Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Collectivism vs individualism essay
Collectivism vs individualism
Collectivism vs individualism essay
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Collectivism vs individualism essay
Throughout time there has been a fundamental conflict between collectivist values and individualist values that have set the basis of how societies around the world operate today and how they will operate in the future. In Aristotle’s quote he states how “Man is a goal-seeking animal” and how if he attempts to achieve these goals then only then will his life “have meaning”. His idea of how “man” can bear resemblance to an “animal” can be compared with Jean-Jacques Rousseau’s ideology of how men are savages and must improve themselves. It is evident that his quote is embracing individualist ideologies that can be closely related to the idea of existentialism, which is founded on the principles of giving meaning to life. Those who support these …show more content…
ideologies would be more right-wing along the political spectrum such as anarchists, classical liberals, and conservatives. Individualistic ideologies have originated from the principles of private property, rule of law, individual rights and freedoms, competition, economic freedom, and self-interest.
Some people may believe that a society should have goals directed towards the principles of collectivism rather than those of individualism, where private property, collective responsibility, collective interests, adherence to collective norms, cooperation, and economic control are the principles that goals must be directed to. People who value collectivist ideologies may believe that goals focused on collective interest must be prioritized, if each individual were to achieve the goals of the community then society would benefit as a whole. Another example of collectivist goals could be public property, if corporations or small individual businesses were to partner with the government than the economy would improve. The last example of collectivist ideologies could be the idea of cooperation and economic control in the marketplace, where if each corporation were to cooperate with each other than all the hatred of rival companies would be abolished and society could live in a peaceful and wealthy state. An individualist would argue that an individual’s goals should be concentrated on before concentrating on those of the …show more content…
state. One would believe that self-interest could benefit society, where people generate their own wealth for their own interest and it would serve the collective good. An individualist may also believe that private businesses are more efficient than those partnered with the government because the government can hold corporations back from their true potential. Another example of an individual’s ideology is the idea of competition and economic freedom; they would believe that if the marketplace were to have a competitive setting and people were free to sell what they want to whomever they want that the company’s true aptitude can be revealed. After considering opposing sides of this value conflict and the source, it is apparent that we should embrace the Aristotle’s ideas pertaining to individualist ideologies. Goals directed towards self-interest are fundamental to an individual’s worldview.
The idea of generating wealth for your own or your family’s interests can be traced back to Adam Smith’s ideology of the baker, which essentially states that an individual does not produce goods for your purpose but for their own which then is beneficial to your interests. Copious individuals and corporations within our society have generated wealth by producing goods and services, but those who have great prosperity have established foundations that are beneficial to the collective good. These affluent corporations began based on the founder’s own self-interest-which was most likely to become rich and purchase whatever they desired- but afterwards benefiting the common good. An example of a foundation that benefits the community would be the Ford Foundation, which is directed towards advancing human welfare and taking their own profits from the automobile industry and donating it to organizations with the common goal of reducing poverty. The Ford Foundation is amongst the top five most charitable foundations in the world with a total benefaction of $11.2 billion. Another example of a foundation founded on self-interests would be the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, which is essentially engaged on providing education and knowledge about technology. This foundation is founded by Bill Gates, the wealthiest man in the world, from his own self-interests he has turned a once small business into a
massive corporation and has benefited the world with a total endowment of 42 billion, making it the most charitable foundation in the world. These businesses were created by “goal-seeking” men who strived and reached out for their goals later accomplishing them and assisting society as a whole. Private business and property is a key principle in an individual’s values. Private businesses are those not owned by the government, when there is no affiliation with government a business can truly strive and reach their potential. Oftentimes government can hold organizations back with their strict policies not allowing genuine ideas and theories to surface, which overall conceals their potential to become prosperous. The government holds businesses back where in times of economic turmoil it can drag its partnered industries down and ultimately create a recession. An example of this would be Alberta’s oil industry, this year we have reached a recession where our GDP has fallen two successive quarters. Oil companies have overproduced and overall there is too much supply, due to strict government policies, businesses are unable to solve these economic problems and royalty confusion has developed. Government involvement has dragged down our oil industry and has created a hiring freeze, outsourcing, and numerous layoffs, Alberta’s debt has risen from its average of approximately $21,164 to $27, 313. When controlled by the government than we are not as efficient and cautious about our spending and resources because the government is in charge of them, therefore public businesses can often overproduce which creates a recession and ultimately affects the private companies as well. Another example of the benefits of private businesses would be the private health care system, within the United States of America there are private healthcare