NationStates Jolt Archive

I'm pretty sure I haven't seen this subject directly talked about and was just wondering about the split on NS.

I personally believe that the individual is more important than society (in general), and that society and its organisations are constructs designed for the betterment of the individuals and not 'society'. As such I believe my ideas would be more likely to produce a 'decadent' society, where individuals increasing allowed to indulge in 'non-productive' activities ie. activities that do not directly benefit the economic or technological productiveness of society. Whereas as world where society was viewed as more important would allow for rapid economic, technological and expansionist advancement, but at the cost of such extensive freedom of thought.

In general - a libertarian world vs a totalitarian world.

Your thoughts on the subject?

The individual is more important than society, but not supreme, for the society must also be important. For what is society but a collection of individuals?

The individual before all. For what is society but a collection of individuals?

The individual before all? So you'd support 1 person making a profit from smelting say copper, even if his waste ran into a town's water reservoir poisoning it?

As always, the best answer would be a compromise between the individual and society. However, the trouble is in finding that line, which will be different for everyone. Hence all wars and conflict ever!

The individual before all? So you'd support 1 person making a profit from smelting say copper, even if his waste ran into a town's water reservoir poisoning it?

As always, the best answer would be a compromise between the individual and society. However, the trouble is in finding that line, which will be different for everyone. Hence all wars and conflict ever!
Well, I'd agree to that, but I still tend to lean a lot more towards the individual.

Much like most conflicts, this is not an either/or. Both are important, and the situation determines which trumps the other.

The foolishness of dualism, living in a black and white world. It's either society or the individual, good or evil, liberal or conservative with no other options available which to me is either stupid or incredibly idiotic.

For what is society but a collection of individuals?

it is also the collection of (more or less) shared beliefs, institutions, technologies, worldviews, etc that are perpetuated in some form regardless of the particular individuals alive at the time. which isn't to say that society is above the individuals who carry those things in their heads or that it is static. but it is more than just a mass of individuals.

The foolishness of dualism, living in a black and white world. It's either society or the individual, good or evil, liberal or conservative with no other options available which to me is either stupid or incredibly idiotic.
Did I word it that way? I was trying to say that I just considered the Individual to be generally more important than society.

it is also the collection of (more or less) shared beliefs, institutions, technologies, worldviews, etc that are perpetuated in some form regardless of the particular individuals alive at the time. which isn't to say that society is above the individuals who carry those things in their heads or that it is static. but it is more than just a mass of individuals.
But what is the individual but the creator of these things? These things cannot exist without the individual, but the individual can exist without these things.

Society, like all of these ideas is derived from the individual, and his capabilities and thoughts.

I'd say Individual is more important, but both are important.

The Individual is important because that is how we are all born, and because Society must sometimes change to survive. This change is forseen/brought about by Individuals.

The Society is important because there must be limits on human behaviour. Without restrictions we descend into anarchy. It's important because a group is harder to ignore than a bunch of unrelated people talking to you. Without Society people would justify actions simply by saying it benefitted them. We do not wish to be murdered, hence we form a Society which shuns and outlaws this.

The Individual, for me, takes precedence over Society until his actions begin to directly negatively impact other people.

If you wish to blow yourself up, I full support those wishes. So long as it won't harm others or their way of life.

the individual is most important - when you are alone and dont effect nor are effected by anyone else

in a society its your duty to be part of a society not a selfish arrogent git only looking out for yourself, thats why its a society, not a no mans land. there is no society without the inidividual nor is there a society with evryone looking out for their own best interests and disregarding the interests of the society as the whole

all this "im more important than everyone else" bullshit is what causes alot of the worlds problems

The rights of the individual end when they inferfere with the rights of another.

Therefore, society must be more important than the individual: without society, the individual not have those rights but would be subject to the tyranny of the strong.

This is not to say that society overwhealms the individual. On the contrary, neither can exist without the other. But the rights of the one cannot be imposed over the rights of the many.

Thus (in the US at least) you may worship as you wish, but you can't perform human sacrifices. You can protest the inauguration of the President, but you can't interrupt or try to stop the cermony, etc.

the individual is most important - when you are alone and dont effect nor are effected by anyone else

in a society its your duty to be part of a society not a selfish arrogent git only looking out for yourself, thats why its a society, not a no mans land. there is no society without the inidividual nor is there a society with evryone looking out for their own best interests and disregarding the interests of the society as the whole

all this "im more important than everyone else" bullshit is what causes alot of the worlds problems
What is this duty to society of which you speak? Is there some magical force that creates this duty? No.

