The Pros And Cons Of Collectivism

Framework:

There is one obvious reason the framework I provided for this debate ought to be preferred. My framework is on topic. Con offers an alternative framework than the one I provided. He offers a political ideology, I offered an ethical philosophy. Because this debate rests on the question of collectivism or individualism being “ethically paramount” per definitions it is clear that a framework based on ethics should be preferred.

Clarification:

After reading con’s arguments and conversing with him in the comments it has become clear that con misunderstand the topic ideals being debated. Con especially misunderstands collectivism as a whole. I will thence be providing a clear summary of collectivism.

Collectivism: “the philosophy

In fact, one of the main criticisms of utilitarianism is that it can ignore the boundaries of the individual.

For example, Thomas Nagel objected to utlilitarianism stating it “treats the desires, needs, satisfactions, and dissatisfactions of distinct persons as if they were the desires, etc., of a mass person.” (3)

This presents a huge issue for my opponent in this debate. This is because he has not rejected Utility, rather tried to use it as part of his argument. Utility goes hand in hand with collectivism. Unless con rejects utility and provides reasoning for a different framework, he cannot win this debate. At this point, utilitarianism is the only moral framework presented. As that framework supports collectivism, the resolution is affirmed.

Compassion:

As was true with the previous example, con misapplies collective principles. He says “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

In fact, the real difference is the collectivist would weigh the impact of bombing the group based on the society as a whole, whereas the individualist would only weigh the impact to specific people. Regardless, we have determined utility as the framework of morality, Compassion is irrelevant unless con rejects utilitarianism which he has not done so.

Success of individualistic Societies:

First I would reference my 2nd argument in response to this. Second, it is important to look at his source for the map. (His source 4) The definitions given there in are not equal to the ones given in the debate. It defines Collectivism as “caring about what others in your group think of you, caring about the image of your group from the outside. It's essentially about image, respect, interpersonal relationships and emotional dependence on the group.” Thus we can dismiss this map and its conclusions as it is entirely off topic.

The same is true about the other paper sourced. (His source 5) It defines Collectivism as “the idea that the individual’s life belongs not to him but to the group or society of which he is merely a part, that he has no rights, and that he must sacrifice his values and goals for the group’s “greater good.” This is closer to the topic