Greater Manchester Humanists
Humanist Discussion Group
17 January 2017
INDIVIDUALISM
Individualism is presented in the GMH Introductory Course as a fundamental element of Humanism, see the appended extracts from Sec 3.2 and Sec 4.9.The course material refers to India and China as societies based on more communal values and practices, but I think Japan offers a more instructive contrast.
Individualism as we understand it developed in Europe from the end of the Middle Ages. Here is a link to what seems to me a reasonably impartial perspective on this development:
Much of the debate about individualism contrasts ‘individualistic’/‘individualism’ with ‘collectivist’/‘collectivism’. For many, the latter terms will have negative connotations which can be avoided, as in the GMH Course, by using the moreneutral terms‘communal’/‘communitarian’/‘communalism’.
My view is that there are potentially good and bad aspects of both individualism and communalism, so a good aim might be to seek to draw on the best of both to the extent that this is feasible. There is a good discussion of the contrast between the US and Japan, as exemplars of the two approaches, in Life and How to Survive It, by Robin Skynner and John Cleese – which I will try to summarise for the meeting.
A related topic is the difference between negative and positive freedom (or freedom FROM and freedom TO). For an introductory discussion see
According to this link, ‘classical’ libertarians have a primary concern for negative freedom, whereas ‘modern’ libertarians are also concerned with positive freedom.
Another distinction is between the social and economic dimensions. Here, for example, is a link to the US Libertarian Party Platform: my view, this contains a number of ‘straw man’ arguments, but there is much to agree with as to social issues. However, implementing their economic ideas would I think lead to undesirable/unacceptable consequences.
Many writers focus on the limitations of individualism, for example:
Charles Taylor: see One of his concerns is loss in the social sense of ‘belonging to a community’(Taylor is an eminent philosopher who is a practicing Catholic)
Michael Sandel:
‘A just society requires a strong sense of community, and it must cultivate in citizens a concern for the whole, a dedication to the common good.’
(See for example Justice – What’s the right Thing to do? Sandel is presenter of The Public Philosopher)
Some other issues to consider:
Mills’s Harm Principle: Is avoiding harm sufficient? Or should there be some obligation to do good for others? And how does the principle work in practice, ie what counts as ‘harm’? (eg as to reduction in the freedom of others, both negative and positive, and whether they are identifiable or not, currently living or future generations). And what about animals?
How far should we go as regards positive liberty? Is it sufficient to seek to provide equality of opportunity? If so, what constitutes ‘real’ equality of opportunity? How do we take account of ‘luck’?
John Coss
14 November 2017
Extracts from GMH Introductory Course on Humanism (12 presentation)
3.2 INDIVIDUALISM AND FREEDOM IN THE DEVELOPMENT OF HUMANISM
Individualism is one of the fundamental values of Western civilisation. It distinguishes the cultures of Western societies such as America and Britain from those like China and India based on more communal values and practices. In economic and social respects, individualism is typically linked to free enterprise and innovation, geographic movement, and nuclear rather than extended families. In political terms individualism requires democratic structures of government. Human rights are highly valued, whereas more communal societies emphasise responsibilities and duties.
These distinctions are not, of course, absolute ones. This is shown by India’s democratic government, its industrial enterprise, and the ongoing struggle for human rights for the Dalits or ‘untouchables’ at the base of the caste system. But the repression of human rights and freedom of expression in China demonstrates a genuine ‘clash of civilisations’.
Humanism stresses the equal value of human beings as rational and caring beings, so individual freedom is one of our fundamental values. This is why it is important to understand the historical roots of our thinking. These roots, all explored at different points in the course, include:
the translation of the Bible into vernacular languages for individuals to interpret teachings for themselves
increasingly critical analysis of the cruelties and contradictions in the Bible seen as a historical text rather a divine revelation never to be questioned
scientific investigation of the solar system and explanation of its working based on evidence rather than theological justification
the evolution of the secular, scientific method of thinking for individuals to make their own meaning of life and devise their own purposes for living
the evolution of democratic systems of government by and for the people
the development of the concept of human rights and ongoing campaigns to secure these for every individual
the golden rule and its guiding principle of human happiness.
4.9 JOHN STUART MILL (1806-1873) THE HARM PRINCIPLE
John Stuart Mill’s commitment to individual freedom (see Sec 3.2) had strong moral implications. In On Liberty’(1859), Mill tied the themes of freedom and individualism together as a political philosophy.
As individuals we are entrusted with freedom on the terms that we do not harm others. In Mill’s words: ‘the only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against hiswill is to prevent harm to others’. The roots of this principle are very old: they can be found in the thinking of the Greek hedonists, the followers of Epicurus, who proposed the principle of avoiding harm as a guide to living 2,500 years ago.
But Mill developed this by pointing out that we can cause harm to others by not giving them assistance when they need it, so the harm principle impliesthat we should act for other people’s benefit too.