There is tension between living for our happiness and living for the benefit or happiness of others.  There is an eternal conflict between the needs and desires of the individual and those of the community. I struggled to determine which is most important, whether more of one means less of the other, and whether a middle ground is preferred. Each view has good arguments in its favor and significant problems. I found a balance is possible and desirable. The perspectives can complement each other.

The question is whether pursuing happiness should focus on the individual or the community. Should we try to thrive by doing what seems best to us as an individual? Or, instead, should we concentrate on what is best for society and our community?

A closely related question is how government should facilitate happiness. Views on government rest on assumptions about what happiness involves. At one end of the spectrum, libertarians view happiness from a narrow individual perspective.  An individual’s pursuit of happiness is a paramount right. Society and government should support that individual’s pursuit.

On the other hand, communitarians view the community and the common good as being most important. The individual should be subservient to the state’s or society’s welfare. The government’s job is to ensure that the common good takes priority over individual benefits. Many strains of political and moral philosophy exist between these extremes.   

Individual Happiness

I am a libertarian by nature and upbringing. Individual happiness should be our purpose in life. The “pursuit of happiness” is captured in the Declaration of Independence and is a core principle of the US government. It is the individual’s right to pursue happiness with society and the government providing the necessary freedom and protections.

My upbringing leaned in this direction. Early in life, my mother believed she was on her own, had to make her way in the world, and was responsible for her happiness. As trained scientists, both parents believed in using reason to pursue truth and knowledge. Hard work and self-reliance were essential virtues. Many books in our household, including those of Ayn Rand, focused on individual growth, self-actualization, and happiness.

The culture of the 1960s, when I was a teenager and a member of the baby boom generation, reinforced individualism. Some referred to the baby boomers as the “me” generation. We would find happiness by pursuing our desires and expressing our uniqueness. Society impeded individual expression and happiness.

It was a time when society appeared to be collapsing. Nuclear war was a constant threat. Leading scientists predicted dead oceans and mass starvation within a decade. We were quickly running out of oil. These views encouraged a survivalist mentality. I learned to bake bread, grow food, build furniture, and adopt a “do it myself” attitude. The goal was to live as independently as possible. Some cultural leaders advocated dropping out of society, returning to a subsistence lifestyle, and freely expressing our individuality.  

As an adult, the philosophy and the writings of Ayn Rand, especially “The Fountainhead” and “Atlas Shrugged”  reinforced my libertarian leanings. I felt comfortable with Ayn Rand’s basic philosophy, which she stated as:

“ My philosophy, in essence, is the concept of man as a heroic being, with his own happiness as the moral purpose of his life, with productive achievement as his noblest activity, and reason as his only absolute.”[i]

I liked the primacy of reason in determining truth — that fit my atheism and commitment to science. I liked the nobility of productive achievement. That matched my work ethic and desire to be independent. I also liked the idea of a heroic life where achieving happiness was a battle with all the forces standing in one’s way.

Rejecting the constraints of society was a common view during my youth. Like many of my generation, I resisted pressure to conform to rigid standards of conduct, whether dress, believing in god, or getting married. It may have been youthful rebellion, but it felt bigger and fundamental then. It seemed that society, rather than facilitating happiness, was a barrier to human flourishing. Institutions – schools, churches, service organizations, government, etc. – seemed antiquated and unenlightened.

Those ideas seemed to provide clear, logical, and sound guidance for living well. But I learned it isn’t that simple. While many of the ideas had merit, there were some significant problems.

There is a shaky assumption underlying these libertarian principles. That is the belief that we are fundamentally independent animals. It is Rousseau’s view that we are naturally good until society corrupts us. The reality is often the opposite.

There are downsides to a strict libertarian life. An individually focused life easily leads to selfish behavior. Our needs have priority over others. There is less motivation to compromise with others. Everything should be on our terms and conform to our view of what is right. In Ayn Rand’s “The Fountainhead,” the creative architect Howard Roark blows up his building after others modified the design without his consent to conform to design norms. While Roark’s creative integrity is admirable, neither side gets anything of value. Both sides lose. These problems, and many others, broadened my perspective on what is necessary for my happiness.

Community

Balancing individualism is the importance of the community. Aristotle, the Stoics, and modern scientists studying human nature conclude that humans are fundamentally social animals. We evolved not as individuals who decided to join societies for our benefit. We evolved as part of communities. We are unable to survive on our own, physically or psychologically. We are part of and not separate from society.

