Perhaps most famously (or infamously I suppose) touted by Athais in the DART discussion, but to be honest I know very little about the ideology aside from the very basics, so I'm doing what I always do when I'm curious about something - ask - what is Individualism? What makes it consistent? What makes it inconsistent? How is it pragmatically helpful? How is it better than x or y? Etc, etc..
Individualism
Posts
Total:
85
-->
@Theweakeredge
I will get back to you tomorrow on this. I have a very good understanding of individualism and its important to explain concepts like these but I'm very busy
-->
@Theweakeredge
I consider that individualism represents just about as many variables as there are individuals. That sounds like compounded variables, and that is exactly what it is. It is said no two of us are alike, even among "identical" [genetically] twins, triplets, or whatever count there may be. Emotionally, and by preferences, we are still different people.
-->
@fauxlaw
@Theweakeredge.
Individualism is individual with ism on the end.
Such is the human (philosophical) necessity to stick ism on the end of things.
Nonetheless:
Individuals are singular parts of a collection of parts (society)
Therefore, individualism is inevitably a part of collectivism (see what I did there?)
Such is contradictionism (see what I did there too?)
And such is the faff of philosophy.....Faffism
This was a Zedism.
-->
@zedvictor4
Therefore, individualism is inevitably a part of collectivism
You mean like a fetal individual is part of a female individual, i.e. sharing her DNA, let alone her thoughts, as a collective? Nope, "Part of," by an individual's perspective, in your collectivism, is not the correct term. "No man is an island" is a nice euphemism, but the fact remains, we can be ourselves, individually, even in a crowd, thus marching to one's own drum, and not the pounding by the collective.
A true story to drum the point home. A man attends a conference on STDs. With their name tags, they are given a few adhesive-backed color dots. The morning lecture talks of how easily STDs are transferred one to another. At the mid-morning break, while getting coffee and pastries, they are told to mingle and share their dots with one another, one at time. Ten minutes later, they sit to attend the second session. The moderator first tells the group to observe how they all have various color dots on their name tags, all given to one another. The one man stands and objects, noting for the crown that he did not comply with the instruction, and has no dots on his name tag. He saw through the ruse to demonstrate how easy it is to be infected, and infect with an STD, but it was also easy for him to resist. He remains uninfected, and infected no one. That is an individual in a crowd, in the crowd, but not part of the crowd.
-->
@Theweakeredge
Perhaps most famously (or infamously I suppose) touted by Athais in the DART discussion
Where did I "tout"?
but to be honest I know very little about the ideology aside from the very basics, so I'm doing what I always do when I'm curious about something - ask - what is Individualism?
Individualism is the moral analysis of social interaction which primarily focuses on the individual as the key component. Since "society" is a composite of individual actors, the benefits and drawbacks to interaction must be optimized and minimized respectively. In order for this to manifest, the individual is sovereign in his or her own governance, being able to choose his or her own associations, being able to act in his or her own interests, and bear the fruits of his/her skills, talents, and labor.
What makes it consistent?
Everyone's an individual.
What makes it inconsistent?
It isn't inconsistent.
How is it pragmatically helpful?
Read above.
How is it better than x or y? Etc, etc..
That depends on that which you identify as "x" or "y." Now if I am to assume a comparison with the State, the State is a collection of individuals who presume to be sovereign over other individuals. They presume to know that which is in the best interests of others, and maintain this presumptive prerogative with the employment of violence. That is, every law is codified with the threat of deadly force. Even with respect to just that aspect, individualism is better. Because its principles aren't codified with the threat of violence. It's codified with the notion of maximizing the utility each individual can derive from his or her efforts, as well as his or her voluntary associations.
-->
@Athias
So what one "ought" to do is decided entirely by each individual? Regardless of its logical consistency or sustainability?
-->
@Theweakeredge
Individualism is a philosophy that favors individuals, typically over collectives. They agree with the preposition that
you cannot violate a person or group of persons rights or liberties for the "overall social good".
^ Some individualist philosophers, like Robert Nozick, would contest that the "overall social good" really exists.
You're probably a little bit of an individualist if you agree that we should not kill two innocent people and then use their organs to save three others. By contrast, a more extreme individualist position is that compulsory taxation, even if it has a low impact on those being taxed, is morally unacceptable regardless of what the tax dollars go to. Those two statements sound (and are) radically different, but they're both extrapolations of the same ethical logic.
