When is the individual NOT the end all be all?

[a completely inoffensive name]

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I am curious as to where and for what reasons people draw the line for moral/economic questions on when "the self" is superseded by another entity ( be it government, society at large or another individual).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

[Sarmatian]

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.

[Montmorency]

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 all-yall" attitude.

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

[Fragony]

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.

[Husar]

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.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

When it's about an idea?

[The Lurker Below]

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.

[Gregoshi]

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.