We form societies not for the benefit of others, but for our own individual benefit. To ease our lives and effect survival of our own person. We join society because it is more efficient, not because we have some sort of innate desire to help others.

Without the consent of the individual the society fails.

Without the consent of the individual the society fails.

Without some type of society, the individual fails, generally. Those that don't fail in the end, as there is nothing once they die.

I like the whole society angle. General Will, greatest good for the greatest number, and all that jazz. Yeah, society is a collection of individuals, as some have said, but the flip side of that is that a whole lot of individuals is more important than an individual individual (Yeah, I could have said "single individual", but whatever).

Without some type of society, the individual fails, generally. Those that don't fail in the end, as there is nothing once they die.The individual can exist without society, though.

And the argument about the end of the individual is irrelevant because every society ends at some point.

But what is the individual but the creator of these things? These things cannot exist without the individual, but the individual can exist without these things.

Society, like all of these ideas is derived from the individual, and his capabilities and thoughts.

which doesn't mean that it doesn't have an existance beyond any particular individual or even a collection of individuals. think of a cultural institution such as science. the existence of science does not depend on any particular scientist, even though it is individual scientists who do the experiments and articulate the theories and pass on the ideas and methods to the next batch of scientists.

The individual can exist without society, though.

Not for long.

And the argument about the end of the individual is irrelevant because every society ends at some point.

We aren't talking about a specific society. We are talking about society.

Science simply IS, Free Soviets.

If people stop practicing it, it will still be there.

If people stop living in a society, that society no longer exists.

I think the indivicual is more important to society until you run into "spill over effects", at which point society can be more important than the individul depending on the impact of the spill over effects. Then agian. Spill over effects need to be addresed some how because they affect individuals.

The individual can exist without society... sure, for a little while. But society, has always been a part of the human experience. People don't survive for too long, or accomplish a whole lot, all on their own. Unless one is a hermit, every one of us exists as part of some sort of society. Never in history have individuals existed all on their own: it just doesn't work that way. They were always part of some community, because that's how people function: they depend on one another.

Science simply IS, Free Soviets.

If people stop practicing it, it will still be there.

will it? in what sense?

they best you will have is the left over books and some idea of its methods. but science is an active project. without participants it ceases to exist in a meaningful sense.

which doesn't mean that it doesn't have an existance beyond any particular individual or even a collection of individuals. think of a cultural institution such as science. the existence of science does not depend on any particular scientist, even though it is individual scientists who do the experiments and articulate the theories and pass on the ideas and methods to the next batch of scientists.
The existence of science depends upon the individuals who are the scientists. Without the individual science is nothing. (remember, I am not refering to the individual as a specific human being, but in the manner in which all the great western liberal philosophers have since Thomas Hobbes.) Science would no longer exist if the individuals who are the scientists gave up on it.

To state that society is more important to the individual is to contradict the last 350 years of liberal western thought. Ever since the days of Thomas Hobbes western liberal thought has realized that the power and force of society comes from the individual. Not from something else.

The individual can exist without society... sure, for a little while. But society, has always been a part of the human experience. People don't survive for too long, or accomplish a whole lot, all on their own. Unless one is a hermit, every one of us exists as part of some sort of society. Never in history have individuals existed all on their own: it just doesn't work that way. They were always part of some community, because that's how people function: they depend on one another.
The importance of society is to facilitate the survival and efficiency of the individual. For, we all must realize that without the consent of the individual, the society fails, but the individual can survive without society.

Not for long.
How would you know? Have you ever been tossed out in the wild all alone with nothing? Sure people who this has happened to have died, but they have also lived.



We aren't talking about a specific society. We are talking about society.
Society will, one day, fail. There is no way around it, be it by diesease, or the failure of the universe itself, society is doomed, and this is a doom that cannot be avoided.