I am not an individualist in the typical sense because I think there are some circumstances where the use of force to violate individual rights is justified. However, I do agree that people should not exist as means to an end and I generally believe that people should be compensated for violations of their individual rights. But I believe in protecting people and their civil liberties much more than I care about, say, the extra $100 they have in their wallet. Also, most individualists believe that you can only violate individual rights through the use of force and action, but I believe you can violate individual rights without obvious uses of force (this happens in capitalism) and you can also do it via inaction (i.e. you don't make the minimal effort to pull a guy who's having a seizure out of shallow water where he'll drown).
Good individualist philosophers are Nozick, Kant, and I've heard Hayek and Mises are pretty smart too. Individualism is a very valuable philosophy that you shouldn't dismiss outright like some people on the left do (but conservatives can also be collectivists)
-->
@fauxlaw
I get that.
But the Man is still an individual part, of a collection of parts.....And undoubtedly contributed to the crowd.
And if we boil it everything down to particles.
-->
@Theweakeredge
To answer your overall question, this should be in Politics subforum, not Philosophy.
Individualism is shallow philosophically, it is basically the idea that opposes Utilitarianism which noone has usually heard of.
Utilitarianism is normally held opposed to the idea of 'intrinsic moral value' to acts. It actually has another opposite in the other direction.
Utiliarianism asserts that the individuals' pleasure or pain ought to be undervalued even by each of the individuals, if the collective net-pleasure vs net-suffering ends up increased. Conversely, Individualism asserts the opposite but it does have a loophole because if the individual feels empathy towards the collective or concern over the collective's net outcome, then Individualism and Utiliarianism can at times coincide.
-->
@Theweakeredge
So what one "ought" to do is decided entirely by each individual? Regardless of its logical consistency or sustainability?
You're suggesting a context in which this is not logically consistent and sustainable. Care to elaborate?
-->
@Username
You're probably a little bit of an individualist if you agree that we should not kill two innocent people and then use their organs to save three others. By contrast, a more extreme individualist position is that compulsory taxation, even if it has a low impact on those being taxed, is morally unacceptable regardless of what the tax dollars go to. Those two statements sound (and are) radically different, but they're both extrapolations of the same ethical logic.
This doesn't necessitate the qualification, "extreme," given that the opposition to compulsory taxation is a logical extension of individualist principle.
Also, most individualists believe that you can only violate individual rights through the use of force and action, but I believe you can violate individual rights without obvious uses of force (this happens in capitalism) and you can also do it via inaction (i.e. you don't make the minimal effort to pull a guy who's having a seizure out of shallow water where he'll drown).
How does inaction constitute a violation of one's individual rights? And what happens in Capitalism that violates an individual's rights?
-->
@Athias
Killing someone, stealing something, raping someone - etc etc - we are trying to maximize the benefits from individual interactions? No? It seems to me that unless you can guarantee that everyone in a given population cares enough to not do crime, crime will exist, and more of it
-->
@RationalMadman
Individualism is shallow philosophically, it is basically the idea that opposes Utilitarianism which noone has usually heard of.
That was well thought out.
-->
@Athias
This doesn't necessitate the qualification, "extreme," given that the opposition to compulsory taxation is a logical extension of individualist principle.
An extreme position is not necessarily illogical; I respect the viewpoint of people who oppose taxation. But it's fairly clear that more people would support an individualist viewpoint in the organ donor example than in the taxation one.
How does inaction constitute a violation of one's individual rights?
Maybe "violate" is a term specific to actions but both action and inaction can create circumstances where individuals are disregarded or harmed. There is an immoral nexus between action and inaction, though they're not fully equivalent.
And what happens in Capitalism that violates an individual's rights?
Corporations can take advantage of people in numerous ways dependent on their circumstances. Profit is a powerful motive, and when people can use others as gears in a machine to make profits they sometimes will and sometimes will not. For example, if a bunch of employees have no other options and have to work for a company, these people are essentially at the mercy of the organization; they can be worked to death, starved, etc. without any initiatory force being used.
-->
@Theweakeredge
Killing someone, stealing something, raping someone - etc etc - we are trying to maximize the benefits from individual interactions? No?
And how is killing, stealing, and raping a reflection of individualist principles?
It seems to me
Seem is not an argument.
unless you can guarantee that everyone in a given population cares enough to not do crime, crime will exist, and more of it
Individualism does not purport the capacity to eliminate crime. I would assume that there'd be crime; whether there'd be "more" is yet to be demonstrated, least by you.
-->
@Athias
Not to mention that in capitalist societies corporations are always in some way empowered to fuck up the planet and thus can kill people in a multitude of ways
-->
@Athias
Necessarily speaking - if there is no state there is literally nothing stopping people from doing more crime, and in general, whenever something is easier to do - people do it more. Grocery stores have known this for years, apparently, they are way ahead of all of the super-duper intelligent people here.
