[agustamir]

> The American cult of the individual denies not just community but the very idea of society. No one owes anything to anyone.

This crisis has really made me ponder the extent to which individualism has taken its toll on the American society. Really, large parts of the country don't seem to care about the collective good and are just turning a blind eye toward their fellow citizens in this moment of crisis.

[AnthonyMouse]

It's interesting how the costs of collectivism are consistently pinned on individualism.

We get to this place because people see obvious wrong being done and say "it's such a shame the government hasn't done anything about this" instead of doing anything about it themselves. It's a complete abdication of the role of the individual in being a force for good in the world, i.e. the opposite of individualism.

And on the other side, individuals as members of large organizations are denied the ability to make positive change, because anyone close enough to the ground to see the problems is too far from the top to have the authority to do anything about them. Whereas if we actually had individual autonomy then people who see problems could fix them instead of standing around wishing somebody else would do what they would do if they were allowed to do it.

[joe_the_user]

We get to this place because people see obvious wrong being done and say "it's such a shame the government hasn't done anything about this" instead of doing anything about it themselves.

There hasn't been a time when "the individual" handled problems like a war or a massive pandemic. You "as an individual" haven't solved this mess and neither you nor I are going. I mean, I stop and help people broken down by the side of the road, I tell people what I think and what I think needs to be done. But that's individual initiative and it's not going to fix large problems.

Large questions have always been handled by groups, informal groups or formal, either coming from society. When a society was too small scale to produce a large collective response to a problem, well it failed. Why large nations have replaced small tribes.

It's true that today a lot of people view the government as a thing outside of themselves rather than a thing they create. But that's a slightly different problem.

[AnthonyMouse]

> I mean, I stop and help people broken down by the side of the road, I tell people what I think and what I think needs to be done. But that's individual initiative and it's not going to fix large problems.

The impact of one individual doesn't fix the whole problem, but the impact of every individual doing their piece is how it gets done. Ordinary people wash their hands. Doctors treat patients or research a vaccine. Restaurants switch from dining in to takeout.

All different people doing all different things, but they each individually know what they need to do. Nobody has to exert top-down control in order to make it happen.

> Why large nations have replaced small tribes.

Large nations replaced small tribes because the technology was created to exert power at a distance. It's more of a bug than a feature.

> It's true that today a lot of people view the government as a thing outside of themselves rather than a thing they create. But that's a slightly different problem.

It's a problem caused by the size and centralization of government. It makes each person such a small contribution to the system that they have no capacity to exercise influence over it and then they correctly perceive it as an external force acting upon them rather than something they have any meaningful control over.

[joe_the_user]

The impact of one individual doesn't fix the whole problem, but the impact of every individual doing their piece is how it gets done. Ordinary people wash their hands.

This is how ridiculous the conversation has gotten. It's tautological that humans acting together involve individual actions. The collective is; thinking about the group and coordinating.

What's happened in the US today is that minority of people have decided that taking an action for group benefit, notably wearing a mask but also other anti-infection measures, infringes on their "individual right". This is the "cult of the individual" that the gp mentioned.

Moreover, almost human collective individuals leadership. Not even enforcement but trusted people setting the tone. America's leaders have failed, abjectly, visibly, to set a coherent tone, to send a message. This failure is an important part of the chaotic US response and the deranged ideological claims of a minority.

[spanhandler]

Individualism, taken to anything like an extreme and as policy, can't even form something resembling a modern economy. It is, generously, an open question whether one can even do that without a state (less generously, it's not in any practical sense an open question, and no, you can't) and certainly you can't without forming some kind of bonds and structures that can force action of members against their immediate wishes, so there goes any high-purity individualism if you want... like, any stuff.

[eecc]

You’re severely underestimating the benefits of collective coordinated action. You just need to look at today’s plutocrats and the decades of relentless lobbying and investment in promoting the most self-serving policies and politicians willing to execute them. You can’t find a better example of how effective it can be.

[tetrometal]

Piggybacking on your comment to respond to the quote, not your interpretation...

First, there's no cult. Western civilization protects the rights of the individual, as they should - it's immoral to use aggressive force against anyone, no matter how many people that aggression might benefit (or appeal to).