Ever since the days of Thomas Hobbes western liberal thought has realized that the power and force of society comes from the individual. Not from something else.
Social contract: YAY! But the whole idea of Hobbes's social contract is that to protect your own well being, you give up your freedom to the Sovereign. So the authority of the Sovereign comes from the individuals, yes, but the Sovereign, the state, is more important than the individuals. There is nothing in Hobbes that authorizes people, in the best interest of individuals, to overthrow the state, because without the state we're all screwed: Man's life is solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short, remember.
This contract is formed by the individuals, yes, but the entire point of the social contract is to make individual rights LESS IMPORTANT than the integrity of the sovereign (head of the society).

Now, it is in the individuals interest to help society, so as to facilitate the survival of the individual. As such, this is why I pay taxes, this is why I report crimes. This is where the justification for a society comes from, to benefit each individual, more than that individual would receive in a "natural*" state.

*I know that a natural state does not truly exist, but it is important for the individual to judge their current situation against what it would be in nature.

The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few or the one.

Social contract: YAY! But the whole idea of Hobbes's social contract is that to protect your own well being, you give up your freedom to the Sovereign. So the authority of the Sovereign comes from the individuals, yes, but the Sovereign, the state, is more important than the individuals. There is nothing in Hobbes that authorizes people, in the best interest of individuals, to overthrow the state, because without the state we're all screwed: Man's life is solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short, remember.
This contract is formed by the individuals, yes, but the entire point of the social contract is to make individual rights LESS IMPORTANT than the integrity of the sovereign (head of the society).
My point is that without the individual society cannot exist, but the individual can exist without the society.

You clearly read the social contract differently from the way I read it. From what I understand, the social contract is the individual giving up rights, under the condition that other individuals give up those same rights. It is not for the benefit of the sovreign, but for the benefit of the individual. The power of the Sovreign is to benefit the individual.

The individual does not surrender his rights for the benefit of society, but for the benefit of the individual.

The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few or the one.
This is precisely the attitude that results in the tyranny of the majority. This is the attitude that results in witch hunts and pogroms. For were those not of popular origin? This is the attitude that resulted in the internment of the Japanese civilians during World War Two. This is the attitude that resulted in the red scare. This is the attitude that supports the Patriot Act.

Now, it is in the individuals interest to help society, so as to facilitate the survival of the individual. As such, this is why I pay taxes, this is why I report crimes. This is where the justification for a society comes from, to benefit each individual, more than that individual would receive in a "natural*" state.

*I know that a natural state does not truly exist, but it is important for the individual to judge their current situation against what it would be in nature.
So we come to a bit of a situation here. On the one hand, the entire reason that people become part of society is because it's what's best for them, but on the other hand, by being a member of the society, you naturally admit that in many respects you must put the society's interests ahead of your own. It's circular, isn't it? You let the society be supreme, but only so your own interests are served, interests which you allow limitations to so the society can be supreme, which is to your benefit. The real question we have to come to here is whether or not the interests of the individual and those of the community can ever really be severred. Are they really in direct conflict, as it might seem? Even an authoritarian state has to serve the interests of the individuals to survive, and even anarchy must have some sort of cooperation, and some sacrifice of individual interests: the very foundation of society.

This is precisely the attitude that results in the tyranny of the majority. This is the attitude that results in witch hunts and pogroms. For were those not of popular origin? This is the attitude that resulted in the internment of the Japanese civilians during World War Two. This is the attitude that resulted in the red scare. This is the attitude that supports the Patriot Act.
and believing you are more important than everyone else leads to the tyranny of everything else: the minority, the individual, and hell sometimes even the majority

and no, the needs of the many is not what supports those, fear and the "i am better than everyone else" led to those especially the first

and believing you are more important than everyone else leads to the tyranny of everything else: the minority, the individual, and hell sometimes even the majority

and no, the needs of the many is not what supports those, fear and the "i am better than everyone else" led to those especially the first
I am not professing my own superiority, but I am professing the importance of the individual, and that without the individual society does not exist. You are clearly not understanding my point.

This is precisely the attitude that results in the tyranny of the majority. This is the attitude that results in witch hunts and pogroms. For were those not of popular origin? This is the attitude that resulted in the internment of the Japanese civilians during World War Two. This is the attitude that resulted in the red scare. This is the attitude that supports the Patriot Act.

