Collectivism ought to be preffered to Individualism

Framework: There is one obvious reason the framework I provided for this debate ought to be preferred. My framework is on topic.Con offers an alternative framework than the one I provided. He offers a political ideology, I offered an ethical philosophy. Because this debate rests on the question of collectivism or individualism being “ethically paramount” per definitions it is clear that a framework based on ethics should be preferred. Clarification: After reading con’s arguments and conversing with him in the comments it has become clear that con misunderstand the topic ideals being debated. Con especially misunderstands collectivism as a whole. I will thence be providing a clear summary of collectivism. Collectivism: “the philosophy that the interests of society as a whole should be considered ethically paramount.” This is in contrast with; Individualism: “the philosophy that the interests of the individual should be considered ethically paramount.” In the comments con presented a link to Wikipedia. That link states “Collectivism is the moral stance… that emphasizes the significance of groups—their identities, goals, rights, outcomes, etc.—and tends to analyze issues in those terms.” (1) To illustrate this with a simple analogy, imagine in your mind’s eye a car. The car represents society as a whole, the parts of the car are the individuals. The car is made up of individual parts. The collectivist sees the interests and the needs of the car as a whole as ethically of more import than that of the individual parts. For example, the collectivist is more concerned that the car as a whole is able to fulfill its function and drive around of more import than if the stereo works. Likewise, the collectivist will address individual issues that affect the society as a whole. For example, say the individual, in this analogy the tire is popped. The society (car) as a whole can no longer function, thus fixing the tire would be the collectivist goal. With this simply clarification we can now observe why con’s arguments should be dismissed as fallacious or incorrect. Utilitarianism: Con seems to understand the basics of utility, though applies them poorly to the topic at hand with his analogy. The collectivist would not see the group of ten as one, and the individual as one, they would see a society of eleven. They would then determine what would be best ethically for the society. Thus we see that the collectivist would assuredly switch the train to the track with one person to say the greater part of society, being the ten. We see then that collectivism being defined as “the philosophy that the interests of society as a whole should be considered ethically paramount” is synonomous with the concept of the greatest good for the greatest number. The utilitarian views society as a whole, like the collectivist. Consider the words of John Stuart Mill from “On Liberty.” “I regard utility as the ultimate appeal on all ethical questions; but it must be utility in the largest sense, grounded on the permanent interests of man as a progressive being.” (2) He goes on to say; “Those interests, I contend, authorize the subjection of individual spontaneity to external control… There are also many positive acts for the benefit of others, which he may rightfully be compelled to perform; such as, to give evidence in a court of justice; to bear his fair share in the common defence, or in any other joint work necessary to the interest of the society of which he enjoys the protection; and to perform certain acts of individual beneficence, such as saving a fellow-creature's life, or interposing to protect the defenceless against ill-usage, things which whenever it is obviously a man's duty to do, he may rightfully be made responsible to society for not doing. A person may cause evil to others not only by his actions but by his inaction, and in either case he is justly accountable to them for the injury.” (2) We seen than from the author of Utilitarianism that this ethic of utility goes hand in hand with collectivism. In fact, one of the main criticisms of utilitarianism is that it can ignore the boundaries of the individual. For example, Thomas Nagel objected to utlilitarianism stating it “treats the desires, needs, satisfactions, and dissatisfactions of distinct persons as if they were the desires, etc., of a mass person.” (3) This presents a huge issue for my opponent in this debate. This is because he has not rejected Utility, rather tried to use it as part of his argument. Utility goes hand in hand with collectivism. Unless con rejects utility and provides reasoning for a different framework, he cannot win this debate. At this point, utilitarianism is the only moral framework presented. As that framework supports collectivism, the resolution is affirmed. Compassion: As was true with the previous example, con misapplies collective principles. He says “The individualist is compassionate in the sense that they care for the individual and their value as human beings. The collectivist, on the contrary, is immoral in the sense that they believe the elimination of these group of people is okay because they are a group - not just individuals” It seems to me reasonable that the collectivist would argue that bombing a whole society because a small group of individuals would be unethical as the result would be harmful to the society as a whole and would thus not bomb the group. In fact, the real difference is the collectivist would weigh the impact of bombing the group based on the society as a whole, whereas the individualist would only weigh the impact to specific people. Regardless, we have determined utility as the framework of morality, Compassion is irrelevant unless con rejects utilitarianism which he has not done so. Success of individualistic Societies: First I would reference my 2nd argument in response to this. Second, it is important to look at his source for the map. (His source 4) The definitions given there in are not equal to the ones given in the debate. It defines Collectivism as “caring about what others in your group think of you, caring about the image of your group from the outside. It's essentially about image, respect, interpersonal relationships and emotional dependence on the group.” Thus we can dismiss this map and its conclusions as it is entirely off topic. The same is true about the other paper sourced. (His source 5) It defines Collectivism as “the idea that the individual’s life belongs not to him but to the group or society of which he is merely a part, that he has no rights, and that he must sacrifice his values and goals for the group’s “greater good.” This is closer to the topic but still not the agreed on definition. Also of note, this article confirms what I stated previously… that is that utilitarianism supports collectivism. The motto as it were of utilitarianism is “the greatest good for the greatest number.” This article quotes Ayn Rand to attack that idea. “The greatest good for the greatest number” is one of the most vicious slogans ever foisted on humanity.” My opponent must either accept Utility and concede the debate, or refute utility as the basis of morality. Metaphysics: Con argues that “Human beings are not in any way metaphysically bound to one another.” I have presented already an argument that humans are bound to one another. I refer of course to the quotes from John Stuart Mill. Additionally, I quoted this in my opening argument. "Human beings are social animals. Our lives depend on other humans... We develop and learn about the world around us through the filter of other people. Our connections to others are key to not only our survival, but also to our happiness and the success of our careers... our social networks have [an enormous impact] on our lives. The bottom line is that we are influenced by, and we are able to influence, people up to three degrees removed from us." Conclusion: My opponents arguments are off topic. I.E. his sources are not compatible with the accepted definitions of this debate, nor is the framework of political ideology necessary to answer the resolved question about ethics. My opponent misunderstands and misapplies collectivism. When we view these concepts in context coupled with the accepted ethic of utility we see that collectivism ought to be preferred to individualism. Sources: (1) https://en.wikipedia.org... (2) http://www.bartleby.com... (3) https://en.wikipedia.org...