Collectivism ought to be preffered to Individualism

Introduction I thank Kasmic for instigating and agreeing to debate such a controversial topic. In this round I will provide our opening arguments and will use the following round for rebuttals. I hope that me and Kasmic will learn more about this topic from the debate. Apologies if you find that I occassionally speak in the plural (ie. instead of I, I might say we), this is because me and Kasmic debated the same topic a while ago but in a team debate with Hayd as my partner and Romanii as his. I am copying my arguments over from that previous debate but since that was a team debate you may find that I speak in plural in this round. I once again apologize in advance. Thank you once more for instigating and without further ado I will begin with my case. Framework My framework will be based on the political ideology, libertarianism. Libertarians feel very strongly in relation to individualism and a less restricting government on civilians - i.e. freedom of choice [1]. If we are to prefer society over the individual then the majority within society will receive the preferences. Assuming that the requests of the individual are reasonable and logical then we can easily provide both the majority within society and the minority what they want (as long as it coincides with rationality and reason), this produces a positive correlation between individualistic societies and overall happiness [2]. This happiness increase coincides with basic libertarian philosophy of keeping the individual prioritized. Our framework demonstrates that individualism equates to an increase of happiness within society [2]. We ought to view this debate under libertarianism since we're are debating which is preferable. Preferability is defined as the action that is most desirable or suitable. Ergo, we should be looking at this from the libertarian onset since they prioirtize and strongly value life and doing what is in people's best interest. Compassion Individualistic societies are built on equal opportunity. A quote that I would like to build this contention around is a quote that contrasts greatly from the stereotypes of both individualism and collectivism: Let’s put this in the context of a hypothetical. We drop a bomb on city that is known to be a city in which a dangerous cult lives. If we think about this from an individualist perspective, we would individually assess the people in order to determine if each individual is innocent or not. A collectivist society would assess the people in general and therefore bomb them all to completely eliminate this entire group of people, regardless of whether some of them were innocent (forced to join, born into the cult, etc.) As you can observe from the hypothetical, individualism demonstrates higher moral standards. 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 [3]. Success Of Individualistic Societies Here is a map of individualistic and collectivist societies within Europe (blue being individualist and red being collectivist): At first this may seem like a case against individualism due to the evidently higher quantity of collectivist countries, but when we look at the map and the success rates (economically speaking) of the individualistic countries in comparison to the collectivist countries, there is a huge and evident economical difference-wherein the individualist ones are more successful[4] [5]. It is often used as a rebuttal to state that there are many factors that determine wealth however whilst this is true, there is very strong evidence suggesting that individualism is the root to wealth and economic benefits [6] [8] “[Because] individualist culture gives social status rewards to people who stand out … give a special, culturally motivated, incentive for innovation that is separate from the standard monetary incentive...As a result, the higher innovation rate eventually leads to higher levels of productivity and output in the long run compared to a collectivist culture … the advantages of individualist culture affect dynamic efficiency and thus long run growth” [6] The paper goes on to say, “Using Hofstede’s measure of individualism, we regress the log of GDP per worker on individualism and find a strong and significant positive effect of individualism. We report in Gorodnichenko and Roland (2010) that a one standard deviation increase in individualism (say from the score of Venezuela to Greece, or from that of Brazil to Luxemburg) leads to a 60 to 87 percent increase in 7 the level of income, which is a quantitatively large effect. We also observe strong, positive correlations between individualism and measures of innovation. The results are similar when we use Schwartz’s measures of individualism. These are not simply correlations. In Gorodnichenko and Roland (2010, 2011), we provide evidence of a causal effect of individualism on innovation and measures of long run growth.” [6] Because individualism awards social status to those who are being effective, this creates an incentive for innovation, putting individualist countries above collectivist countries. Individualism is preferable to collectivism if a country wants to be economically successful. Metaphysics The indivisible beings we see are individual humans. These individuals may be organized in a group in order to achieve a purpose, for example a soccer team. But the team is still comprised of individual players, each with his own mind and body. This concept is demonstrated beautifully by Frederick Douglass in his letter to his ex-master. I am myself; you are yourself; we are two distinct persons, equal persons. What you are, I am. You are a man, and so am I. God created both, and made us separate beings. I am not by nature bound to you, or you to me. Nature does not make your existence depend upon me, or mine to depend upon yours. I cannot walk upon your legs, or you upon mine. I cannot breathe for you, or you for me; I must breathe for myself, and you for yourself. We are distinct persons, and are each equally provided with faculties necessary to our individual existence. In leaving you, I took nothing but what belonged to me, and in no way lessened your means for obtaining an honest living. Your faculties remained yours, and mine became useful to their rightful owner. Human beings are not in any way metaphysically bound to one another because each must drive their own bodies, must feel their own emotions, no one else can do this for them. Groups of people (families, communities, or societies) are not metaphysically real; they do not exist in and of themselves; they are not fundamental units of human life. Rather, they are some number of individuals [7]. Individualism correlates with the fundamentals of human life, whilst collectivism does not. Therefore, individualism is preferable to collectivism.Utilitarianism Utilitarianism is the philosophy that states that actions are right if they are useful or benefit the majority [6]. Take the following hypothetical: If 10 people were strapped to a train track and you had the option to switch the rail direction towards 1 person strapped to a train track what would you do? The collectivist would leave the train to kill the 10 people. They would view the 10 people collectively and therefore they are equal to the 1 person. They would leave it because since they are equal there is no need to intervene with the death of a person if the outcome will ultimately be the same (in their opinion). An individualist, on the other hand, would view them all as separate individuals. The individualist would switch the train track so that it killed the one person - ultimately saving lives. This analogy doesn't seem particularly detrimental until you expand it to a larger scale. A true collectivist would see killing 1 person as equally bad as to killing 7 billion people. Therefore, if we substitue 7 billion as oppose to 10 in the analogy (for the purpose of the analogy we won't look at the feasibility of the train being able to kill all of those people and the size of the train track, etc.), the collectivist would rather let those 7 billion die than switch the track to kill the 1. Thus we can see that collectivism is detrimental. ConclusionIn conclusion, I have shown through strong and reliable evidence that individualism is the preferable ideology to collectivism. I once again thank Kasmic for his case and as mentioned earlier, I plan to address it in the following round. The resolution is negated! Sources[1] https://en.wikipedia.org...;[2] http://www2.eur.nl...[3] http://www.activistpost.com...[4] http://www.eupedia.com...;[5] https://www.theobjectivestandard.com...;[6] https://www.google.co.uk...;