In the poem "The Tyger" written by William Blake in 1794, what does this text suggest to you about the ways in which individuals take...

The "fearful symmetry" could apply to the ferocious physicality (and geometrical proportions) of the tiger. However, in this first (and last) stanza, the speaker wonders how an "immortal hand" (God or gods) could create something so innocent and gentle (the lamb) while also creating something as fierce as a tiger. The lamb, here and more specifically in Blake's poem "The Lamb," represents the generous and peaceful nature of Christ. So, that "symmetry" is also understood as a balancing of opposites: lamb/peace and tiger/violence. But the speaker does not understand how or why a divine creator would create this symmetry of opposites. Why create something so loving but then something so ferocious? 

Given this opposition in symmetry, the question about individual responsibility would take the form of a similar question that the speaker originally asks. In a world where each person has the potential to be peaceful or harmful, why would one ever choose the latter? Or, to address the divine more directly, "if God is benevolent, why is there suffering in the world?" 

Since your question is more about individual responsibility, this perspective puts the onus on the individual rather than God (the "immortal hand"). In this interpretation, the suggestion seems to be that individuals can make tigers or lambs. In other words, each individual can create peaceful situations and loving gestures. Or he/she can wreak havoc (the tiger). This is one of the binary oppositions people experience in the world. Each has the choice to create peace or create violence. If one creates or initiates harm, the speaker in this poem would then ask the one who has created that strife, "Did he smile his work to see?" 

This is more of an existential take on this poem. Other, more canonical interpretations tend to focus on Biblical allusions and that the oppositions of Lamb and Tiger are the result of The Fall. But this existential notion is interesting because it frames the poem in terms of personal responsibility to one's self and to others.