On balance, Collectivism is preferable to Individualism

REBUTTALS 1.) Collectivism and Individual SuccessThis case asserts three things. This case asserts that (1.) utilitarianism is a sound ethical system. This case also asserts that (2.) because of examples of other communal species and (3.) the sociality of human nature, collectivism is hence seen as the "rational way." I would like to respond to these assertions. The opposition says "individuals [are] statistically more likely to part of the majority than the minority [hence] collectivism ensures that any given individual is more likely to have their interests protected." Is this ideal? Let us consider two parables. Imagine you and a cookie monster are stranded on an island. You have one crate of cookies left. The cookie monster gets infinitely more pleasure than a normal person (you) eating cookies. Utilitarianism would hence lead you to let the cookie monster have all the cookies, leading to death. Let us put this on a macro-scale: say you were a sheep, and you live in a utilitarian society with two wolves. The wolves love to eat sheep. One day, they vote for lunch. They have two choices: the sheep or broccoli. Naturally, the wolves would choose the sheep-and the sheep would choose broccoli. Would it be morally justified that the wolves eat the sheep? Both parables are applicable to real-life. The first one can be applied to the Dekulakization Policies in Stalinist Russia, in which Kulaks were seen "[promoting] capitalist elements in the countryside," and "[society must] restrict the exploiting tendencies of the kulaks" only by "eliminating the kulaks as a class," for Kulak property was rightly public property. [1] This led to the Holodomir which killed at least 1.2 million people. The second one was the case of the Holocaust, in which the German public voted for the extermination of the Jewish race. Although Benthamite Utilitarianism would never have allowed that, unfettered radical collectivist utilitarianism would have seen such acts as justifiable.The opposition then says that "we can easily observe a large variety of species that instinctively live in large, interactive groups in which collective welfare is valued over individual welfare." However, in many cases, animal societies are the only choice. I will use a human example. In Christopher Boehm's book "Moral Origins," he tells us a story about a Pygmy hunter called Cephu. Cephu was caught taken excess meat from the latest hunt. Pygmy societies were egalitarian and followed a altruistic set of mores. After he was ashamed by members of his group, he apologized and attempted to reintegrate himself into society. Why did he do this? Boehm argues that it was because of the need to belong in society. Accordingly, he was given a choice via this punishment-either he was to abandon his community and be self-sufficient, or he was to reintegrate into society and follow the community's mores. To choose self-sufficiency was de facto suicide in such conditions-he voluntarily chose the need to be in society. [6] This ultimately leads to the conclusion that societies exists to further the protection of interests for the individuals. If the interests of individuals is the main aim of society, then individualism is more rational. Humans can choose what society or community they belong to-they have a rational choice, and this rational choice is neutralized via collectivism, although humans can still make it.The opposition lastly says that "humans specifically...are fundamentally social animals." However, the fact that we are a social animal does not necessitate the fact that we *need* others to survive. In fact, human sociality is actually a product of society. Since primates were more easily seen in the light than dark, they grouped together as a band of society, and from then, started developing social relations. A study by Susanne Shultz seems to demonstrate this. Since "the nocturnal ancestors of today’s primates became more active during the day" because of evolutionary factors, the primates had to bond into groups to avoid disturbance. [2] This proves that (a.) we do not need others to survive (by others I mean unrelated blood relationships) because clearly, pre-social primates were able to survive (although with less welfare than post-social ones), and (b.) that human sociality seems to be another consequence of the individuality of primate nature.2.) Individualism and Negative Social Repercussions The opposition says "[an increase in individualism is always] accompanied with an increase in destructive societal tendencies." In making this claim, he draws upon two major events: the (1.) Neolithic Revolution and (2.) the French Revolution, two revolutions that revolutionized human nature. He then (3.) draws supports his conclusions further using modern criminal statistics. I would like to respond to these.The opposition says the Neolithic