It depends on what you or your school has decided about the nature of who we really are. If we are so throughly interconnected, interdepedent, either in a Huayen way or maybe just as one big shared soul, (albeit a changeable, mortal one) then the relevant unit for liberation is all of us. Either we all make it to the other side or none of us do.
The middle way applied outside of it's original domain, debauchery vs asceticism, can lead to some weird results. The sum divided by two of any pair of actions that are opposing on some scale isn't necessarily going to be the point of wisdom or even coherent. Should I take a girlfriend? Well, how about for 1/2 the time. Or 1/2 a girlfriend. Shall I buy a car? Well, I'll buy 1/2 car.
(Mahayana thinking in general are often at danger of this, especially when applying sunyata/emptiness to things outside of its original domain-- the investigation of experience.)
The logic of the Bodhisattva vow leads people towards various theories of univeralism. The Lotus Sutra is a good example, where it is posited that the other two paths (arhat and pratyekabuddha) are illusory, rest areas on the way to full Buddhahood.
In the Lotus Sutra, and other Mahayana systems, the difficulty level of achieving full Buddhahood declined, where it sufficied to have faith in the Lotus Sutra, or where it sufficed to do nothing at all and rely on Amida's vow, and in many text I read, I feel like it is saying that vows and bodhicitta are like lighting the fuse on dynamite, once it is started, it creates an inevitable chain reaction. So the task of the Bodhisattva is to light these fuses more than to work on each step of everone's enlightenment. (That said, in both the Brahma Net Sutra, Avatamsaka, etc, the lay and monastic bodhisattva is expected to above all teach as the primary way of helping others reach the other side.)