Is the group more important than the individual?

[Coach]

There never should have been restrictions places on healthy people of businesses. Warnings to the high risk, and restrict those with it. Nothing else.

A compound in isolation is looking better all of the time.

We should try some free enterprise in this nation and some individual liberty. Both as simply illusions in this country and the past couple of months prove it.

 

[BehindBlueI's]

Because they chose to for the benefit of others.

You're saying those who risk their lives and sacrifice their individual liberty found something that, to them, was more important. I agree. That would be at odds with "Nothing is ever more important than individual liberty" so I'd like to know what the person/people expressing that view say.

The interest of the group is the the basis of SOCIALISM is it not?

See, there you go. As a soldier you're putting the interests of your country (a group) above your own. Military service = socialism. You heard it on INGO first.

You guys have fun.

 

[Slapstick]

Under the strict premise of the question, "Is the group more important then the individual?" and from a pragmatic standpoint the group would be more important than the individual because few people have all the skills needed to survive on their own. Been that way throughout the history and more so in today's complex "modern" society which has made us even more dependent on others for our individual survival. I don't know too many people that are well versed in all the skills needed to survive, let alone thrive on their own.

 

[ChristianPatriot]

Are we talking rights or importance? Only individuals have rights.

 

[Ricnzak]

Doing whatever is necessary and needed to preserve the American way of life is how we should answer.

 

[Leadeye]

The problem I find with groups is that the needs of the group are often interpreted and manipulated by the leadership of the group for themselves. The needs of the many are exploited by the few for the benefit of the few.

 

[patience0830]

Doing whatever is necessary and needed to preserve the American way of life is how we should answer.

How YOU should answer, since you feel that way.

The freedom to do as we see fit to amend or subtract from the group we wish to be successful is not an individual choice usually. Personally, I'd happily shoot thieves and murderers and those too lazy to work. How do you think that works out for society. Wouldn't most of us be better off without those transgressors in our midst? I don't find gang bangers and drug dealers to be acceptable parts of the "American Way of Life" but they're still in it. Don't want them to be successful.

 

[KellyinAvon]

There is the mission, and the individuals who accomplish the mission. Opposite forces that must work together. The mission requires a team, but the team is made up of individuals. Mazlow's hierarchy of needs has group belonging as something that is required before an individual can achieve self-esteem and self-actualization.

So, what's more important: the group or the individual? Yes!

 

[churchmouse]

The problem I find with groups is that the needs of the group are often interpreted and manipulated by the leadership of the group for themselves. The needs of the many are exploited by the few for the benefit of the few.

Bingo.

Winner.

 

[Sigblitz]

Doing whatever is necessary and needed to preserve the American way of life is how we should answer.

I couldn't answer it either. I think there's good points on either extreme. What's the meme with the two buttons, safety or livelihood.

 

[Twangbanger]

...But, there is a contingent of people who want it opened back up for the sake of the group.

I don't know if you added this as an edit, but this is a view that is not being considered seriously enough, by enough people. Too many people are treating the pandemic choices we have as mutually-exclusive. Doing the right thing for the individual, and for the group, do not have to be opposed to each other.

There are two potential biological tools for managing infectiousness this bug: vaccine, and natural herd immunity. There is no reason we cannot pursue both simultaneously. In fact, I think pursuing both, is best for both the individual _and_ the group. But the problem is some are treating them as mutually-exclusive "paths," rather than simultaneously-available "tools."

All the strategies I'm seeing from experts posit the assumption that a vaccine will be found. But how long have we been looking for an HIV vaccine? It is one of the most-hoped for medical advances you can think of, ever since the 1980s, and yet we don't have it yet. I think it is foolish to put all our eggs in one basket with the hopes for a vaccine, and turn our backs on herd immunity, when no assurance can be had that a vaccine will in fact be found. People are assuming things to occur in the future, that we cannot guarantee. If we go into next fall without true herd immunity having been established yet, because we've suppressed it with shutdowns and social-distancing, the outcome may in fact be worse (especially if there's no vaccine yet).

But getting back to your psychological arguments. I get your premise that moral stances can bias people to certain practical courses of action. But I also think this can be discussed in purely practical terms.

