NationStates Jolt Archive

Do you feel that the individual is more important, or is the whole more important?

Do you feel that the individual is more important, or is the whole more important?
the whole.

It might help if you provided a context. Ultimately, the whole is of greater importance than the individual - without the continuance of the whole, there could be no individuals.

This isn't one of the socialist-communist trap threads is it?

The individual is more important, and the whole should share the burden so that each individuals life can have as high a quality as possible.

Mr. Spock said, " the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few or the one".

This isn't one of the socialist-communist trap threads is it?

*falls in* ahhhhhhhhh! Help me no! Must fight....Commu...nism... aghhhhhh

*Monotone voice*

"All Hail Marx...All Hail Marx...All Hail Marx...All Hail Marx..."

The whole.

Though most of my decisions probably revolve around a few central people in my life, or myself. But then thats because they are the people my decision affects.

Actions should be based on the people they affect, whether thats the whole or an individual.

This isn't one of the socialist-communist trap threads is it?

Thinking about that is what spawned the question, but I don't want it to be about government, I want it to be from a philosophical standpoint.

I am definitely for the individual, however, and may find myself debating with socialists, but not about socialism.

The whole.

Though most of my decisions probably revolve around a few central people in my life, or myself. But then thats because they are the people my decision affects.

Actions should be based on the people they affect, whether thats the whole or an individual.

You have a choice:

You have decision A which will have no effect on you but help others a small amount.

You have decision B which will help you greatly but will but a small burden on others.

Which do you choose.

I'm going with both.. darn.

Realistically, one facillitates the other, but ideologically speaking, the individual should be given an emphasis.

You have a choice:

You have decision A which will have no effect on you but help others a small amount.

You have decision B which will help you greatly but will but a small burden on others.

Which do you choose.

Which do I choose?

Well, depends on who the others are. If they are people I care about, I would choose to help them. If they are people I have responsibilty for... I've never been in that situation and would like to say I would help them but if I'm honest I would probably end up helping myself. If they are total strangers I would do what helps me.

I am by no means saying that all my decisions are based on helping the largest amount of people/the whole. I just said they should be. Those are two very different things.

Which do I choose?

Well, depends on who the others are. If they are people I care about, I would choose to help them. If they are people I have responsibilty for... I've never been in that situation and would like to say I would help them but if I'm honest I would probably end up helping myself. If they are total strangers I would do what helps me.

I am by no means saying that all my decisions are based on helping the largest amount of people/the whole. I just said they should be. Those are two very different things.


I wasn't asking for honesty, I only meant what should you do, I don't care whether you would follow through with it. It appears that you think you should take decision A.

What is your rationale for this decision?

If the individual is not healthy good and complete how can the individual contribute to the whole?

Without the whole how would we come to the rationalization that an individual is indeed healthy good and complete?


Hmmm the correct answer is yes.

They coexist and must work in harmony!!

I'd say the whole is more important. But however, if everyone should think of the whole in their desicion making, there would be no individuals helping themselves.
This will ultimately lead to depression.
Some might say that "Helping the whole grants me happiness", a precious few though.

Visa vi: If there's depression, I say that the whole is unbalanced, if it even exists.

The individual is more important. When it's ME.

hehe

we have a condensed version of the old states' rights vs. federal rights conundrum.

I voted "individual" .. barely.

I wasn't asking for honesty, I only meant what should you do, I don't care whether you would follow through with it. It appears that you think you should take decision A.

What is your rationale for this decision?

Ok. Yes, I would choose A as what you should do. Because the more people you can help, the better.

Maybe that's a simplistic veiw, I've never though about it that much but my instinct tells me that helping the whole is more important.

This all sounds a bit red for my liking

there is no "whole" there are only bunches of individuals

the individual is always more important, especially when you can take care of a bunch of them at one time.

The needs of ME outweigh the needs of YOU.

...or THEM.

people need outher people in order for society to survive!!!!!!

this is a offical message of the supreme dictator of ahrryandia and I approve this message!!!

Happy happy joy joy this is my 80th post!!!
too much coffee, Harrylandia?