What do you mean by “evolution”, why is the collective more important, and how does evolution, in the sense you mean, give rise to individualism?


I mean evolution like Darwin described. Collectivist societies are more well adapted by evolution to long term survival than individualist societies. However individualist societies – like the West – can develop in a certain environment. Here’s something I brought up months ago that might help https://centerforinquiry.org/forums/topic/if-you-love-liberal-democracy-thank-the-church/

I take it that individualism, that core value of liberalism, is not the same as that of the “lone wolf hardass” libertarian. Could you lay out the differences and critique them?
The libertarian idea is that everything begins and ends with the individual and nobody has the right to interfere with a person "being themselves". Others don't matter to the libertarian unless he wants them to matter. This is a more extreme version of the liberal idea -- which is that the individual matters more than the group he's part of but he doesn't matter more (or less) than other individuals; and he has a responsibility to others around him. This is basically our society.

I’m not aware if any truly libertarian societies have ever existed, and am skeptical one even could exist because it seems to violate every possible social arrangement. Libertarians seem to be found only in liberal societies.

Although leaving out the part of where Libertarians are rather skilled at ignoring physical and societal realities.

{I’ll still irritated at the Libertarian running for Colorado Governor a few years back. His solution for emptying the welfare rolls was opening up the National Forests to homesteading, worked so great in the 1880, why not try it again. I’m convinced he didn’t think it through. Still he spoke like he was dead serious. Always idealizing something that never was.

Although the real reason I feel such animosity is their propensity to lie about climate science and to ruthlessly slander honorable productive honest quality scientists, and how they’ve managed to help sabotage serious constructive public education on this critical topic for decades. Now we are witnessing the early consequences and they just double down on their disconnected deceptions.}

Citizen said: “Individualism shouldn’t be a license to disregard the society we are embedded within.”

Sree: “Well said. However, it is harder to practice your belief than to preach it, be it religion or secularism.”


Well yeah that’s true enough. Having a serious code of ethics and living up to it, and also facing up to failures, isn’t easy, but hey neither is life.

If you really want to feel good about yourself, especially as you get old and past your prime, stick to your values and fight to good fight during your prime, yeah at times it hurts, feel the burn, you can get through it.

Sure beats being a zombie.

 

Although, in today’s increasingly overcrowded, hostile world with it’s growing patches of dystopia, I have the feeling all of our age-old bets are off.

We’ve run out of new horizons and never learned to tame ourselves.

Thanks for clarifications. I have broken up your reply below into two paragraphs to separate the two ideologies: libertarianism and liberalism.

One guy: "The libertarian idea is that everything begins and ends with the individual and nobody has the right to interfere with a person “being themselves”. Others don’t matter to the libertarian unless he wants them to matter.

This is a more extreme version of the liberal idea — which is that the individual matters more than the group he’s part of but he doesn’t matter more (or less) than other individuals; and he has a responsibility to others around him. This is basically our society."

In contrast with the above two creeds, what, in your view, is the individual of conservatism that has been portrayed as the Marlboro man, that Clint Eastwood character who rides into town to free folks of a mess of their own making. You are not suggesting that this individualistic American hero is a libertarian and not a conservative, are you?

 

 

 

Just responding to the topic question, I think we know the answer from the “Wrath of Khan”:

“The needs of many outweigh the needs of the (one).” Spock

But we know from the “Search for Spock” that:

“Sometimes, the needs of the one outweighs the needs of the many.” Captain Kirk

Citizen: “Well yeah that’s true enough. Having a serious code of ethics and living up to it, and also facing up to failures, isn’t easy, but hey neither is life.”

It’s not difficult at all for me to live by my code of ethics without disregard for the society I am embedded in. I respect the public space and defer to others around me. I live in my own country among Americans in the same way I would, as a visitor in foreign lands. I mind my own business and keep my values to myself.

Just responding to the original question, without any consideration for anything posted past the thread title, that’s a very interesting question to ponder. I would say a brief answer would be “sometimes”. It really depends on the situation. When it comes to rights, yes, the individual is definitely more important than the whims of the collective. To give an example, a man marrying another man is a right individuals should have, even if the collective, who are not remotely affected by it, do not like the idea. When it comes to survival, however, the collective would be more important, in most cases. If you could kill one to save millions then millions are more important than one.

