Collectivism ought to be preffered to Individualism

Framework: Last round Con stated “I accept my opponent’s framework. ” My framework was based on the ethical world view of Utilitarianism, or in other words, “The greatest good for the greatest number. ” Also of note, remember in the first round it is stated that the burden of proof is shared. Let’s see how the arguments stack up to our burdens. Con argued 3 things about individualism: 1) Compassion: Con argued that individualism was more compassionate. I responded we have determined utility as the framework of morality. Compassion is thus irrelevant to this debate and this argument holds no weight due to the accepted framework of this debate. 2) Success of Individualistic Societies: Con argues that individualistic societies have had greater success then collectivist societies. Though, upon examination we see his sources are defining collectivism and individualism drastically different than we have in this debate and are thence misleading at best, off topic at worst. It is worth noting again that Con’s source confirms what I stated previously… that is that utilitarianism (the framework for this debate) supports collectivism. The motto as it were of utilitarianism is “the greatest good for the greatest number. ” The article he sourced quotes Ayn Rand who attacks that idea. “The greatest good for the greatest number” is one of the most vicious slogans ever foisted on humanity. ” Being that my opponent accepted Utility and cites sources that reject utility in favor of individualism, it is clear that my opponents views are incompatible and that Utility supports collectivism. 3) Metaphysics: This is again, an off topic argument so even if I granted it, which I don’t, it would not support con’s burden. Again when placed with the frame work of utility, collectivism comes out on top. “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 source from last round. ) Summary of Con’s arguments: We see that con has not met his burden in this debate. (Pro) In addition to extensively showing utility in support of collectivism, I argued three things as well. I. The Harm “Individualism has negative social repercussions in practice” Con’s response to this argument was “Unfortunately, my opponent’s whole case relies on assertion. ” he goes on to say I “show no evidence to support this claim. ” I argued that whenever we observe an increase in society's individualistic values, we always see it accompanied with an increase in destructive societal tendencies. This argument is well sourced and documents clearly that Individualism simply does not work out in practice -- it attempts to simultaneously promote everyone's conflicting self-interests, which inevitably leads to tension, violence, and the degeneration of the social fabric. In this way, Individualism (ironically) tends to hurt the average individual's chance of success -- it's self-refuting. This argument was to demonstrate the harm of individualism, as individualism shows a net harm collectivism on grounds of Utility ought to be preferred and fills my burden in this debate. II. Collectivism increases the chances of individual success Con’s contention to this argument is that Majority rule can lead to the issue of Mob rule. While this contention is a potential harm that societies often try to mitigate with a balance of powers it does nothing to disprove the ultimate truth. Collectivism increases the chances of individual success. Con does contend the different species of animals, though this misses the mark as I argued For humans specifically. We are fundamentally social animals. I even cited anthropologist Paula Grey, to which con never responds. Thus we see this argument standing and provides support to my burden of proof. III. Collectivism is a more objective version of Individualism I argued Individualism posits that everyone should place paramount ethical value on their own interests. However, this only takes into account the subjective viewpoint of each individual. From an objective point of view, all humans beings are fundamentally the same, and no one person is inherently superior to another. Therefore, *every* individual's interests have equal value; intellectual honesty requires that if I value my own interests, then I also have to value everyone else's just as much -- and it is this concept which forms the basis for collectivism. In other words, Collectivism is essentially just an objective version of Individualism, effectively rendering it to be the more rational philosophy. This is rationally intuitive. Though, in hind sight winning this argument does not ultimately help fill my burden. Summary of my (Pro’s) arguments: I demonstrated a net harm to individualism and a positive benefit to collectivism, thus meeting my burden in this debate. Conclusion of Debate: Thank you to my opponent for his time and thoughts. It has become clear that pro’s burden is met, con’s is not. The framework of Utility clearly supports collectivism over individualism and as my opponent accepted that framework, he loses.