|
Does the collective value of a group, nation, etc outweigh and carry more importance than an individual's value?
It may at first simply occur to you that the answer should be obvious - a collective group has more value and thus should be more important than any one individual. But is this really the case? (I think the question can be answered different through various grounds such as philosophy, moral-ethics, etc depending on the specifics)
I am just curious to hear what most people here would think of this.
Poll: Which is of greater importance?Depends on the circumstance (23) 45% Collective (14) 27% Individual (13) 25% They are both equal (1) 2% 51 total votes Your vote: Which is of greater importance? (Vote): Collective
(Vote): Individual
(Vote): They are both equal
(Vote): Depends on the circumstance
What led me to think of this was reading about our (US + western world) involvement in the arab regions (iraq, afghanistan, libya, etc). We know that with an invasion comes some unfortunate accidents such as civilian deaths through bombings, shootings, etc. So is it okay for us to do such things for whatever reasons? From what I can infer through lot of readings and random probing through such related threads is that the reasons for an invasion can be personal (9/11), obviously very political, strong interests involved (oil?), or maybe even just to be that 'good samaritan' and help a struggling nation rid itself of its dictator-government.
Lets say our involvements there are for the good of the country - our priority is to save the nation and improve it (whatever that means). Is it okay to do so at the cost of accidental civilian killings? So for the collective-good of that country, is it okay that many individuals die (and furthermore causing more pain and suffering to their friends and relatives)?
Okay. Obviously my example isn't the only one out there that has to do with this whole collective vs individual debate but i think it makes for a decent one. I'm really curious to see what other kinds of examples you guys can bring up and I'm sure there's going to be many replies arguing for either end, all of which could make a lot of sense. (my god, we live in such a gray world. hardly anything is black and white).
and to end it all, another entirely random question that is completely irrelevant to this thread but it provides some more food for thought:
Many people hold themselves of most importance, and they'll choose themselves to live instead of others if they had a chance. Obviously we all hold our lives to be important. If we are so important to ourselves, why is it so difficult to keep certain promises to ourselves? (eg. making a promise to ourselves to quit cigarettes).
|
If led well I think the collective group has more power. But only through they active thought and participation of many individuals. Not just blind following. If a group can blend the might of many hands with the insight of many individual minds then it will be successful in any endeavor.
|
Without individuals with clear minds and direction, we would have no idea where to put our feet, since leaders condense opinion into an entity, make sense of the minds of the people. Individual wealth has the highest value of all, since our society respects individuals much more so than organizations, politicians more than countries.
|
Collective value doesn't exist as far as I'm concerned. What is called collective value is just the individual value of multiple individuals, i.e. individual value.
|
This is extremely biased as western views are mainly individualistic.
Although I believe it would depend on the circumstances, collective should usually trump the individual.
|
I find your phrasing of this issue very confusing, but it sounds like you're after the deontology/consequentialism debate. If your interested in more examples, here are some classic thought experiments that bring out the dispute:
Trolley 1: A trolley is heading down a track on which 5 people are tied. It will kill them if it stays on the track. Ought you turn the trolley on to a neighboring track on which only 1 person is tied (he'll die)?
Trolley 2: A trolley is heading down a track on which 5 people are tied. It will kill them if it continues, but you can stop the trolley by throwing a fat person standing next to you onto the track (you are not massive enough for sacrificing yourself to be helpful). Also, he'll die if you do so in case you didn't realize.
Trolley 3: No trolley involved, but similar idea. Is it moral to kill a random person (but known to have suitable organs) and harvest his or her organs, saving 5 people that need transplants.
Generally, people think that it is right to save 5 at the cost of 1 in the first case, but not in the second and third cases. This is a problem for consequentialism (which on your distinction values collective value) because the results of your actions in each of the cases is the same. If our feelings are reliable here, they thus seem to support deontology (which you can gloss as supporting individual values).
edit: grammar. Also, these examples are primarily due to Philippa Foot. The distinction talked about is the typical terminology used in analytic philosophy.
|
I think that any attempt to say that collective value is more valuable than individual value is erroneous. We cannot say which one is more valuable, for to do so would involve presupposing why one of these is valuable. But no such valid objective procedure can tell us which one it is, for all values are subjective. To attempt to say that one is more valuable than the other would require us to derive a value from a fact.
We might say: IF the collective group is more valuable than the individual, THEN we should value the collective group more. But such a notion is circular. And if we try to say it objectively... "The collective group IS more valuable than the individual, therefore we ought to value the collective group more." Then I might ask how you determined this objective truth. For certainly not everyone agrees with you. Nor can they, since value is a subjective term. Nor is such an ought logically entailed from the "objective" premise.
