Individualism In An Individualist Society

For many centuries there has been arguments between whether a society should be collective or individualistic. In an individualistic society, the idea is that the individual's life belongs to him and he has the right to pursue what he wishes. In a collective society, the individual's life belongs to the group and the individual must sacrifice the values they hold for the “greater good” of the group. The main question asked in this debate is whether an individual's life belongs to him or does it belong to the group. By working as individuals, a society is able to achieve more than a group and can enjoy more benefits and therefore should be individualistic. The individual is the basic unit of human life. Human beings are discrete from one

In an individualist society, the individuals have to power to change their government if they believe it is becoming corrupt or failing. “Individualist culture is also open to institutional innovations and experiments in governance reform, in the spirit of constraining the executive...”(Gorodnichenko)1 . The United States is an example of a society built upon the ideas of individualism. The individual has the right to Liberty and is able to participate in the government. By having a government in which the individual has a say, there is more room for change. “...individualist culture welcomes law, and thus the judicial branch of government as a tool for conflict resolution between individuals…” This is the advantage the individual has over the group. The individual's rights are protected by the law and they themselves can protect themselves using the law. In the collective society, going against the government is an alien thought, as the government is the main structure that makes up the group. There is less room for change in government policies in a collectivist society. Thus, the individualistic society is able to have more reform and rights than the collective

However, this statement has no tangible meaning and it can be used to justify a broad spectrum of scenarios, including callous ones. “ If you consider this moral, you would have to approve of the following examples: fifty-one percent of humanity enslaving the other forty-nine...The greatest number (the Germans) supported the Nazi government which told them that their greatest good would be served by exterminating the smaller number (the Jews).”(Biddle, 6) How can this statement be used to justify revolting actions and still be argued that the greater good was accomplished? The actions that are portrayed in these scenarios display this statement, which collectivists give a positive meaning to, can be used to support acts of violence and injustice. For the group committing these vicious actions, they are producing good for the greater number, but are their actions humane and justified? What right does the group have to decide what will bring the greater good when they are harming a large number of people? Furthermore, collectivism, “encourages conformity and discourages individuals from dissenting and standing out.” (Gorodnichenko)1 With such a system, only the group could determine what's good