Meh ... I was just quoting DJ Spock.

http://www.unlc.biz/DJ_Spock.jpeg

So we come to a bit of a situation here. On the one hand, the entire reason that people become part of society is because it's what's best for them, but on the other hand, by being a member of the society, you naturally admit that in many respects you must put the society's interests ahead of your own. It's circular, isn't it? You let the society be supreme, but only so your own interests are served, interests which you allow limitations to so the society can be supreme, which is to your benefit. The real question we have to come to here is whether or not the interests of the individual and those of the community can ever really be severred. Are they really in direct conflict, as it might seem? Even an authoritarian state has to serve the interests of the individuals to survive, and even anarchy must have some sort of cooperation, and some sacrifice of individual interests: the very foundation of society.
I'm saying that the individual is more important, not the only thing of importance though.

Society does not bring forth the individual, but the individual brings forth the society for his benefit.

For some reason my computer is failing at the moment, I've been running a fairly graphically intense program while forum surfing on my laptop, and I'm using an AMD Athlon 3400, so I don't want to fry the motherboard. I've got to run, let my computer cool down.

I'll attempt to get back to this soon. Thankys :(

The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few or the one.
Then go to communist Vietnam and quit whining.

Then go to communist Vietnam and quit whining.
And here I thought message boards lacked constructive criticism.

How would you know? Have you ever been tossed out in the wild all alone with nothing? Sure people who this has happened to have died, but they have also lived.

And generally go crazy. However, without society, that individual would be the last.

Society will, one day, fail. There is no way around it, be it by diesease, or the failure of the universe itself, society is doomed, and this is a doom that cannot be avoided.

Society will one day fail, just as each individual will one day fail. But as long as there are human beings on this earth, society itself will exist (unless we basically evolve into individuals without a need for banding together).

Then go to communist Vietnam and quit whining.

Communist Vietnam? Where is that? There's a state-capitalist Vietnam, but it certainly doesn't resemble communism except in rhetoric.

In the framework I'm sure you're referring to, I would choose Individualism before Collectivism. That was an easy choice.
This thread is basically a capitalism vs. socialism thread put in more Randian terms.

Then go to communist Vietnam and quit whining.

I'm sorry ... was I whining? No ... I was quoting Spock.

This thread is so lame, I believe it causes cancer.

Oh ... and last I checked, Vietnam is not communist ... buuuudee

You guys don't ever fight! I think they're both drinking tonight. :p

the only time i believe an individual's rights can be made subject to "society" is if that individual's actions will directly interfere with the rights of other individuals. as such, there is really no time when "society" is superior to the rights of the individual, only cases where society must enforce the equal rights of all its members.

the only time i believe an individual's rights can be made subject to "society" is if that individual's actions will directly interfere with the rights of other individuals. as such, there is really no time when "society" is superior to the rights of the individual, only cases where society must enforce the equal rights of all its members.
This is probably the closest any post will get to my beliefs. Thanks for saving me the time.

It's certainly more than a question of capitalism or communism. There's also a matter of law and order, which is independent of these economic ideologies. Anyway, a capitalist can still think that the society is more important than the individual, but the best way to manage society is to leave people to their own devices. Invisible Hand anyone? Adam Smith? And a communist can value the individual, but think the best way to protect the individual is a state planned economy, etc. So the issue isn't so black and white.

In the framework I'm sure you're referring to, I would choose Individualism before Collectivism. That was an easy choice.
This thread is basically a capitalism vs. socialism thread put in more Randian terms.

except that capitalism exists entirely through the use of the state to enforce it.

It's certainly more than a question of capitalism or communism. There's also a matter of law and order, which is independent of these economic ideologies. Anyway, a capitalist can still think that the society is more important than the individual, but the best way to manage society is to leave people to their own devices. Invisible Hand anyone? Adam Smith? And a communist can value the individual, but think the best way to protect the individual is a state planned economy, etc. So the issue isn't so black and white.
excellent point(s). i really can't stand when people try to over-simplify issues like this one into mere "us versus them" variations on the old Caplitalism v. Communism debate.

It's certainly more than a question of capitalism or communism. There's also a matter of law and order, which is independent of these economic ideologies. Anyway, a capitalist can still think that the society is more important than the individual, but the best way to manage society is to leave people to their own devices. Invisible Hand anyone? Adam Smith? And a communist can value the individual, but think the best way to protect the individual is a state planned economy, etc. So the issue isn't so black and white.
Please use the quote tags to make sure you're not making everyone backpedal.