-->
@Username
An extreme position is not necessarily illogical; I respect the viewpoint of people who oppose taxation. But it's fairly clear that more people would support an individualist viewpoint in the organ donor example than in the taxation one.
The qualification "extreme" is neither apropos nor necessary. The logical extension of individualist principles result in the opposition of compulsory taxation as consequence. Sustaining this is not an "extreme" variant of the philosophy.
Maybe "violate" is a term specific to actions but both action and inaction can create circumstances where individuals are disregarded or harmed. There is an immoral nexus between action and inaction, though they're not fully equivalent.
So once again, I ask: how does inaction constitute a violation of one's rights? How does inaction as a result of inaction produce harm?
Corporations can take advantage of people in numerous ways dependent on their circumstances. Profit is a powerful motive, and when people can use others as gears in a machine to make profits they sometimes will and sometimes will not. For example, if a bunch of employees have no other options and have to work for a company, these people are essentially at the mercy of the organization;
How does this result in a violation of one's individual rights?
they can be worked to death, starved, etc. without any initiatory force being used.
And the workers have on control or responsibility in their employment arrangement under this scenario?
-->
@Username
Not to mention that in capitalist societies corporations are always in some way empowered to fuck up the planet and thus can kill people in a multitude of ways
So capitalism = corporations fucking up the planet and killing people in a multitude of ways?
-->
@Theweakeredge
Necessarily speaking - if there is no state there is literally nothing stopping people from doing more crime, and in general, whenever something is easier to do - people do it more.
Really? What of one's own moral constitution? One's reputation? The prospect of the risks in engaging others in violent confrontation? None of this serves as deterrent?
In the State of New York for example, it takes anywhere between 18-20 minutes for the police to respond. For 18-20 minutes on the New York streets, there is no government in practice once a criminal action ensues (unless done in the direct vision of a State crony.) Yet an overwhelming majority of New Yorkers don't commit crimes--even "petty" crimes. How would you explain this in light your presumption that people choose the "easy route"?
Grocery stores have known this for years, apparently, they are way ahead of all of the super-duper intelligent people here.
I thought Grocery stores were "protected" by government?
-->
@Athias
The qualification "extreme" is neither apropos nor necessary. The logical extension of individualist principles result in the opposition of compulsory taxation as consequence. Sustaining this is not an "extreme" variant of the philosophy.
If you don't like the term extreme, maybe substitute "politically radical". I am hoping that you are, in good faith, confused by what I mean by "extreme" rather than trying to poke holes in the immaterial words I use for its own sake when you know what I'm talking about.
You are correct that if the orthodox intellectual concept of individualism is applied consistently as the only part of one's moral calculus then you oppose compulsory taxation. But few only consider individualism in their moral calculus.
How does inaction as a result of inaction produce harm?
If I am interpreting your question correctly, inaction does not "produce" harm. It allows it to continue, which is unethical. It does not "violate" individual rights per se, like I've said.
How does this result in a violation of one's individual rights?
It does not violate individual rights if you define individual rights to be the use of initiatory force against someone. But it does treat people's lives as means to ends, and preventing people from becoming resources is the part of individualism that is actually good.
And the workers have on control or responsibility in their employment arrangement under this scenario?
I mean, they could go out of a job and starve. But starvation vs. terrible conditions are not good options for the workers to have. In some sense they actually have less of a choice because both options lead to the same fates. If you only treat individualism the way Libertarian philosophers treat it (which is restricted to opposing initiatory force), you fail to account for situations like these where agents can restrict the choice of other agents and do things that are unethical without using initiatory force.
-->
@Athias
So capitalism = corporations fucking up the planet and killing people in a multitude of ways?
That's too simple. However I'd agree that corporations are at least empowered to fuck up the planet under capitalism, and it's not like they never use that power.
-->
@Athias
The mere presence of a government constitutes order, it being practically effective or not is beside the point, its the principle of the matter. In a place where there is no order over one another, there is no way to actually deal with crime - thus - these thing happen more. Furthermore... what? Its called marketing strategy, capitalism? I thought you liked capitalism? Anywho - I believe the government OUGHT to protect people In grocery stores from capitalistic advertising, but guess what? Because its a GOVERNMENT, there's a process there- you know, that way there is a system to let other's have their voices heard.
-->
@Username
If you don't like the term extreme, maybe substitute "politically radical". I am hoping that you are, in good faith, confused by what I mean by "extreme" rather than trying to poke holes in the immaterial words I use for its own sake when you know what I'm talking about.
It isn't that I dislike the term. The qualification of individualism or individualists as "extreme" is inapplicable, because individualist principles are not polarized or polarizing. I'm not confused by what you meant. I know what you meant and I'm objecting to it.
