On balance, Collectivism is preferable to Individualism

I would like to start with a framework of the debate, then with some opening arguments, before going on to the rebuttals. FRAMEWORKThis is a value debate. We are trying to see which paradigm would be “more preferable.” But what is “more preferable?” A criterion for more preferable, in this case, would necessarily have a theoretic and pragmatic value: hence, the debate ultimately boils down to (a.) “how theoretically justified is one paradigm over another” and (b.) “how pragmatically justified is one paradigm over another.” Condition (b.) is straightforward. Condition (a.) is more ambiguous. Nevertheless, (a.) should be conceived in terms of coherence and soundness. (a.) and (b.) should also be coherent. This is NOT a ethics debate, but rather a political philosophy debate. The phrase “that the interest of x be considered “ethically paramount” assumes that if one side were to be affirmed, then necessarily, that side (in a perfect world) would have the authority to impose it. This is political philosophy. Contrawise, morality concerns personal issues, such as “if x happens, would it be moral to do y?” If morality was at debate today, we’d see “egoism vs. altruism.” Hence, the burden of side-proposition is to affirm that “collectivism” is (a.) more theoretically and (b.) pragmatically justified than individualism. The burden of side-opposition, on the other hand, is to do the vice-versa for individualism.ARGUMENTS1.) Essence vs. ExistenceCollectivism implies essentialism. It assumes that individuals are pre-destined to serve society. This is basically summed up by many fascists, who were themselves collectivists of the radical kind. Italian fascist jurist Alfredo Rocco attempts to present the view in which “Society becomes a sum of determined individuals” (the individualist view) as “[an] anti-historical [view which] under a concealing cloak [of] a strongly materialistic nature.” [1] Collectivism assumes individuals exist for the sake of society. This henceforth implies that, for the human condition, “essence precedes existence.” i.e. the essence of man is necessarily pre-determined before his existence (or birth). This is ultimately false-for if we observe in newborn children, they function independently and is cared for only by a voluntary affection. The independence of man is ultimate. This also false via the fact that the death of someone does not necessarily depend on the death of another person. Hence, if man is independent, then his “existence” necessarily precedes his “essence.” For if man is independent, then nothing (except for his moral persuasions and coercion) impels him to service his “society.” Some may say that this is a basis of amoralism. For example, one can easily raise the example of Ayn Rand. A radical individualist herself, she advocated an amoral vision of ethics-“rational egoism.” But there must be a noted difference between “egoism” and “individualism.” Often, there are two senses in which individualism is used in: as (a.) opposition to collectivism and (b.) opposition to altruism. In sense (b.), we have the synonyms of selfish and egoistic. The individualism that we are debating here is in sense of (a.), and to be sense (a.) individualistic and an altruist is no contradiction. Karl Popper notes that “one of the best examples of this attitude is perhaps [Charles] Dickens. It would be difficult to say which is the stronger, his passionate hatred of selfishness or his passionate interest in individuals with all their human weaknesses.” [2] 2.) Relativism and Human Rights Individualism is the only way in which rights are affirmed in the normal sense. Under collectivism, the individual exists for society. Before we go, on we must agree that human rights form a fundamental part of today’s society: indeed, an open society depends upon the recognition of human rights. In collectivism, the only way in which man is understood is as a part of society. Societies are different; if societies are different, then some societies are freer than others. The natural corollary of that is that if some societies are freer than others, then the rights of man are ultimately different from each society. But this would ultimately be a contradiction to the inherent equality of man-for how could some men have some rights and others not? Ultimately, collectivism results in some type of an understanding of rights based upon the society, not the individual. A great example of this is the noted differences between the role of the women in traditional societies. In Neolithic societies, women were worshipped as gods. In other societies, however, women are seen in an inferior trace. In Persian society, “sigheh” desensitizes women as objects of lust. These differences arise because of a false understanding of rights; an understanding of rights based upon society.Collectivism also implies that human beings are merely tools for society. For