I found this community perspective on human behavior and purpose equally powerful as the individual perspective. It is demonstrably true. Good scientific research shows that we have been social animals for millennia. The most extreme survivalists and hermits need the products of others to survive. No one lives long alone and naked in the wilderness. Essential human mental development, such as language, requires other humans. And, of course, we need other humans to reproduce.

Living among others has substantial survival benefits, which is why we evolved as a tribal species. Parts of human nature, such as feelings of empathy, fairness, and loyalty, evolved to help us prosper as groups of individuals. Individuals are better off living in communities because communities favor trade, resource sharing, specialization, mutual defense, shared risks, etc. The logic for being a productive and contributing community member and living by the community’s rules is compelling. The survival benefits far outweigh the costs.

The immediate and tangible benefits of living with others are apparent. Less clear are the intangible benefits. For example, I have found satisfaction and happiness in acting in the best interests of others, even when I am unlikely to benefit directly. We help others often for no reason other than to do good. There is some psychic reward for these actions. Similarly, there are benefits from love, companionship, etc. that are not strictly survival-oriented or transactional.

Some argue that this is just reciprocal altruism. We do good things in the vague hope that others may help us should we need it. Perhaps evolution has built this notion into our moral sentiments. Regardless, being among others allows us to experience helping others, love, and other interactions, which adds to our happiness. The value of this aspect of living has grown as I aged. Life would be less rich without these opportunities.

There are significant downsides to being part of a community. Communities need some level of rules of acceptable behavior to function. No rules mean chaos and the loss of the benefits that communities provide. There are rules for appearance, beliefs, and behavior. It is generally best not to stand out if you want to get along with others. Good relations often mean being nice to people you don’t like, participating in activities that don’t bring pleasure, and conforming in ways contrary to your nature and personality. Those are all real and significant. For some, they provoke a rejection and a defiant individualism.  

Balance

I believe there is an optimal middle ground between individualism and communitarianism. In free countries – most Western democracies – it is possible to have an individual focus to pursue happiness while simultaneously being an engaged and productive community member. With the right balance, the two perspectives complement each other.

At the extremes, both approaches diminish happiness and thriving. The ardent individualist, focused only on themselves, leads to a selfish life, misses some benefits of community engagement, and often continually fights the restraints of the community. The community approach can also go to extremes where people neglect critical individual needs to focus on the group needs. The benefits of individual special abilities can get lost. The thriving related to expressing natural differences can can get lost in the desire to make everything fair, equal, and, by definition, uniform.

The easy way is not to follow a middle path but to adopt the ideology of one of the extremes. Personal and political decisions are more clear-cut (e.g., abortion on demand vs life begins at conception). You can join the tribe that best fits your natural inclinations and have many friends who agree. With an ideology, there is less need to work hard balancing individual and community needs and recognizing the nuances of life’s choices. However, I believe it is worth the effort to understand and wrestle with the inevitable conflicts between individual desires and community needs. The decisions are better, and the likelihood of thriving is higher.

I fell into the balance without understanding what I was doing. While holding strong libertarian views, I pursued a public service-focused career. I worked in government and utilities, where my work was part of delivering essential services to others. I needed to feel I was valuable or useful to others. I wanted the paycheck, of course, but I also wanted to feel I was adding value to the lives of others. By pursuing work that is useful to society, I was able to meet my individual needs while contributing to the good of others. While my mind leaned toward individualism, my emotions favored the community.

There have been compromises. I did things I didn’t want to do or enjoy because it was important to others. I developed the skills to work with different types of people even when that went against my natural inclinations. Over time, I learned to find the correct balance. I learned the boundaries where I would sacrifice too much of my individuality to make others happy.

I found helping others is an enriching experience, even when reciprocity is unlikely or impossible. Helping a terminally ill friend through his last months of life was very rewarding, contrary to my expectations. The more one helps others, the more one experiences the variety and complexity of human experience. That proximity triggers empathy that can be missing when people in need are kept at a distance. In simple and practical terms, it is easier and more fun to be helpful, generous, and compassionate than to be the opposite.  

I continue supporting giving people as much freedom as possible to pursue happiness as they understand it. I fall into the classic liberalism that John Stuart Mill expressed in “On Liberty.” But even Mill advocates living in conformance with society’s rules since many rules exist to prevent harm to others. I believe in going further. Meeting the needs of others, even without reciprocal individual benefit but within personal boundaries, often increases happiness for all parties involved. Thriving is enhanced when following a wise balance between the needs of the individual and those of the people in our community.

[i] Add reference for Ayn Rand quote on her basic philosophy