Individuality vs Collectivism

realitykeeper

In Ireland we have a constitution which promises to cherish all the children of the nation equally. However, what is good for an individual may not necessarily be good for everyone else. It is well known that hard cases make bad law.

If a particular individual has a handicap, that individual may require special needs assistance to gain access to education. It is generally accepted that such an individual has a constitutional right to help - because of their special needs.

However, in keeping with the spirit of the constitution, is it right to attend to the special needs of one individual at great cost to everyone else? Is this cherishing all the children of the nation equally or should the constitution be interpreted in such a way as to ensure that such a cost is minimal if it exists at all?

Leaving the issue of costs and money aside there is another dilemma with a constitution which promises equality. There is the matter of personal accountability. If the person with the handicap acquired the handicap because of the failure or deliberate act of one individual then should society collectively carry the burden ultimately imposed by the person who failed e.g. a doctor or the person who carried out the deliberate act e.g. a mugger?

If the answer to this question is yes, then would it not be more appropriate for our society to place extremely high demands upon individuals to ensure that they do not become a burden (by smoking or drinking for example) or the cause of a burden (by botching a surgical procedure or mugging someone on the street for example) on the rest of society? Should greater emphasis be put upon people to behave responsibly - not just from a very young age but from any age? After all, many children learn to drink alcohol from their parents.

Should society assist people in making responsible choices by imposing horrific consequences on those who don`t? If not, how is society to go on cherishing all of the children of the nation equally (or at all) without impoverishing itself?

In China the collective takes precedence over the individual. This policy did not work well in the past but it has worked well since China adopted capitalism. China is now a lot wealthier than it was under socialism. Of course China also lacks democracy but regardless of the regime, in order for a society to become wealthy, the right decisions must be made. Therefore democracy works well if the population are enlightened and it does not work so well in a nation of drunken gamblers. Similarly, totalitarian regimes like China can work when good decisions are made by the leadership.

The following link compares individualism vs collectivism:
http://objectivism101.com/Lectures/Lecture39.shtml