For example: Violence aids in our survival. Violence is valuable, or violence is more valuable than peace, therefore, we ought to value violence. Such a conclusion is nonsense, we only value violence IF we value our survival and such survival is required by violence. How are we ever qualified to say that violence is objectively more valuable than peace? Even if you argue specific cases in which peace prevailed over violence, I can always point out specific cases in which violence prevailed over peace. Generalizing, therefore, can never get to the heart of morality.
|
It's clear that some value a collective has goes beyond the sum value of the individuals comprising the group. But it's also clear that collectives lose some value that individuals in the collective would otherwise have. Deciding which has more value, collectives or individuals, is completely dependent on the circumstance.
|
United States78 Posts
Not sure how much I like the poll. When discussing how to run a civil society, the interests of collective the interests of the individual are often entwined. When everyone chips in to build a road, each individual sacrifice produces benefit on both the personal and public scale. I guess the 'Depends on the circumstance' answer is the better one, but it seems like the question sort of implies a zero sum game in which those interests are always at odds. I suppose the war example kind of is since someone dies, but at the same time we can ask whether they might die anyway at the hands of their current political system. I dunno, it seems to be a case of reducing a very complex issue into a very simple question.
|
I have to add my collective yawn. It's not an either-or, my answer doesn't definitively describe my character, and only in fairy tales are young wizards tricked into sacrificing themselves, except not really, to save all of the others from he-who-must-not-be-named-because-it-sounds-made-up.
|
On October 06 2011 08:58 PraetorialGamer wrote:
Without individuals with clear minds and direction, we would have no idea where to put our feet, since leaders condense opinion into an entity, make sense of the minds of the people. Individual wealth has the highest value of all...
Well put, I agree.
edit: Here is how I see it. The collective opinion more often than not WILL BE the majority of the individuals opinions, so, much of the time there isn't a problem. However, if there is some large difference, then it would most likely go to key individuals who have understandings of the subject, and a collective opinion from select individuals would be heard. So as it seems, you cannot have one without the other.
|
There is no such thing as a "collective".
A collective is an abstraction we use to mentally represent groups of individuals. They're imaginary, they don't exist. They're just people grouped together, often because of some arbitrary factor (skin color, etc). In the case of political collectives, they're simply a collection of individuals who agree on certain ideals or plans, often because they think those ideals or plans will benefit themselves (the individual). Often these plans involve taking advantage of "the other" - a different collective, deemed hostile, IE "the rich"... or "the Jews" (Godwin's law lulz). Collective logic ignores that ALL calculations take place at the individual level, and all effects are felt at the level of individuals.
Without individual rights there are no rights. Without individual value there is no collective "value". Without individuals there couldn't even be an imaginary "collective" at all.
|
We are all individuals and should be valued as such.Collective value has been used as an excuse for many of the worst attrocities.
Collective value can justify the enslaving of a minority race by the majority race.
It can justify the expropriation of the property of a religious minority by the religious majority.
It can then justify the enslavement and/or killing of that religious minority.
If you do not believe in individual rights then you cannot claim to believe in minority rights.
|
On October 06 2011 09:49 meadbert wrote:
We are all individuals and should be valued as such.Collective value has been used as an excuse for many of the worst attrocities.
Collective value can justify the enslaving of a minority race by the majority race.
It can justify the expropriation of the property of a religious minority by the religious majority.
It can then justify the enslavement and/or killing of that religious minority.
If you do not believe in individual rights then you cannot claim to believe in minority rights.
Boom, well put.
|
Imagine a society of 300 people...
100 productive
200 non productive
The productive people want to keep the fruits of their own labour. You know how it ends. The people has spoken, theft was okay by 2/3rds of the population after all.
|
On October 06 2011 09:50 brain_ wrote:Show nested quote +On October 06 2011 09:49 meadbert wrote:
We are all individuals and should be valued as such.Collective value has been used as an excuse for many of the worst attrocities.
Collective value can justify the enslaving of a minority race by the majority race.
It can justify the expropriation of the property of a religious minority by the religious majority.
It can then justify the enslavement and/or killing of that religious minority.
If you do not believe in individual rights then you cannot claim to believe in minority rights.
Boom, well put.
I agree with this one.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
no. but more importantly, do not see this as an either or situation. genuine collective values are the product of collective action, which is quite a strange concept to some.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