Revolution led to "wars, slavery, tension between classes, and crime." He hence assumes that we should all go "back to nature!" But the diaspora to nature is often hard, especially when we regard that pre-Neolithic life was much harder than post-Neolithic life. As Jacob L. Weisdorf notes, "procurement [after the Neolithic Revolution] of material wealth beyond the wildest dreams of the Neolithic hunter and gatherer." [3] Although the opposition may assume that the rise of material wealth (and hence individualism) led to "wars, slavery" etc., there are other factors. The relative disparity between groups of people on the Paleolithic led to a reduction in warfare. According to R.C. Kelly, "When group territories are extensive and population densities are low, the percentage of territorial area rendered unexploitable by border avoidance is correspondingly reduced and the cost of hostile relations with neighbors would be less." He uses the example of Andaman tribes, who live in a primitive pre-Neolithic society. He notes that when a 1.3 mile "buffer-zone" between two groups was observed, the tribes experience a 8.1% reduction in effective territory, but he also notes that this allows for less contact between the groups and ultimately leads to less conflicts occurring. [4] Ultimately, all human suffering and conflicts only seem to appear after the Neolithic because human density rose incomparably, allowing men to focus on other things apart from livelihood. The opposition then affirms that the French Revolution had achieved liberty "at the grave expense of social stability." Although it is ultimately true that the French Revolution was rough, I would argue that this was not necessarily because of the ideology of the revolution but because of the revolution itself. For when the French Nation established itself on firm origins, was it not Napoleon, whose individualism and love for humanity was noted, who graciously created the French Empire upon the values of liberty? The French Revolution itself was violent because it was done partly of a need to completely destroy society and rebuild it again, a flaw in the Revolutionary theory, but not a flaw in the ideology of the Revolution. Edmund Burke, for example, declared that "the first thing that struck me [about the States General meeting] was a great departure from the ancient course." He notes that "the general composition was of obscure provincial advocates, of stewards of petty local jurisdictions...and the whole train of the ministers of municipal litigation, the fomenters and conductors of the petty war of village vexation. From the moment I read the list, I saw distinctly all that was to follow." [5] The opposition cannot blame individualism for the failures of the French Revolution. For if it were, then why did the American Revolution and the Glorious Revolution not fail when it espoused the same liberty that the French Revolution attempted to? The opposition then goes on to say "rates of violent crime and poverty levels [are] 3 to 4 times higher in cities than in the countryside." The opposition seems to put the blame on this on the values and mores of highly dense cities. However, the reality of the situation is much more complicated than that. For example, people who come from poorer backgrounds are more likely to commit a crime (regardless of how collectivistic and individualistic that person is) than people who hail from richer backgrounds. The opposition says that "urban centers are hubs of individuality." But cities are also hubs of prosperity and advancement. Does prosperity and advancement henceforth cause crime? Crime is indeed more prevalent in cities. However, 38% of this is explainable to the fact that cities house more opportunities to commit crimes and that cities have more policing agencies. [7] The opposition then affirms that "Individualism simply does not work out in practice, as it attempts to simultaneously promote everyone's conflicting self-interests at once." However, individualism is the act of holding the individuals as rational actors, as individuals with intrinsic value-i.e. individualism asserts that humans are fundamentally more rational than not.3.) Collectivism as Individualism P1. Collectivism is individualism ("Collectivism is essentially just an objective version of Individualism")P2. Collectivism is "more sound" than individualismP3. Via P1, individualism is more rational than individualism (substitution)C. DedThis is basically the logical conclusions of the opposition-if collectivism is proven to be more sound than individualism, although it is individualism, then how can something be more sound than itself? More on this next round ayyy lmao ciao!CITATIONS:[1] https://www.marxists.org...[2] http://www.wired.com...[3] http://volgagermanbrit.us...[4] http://www.pnas.org...[5] http://www.constitution.org...[6] http://tinyurl.com... (pg.42-43)[7] http://www.nber.org...