The collective vs. the individual, what do you think should have more importance?

I mean that in the same sense and in the scope you framed your argument a colelctive can exist wiothut an individual.

You sure showed me.

Fucking captcha.

/thread

people deserve rights and have duties.
forming a corporation doesn't entitle you to more rights.
utilitarian ethics and democracy are still the most pragmatic way to deal with problems.

>

The individual 100%.

If you're part of a collective that costs you more than it gives you, then you're probably being screwed. Like when you work under the capitalist system.

What a strange thing to say. You are always a part of a collective at last if you live in a system that is effected by said collective.
and individual is always embedded or effected by a collective.
the question of assesing if a collective gives you more or less is extremely hard. How do you do it? you are imbuedwithin a collective and your desires are in part effected by it. You can live in the US and compare your society to another and deem your to be better but it is at least in part bcause you were raised and lived within your society.

Of course.

But if it's ever taking more from you than you get from it, you are being screwed by it. If it demands money from you, it must give you more money back at some point, for example.

Human born from their relationship with other human. We're individual only because a collective of other individu exist to acknoweldge us.
TL;DR One can't exist without the other.

Individual

>what do you think should have more importance?

To who?

Society? Society.

The individual? Depends on the individual. A mix of both.

No man is an island.

If you take out the collective/group from the individual, then you're left with nothing.

Whoever heard of a lone man wandering naked and hunting for food? No one. Even during the caveman era, people still huddled around each other in groups.

Consequently, with collective works, you have things like governments, laws, schools, hospitals, every foundation of our modern life.

>If you take out the collective/group from the individual, then you're left with nothing.

But if the collective takes more from the individual than they get back, they shouldn't be involved in it.

It's not like you /have/ to stay in whatever collective claims you first.

No man is an island but if a man could be an island would that not be desirable? If we look at this from an existential view where one defines one's own life meaning, would you not want to strive for your goals alone?

Is an island not preferable?

the survival of society is more important than the survival of the single individual

Why?

Because it would be better for individuals over time?

Should the collective work for the individual? As in the collective should work insofar as it is needed for there to be individuals, and then let them be beyond that?

generally humans feel biologically determined to continue the human race and keep in secure for at least the near future.

the only way to truly do that is to relinquish some of your individualism to do what is better for the overall group's survival.

For instance, if a bomb was about to go off that would either wipe out most of humanity or just a single person, the single person has an obligation to take into account that the collective human need for survival is greater than his own.

The collective shouldn't belong to ONE individual.

So the survival of individuals is the most important thing, and the collective is a tool to ensure this?

It says no Gods tho

Yes more or less.

But of course thats assuming an optimistic view of human nature. The collective can easily become self-destructive to individuals (i.e. war)

This is all assuming humans have the capacity to continue to progress and learn from the past, which has been proven time and again to be difficult.