You are correct that if the orthodox intellectual concept of individualism is applied consistently as the only part of one's moral calculus then you oppose compulsory taxation. But few only consider individualism in their moral calculus.
But what "few" consider in their moral calculus is irrelevant. We're not discussing that which people in general think. We're discussing individualism. Characterizations like "extreme" or "orthodox" have nothing to do with the philosophy; they're exogenous.
If I am interpreting your question correctly, inaction does not "produce" harm. It allows it to continue, which is unethical. It does not "violate" individual rights per se, like I've said.
If they don't violate individual rights per se, then what is your point? What is the purpose and intention of citing inaction in the context of individualist philosophy?
It does not violate individual rights if you define individual rights to be the use of initiatory force against someone. But it does treat people's lives as means to ends, and preventing people from becoming resources is the part of individualism that is actually good.
Individualism doesn't prevent people from becoming resources. Individualism scrutinizes the interactions and transactions of individuals and objects to arrangements that are coerced or created through duress. If each participant is willing, then what violation has occurred?
I mean, they could go out of a job and starve.
So corporations cause starvation, that is they physically cause blood sugar and insulin levels to drop for extended periods of time by ending a professional arrangement?
But starvation vs. terrible conditions are not good options for the workers to have. In some sense they actually have less of a choice because both options lead to the same fates.
So the prospect of any would-be employee who's left to their own devices would be starvation or terrible work conditions in Capitalism?
If you only treat individualism the way Libertarian philosophers treat it (which is restricted to opposing initiatory force), you fail to account for situations like these where agents can restrict the choice of other agents and do things that are unethical without using initiatory force.
How is the corporation in any of your examples responsible for the "restricted choice" of a prospective employee?
-->
@Username
That's too simple. However I'd agree that corporations are at least empowered to fuck up the planet under capitalism, and it's not like they never use that power.
How are they empowered under Capitalism to fuck up the planet?
-->
@Theweakeredge
The mere presence of a government constitutes order, it being practically effective or not is beside the point, its the principle of the matter. In a place where there is no order over one another,
Government =/= order. The regulatory mechanisms of a centralized State is a form of "order."
there is no way to actually deal with crime -
How have you come to this conclusion?
thus - these thing happen more.
You haven't substantiated the premise on which you based this.
Furthermore... what? Its called marketing strategy, capitalism? I thought you liked capitalism?
...?
Anywho - I believe the government OUGHT to protect people In grocery stores from capitalistic advertising, but guess what? Because its a GOVERNMENT, there's a process there- you know, that way there is a system to let other's have their voices heard.
And by that very same measure, it's a system that lets others have their "voices" ignored. And since grocery stores still get robbed under the protection of government, your point doesn't hold up much, does it?
-->
@Athias
First of all - you seem to completely have missed the point of me being up grocery stores, like utterly failed to interpret basic messages - you know how there's an aisle right next to the cashier? Yeah? That's what I was talking about accessibility equals more people doing that thing that they have more access to - no governments do not magically get rid of crime, but the fact that it is less accessible makes it happen generally less. Which... again - is basic stuff.
-->
@Theweakeredge
First of all - you seem to completely have missed the point of me being up grocery stores, like utterly failed to interpret basic messages - you know how there's an aisle right next to the cashier? Yeah? That's what I was talking about accessibility equals more people doing that thing that they have more access to - no governments do not magically get rid of crime, but the fact that it is less accessible makes it happen generally less. Which... again - is basic stuff.
You have not answered my question: in the time it takes for a crony of the State to respond, how do you explain people by an overwhelming majority not taking advantage of their "ease of access" to the grocer's property?
-->
@zedvictor4
But the Man is still an individual part, of a collection of parts.....And undoubtedly contributed to the crowd.
You make a claim that is not applicable to all individuals. For example, I claim no membership in any established political party in my State/Country, having declared myself, for voting purposes, a member of the Sermonist Party. Officially, that party does not exist, relative to Federal Election Commission [FEC], because FEC does not require registration of a political party if [1] it exits only within a State, and [2] it does not exceed a dollar threshold of contributions required of a political party for registration purpose. To my knowledge, there are only four members of my Party, and none of us have contributed a penny to the Party, which is of my creation, based upon the principles [platform planks] as described in the Sermon. on the Mount. These contain, quite simply, the solution to every single social ill we suffer by today, and, therefore, meet the requirements of being political platform planks, even if the mention of religious jargon or significant persons is entirely ignored. An atheist can live by these principles without having to acknowledge God.
Therefore, I am, in this matter, alone in a crowd, as I have already suggested: a true individual with no need to acknowledge need or association with others in the random crowd