With the rise of Utilitarian school of thought in Europe, the concept of individualism started flourishing by leaps and bounds. It started with Adam Smith’s “The Wealth of Nations” which proposed the liberation of economic units from government authorities and on micro level measured every product as per its utility. In the political circles the question that whether individual is for the state or the state is for an individual started circulating like a current in a closed circuit. The political thinkers like J.S. Mill and Montesquieu reached to the conclusion that it is the individual liberty and pleasure that counts much. State is the machinery which must guarantee individual rights and liberty and not the vice versa; liberalism, rationalism, secularism and democracy all shook hands for the prosperity and well being of an individual. Thus the seeds of individualism were sown in the soil of Western politics and it was accepted by many that individual does really matter and has great worth.
Every individual on the planet earth whether male or female, young or old, black or white, weak or strong, rich or poor, or religious or non-religious, has the right to live and to pursue the pleasure, unless and until he harms others. To put it in easier words, it can be said that a person’s liberty ends at the point from where the second person’s nose starts; provided that the second person does not poke his nose in the affairs of the first. Actually the concept of individualism is misunderstood by many people. They fail to realize some very basic concepts regarding individual and the interactions of the individuals with the society. It is necessary for them to answer some of the basic questions in this regard; “Does not every individual have the right to live, to earn and to express himself? Are not the states formed to safeguard the rights of individuals? Should not every individual have the right to have a share in formation of government? Does not every individual have his own mind to think; his own tongue to speak, his own food to eat and his own share of oxygen to inhale (as said by Charles M. Schulz, “Snowflakes fascinate me... Millions of them falling gently to the ground... And they say that no two of them are alike! Each one completely different from all the others... The last of the rugged individualists!”) Does not every individual think about the welfare of the mass unless it hampers and coincides with his own? Does not an individual save drowning man because of his inner mercy for him? Does not a mother nourish a baby because of the motherhood existing in her true nature? These are very basic questions and their proper analysis would definitely prove that their answers are in positive, which proves the fact that it is vital to consider an individual before considering social and collective matters.
These holy words have been repeated infinitely by different writers and scholar that killing one person means killing the whole humanity and saving one person means saving the whole humanity. Have we ever tried to reach the very depth of this maxim? This maxim, if pursued with its true nature will guarantee the security and survival of whole humankind. Dignity, honor and respect of every individual will give birth to a congregation of honorable human beings. It can always start from an individual. Sacrificing individuals for collective cause will never lead to a stable and just community; rather dignifying every individual will surely give birth to just, stable and invincible community.
Every individual inhaling his share of the molecules of the air present in the vast atmosphere influences it by his mere existence. His presence in the society may play a role in changing some attitudes, some behaviors and some decisions and may as a result be the cause of an evident change.
Some of the saints and Sufis have great value for the individual. They have even gone to the extent of calling an individual a universe and have always taught the individuals to jump into their beings and discover the mysteries of the universe. They think that it is the only way to understand the individual and ultimately the universe. They believe that the words like “We” and “Us” are used to form groups that are in fact very vague and do not have the true sense and meaning and in fact violate the individuality of the individuals forming them. As mentioned beautifully by Ayn Rand, “The word "We" is as lime poured over men, which sets and hardens to stone, and crushes all beneath it, and that which is white and that which is black are lost equally in the grey of it. It is the word by which the depraved steal the virtue of the good, by which the weak steal the might of the strong, by which the fools steal the wisdom of the sages.
What is my joy if all hands, even the unclean, can reach into it? What is my wisdom, if even the fools can dictate to me? What is my freedom, if all creatures, even the botched and impotent, are my masters? What is my life, if I am but to bow, to agree and to obey?
But I am done with this creed of corruption.
I am done with the monster of "We," the word of serfdom, of plunder, of misery, falsehood and shame.
And now I see the face of god, and I raise this god over the earth, this god whom men have sought since men came into being, this god who will grant them joy and peace and pride.
This god, this one word: "I".”
Giving worth to an individual does not necessarily mean to invite anarchy and disorder; rather it is to urge every individual to respect every other individual as the other has the similar rights as one oneself has. We human beings do not need to be governed as long as we govern our own individuality and respect every other individual.