Second, protecting the rights of the individual denies neither community nor society, it only provides their operating principles. Communities and societies should absolutely work together and cooperate for the benefit of everyone - they should simply do it without using aggressive force against anyone.

[whytaka]

> First, there's no cult. Western civilization protects the rights of the individual, as they should - it's immoral to use aggressive force against anyone, no matter how many people that aggression might benefit (or appeal to).

In an ironically cult like absolutism, you dismiss the moral discussion that transpired within Western philosophical traditions that debate this very topic - of Judeo-Christianity, of consequentialism.

> Second, protecting the rights of the individual denies neither community nor society, it only provides their operating principles. Communities and societies should absolutely work together and cooperate for the benefit of everyone - they should simply do it without using aggressive force against anyone.

This of course necessitates an elaboration on the word “should” in the context of a group of individualist agents where one chooses to not cooperate.

[spanhandler]

> In an ironically cult like absolutism, you dismiss the moral discussion that transpired within Western philosophical traditions that debate this very topic - of Judeo-Christianity, of consequentialism.

There's a lot of this in online political discussion. Strident but, ah, let's say poorly sourced claims about ethics or morality, with whole castles of charmingly clear and straightforward political philosophy built atop them. I usually "nope" out when it looks like we might end up accidentally re-creating the "what is Justice?" dialogue from the beginning of Plato's Republic, but with only one of us realizing it, which is a situation that comes up pretty often, actually.

[agustamir]

Do you mind expanding on that a bit, such as what are the poorly sourced claims used as building blocks? When you talk about recreating the justice part, do you mean the discussion circles back to an already well-explored question?

[agustamir]

> Communities and societies should absolutely work together and cooperate for the benefit of everyone

I'm interested in exploring how/why or if at all, the zealous pursuit of one's individual rights have made us lose sight of working together for the benefit of everyone.

[_8j50]

Let me ask you and the HN crowd this: Would it honestly be incorrect to blame secularism for this? If it inconveniences me, why should I care at all if my actions negatively affect absolutley anyone given my belief is that my existence has no purpose outside of what I conveniently define, life is meaningless outside of my self-defined meaning and there is no authority that can define what is a correct or incorrect way of living.

In other words, like you observed I also think the moral foundations are failing. Why should groups of people accept each other as equally created and endowed with equal rights? Why should young people be inconvenienced to maybe save lives of older people by wearing masks? Empathy? Life has no meaning, they're gonna die anyway. Why emphatize with others at all? Why not focus on whatever leads to the best experience in this life for each individual, where there are conflicts let the strongest win. Nature has no mercy on the weak.

Of course I don't believe any of that but am I wrong to think secularism plays a big role in the lack of empathy?

Now before anyone reaches for their pitchforks, I am not saying religion is the solution or somehow all those religious people supporting terrible people to advance their agenda don't exist. I am saying, what a society finds correct and acceptable sets the tone. Even religious people act secular when it is convenient because society is secular and the ones that want popularity over authenticity will always be mallable enough to adopt to what society thinks is normal (consider how the nazis claimed to be Christians and killed jews, their actions override their claims).

Let me rephrase a bit, foudnationally the social majority in america,despite all the terrible things that went on believed there is a purpose to life and you have to seek it. They also believed people have an origin and destination and that correct behavior in this life is critical, living incorrectly means failure in realizing the purpose of your existence or worse , regardless of popularity humans have limited and finite authority over other humans, that morality was not a suggestion but an implicit realization of the creator's will (or of the "universe" or whatever intelligent origin people believed in) ,a human's life is precious because it has meaning and purpose, and others' experience of pain morally bounds all other humans to apply emphatetic reasoning in their reaction.

I am not neccesarily saying lack of religion is the cause. I am asking, given the facts, is it far fetched to consider embracing of secular individualism as the root cause? And I don't mean by any end of the political spectrum(left/right). I mean across the board,anyone that effectively beliefs they define their own morality as they see it fit to benefit themselves. And as the saying goes "a thief thinks everyone else is also a thief", they have all these conspiracies that the media or the deepstate is out to get them because that's exactly what they would do to advance their self-centered ideology.

