The collective vs. the individual, what do you think should have

Mao please, you already tried the collective and it never worked.

>>1513292
I'm sane, so the individual.

Neither. There can only ever be an uneasy balance between the two

You can have individuals without a collective.
But you can't have a collective without an individual.

Therefore the individual is more important.

⬛

>>1513292
The only reason you're questioning this is you've been indoctrinated into a culture that praises selfless thinking. You know deep down that the only thing humans have in common with one another is that we're always looking out for number 1

>>1513292
Objectively the collective. But to me, i am more important.

>>1515601
>objectively

wrong

>>1513292
The collective should deliver means for the individual to develop and then he will support the collective, otherwise we have prisons, shit tier jobs, lowest tier of military service.. you get the point.

>>1515555
How exactly can you have an individual without a collective? I mean in the historical sense. Sure you can lock yourself in a room for a day but no individual can simply exist by himself.

>>1515660
I mean that in the same sense and in the scope you framed your argument a colelctive can exist wiothut an individual.

File: fuck you google.png (370KB, 403x603px) Image search: [Google]

370KB, 403x603px

>>1515627
You sure showed me.

Fucking captcha.

>>1515555
/thread

people deserve rights and have duties.
forming a corporation doesn't entitle you to more rights.
utilitarian ethics and democracy are still the most pragmatic way to deal with problems.

>>1515704

>

>>1515660
>>1515664

The individual 100%.

If you're part of a collective that costs you more than it gives you, then you're probably being screwed. Like when you work under the capitalist system.

>>1515743
What a strange thing to say. You are always a part of a collective at last if you live in a system that is effected by said collective.
and individual is always embedded or effected by a collective.
the question of assesing if a collective gives you more or less is extremely hard. How do you do it? you are imbuedwithin a collective and your desires are in part effected by it. You can live in the US and compare your society to another and deem your to be better but it is at least in part bcause you were raised and lived within your society.

>>1515770

Of course.

But if it's ever taking more from you than you get from it, you are being screwed by it. If it demands money from you, it must give you more money back at some point, for example.

Human born from their relationship with other human. We're individual only because a collective of other individu exist to acknoweldge us.
TL;DR One can't exist without the other.

File: 1468451082176.png (429KB, 700x394px)

429KB, 700x394px

Individual

>what do you think should have more importance?

To who?

Society? Society.

The individual? Depends on the individual. A mix of both.

>>1515555
No man is an island.

If you take out the collective/group from the individual, then you're left with nothing.

Whoever heard of a lone man wandering naked and hunting for food? No one. Even during the caveman era, people still huddled around each other in groups.

Consequently, with collective works, you have things like governments, laws, schools, hospitals, every foundation of our modern life.

>>1515950
>If you take out the collective/group from the individual, then you're left with nothing.

But if the collective takes more from the individual than they get back, they shouldn't be involved in it.

It's not like you /have/ to stay in whatever collective claims you first.

>>1515950
No man is an island but if a man could be an island would that not be desirable? If we look at this from an existential view where one defines one's own life meaning, would you not want to strive for your goals alone?

Is an island not preferable?

the survival of society is more important than the survival of the single individual

>>1515976

Why?

Because it would be better for individuals over time?

Should the collective work for the individual? As in the collective should work insofar as it is needed for there to be individuals, and then let them be beyond that?

>>1515986

generally humans feel biologically determined to continue the human race and keep in secure for at least the near future.

the only way to truly do that is to relinquish some of your individualism to do what is better for the overall group's survival.

For instance, if a bomb was about to go off that would either wipe out most of humanity or just a single person, the single person has an obligation to take into account that the collective human need for survival is greater than his own.

>>1515989

The collective shouldn't belong to ONE individual.

>>1516001

So the survival of individuals is the most important thing, and the collective is a tool to ensure this?

>>1515792
It says no Gods tho

>>1516004

Yes more or less.

But of course thats assuming an optimistic view of human nature. The collective can easily become self-destructive to individuals (i.e. war)

This is all assuming humans have the capacity to continue to progress and learn from the past, which has been proven time and again to be difficult.