Risk mitigation is about odds and stakes. Odds are mathematical things and are subject to reason, but people can only be rational up to a point. Once the personal stakes get too high, they begin to ignore the odds. What I have seen in this Coronavirus crisis, is that when someone's possibility of losing their 98-year-old mother is just too much to bear, they cease being rational. It's the same with School Shootings, home invasions, the possibility of being financially wiped out by cancer, or any number of other things. There can be "stakes" above which, people cannot be rational anymore. They know where "that level" is for them, and beyond that, the odds simply don't matter. Furthermore, beyond that point, mitigations also don't matter to people. It's the reason why some people think teachers should have guns in the classroom. It's also the reason why some people _don't_ think teachers should have guns in the classroom. People have an outcome they find unacceptable, and will ignore all kinds of odds and possible mitigating steps in support of a policy which renders that outcome (theoretically) impossible.

Those mitigating steps available to individuals, which alter the odds of certain outcomes occurring, _should_ be part of people's rational reflection process in deciding what to do. But - preconceived ideas or attitudes can bias people against certain mitigations, and make them unwilling to consider them. Someone may be unable to accept the possibility of their 98-year-old mother dying, because the family has so much invested in her making it to 100. Or, whatever. There are mitigations which might make it possible to re-open the economy, while still keeping their 98-year-old mother alive. But they may not want to rationally consider them. They might just want the option which they feel guarantees she will live, to the exclusion of all else. Even if it's based on assumptions ("there will be a vaccine next year") that may turn out not to be true.

I'm an open book. I think both the individual and the group are important, we need to re-open for the benefit of both. The goals are not mutually-exclusive. We can protect the jobs of groups - and individuals, and simultaneously give humanity as a group - including grandma, the best chance to live.

Also Jamil, I'm not buying your apparent conclusion that "both groups" on this virus thing are equally culpable of bad, biased reasoning. The "Shutdown" people in my observation are worse. It is their way or the highway. It is based on the misconception that people who want to re-open are OK with grandma dying. That is simply not true. It is not an established truism that re-opening means grandma dying, or even that it gives her a greater chance of dying. You have to clarify the time frame involved. It is entirely possible that keeping things closed, actually makes it more likely for her to die in the medium-term, by delaying onset of herd immunity until after the next flu season starts.

 

[patience0830]

Why do people join the military, sacrificing their individual liberty and possibly their lives?

Because they're broke, need some structure in their life, want to see the world, and can't afford to pay for school.

Those were the reasons I heard most often.

 

[jamil]

Are we talking rights or importance? Only individuals have rights.

Another word for group rights is authority. But, that’s not to say there is no place for authority or that the group is unimportant.

 

[wtburnette]

I agree with Twangbanger, opening up has the most benefit for the country, both for the group and the individual. The devastation to our economy if we don't open up will cause more deaths and misery than opening up, even with more deaths due to the pandemic. Not even talking about the erosion of our rights that seem to get worse as the shutdown continues. This is exactly how rights and freedoms are given away, for safety and comfort. The government isn't protecting us from this pandemic, they're exercising their power to remove rights and freedoms from the rest of us and it's being done on a global scale. I for one refuse to go along with this BS and am cautiously optimistic that the state will reopen on 5/15 as the Governor said and hope the rest of the country will follow suit at some point, before it's too late.

 

[jamil]

You're saying those who risk their lives and sacrifice their individual liberty found something that, to them, was more important. I agree. That would be at odds with "Nothing is ever more important than individual liberty" so I'd like to know what the person/people expressing that view say.



See, there you go. As a soldier you're putting the interests of your country (a group) above your own. Military service = socialism. You heard it on INGO first.

You guys have fun.

Well, hold on. The statement he made is true. The interest of the group is indeed the basis of socialism. But more than one thing can be true at a time. It's also the basis for other things as well. Anything involving teams. Team sports. I'm a part of a team at work. And, of course the military is a team of individuals united in a common cause. But the earlier statement you commented on involved individual liberty. I don't know that I would classify military service in the US armed forces as sacrificing individual liberty, per se, when you do it voluntarily. That in itself is a liberty. You do it not just for the good of the group, but because of who you are as a person. It's also for you. In a way it is an individual fulfillment of your own goals.

But none of that really has to do with the question. In terms of what policy you think is right, is the individual more important than the group? Hint: The survival of human kind is both an individual and group priority, so I think that is a big part of the decision to voluntarily relinquish some liberties for the sake of not just others, but ourselves as individuals.

 

[jamil]

Under the strict premise of the question, "Is the group more important then the individual?" and from a pragmatic standpoint the group would be more important than the individual because few people have all the skills needed to survive on their own. Been that way throughout the history and more so in today's complex "modern" society which has made us even more dependent on others for our individual survival. I don't know too many people that are well versed in all the skills needed to survive, let alone thrive on their own.

