Interesting (at least to me) political question.....

[gimmethesimplelife]

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

[klunick]

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.

[Yppej]

People are happiest working for a purpose larger than themselves, but only if they have agency, not regardless of how society is set up.

[LDAHL]

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.

[ToomuchStuff]

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

Not really sure why your asking something that has been discussed many times?

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:

https://youtu.be/PzRg--jhO8g
You want change, you have to be the change, or the cause of it.

[bae]

... is it up to an individual to conform to society regardless of how said society is set up/in reality works? Rob

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.

[Rogar]

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.

[kib]

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.

[ApatheticNoMore]

People are happiest working for a purpose larger than themselves, but only if they have agency, not regardless of how society is set up.

+1 (and no I don't think it's set up so most people have a lot of agency)

[Alan]

I think it's interesting how many seem to think society equals government, or maybe I'm naive in failing to assimilate?

[kib]

+1 (and no I don't think it's set up so most people have a lot of agency) That was an interesting point. I'm not sure I need agency. I'm ok being a cog in the machine, but not this machine.

[ApatheticNoMore]

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 don't know, it's stated as if people conform purely out of some kind of duty (like it's the moral duty for an individual to conform). Some may advocate that no doubt. I think people conform mostly out of practical reasons, to get by, not out of any kind of moral imperative.

I mean with true in-groups, those one chooses to associate with for whatever reason, one may go along for other reasons, to be a part of them, but with something as abstract as "society" .. nah. And one might identify with people one knows, even if one believes them wrong etc., but that's not some moral duty, nor so abstract either. It's just feeling for fellow human beings.

[kib]

I think it's interesting how many seem to think society equals government, or maybe I'm naive in failing to assimilate?Personally I just used the term "society" to mean all people and the interactions between them, "the few" to mean a very select group of people and businesses, and "government" to mean the overarching body that, well, governs all these elements.

Do you mean society equals government, or more like ... 'the existence of society equals the knee jerk necessity of government?' That, yes, seems to be an automatic conflation.

[iris lilies]

I think it's interesting how many seem to think society equals government, or maybe I'm naive in failing to assimilate?
If you can’t make society do what you want it to do, you will try to control society using the heavy hand of nanny government. One way or the other you will get what you want, even if critical freedoms are lost. Sad.

[Alan]

I think of society as a group of individuals, like minded or otherwise, seeking to coexist together, and government as a service industry who's sole purpose is to provide safety and security. I think when we reverse those roles, we become the service industry existing only to supply the beast.

[kib]

I think of society as a group of individuals, like minded or otherwise, seeking to coexist together, and government as a service industry who's sole purpose is to provide safety and security. I think when we reverse those roles, we become the service industry existing only to supply the beast. I gotta laugh. Who'da thunk, we're on the exact same page about this.

[catherine]

I think of society as a group of individuals, like minded or otherwise, seeking to coexist together, and government as a service industry who's sole purpose is to provide safety and security. I think when we reverse those roles, we become the service industry existing only to supply the beast.

I can understand the difficulty with defining the relationship between individuals, society and government. I think societies inevitably depend on government to varying degrees, unless you manage to find yourself in an anarchist society.

I think that no matter whether you're talking of "society" or "government" or some overlap of both, I respect the sovereignty of the individual. I respect non-conformity as opposed to being made to conform to society. I believe Krishnamurti's quote: "it is no measure of health to be well-adjusted to a profoundly sick society." I think nationalism is scary, and there are enough historical examples of nationalism-gone-bad.

Simply put, I do not believe that any collective should suppress the rights of the individual, unless that individual is threatening the collective in terms of the good of the whole.

ETA:

"In order to rally people, governments need enemies. They want us to be afraid, to hate, so we will rally behind them. And if they do not have a real enemy, they will invent one in order to mobilize us"--Thich Nhat Hanh (Vietnamese Zen master who lived through the Vietnam war and who was exiled from his country)

[LDAHL]

I think politics and government really are downstream of culture. A decent society will generally produce good government, but a well structured government will be of little use to a corrupt society. And there are so many flavors of decency, from traditional values to radical individualism to neopuritan political correctness, we have no consensus of what common decency may be. We also have a significant grouping, who lacking other sources or institutions, mistake ideology for morality and behave accordingly.

That’s what I like about our constitution. It allows for conflict and makes it hard to impose the latest fashions in values.