The statement “Radical individualism is getting in the way of a healthy republic” is one I agree with. Autonomy and individual rights, a single moral code for all citizens’ civic duties, and a commitment to the common good are the cornerstones of any successful republic (Bellah, l996). Society’s bonds are strained when individual liberties and shared values are out of balance.
The founders contend that individual liberty is the cornerstone of freedom. However, they also stressed the value of civic virtue, restraint, and deference to the greater good. Unbridled individualism, they believed, would turn the republic into a society of people who prioritized their interests over those of the group.
Any sense of basic principles or a conventional moral code has vanished with the entrenchment of essential individualism in the previous several years. Other ethical discourses centered on faith, public principles, ideals, duty, and obligation to character have been suppressed by the exclusive concentration on rights as the governing moral language (Bellah, 1996).
Even if marginalized groups now have greater rights, it is more difficult to reach an ethical consensus since there are no shared ideals. It becomes contentious without a shared moral basis whose values and virtues should take precedence. While tolerance for different viewpoints fosters variety, it does not address fundamental ethical dilemmas.
The claim brings out the paradoxes of excessive individualism by disputing how liberalism relies on tolerance. Tolerance is a poor substitute for finding a solution to moral disputes. Certain differences cannot be reconciled as respecting variety is a need for human dignity, and when tolerance is stretched too far, it can give rise to hatred.
As the author puts it, the “Great Contradiction” of modern morality is another facet of radical individualism (Bellah, 1986). People say they have the right to be happy when they feel like it. But this does not imply that a decision made by a human being makes an action ethically or honorably legitimate. This paradox reveals the limitations of an individualistic morality.
The social ties and shared ideals that bind citizens together are destroyed by free individualism. However, imposing government decrees that force moral compliance is not the solution. It should create an environment where reciprocity unites individual liberties with societal responsibilities and collective goals. Freedom is necessary for human beings but also entails responsibility for the common good. A prosperous republic must strike a precarious equilibrium between advancing individual liberty and fostering a sense of civic pride.
To be a Republican means to balance individuality with communitarianism nuancedly. All people have the right to self-determination, which also entails obligations. Public morality or personal integrity shouldn’t be impacted by liberty (Bellah, 1996). Laws cannot produce virtue, self-control, or selfless service alone. Morality, cultural values, and social relationships are the sources of these. A republic cannot prosper unless its citizens have some semblance of collective morality and recognize that the welfare of their fellow citizens is just as essential as their own.
In conclusion, personal freedom permits people to live and think as they like, but the value of something beyond self-interest is necessary for a successful republic. A common commitment to civic responsibilities, fundamental principles, and the well-being of everyone binds society together. Should an overabundance of individuality weaken these ties, the republic may fall. Finding the right balance between independence and societal norms is crucial.
Reference
Bellah, R.B. (1996) Individualism and the crisis of Civic Membership, Religion Online. Available at: https://www.religion-online.org/article/individualism-and-the-crisis-of-civic-membership/(Accessed: 22 January 2024).
write