Would you go back in time and kill baby Hitler. I don’t know if I could do it.

Widdershin: “If you could kill one to save millions then millions are more important than one.”

This is a horrible thought. It makes sense if you do the math. There is more to life than logic and reason alone. The human being is not merely a biological organism like a rainbow trout priced at ten dollars a pound.

 

I couldn’t even go back in time and kill baby T rump, because of the possibility of getting the wrong baby. You see all babies look like T rump at the moment they poop.:

Tim: “Would you go back in time and kill baby Hitler. I don’t know if I could do it.”

Why would you even think of doing that? Do you believe that all the horrors of WW2 was the doing of one man? I prefer to see him as the last straw that broke the camel’s back. To go back in time to kill Hitler would be looking for a needle in that humongous haystack.

 

When Widdershins said “If you could kill one to save millions then millions are more important than one.” I thought of the common question that comes up in discussions about time travel: “Would you go back in time and kill baby Hitler?”

Have you never heard that before? If so, where have you been all of your life?

But perhaps you are just defending Hitler. If so, at least you are consistent with your predilection for autocratic types.

I am not defending Hitler, Tim. I feel we must all collectively take responsibility. You may feel good being guilt-free. Personal irresponsibility is destroying our world.

So T rump is great?And the rest of us are not taking personal responsibility for destroying the world?

How about supporting the forces of climate change denial? T rump doing that is fine? It is the rest of the world who are personally responsible for destroying the world?

(I have expressed that T rump is a dickwad for proclaiming that Global Warming is a hoax perpetrated by the Chinese.) And for his 85 (so far) anti-environmental actions since taking office? That is everyone’s responsibility except the person who is doing it?

If anyone anywhere has not taken personal responsibility for something, that makes the POTUS NOT responsible for anything bad that he does???

Excuse me, the POTUS is supposed to be more responsible for things than the rest of us. Especially since he is so rigorously abusing the power of his office. The traditional powers of the Presidency are not enough for T rump. He takes more power without heed for any precedent, ethics, traditions, and often without heed for laws. But he is the victim??? The rest of the world are deadbeats who don’t take personal responsibility for the crap that T rump does???

In contrast with the above two creeds, what, in your view, is the individual of conservatism that has been portrayed as the Marlboro man, that Clint Eastwood character who rides into town to free folks of a mess of their own making. You are not suggesting that this individualistic American hero is a libertarian and not a conservative, are you?
Haha, I don’t know. It’s hard to say since that’s a fictional character, but I’d guess he’s more libertarian than conservative.

Fictional character, you say? This Marlboro man is right now in town at the White House sorting out the mess in the USA. You think Donald Trump is more of a libertarian? I don’t think he is guided by any ideology. He turns on a dime, quick on the draw, and shoots from the hip. He is like no President that came before and therefore can’t be really called a Republican. One thing is certain, he is intent on taking down every man, woman, and anything in between, out to get him. He is doing great so far.

I am stocking up on popcorn for the next four years.

 

I think that the Marlboro Man died of lung cancer.

T rump is guided by the ideology of what is best for T rump at any given moment. I don’t think he is capable of having any consistent ideology beyond that.

Call him a Trumpublican, cause he took over the Republicans’ Party and commandeered any of their ideologies that might be useful to HIM and pissed on the rest.

He IS vindictive and DOES go after anyone who says things he doesn’t like. So when/if he wins the next election and actually becomes Dictator, we should all be ready to understand 1st hand, that freedom isn’t free. Except persons that lovingly, obsequiously, and eagerly kiss T rump’s ass. You who meet that criteria can get some popcorn and join Skree. Maybe flavored popcorn would be better to get the ubiquitous taste of T rump ass out of your mouth.

Fictional character, you say? This Marlboro man is right now in town at the White House sorting out the mess in the USA. You think Donald Trump is more of a libertarian? I don’t think he is guided by any ideology. He turns on a dime, quick on the draw, and shoots from the hip. He is like no President that came before and therefore can’t be really called a Republican. One thing is certain, he is intent on taking down every man, woman, and anything in between, out to get him. He is doing great so far.

I am stocking up on popcorn for the next four years.


Well, that’s a different take.

Trump doesn’t seem like the rugged individualist type — he’s more like an old school hustler, but you’re right that he is not an ideological guy.