I am emploring you to critically consider that perhaps effective secualrim (even among those that don't claim to be secular) that puts individuals at the center of their own universe might be the cause.

Humans are interesting creatures, weirdly with the exception of the vocal minority, people that are secular by default have in my experience been very emphatetic, I am not sure if they will remain the same but I think initially most mentally healthy people want to stop the pain of others because they experienced pain themselves and they wanted someone to help them, therefore doing to others what you would want done to you is implicitly a correct way of living. I suspect secular-individualism contradicts that reasoning when helping others entails inconvenience or having to pay a sacrifice.

This is an important question because much of democracy and america assume the majority will have empathy for the minority (which is how slavery ended and civil rights laws that benefited the minority were passed).

Another contributor might be how rapid advance of technology might be the driver of self-centered ideologies that lack empathy. But I hope people continue to appreciate peace and be open to any truth.

[michaelchisari]

> am I wrong to think secularism plays a big role in the lack of empathy

America is by far the most religious country in the first world.

[pg_1234]

More specifically, if you compare America to every other western country (all of which seem to be doing better in this regard - i.e. citizens looking out for each other), what stands out is that American is far more religious.

It seems more likely that America's current level of religiousness is toxic, allowing people to be ass-holes as long as they pay lip service to a professed religious ideal.

You only have to look at western Europe to see that it is the secularists, who judge themselves by their actions rather than their words, who are the more decent people.

[Aeronwen]

>It seems more likely that America's current level of religiousness is toxic, allowing people to be ass-holes as long as they pay lip service to a professed religious ideal.

It's literally the religious freedom people colonized America to practice. People who considered being told to stop being assholes and imposing their religious ideal onto everyone else was religious oppression.

The level of toxicity hasn't increased, they just have internet access now.

[_8j50]

Maybe there is a better term, but what I meant was how despite claims of religion in practice if one is effectively and completely individualistic they are secular.

[pg_1234]

In a sense the religious folk are more dangerously individualistic.

While the secular folk make connections with other (real) humans, the religious folk connect with a fantasy ... their "community" is just an assumption that everyone does/should share their fantasy ... and they become pretty damn nasty when that delusion is threatened.

[_8j50]

Now that's objectively not right. Most charities anywhere from the red cross to community outreach programs in inner cities are religious in nature. You are trying to say what I said but you seem to be applying your own bias. Most die hard donald trump supporters don't even claim to be heavily religious for example. My point was secularists sometimes act as religious people should and vice versa but at the root of it individualism is to blame. I am suggesting secularism naturally leads to individualism but so does insincere or ill motivated religion. You are talking at the individual level but I was suggesting at a national level.

Individually people are diffrent and surprising but when a divided nation embraces secularism it leads to individualism which eliminates diplomatic and civil compromises that maintain a stable society.

Why are other western nations not this way? I am not sure they're as immune as you think. Not having similar diversity and division might be a factor but with the US, foreign actors have actively flamed divisions and encouraged individualistic and tribalist ideologies through social media. The US has plenty of divisions, a culture war and plenty of catalysts. But this all was true in the cold war and in the 90s, what changed now in my observation is the country switched from something like maybe a quarter secularists to a popular majority secularists.

You should also beware, statistically plenty of people might claim a religion because they were raised that way, they are not saying they actively practice,they are saying that's their tribe. Big difference.

Britain is exhibitih mildet but similar issues as the US if you would care for a comparison.

[cmurf]

Jefferson's letter to the Danbury Baptists.

Who were the Danbury Baptists worried about? The Danbury Congregationalists.

Secularism is the only ethical standard by which religions coexist.

[_8j50]

I disagree. While it is clear that no single faith can be favored in a democracy , acknowlesgement of a creator and an authority beyond humans is crucial. Up until the 20th century the US congress held church services at the capitol hill for example. Government has no bussiness meddling in religion and vice versa but just as religion must acknowledge government's limited authority, government must also acknowledge that all people are created equal and govenment's authority is not an absolute rule over people and that people are properties of their creator (whoever they believe that is) not properties of government (as they are in completely secular regimes such as China and NK).