A big contributor to humans' success as a species is that we're both individual-ish, and group-ish. Individualism is a novel concept within our ancestry. We had to override some evolutionary programming to come to the idea that the ideal level of sovereignty is the individual. But, because we are both self-interested and group-interested (tribal) we do require some authority to keep order and to overcome threats to humankind that are impossible to do at the individual level.

 

[wtburnette]

Well, hold on. The statement he made is true. The interest of the group is indeed the basis of socialism. But more than one thing can be true at a time. It's also the basis for other things as well. Anything involving teams. Team sports. I'm a part of a team at work. And, of course the military is a team of individuals united in a common cause. But the earlier statement you commented on involved individual liberty. I don't know that I would classify military service in the US armed forces as sacrificing individual liberty, per se, when you do it voluntarily. That in itself is a liberty. You do it not just for the good of the group, but because of who you are as a person. It's also for you. In a way it is an individual fulfillment of your own goals.

But none of that really has to do with the question. In terms of what policy you think is right, is the individual more important than the group? Hint: The survival of human kind is both an individual and group priority, so I think that is a big part of the decision to voluntarily relinquish some liberties for the sake of not just others, but ourselves as individuals.

Agreed. Saying that doing something to benefit the group is socialism is simplifying things to too large a degree. The only way our country can work is if we do things that benefit us all as a group, as well as doing things for the individual. They aren't mutually exclusive. We want to protect our individual rights, but also ensure that the group, our country, all do as well as possible. Yes, you can go to the extreme and go Socialism due to that, but that's a dead end dream. Capitalism is actually the best thing for the group, as it lifts the most people out of poverty and enables the greatest good. Some people won't do as well, but the group as a whole will do better, based off of the work and productivity of the individual.

 

[jamil]

Doing whatever is necessary and needed to preserve the American way of life is how we should answer.

And what is necessary? Not only do people disagree on what is necessary, they disagree on what is the American way of life. And, you can't have an "American way of life" if everyone dies. Not that covid is an existential threat to everyone. The strong will survive. I'm talking conceptually. If there were an existential threat to humans, then that becomes the primary goal for all individuals--for human-kind survive because it's in every individual's best interest to have other humans around. There isn't an "American way of life" without humans. So it seems the priority depends on something other than just the American way of life.

Okay, so if everyone doesn't die, what's next? I think a reasonable goal is to preserve one's way of life if that way is good. I don't particularly think it's important to preserve Venezuela's way of life. It looks to me like it's pretty ****ty, and except for the ruling class, they all think it's pretty ****ty too. But for societies that have a way that works for them, and they're pretty happy with it, yeah. That would be a goal. If Sweden likes their high taxes and high social pressure to group conformity, well good for them. In the US I'd kinda like to preserve the idea of individualism and personal liberty because I think that is superior to authoritarian collectivism.

 

[jamil]

The problem I find with groups is that the needs of the group are often interpreted and manipulated by the leadership of the group for themselves. The needs of the many are exploited by the few for the benefit of the few.

Excellent point. Socialism works for small groups because there isn't as high likelihood of being led by tyrants. It works for tribal cultures, like native americans. It works for families, and even extended families. But when you scale it to the society level the people who end up in the leadership class are the kind who claw their way to the top and exploit people along the way. Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. There's plenty of corruption in a democratic republic based on capitalism, especially crony capitalism. But that corruption is limited in scope. The corruption of a state power with absolute authority, whether socialist or fascist, is absolute.

 

[KellyinAvon]

Excellent point. Socialism works for small groups because there isn't as high likelihood of being led by tyrants. It works for tribal cultures, like native americans. It works for families, and even extended families. But when you scale it to the society level the people who end up in the leadership class are the kind who claw their way to the top and exploit people along the way. Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. There's plenty of corruption in a democratic republic based on capitalism, especially crony capitalism. But that corruption is limited in scope. The corruption of a state power with absolute authority, whether socialist or fascist, is absolute.

Socialism in small groups, like Iceland. They aren't Socialists as much as they are highly-taxed and lazy, the two look a lot alike. If they ain't related they know someone who is.

Absolute power corrupts absolutely: nothing has ever been more true. That temporary dictatorship ever go away leading to whatever Communism is supposed to be ever happen? What's bad is we see it in this country as well.