Seriousl.You can't believe that a truley capitalist society could last long as a system of government valuing "society" over the individual.

I'm very aware of Adam Sith's writings. Are you aware that his writing focused on lassez-faire? "Society"-focused forms of government to not foster capitalism.
They foster heavily over-regulated, overbeuaracratized systems of control.

Such a system is not going to last long without tipping over right into socialism.

except that capitalism exists entirely through the use of the state to enforce it.
the use of Capitalism as the economic platform for a given society will require the state for enforcement. however, the basic principles of Capitalism stem directly from naturalism; animals are inherently "free market" in their behavior in the wild, seeing as how altruism is not evolutionarily stable.

excellent point(s). i really can't stand when people try to over-simplify issues like this one into mere "us versus them" variations on the old Caplitalism v. Communism debate.
I wasn't trying to pigeonhole anything. But let's face it. Put in more Ayn-Randish terms, this thread boils down to a capitalist-socialist thread.
Dance, but it's still in the subtext.

And for the record, I think both ruggedly capitalist (individual emphasis) or socialist governments (duh, societal emphasis) can exist decently.
The problem lies within the framework the question was raised:
Both systems suck when they try to be both at the same time.
Pick one and stick to it.

Individual

I'm very aware of Adam Sith's writings. Are you aware that his writing focused on lassez-faire? "Society"-focused forms of government to not foster capitalism.
They foster heavily over-regulated, overbeuaracratized systems of control.

Well certainly you're aware of Smith's Invisible Hand analogy than. That if people are left to their own devices, they will regulate themselves better than the government itself ever could, as if directed by an invisible hand, thereby benefitting everyone in society. Therefore, Laissez-Faire serves the interests of the society AS A WHOLE. With this understanding, I can very well say that society should come first, but a free market is in the best interests of society, so that's the system I'm in favour of.

Well certainly you're aware of Smith's Invisible Hand analogy than. That if people are left to their own devices, they will regulate themselves better than the government itself ever could, as if directed by an invisible hand, thereby benefitting everyone in society. Therefore, Laissez-Faire serves the interests of the society AS A WHOLE. With this understanding, I can very well say that society should come first, but a free market is in the best interests of society, so that's the system I'm in favour of.

Of course, we all know that a completely Laissez-Faire system leads to the denigration of most individuals. While there may be somewhat of an impetus to help society as a whole, allowing a few to gain power at the expense of others (which is the quickest way to power and exactly what happens in the absence of any regulation) does not aid those others.

Well certainly you're aware of Smith's Invisible Hand analogy than. That if people are left to their own devices, they will regulate themselves better than the government itself ever could, as if directed by an invisible hand, thereby benefitting everyone in society. Therefore, Laissez-Faire serves the interests of the society AS A WHOLE. With this understanding, I can very well say that society should come first, but a free market is in the best interests of society, so that's the system I'm in favour of.
smith was an idealist, and heck, a few HUDNRED years ago that may have worked, but now not and idealists have no place making any decision pertinent to the progression of the world

Of course, we all know that a completely Laissez-Faire system leads to the denigration of most individuals.
Dempublicents, if by completely you mean anarchic, I'd agree.
Hesitantly, cuz I know you're a borderline socialist Dem.

however, the basic principles of Capitalism stem directly from naturalism; animals are inherently "free market" in their behavior in the wild, seeing as how altruism is not evolutionarily stable.

how do 'private ownership of the means of production' and 'wage labor' stem directly from naturalism?

and while the 'hard' definition of altruism is not evolutionarily stable, it is also not what anyone seriously proposes as an alternative. besides, we have seen the widespread existence of softer versions of altruism in real life - there are entire branches of game theory and evolutionary biology devoted to understanding it.

Dempublicents, if by completely you mean anarchic, I'd agree.
Hesitantly, cuz I know you're a borderline socialist Dem.

I'm a borderline socialist? That's a new one. You make me laugh.

smith was an idealist, and heck, a few HUDNRED years ago that may have worked, but now not and idealists have no place making any decision pertinent to the progression of the world
Who the hell do you vote for man? A party without vision????

I'm a borderline socialist? That's a new one. You make me laugh.
You know I'm just taking a liberal jab atcha. Lighten up. Your posts are usually executed far better than most of your peers.