Ethics itself means nothing without a legitimate moral authority so how can secularism lead to ethics? Either you accept a higher power exists and by that logic define ethics that allows coexistence between religions or you embrace secularism and tell religion there is no higher authority other than government and their religion is subject to an authority that rejects the absolute moral authority religion embraces. In other words you are expecting religion to self contradict in order to comply with secularism,which defeats the whole point of coexistence.

[ilaksh]

I think that people do sometimes underestimate the valuable ethical effects of religious institutions in society. So I will give you that.

But I disagree in general with that you are saying because religion, individualism, and other issues you talk about are not actually bound together the way that you claim.

For example, there are plenty of people who are strongly individualistic in their worldview but also highly religious.

And there are secular worldviews that de-emphasize individualism or include strong community-oriented morals.

Also you try to pin this on technology, but actually technocratic thought is very popular and is a very socialist ideology (in fact I think too much so, but that is a different question).

[Yetanfou]

Secularism - or rather the declining role of theistic religions - seems to have given rise to a number of problems which the likes of "Gott ist tod" Jung seem to have had premonitions of. It now seems that the hole left behind by "traditional" religions is being filled with other belief systems which are just as irrational as the ones they replaced but which have not been cleared of their warts and bumps by a few centuries of use. The meteoric rise of 'wokeism' (for lack of a better word) is a good example of such, the movement has all the tenets of a religion together with the fervour of a cult. Given a few centuries of being battered by opponents and different cultures it would end up resembling a "traditional" religion - probably something like a non-theistic Catholicism with its complex structures, martyrs, saints, catechism and above all hierarchy. I don't think it will survive that long though since it is far too divisive and does not provide redemption.

I still have hopes that the gains of the enlightenment can be presented in such as way as to fill that hole left by the decline of religion - the "belief" in the scientific method, the sanctity of the individual, the concept of "natural rights" which form the basis of the American Declaration of Independence and the French Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen and more. Maybe I'm foolhardy, maybe this is my own replacement for traditional religion but given the alternatives - the results of which have become very visible in recent months - I'll just keep on believing.

[donatj]

I personally see collectivism as a vestigial trait some people are left with from a time when it actually mattered for survival. Studies have even shown it to be a largely genetic trait. When we lived in small tribes, the fate of the collective directly affected my ability to reproduce. Today, it makes very little difference, and is largely illogical.

Call me a nihilist, but I don’t particularly care about people I don’t personally know. I honestly think it’s unhealthy to do so, particularly in the age of mass media. If you’re worried about 7 billion people you will never find happiness.

[nouveaux]

Why not embrace both individualism and collectivism?

Entrepreneurship and the military completely embodies this. We allow the individual to prosper and the collective pays to be protect us and our right to individually prosper.

Arguing which one is better seems like arguing if the hammer or the screwdriver is bet. Why not treat individualism and collectivism as tools?

[aww_dang]

Agreed. Eventually the dispute comes to a head around issues like taxation. The argument is usually framed as such:

"If one individual does not have the authority to take another's property, where does a group of individuals collectively source the authority to violently expropriate wealth from another individual?"

There are various approaches to this. Some suggest that while the above is immoral, it is an inevitable function of political sausage making. Absolutists demand that it is entirely unacceptable in any amount and others propose that it should be tolerated, but minimized where possible. On the other end of the spectrum there are those who propose that the sum is greater than the whole.

It is a tired discussion which has been hashed out in-depth elsewhere.

[pg_1234]

To "own" anything, everyone else needs to acknowledge your ownership ... get too greedy and the majority may suspend their granting of that acknowledged ownership ... just for you, everyone else continues along as before.

[aww_dang]

Aggressors can almost always find a way to rationalize their violence. When they are in the majority, they can self-congratulate, claim that they were only following orders or social norms. Defending one's self requires no such mental gymnastics.

No matter how you slice it, violence is an inescapable part of the human condition. People debate the non-aggression principle in depth and try to reach idealistic conclusions. Principles are important, but human affairs rarely neatly fit with these ideals.

[pg_1234]

Take that stance too far and you get spree killers. Or, as they always seem to argue, "oppressed individuals defending their rights against a social majority by any means".