systems, in the documentary “Sicko”, Michael Moore ultimately discusses the disadvantages of the private healthcare system, but he fails to discuss the disadvantages of public healthcare. Disadvantages include raised taxes for other citizens who may not need healthcare, there is no competition between health care companies therefore they cannot give the best service because government involvement restricts them from doing so. Ultimately the government prevents us from “goal-seeking”, we are restricted by their involvement. The final example of individual beliefs would be through competition, we cannot meet our full potential if we do not have competition. Coca cola and Pepsi are example of companies that benefit with competition; they are influenced to create better products when in competition and ultimately it benefits society. Another example would be with Apple and Microsoft, where new innovative ideas such as the Apple Watch can be created to meet consumers desires which overall improves the economy. The final example could be with online retailers, such as Amazon and EBay, where they compete for the most comfortable and convenient way for consumers to buy products online, ranging from online bidding to the quickest shipping and easiest payment. Goals that corporations have are mostly directed to competing with rival companies, and those who benefit the most are society. When corporations make goals based on self-interest then our economy can be improved due to rival companies and the desire to succeed. Overall when individuals prioritize their goals above those of the community it can later benefit society as a whole and go towards the collective good. When individuals seek goals towards self-interest, private property, and competition and economic freedom then society can prosper and ultimately benefit. Individuals should prioritize their goals above the goals of the community, only then can we live in a genuine state of existentialism where our lives have “meaning”.
Jean Jacques Rousseau in On Education writes about how to properly raise and educate a child. Rousseau's opinion is based on his own upbringing and lack of formal education at a young age. Rousseau depicts humanity as naturally good and becomes evil because humans tamper with nature, their greatest deficiency, but also possess the ability to transform into self-reliant individuals. Because of the context of the time, it can be seen that Rousseau was influenced by the idea of self-preservation, individual freedom, and the Enlightenment, which concerned the operation of reason, and the idea of human progress. Rousseau was unaware of psychology and the study of human development. This paper will argue that Rousseau theorizes that humanity is naturally good by birth, but can become evil through tampering and interfering with nature.
Humans, throughout recorded history, have searched for a proper way of living which would lead them to ultimate happiness; the Nicomachean Ethics, a compilation of lecture notes on the subject written by Greek philosopher Aristotle, is one of the most celebrated philosophical works dedicated to this study of the way. As he describes it, happiness can only be achieved by acting in conformity with virtues, virtues being established by a particular culture’s ideal person operating at their top capacity. In our current society the duplicity of standards in relation to virtue makes it difficult for anyone to attain. To discover true happiness, man must first discover himself.
Jean-Jacques Rousseau has been referred to as the father of the romanticism movement due to his philosophical writings challenging the status quo at the time. To help set the cultural scene surrounding him, he lived in Paris just prior to the French Revolution where turmoil was in the atmosphere. During this time in France’s history monarchs reigned, the Catholic Church was the leading religion, and those who were considered commoners were viewed as less than human. I believe Rousseau’s environment led him to ponder and write about assumptions regarding human nature, the government’s role in relation to humans, types of will people have, and educational methods. His works had some comparative and contrasting features
The Freedom of Individual Citizens in Rousseau’s State “While uniting himself with all, [each associate] may still obey himself alone, and remain as free as before."[1 ] While Rousseau would claim that citizens in his state are free, much of the criticism levelled against him is precisely because his state is seen as authoritarian and against individual diversity. Rousseau’s state is one created by all citizens in their own interests and therefore guided by the ‘general will’, whereby laws are made to promote the public rather than the private good. All citizens take an active part in decision-making and are required to adhere to the ‘general will’. Sovereignty is a key word in examining Rousseau’s state as it is held by the inalienable and indivisible body politic that acts in accordance with the ‘general will’.
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
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
It is human nature to see those who are different and group them into distinct categories. The distinction of Individualism versus Collectivism is one that is currently being studied extensively. On one side, individualism sees individuals as the fundamental unit of a society. Individuals are supposed to be unique, independent, and most importantly, willing to put their own interests above all others. On the other hand, collectivism views the basic building block of society as social groups, stressing the interpersonal bonds between people. Collectivist values dictate that group goals and values have higher precedence than an individual’s. Due to the seemingly polar opposite nature of these ideologies, it is inevitable that they will be compared to see which is more beneficial to the country and its people. Some might point to the success of the US, an extremely individualistic country, in support of individualistic values. They will point to the freedom of choice and diversity that individualism boasts of. Others stress the flaws of the US in response, and while both sides do have their truths, the costs that come with individualistic values are too great to be ignored. Highly individualistic attitudes have caused many large scale problems which have long been identified as difficult to resolve issues. These problems include, but are not limited to, promoting aggressive acts, creating an obsession with social power, and allowing a system of injustice to be born.