Who the hell do you vote for man? A party without vision????
Its all about the pragmatism mate.

You know I'm just taking a liberal jab atcha. Lighten up. Your posts are usually executed far better than most of your peers.

I just find it funny that I get cast as a liberal. While my views on personal freedoms may be viewed as such, the vast majority of my views fall centrist and even, occasionally, to the right of center.

By the way, I wasn't insulted or anything =)

how do 'private ownership of the means of production' and 'wage labor' stem directly from naturalism?

you have to be prepared to draw parallels to exchanges in the animal kingdom, rather than looking for abstract concepts that can only be found among humans :).


and while the 'hard' definition of altruism is not evolutionarily stable, it is also not what anyone seriously proposes as an alternative. besides, we have seen the widespread existence of softer versions of altruism in real life - there are entire branches of game theory and evolutionary biology devoted to understanding it.
yeah, i know, i studied those for a living. funny thing is, MANY people propose altruism as an alternative, both biologically and in the sphere of this current discussion. indeed, entire religions and political systems are based upon altruism (either assumed altruism or enforced altruism), and there is an entire faction in evolutionary biology determined to "prove" that altruism can be stable as a pure solution.

Who the hell do you vote for man? A party without vision????
vision and idealism arnt the same thing

The foolishness of dualism, living in a black and white world. It's either society or the individual, good or evil, liberal or conservative with no other options available which to me is either stupid or incredibly idiotic.

Exactly. It's all things. There shouldn't be an either/or. It just is. The "individual" and the "society" are artificial discriminations. Therefore, neither can be more important.

Exactly. It's all things. There shouldn't be an either/or. It just is. The "individual" and the "society" are artificial discriminations. Therefore, neither can be more important.
That's exactly why I couldn't answer the question directly as well.
Individual vs. society is too general, dualistic. One facilitates the other.
It's only when we talk politics as opposed to philosophy that something concrete can be decided.

That's exactly why I couldn't answer the question directly as well.
Individual vs. society is too general, dualistic. One facilitates the other.
It's only when we talk politics as opposed to philosophy that something concrete can be decided.I've been away for while... TV program that I really like came on without my knowing just after I started the thread. I think I might be addicted. x_x

Anyway, in a very basic sense the arguement can be answered easily. On earth there are animals that survive as individuals. Society is nothing without the individuals that make it up. However, an individual is still something without society. But then humans are tribal by nature and society dramatically increases our ability to impact the world around us.

I've been away for while... TV program that I really like came on without my knowing just after I started the thread. I think I might be addicted. x_x

Anyway, in a very basic sense the arguement can be answered easily. On earth there are animals that survive as individuals. Society is nothing without the individuals that make it up. However, an individual is still something without society. But then humans are tribal by nature and society dramatically increases our ability to impact the world around us.
And both are important, but the scale tips a little bit towards the individual.

(Bloody Athlon processors, they may kick ass in the performance department, but they need cooling, big time)

I've been away for while... TV program that I really like came on without my knowing just after I started the thread. I think I might be addicted. x_x

Anyway, in a very basic sense the arguement can be answered easily. On earth there are animals that survive as individuals. Society is nothing without the individuals that make it up. However, an individual is still something without society. But then humans are tribal by nature and society dramatically increases our ability to impact the world around us.
Sounds like I have to choose between complete anarchy or total authoritarianism.
Neither.

I never intended the thread to be about either extreme. I meant to start the thread out with an absolute arguement from which the intricacies of ideal can be examined. A wide arguement with plenty of scope to debate everything in between. By and by this seems to have worked and I've enjoyed reading everyones thoughts.

I think it was you, Eichen, who mentioned that the debate essentially boiled down to free market capitalism vs. state owned industry. I do not believe it does. This part of debate is a very large part due to the current society that we currently live, but it is still not all of the arguement. For the economics fails to address human rights and ethics.

Also, I made the statement in the first post that a world that placed the individual higher than society was likely to be less productive and a world that placed society higher than the individual was more likely to be progressive and productive. However that statement is entirely circumstantial.

I think the individual is more important , but the individual should try and help society.. but they should have the choice.

