Does one’s life belong to himself or to the community/society he lives in? Well, perspective varies from person to person. If you go and take private data from people you meet and analyze the data, you would see the diversity in opinions. Those opinions have their distinct evidence to back standout. Technically, every argument being raised can be expressed as a two-way street. It’s true that more or less than half the people you obtain the data from likely to choose individualism and the rest would likely to choose collectivism for public good; but, what really matters is which group has more weight on their side, and by weight, I mean the individual’s capability in debugging the context the finest way possible and demonstrating the understanding …show more content…
Ask yourself this, “shouldn’t you be the one to control how you live?” An individual is the sovereign and bear the right to set himself as being the fundamental unit of moral concerns. On the other hand, there are groups of people who think, we, the people, live in a community/society/state and we should be obedient to the customs that are set by the community we live in. Their argument, too, makes complete sense since we live on a platform that was already built beforehand and, therefore, we need to obey the rules of that platform. It drags in the idea of a transaction where there is no survival if one isn’t willing to perform an exchange [duty]. It is the sort of duty where one must sacrifice his values and goals for the greater good of the society. In this case, the society becomes the unit of moral concern and the value of the individual is dependent upon the task as he serves the community. The underlined theme of living in a rule bounded society is that the individuals can enjoy their life as the way the society permits …show more content…
The individuals might be the core part (say, on a baseball team, or in a company), yet the inseparable creatures we see are distinct individuals. Everybody has his own personality, his own life. Societies, seeing that they exist, are just products of individuals that came together for some purpose. This is a perceptible actuality about the way the world is. It doesn't involve closely-held conviction or social tradition, and it isn't reasonably far from being obviously true. It is a perceptual-level, magically given reality. Things are what they are; people are people. This concept of debatable preference, technically, exists in any form of life. Regional communities, politics, institutional units (schools, colleges, companies, churches), and even in literature. If you look at the cross-cultural practicality of any region around the world, you would see how different cultures form their communities in a defined mixture of collectivism that is embedded by the characteristic materials of individualism. To be honest, there are no winning side to an argument which is based on to decide whether individualism or collectivism should be preferred one over
The world is divided up into numerous things: Countries, states, cities, communities, etc. However, when looking at the big scope of things, one can group the vast amount of people into a society. This society is where the majority lie in the scheme of things - in other words, the common people. Individuals do exist in this society, but they are scarce in a world of conformism. Society’s standards demands an individual to conform, and if the individual refuses they are pushed down by society.
In the long trek of life, people are constantly chided to follow their hearts, and to be themselves, and to let our individuality run free. As Georg Simmel once said,“The deepest problems of modern life derive from the claim of the individual to preserve the autonomy and individuality of his existence in the face of overwhelming social forces, of historical heritage, of external culture, and of the technique of life.” He is utterly correct. Every person, every mind and every heart, has their own way of doing things. We have associated individuality with singularit...
The word collectivism often makes people cringe. Overall, there is a general fear of not being able to make personal decisions in America. According to the Merriam-Webster Dictionary, collectivism can be defined as; emphasis on collective rather than individual action or identity (“Collectivism”). In Anthem, Ayn Rand describes an extreme collectivist society.
Noah Miller English Honors: D Ms. Hiller 13 December 2013 1984 Major Essay Assignment. Individualism is the one side versus its opposite, collectivism, that is the degree to which individuals are integrated into groups. When put into a collective whole, one might do for the whole more than one does for oneself.
The debate over individualism and collectivism has been the fundamental conflict both in political philosophy and in ethics. Philosophers such as Ayn Rand think that human beings are fundamentally individuals, and that everyone exists for his own sake, neither sacrificing himself to others nor sacrificing others to himself. But it is very rare for one to live completely alone by himself. The entire human race would not be able to evolve and reproduce, if humans were individualistic in nature, and each individual needs some form of support from group to enhance its own odds of surviving. Humans naturally are in need of each other to survive, to reproduce, and to protect their offspring. Such needs are innately built into every human being, and
...bol of individualism. As reason defines, it’s sensible to define individuals, individually; as separate entities. Collectivism, on the other hand, undermines this principle. Ironically, this lack of reason is exactly what allows for it to achieve political and societal success—by utilizing the undefeatable irrationality.
Individualism and collectivism are conflicting beliefs with the nature of humans, society, and the relationships between them, however, these ideologies are not diametrically opposing since both are essential towards balancing beliefs from becoming extremes. The first source represents the idea of collectivism and suggests that the society must focus on moving their viewpoint from ‘me’ into ‘we’ in the interest of survival and progression. This perspective presents the idea that the individual’s advantage belongs not only to the person, but to the group or society of which he or she is a part of, and that the individual’s values and goals are for the group’s “greater good.” Likewise, Karl Marx’s principle of communism emphasizes in the elimination
his own life how he wishes, even if it will damage health or lead to
Individuality is the quality or character of a particular person or thing that distinguishes them from others of the same kind, especially when strongly marked. According
In this paper I will be talking about the pros and cons of American individualism in the stories “The Yellow Wallpaper”, “The Masque of the Red Death”. ”The Raven”, and “For Some Wiccans”. My opinion on the stories, poem, and article and what I think the perfect person would be like.
Opponents of the collectivism idea say that there is no room for individuality when a society conforms. Individualism is the idea that the individual’s life belongs to him and that he has an inalienable right to live it as he sees fit, to act on his own judgment, to keep and use the product of his effort, and to
Individualism in today’s society is the “belief that each person is unique, special, and a ‘basic unit of nature’.” The individualism concept puts an “emphasis on individual initiative” where people act independently of others and use self-motivation to prosper. The individualists “value privacy” over community the individual thrives to move ahead in life (U S Values).
“Individualistic cultures, in the western-hemisphere, [such as the United States,] emphasize… personal identity and self-determination. Conformity is far less pervasive in individualistic societies because democratic choices and laissez-faire viewpoints are somewhat considered.”
The quest to find one’s identity and have a sense of individuality is rampant in Kazuo Ishiguro’s Never Let Me Go. The humanistic urge to have purpose is embodied in the characters of Kathy, Tommy and Ruth very differently. They each know that their life’s purpose is to donate until “completion,” yet on the way there they explore themselves and find out there is more to each of them than their vital organs, even if that is how society has labeled them.
This dimension describes the relationship between the individual and the collectivism that prevails in a given society. Individualism means mostly caring of oneself and one’s immediate family. In contrast, collectivism relates to caring for both oneself and other groups.