It is only natural for humans to question why we have been put on this wonderful earth of ours. What does it mean to be these lucky ones called humans? Do we really have a human nature that is all our own? Are there really living beings that kind find something within this world to call our life purpose? And if there are, how do may we achieve it? It is happiness or simple the drive to survive that propel us forward? These are just some of the types of questions that philosophers have been wrestling with for centuries. Some argue that human nature is very much a real thing and that it is essential to living a happy fulfilled life, while others reject that idea completely. However, despite the completely opposite stances that philosophers can take when it comes to human nature, it’s not uncommon to see some surprising similarities between those who support it, and those who do not. One of the biggest examples of this, would be in regards to the Aristotle and his books on Nicomachean Ethics and Sartre with his writing of Existentialism Is a Humanism. When it comes to these two philosophers in particular it would appear on the surface that they are nothing alike. Aristotle being quite the supporter of human nature and it’s ability to give humans fulfilling lives, and Sartre who rejects the human nature completely for the idea that we as humans are essentially just going through life and making choices. Having said this, I would now like to discuss the individual views and arguments that both men have in regards to their views on human nature, it’s relationship to purpose, free will, and politics, and show that within these both Aristotle and Sartre give us the ability to see, that maybe to a certain that we are in fact responsible fo...
The first basic issue confronting all societies is to define the nature of the relation between the individual and the group. This dimension is frequently labeled as individualism versus collectivism (Hofstede, 1980, 1991). In cultures at the Conservatism pole of the dimension, Schwartz (1994) noted that the person is viewed as embedded in a collectivity, finding meaning in life largely through social relationships, through identifying with the group and participating in its shared way of life. Schwartz (1999) noted that this value type emphasizes maintenance of the status quo, propriety, and restraint of actions or inclinations that might disrupt the solitary group or the traditional order. Exemplary specific values are social order, respect
Marx’s theory of alienation describes the separation of things that naturally belong together. For Marx, alienation is experienced in four forms. These include alienation from ones self, alienation from the work process, alienation from the product and alienation from other people. Workers are alienated from themselves because they are forced to sell their labor for a wage. Workers are alienated from the process because they don’t own the means of production. Workers are alienated from the product because the product of labor belongs to the capitalists. Workers do not own what they produce. Workers are alienated from other people because in a capitalist economy workers see each other as competition for jobs. Thus for Marx, labor is simply a means to an end.
The problem is to find a form of association … in which each, while uniting
For Aristotle the Chief Good of any being is in the exercise of their purpose. For Aristotle, it seems that life cannot be the work of man, as any number of plants possess simple life; nor can sensation be his calling, as all manner of animal possess sensation. Rather, says Aristotle, we must look to reason as the foundation of Man's work, as Man possesses reason where others do not. And, he continues, as work may be of a good or bad nature, it can be assumed that, "the Good of Man comes to be 'a working of the Soul (reason) in the way...
Aristotle’s thoughts on ethics conclude that all humans must have a purpose in life in order to be happy. I believe that some of the basics of his ideas still hold true today. This essay points out some of those ideas.
Civilizations are typically broken up into two categories: collectivist. Individualist cultures, like those of the United States and Western Europe, highlight personal accomplishment regardless of the expense of team goals, causing a powerful awareness of competition. Collectivist cultures, including these of China, Korea, and Asia, emphasize work and family team aims above desires or individual needs.
According to Aristotelian ethics, the highest goal in life is happiness. This happiness is often misinterpreted though, as most people think of happiness as a physical pleasure or honor, but this is only because they have a flawed view of the good life. Those who tend to share this viewpoint do not understand true happiness because people are generally deficient in virtue. Aristotle has a proactive conception of the good life: happiness waits only for those who go out and seize it. Happiness, according to Aristotle, is also a public affair, not a private one, so with whom we share this happiness with is of great significance. “... every substance not only possess a form; one could say it is also possessed by a form, for it naturally strives to become a perfect specimen of its kind. Every substance seeks to actualize what it is potentially” (Tarnas p.58). Aristotle also says that humans have a telos, an end or purpose, which is our goal to achieve. This telos is based on our distinct human capacity for rational thought. He also argued that the body & mind are inseparable; so when the body dies, the soul also ceases to exist. Aristotle did not believe in animal rights however, as in Politics, he claimed that nature made all an...