The individual is better served by his service to society when in a society of individuals who think similarly. This mentality must be enforced by law and ethic in order to be sustained, and it is in the individual's interest to insure that it is sustained even if it limits and imposes requirements on the individual. Therefore, though the individual is the most important in reality, the individual must treat society as if it has higher importance. It's also to the individual's gain to praise behavior that is good for society, thus positively reinforcing that behavior. That those who behave positively are praised makes them attractive as mates because a quality sought after in mates is the high esteem of others. This directly reinforces the gain that the individual has in being valuable to society.

Does that make any sense?

Society is more important than any individual could ever be. Not all individuals are equal, therefore the importance must be placed on society at large.
What kind of society would you have if everyone put themselves first?

I'm pretty sure I haven't seen this subject directly talked about and was just wondering about the split on NS.

I personally believe that the individual is more important than society (in general), and that society and its organisations are constructs designed for the betterment of the individuals and not 'society'. As such I believe my ideas would be more likely to produce a 'decadent' society, where individuals increasing allowed to indulge in 'non-productive' activities ie. activities that do not directly benefit the economic or technological productiveness of society. Whereas as world where society was viewed as more important would allow for rapid economic, technological and expansionist advancement, but at the cost of such extensive freedom of thought.

In general - a libertarian world vs a totalitarian world.

Your thoughts on the subject?

Neither the individual nor the society is more important than the other. The individual cannot exist without the society, and the society without individuals will not exist. It's a false dichotomy.

Society or the Individual: Which is More Important?

Society, but not at the expense of the individual. Hows that? :p

Quite simple really, there has to be a balance. :cool:

Society, but not at the expense of the individual. Hows that? :pSociety is just a bunch of individuals. So isn't that simply saying majority rules, but try to recognize some rights?

Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the law, except if you doeth something another of us liketh not, you answer to The Man.

Society is just a bunch of individuals. So isn't that simply saying majority rules, but try to recognize some rights?
Majority rules, minority rights.

Majority rules, minority rights. Does the majority decide which minorities deserve rights and what those rights are?

The individual is all that matters. Society only exists to further the indivdual. I may want to give something back to the society, but I dont appreciate the society trying to forcefuly take it.

We should live in a society of individuals, All cooperating and getting along while maintaining their invidual freedoms and indentities.

Does the majority decide which minorities deserve rights and what those rights are?

Its a constant balancing act. In a democracy, you want neither a tyranny of the majority or the minority. However, the since more INDIVIDUALS compose the majority, obviously, you must weight it in this direction.

Society, but not at the expense of the individual. Hows that? :p

Perfect.

By living in society we all agree to give up certain liberties to gain certain protections. i.e. I give up the liberty to kill some annoying asshole, so he's not allowed to kill me when I'm a bitch.
It's a liberty hard to give up, but I need that particuliar protection.

What do you mean by "Society or the Individual", exactly? Do you mean Individual Liberties vs. Social Responsibility? Do you mean Being Yourself vs. Fitting In?

If it is the former, I don't really understand why one has to come at the expense of the other except for that each is a great excuse to shirk the other if you make it seem that way.
Don't think I'm a caring enough person, or that I'm too self-serving? Well guess what, that's what freedom's all about, rugged individualism. If someone can't or won't stand on their own two feet they can grovel in my shadow.
or
You think I'm opressing you, not giving you a chance to be yourself? Well I don't think you're contributing, so I'm going to make you. You can't be safe with just yourself, and leveling the playing field requires that we eliminate it.

Both are just fallacious excuses for bad behavior. Compassion for the plight of the poor doesn't have to be limited to a regimented communist mindset, and social darwinism doesn't have to be the way you express your freedom.

As to the latter, not being different in America can lull you, cripple you-even though it seems desirable to everyone, even though everything in the culture pressures you into sameness-it is a handicap in the end. A handicap to live without knowing the struggle of difference-in all of its pain, its fear, its celebration, its compassion. I'm not saying that adversity is the only way to build character, or that those who endure it are superior, or that they always emerge triumphant, but it is only too easy for a person to be lulled by sameness, to fall into the habit of letting that be their overriding mentality, the sheep mentality.

It doesn't matter, I guess. The thing is, individuals are really the only true thing. Society is just this made up term that to each individual means "eveyone I don't know".

By the way, before anyone jumps on me, I lifted a segment of the above from a novel I once read. :fluffle:

The individual is more important even for those that value society. If an individual is allowed to find his/her niche, then this alone benefits society.