if the interests of the collective are “paramount,” then total devotion to society is required from the citizens. But humans have intrinsic value-and this intrinsic value amounts to the inherent (or potential) rationality that man necessarily has. As the Universal Declaration of Human Rights proudly declares, rights are universal. This grounding would be impossible under a paradigm where the rights of man are grounded within the realms of society. The only possible grounding of human rights can come only from an understanding of the individual human being. For ultimately, if x has the ultimate fundamental right to y, then everyone has the ultimate fundamental right to y, for man is equal. Ultimately, it is not through the analysis of man’s connection to the “whole” which serves as a justification for what freedoms he receive, for that would necessarily be a relativist stance which prevents some men from having freedom. Man’s intrinsic value must be recognized before society’s. 3.) The Case of Iran“Vali-ye faqih (abbreviated Faqih)” is the Islamic Republic of Iran’s governing system. Based upon principles in which Ayatollah Khomeini, the architect of the Iranian Islamic Revolution gave in 1970, it was partly based on a collectivist interpretation of Plato’s philosopher-king and Islamic law. The Faqih demanded a “alī-yi amr” be the executor of Islamic law. Accordingly to Khomeini, “[it is obvious from the regulations of the Qu’ran] how much care Islam devotes to government and the political and economic relations of society, with goal of creating conditions conducive to the production of morally upright and virtuous human beings.” [3] Should this attitude be considered collectivism? The Faqih demands “the rulers of the Muslim countries truly [represent] the believers and enact God’s ordinances.” Islam means the submission to the will of God. In the philosophy of Faqih, we see whole societies coerced into submitting to the will of God-the individual exists for society, which exists for God.The human rights situation in Iran is deplorable. In May, an Islamic Revolutionary Court sentenced eight Facebook users “a total of 127 years in prison for allegedly posting messages deemed to insult government officials and “religious sanctities.” Executions are common, with at least 200 executions as of October ‘14. Crimes liable for execution include “insulting the Prophet, apostasy, same-sex relations, adultery, and drug-related offenses.” [4] Is this so because of the set of laws, or because of collectivism? The two questions are tautologies of each other: the set of laws that the Faqih presents necessarily implies collectivism. The philosophy of the Faqih necessarily regulates the lives of the individuals for the sake of society. As Khomeini notes, “it is impossible to fulfill the duty of executing God’s commands without there being established properly comprehensive administrative and executive [institutions].” [3] The Faqih society henceforth cultivates individuals for the service of the Islamic government, which is seen as a bridge between the individual and God’s true words. Why is this collectivism responsible for such a horrendous human rights records? Because collectivism assumes that since society is paramount, any deviations and threats to society would be objectionable-ultimately destructive for society itself. Hence, with regards to the “societal good,” each execution is wholly justified by, in the case of the Faqih, God’s will.REBUTTALS:1.) Negative Social Repercussions and IndividualismThe opposition here attempts an attack of individualism upon a misunderstanding of the term. By "placing the interests of individuals" over the interests of society, we do not necessarily mean that individualism attempt to "simultaneously promote everyone's conflicting self-interests at once." Individualism attempts to hold the individual as the controller of their lives-as a rational and independent actor. The opposition says that "rates of violent crime and poverty levels being 3 to 4 times higher in cities than in the countryside" is a valid case for collectivism. This is not because of the increased individualism, but rather because of other socio-economic factors. More of this will be discussed later on. The opposition says that "[after the Neolithic Revolution], human history has been notably more violent, with wars, slavery, tension between classes, and crime becoming commonplace." However, violence, tension, and crime have always been part of human history-in fact, "there is no evidence that the Mesolithic was either more or less violent than other periods of human (pre)history." [6] More on this on the next round-ultimately, we cannot leave with several correlations (but not sufficient causation). ciao, ayy lmao Citations[1] http://www.gutenberg.org...[2] http://tinyurl.com...(pg. 173)[3] http://www.iranchamber.com... [4] http://www.hrw.org...[5] http://tinyurl.com...[6] http://tinyurl.com...