When is the individual NOT the end all be all?

Open question to everyone in the backroom because I am curious as to where and for what reasons people draw the line for moral/economic questions on when "the self" is superseded by another entity ( be it government, society at large or another individual).

I personally feel that one of the biggest mistakes in American society is in thinking that for all problems facing society, the solution must be catering to individuals and the concept of individual moral supremacy over everything else. It actively breaks down critical linking factors in society that benefit society and ultimately makes for a more isolating and dystopian society for people. Convince me otherwise or tell me that I am not going far enough, I remain unconvinced of anything.

I agree with your position mostly and I don't think it's just a a problem in America, it's the problem in the entire western world. I remember having a talk with a Chinese guy about various issues and eventually he said that it was odd to him how westerners always introduce themselves by saying personal name first and family name after, because in China it is the other way around, as your family should be more important than you personally.

Recognizing the right of an individual is obviously very important, and is a very important part of democracy but for a long time I've been thinking we're pushing it a bit too much. Society is supposed to be empathic about an individual while the individual isn't supposed to be empathic about anyone else, be it the society, environment or other individuals.

We're being taught in schools that's it's all about us, what we want, what we're entitled to. I think there's truth in what JFK said "ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country". Cold war and political situation at the time aside, I think we forgot that principle. The word "country" can be exchanged with "local community, school, town, university, family...", it's not about nationalism, it's about principle.

We should be thinking more how our actions will affect everyone and everything around us, instead just how it will affect us.

Quote:

---

We should be thinking more how our actions will affect everyone and everything around us, instead just how it will affect us.

---

Of course, doing so is highly effective in terms of rational self-interest.

Dedicating effort toward communal maintenance and performing social-exchange analysis to improve the situations or feelings of other parties is much more effective personally in the long-term than a parasitical use-and-lose "I'm numero-uno, so :daisy: all-yall" attitude.

It's totally truistic, really; nevertheless, you should thank me for my lack of insight. :yes:

I draw the line where something can harm me or the people I love friends/family. Before that there is no 'me', I will take my loss in any conflict, I don't like conflicts, even if I can easily outdo someone looking for one. I hate agression and rudeness.

That's easy to answer:
Whenever it's not about me.

Here's a related debate I just saw: http://www.colbertnation.com/the-col...--robert-reich

I think a lot of things in society and law today are about benefitting the society and some of them are increasingly disliked by the individualists. Things such as taxes, where the individuals have their money taken away to benefit everyone. It's hard to say where I personally set the line but I agree that often the same people who complain about the loss of morals and community spirit were/are the ones driving absolute individualism in economic matters and believe if you're out of a job it's entirely your own fault and you deserve no help.

Environmental protection is an issue of this sort. I am not a pure environmentalist but when individuals can make more profit or simply have more convenience by throwing plastic into nature, which ends up in our honey, our drinking water and the fish we eat, then I think the community should have an interest and ability to punish individuals for doing this since this can cause great harm in the long run.

When it's about an idea?

Hmm, the notion of individual facing a community is in fact quite recent. Until the modern age, the worst punishment was not death penalty but banishment, to be excluded from the Community. To be a lonely knight roaming the Earth was not nice. Lonely Heroes is a modern concept.
The problem is to find a balance between the power of the Community, where all is about social link and acceptance of norms (so against individual rights to be different) and individualism that shouldn’t be selfishness.
The result is written Constitution and sets of Laws. Taxes are one of the aspect, and military duties. I choose these 2: Whereas it is fine for most of the politicians to evade taxes (or dodging as they say) as it is THEIR money as said the UK Prime Minister (but morality wrong he added), to escape Military Duty is punished much harsher (even if it is THEIR life).
So, we can see a line of separation in the notion of Individual and Community duties. Polluting freely is accepted in the case of industries even if it is at the risk of destroying the at the moment only eco-system supporting human life. The individual rights of companies trump the common right of Humanity.
However, the right for Individual to exist as individual is in danger in all cultures where you have to conform to the norm, often with death if you don’t, as gays in many countries do.

I don’t have an answer: I am a leftist, so I think it should be a limit to greed, i.e. it should have a maximum salary (manager can’t have more than 20 times the lowest salary in the company). And I speak of salary, then not yet of incomes (shares would be included in salaries). Some think you shouldn’t have a limit of greed and it is perfectly acceptable that some get per week what other get per year (within the same company).
My system would not prevent manager to have high salary if they are competent, it would insured that the lowest get a decent salary.
The others for free greed think that if there are limits on salaries and incomes, it will destroy the individual creativity and harm the most vulnerable as it will be no jobs at all for them. They are the pessimistic bench. For them the only motive for work is greed, not the satisfaction of doing the right things or the pleasure to do. That is why they attack the social system as you have to force people to do to work. Do note they recognise that work is not liberation but a harsh reality. This is a rupture with the Conservative Speech (and Left from the 19-20 Century) of the freedom and dignity by work, source of Forced Labour Camps where criminals were supposed to regain their dignity by working (cheaper indeed). But that is a digression.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by a completely inoffensive name

I personally feel that one of the biggest mistakes in American society is in thinking that for all problems facing society, the solution must be catering to individuals and the concept of individual moral supremacy over everything else.

---

I blame Kirk.



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hYvlhHPLzCA

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Husar

Things such as taxes, where the individuals have their money taken away to benefit everyone.

---

I agree with this and find it a pretty good summation. So any time you buy anything legally here, the individual is NOT the end all be all. Eating? Wearing clothes? Driving? Any of these activities, thanks to those taxes, benefit the whole as well as the individual.

You can probably find some gun-toting, wine-making, bombshelter-having, unshaven, half-a-sasquatch up in Idaho that defies it all, but drones are closing in on him/her this very moment.