Should society work for the individual or should the individual work for society?
What I mean is - should society be somewhat fair and equitable and humane - or is it up to an individual to conform to society regardless of how said society is set up/in reality works? Rob
I think society should work for the good of its members. I don't think it should control what people do as far as banning people's individual rights but should benefit the majority and the general population as best as it can.
People are happiest working for a purpose larger than themselves, but only if they have agency, not regardless of how society is set up.
To me, the individual should be paramount. It’s easy to define individual rights and obligations plainly and simply. “Society” is a more chimerical concept, too often used to justify exerting control, demanding benefits or shifting blame.
Compare the stark simplicity of the Bill of Rights, which lists various specific and non-negotiable areas where the collective is not allowed to interfere, with the complex and often self-contradictory theories aimed at defining which groups must be classified as victim or victimizer based on particular readings of history and external characteristics.
I think right now we are in danger of both parties departing from a focus on the individual. One seems to be degenerating into a crude nationalistic populism. The other into a sort of self-righteous authoritarianism, where the coercive power of government is used to adjudicate the various claims of race, gender or economic identity groups, with “rights” being whatever some ruling elite decides they are.
Not really sure why your asking something that has been discussed many times?Originally Posted by gimmethesimplelife
First you would have to define fair and equitable, and even humane because that would certainly have an affect on the bill of rights, as well as parenting, etc.
Second, the bold word, generally people work in reality, or they are considered to have mental health issues.
For instance, there is a guy, who was a friend of a kid that worked for us, years ago. He still comes around and is currently looking for another job. He was once asked by police, after witnessing something, where he lived, and his response was the highway we are on. He thinks a cat, is his mother, and has concentration issues (start laundry in the wash, and could not put a load in the dryer and start the washer again, until the dryer is done) Some people see life isn't fair, and expect it to change, or as others say, doing the same thing, expecting a different result, is a mental defect.
There are a lot of old threads here, that answer your question. Then of course there is the old line:
You want change, you have to be the change, or the cause of it.
No.
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.
If a person voluntarily gets benefits from being a member of a social group, I think they have an obligation to be a contributing member, at least within their personal limitations. Whether that requires conforming probably depends, but it does imply some adherence to certain social structures.
I think the government should be working to represent the people, not to balance human interest with corporate profitability. If we have a government that's in the pocket of a very few who want all the goodies for themselves at the expense of the world and all the people in it (possibly even a comander in chief with that attitude), we're frankly better off without it.
IF I had a government that I felt still put the greater good - human well being including a livable planet - at the center of its policies, I'd be a lot more willing to be an individual conforming to society. I have basically zero trust at this point that any "social" concept put forth is designed in the long run to benefit society. If it is, it will quickly be co-opted and perverted for the benefit of the few. So ... to hell with it already. I don't anticipate 'society' will work for me, and I've pretty much gone my own way as far as working for them. I believe in my ethics, but I act alone.
+1 (and no I don't think it's set up so most people have a lot of agency)People are happiest working for a purpose larger than themselves, but only if they have agency, not regardless of how society is set up.
Trees don't grow on money
I think it's interesting how many seem to think society equals government, or maybe I'm naive in failing to assimilate?
"Things should be made as simple as possible, but not one bit simpler." ~ Albert Einstein
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote