How appropriate is it to frame the discussion being collectivism vs individualism? These are inerasable traits of the human experience.
They typically do not contend with one another; the individual is a byproduct of the collective and exists to (re)vivify the collective; it is inherently circular.
The point of the argument should therefore be, to what extent do we hone our concerns, where as you stated, the moral concern. I don't think choosing to frame morality under the individual deters the legitimacy of the collective for the very reason I stated; the two are interlocked. However, it should be said that our interactions are under an individual basis, not collective - only when the question of groups interacting with groups do we abstract from the individual person to the individual group.
If we appropriately categorize where the premise of an argument lies, where collective or individual becomes a concern, then there really isn't a problem.
Hi @mikon,
I agree with you that collectivism and individualism are highly interconnected. As I've mentioned, I think that the point is to find an optimal balance on the individualism/collectivism dimension of national culture.
Yes, our interactions are most usually under an individual basis; however, being part of a group can significantly alter our behavior, with the Bystander Effect being one of the examples.
Thank you for commenting.