Society...

Bullypulpit

Senior Member
Jan 7, 2004
5,849
384
48
Columbus, OH
While discussion of the Liberal/Conservative debate is often framed in the context of politics, but this is far too simplistic. There are complex and, often, contradictory moral and philosophical ideas and ideals within both camps. Let us, then, examinf their social agendas.

In one camp, we see expressed the primacy of the individual over society. In the other, we see the primacy of society over the individual. On one hand, the the demands of society supercede the rights and needs of the individual. On the other hand, the rights and needs of the individual supercede any demands placed upon them by society.

In either case, both are mistaken. No sane, healthy society can exist with total disregard for for the individuals who are its constitutents anymore than individuals can meaningfully exist with total disregard for the society in which they live. To have any meaning at all, the rights and needs of the individual and society must exist in a dynamic equilibrium, with neither sacrificed in the name of the other.

In oreder to get beyond pointless arguments of "...the individual vs. society..." we need to understand a key concept; that being self-interest. Over time, self-interest has been saddled wiht connotations of "greed" and "selfishness". However, these labels become meaningless in the light of one basic fact...Self-interest is an integral part of the human psyche. Without it we wouldn't survive infancy, let alone childhood. Self-interest is, at its most basic level, a mechanism for ensuring the survival of the organism...Nothing more.

Societies, whether simple or complex, are rooted in mutual self-interest. At a fundamental level, this mutual self-interesttakes the form of protection from the elements and from marauders, both human and not. As societies increase their level of complexity and interdependence, they also expand their range of opportunities for sel-expression and self-fullfilment while fostering an even greater reliance on societal stuructures and infrastructure.

This leads us, the, to a question that must be resolved if a society is to function properly. What are the standards by which societal and individual behavior are judged.

To be meaningful, these standards must be simple, understandable and universal without being absolute. The standards themselves are based upon their actual, verifiable consequences on individuals and society they live in. On an individual level, actions leading to the harm on oneself, another, or both cannot be sanctioned by society, again bearing in mind that these consequences are objectively verifiable. On the societal level, interference with the lives of individuals, as long as those individuals are not acting to harm themselves or others, is unjustifiable.

When the actions of an individual or group lead to the harm of themselves or others, society is obliged to intercede and correct the situation. However, society cannot arbitrarily impose its will upon those causing no harm to themselves or others.

Above all, we must understand that the individual is not some absolutely independent entity with absolutely inalenable rights, or defined by society as having no rights at all. Likewiae, society is not a group of unrelated individuals nor some absolute phenomena which unrestrictedly imposes its will upon the individual.

In the end, society and its institutions are a dynamic and continuously evolving system. Any attempt to concretize, or render static and absolute that society and its institutions will ultimately lead to the stagnation and death of that society.
 
Originally posted by Big D
Clearly,

The ramblings of a scared small mind.

You really shouldn't talk about yourself like that. How long have you been troubled by these feelings of inadequacy?
 
Kind of long to say so little, bully. But nice none the less.


Some things should be set as static. One of them I believe is the primacy of the individual. I realize your villainization of staticity is an attempt to undo the unique focus on individual rights and individual economic freedoms that has made this country great. I can hear you saying it, "Individuals shouldn't ALWAYS be so important, constancy is a moral evil."
Nice try, commie.
 
Originally posted by Bullypulpit
Well, you either didn't read it very closely, or you are incapable of understanding the concepts.

What you have presented is a false dilemma, an insulting one. There are other options than those you have presented. You're not very good at logic, are you?
 
Originally posted by rtwngAvngr
Kind of long to say so little, bully. But nice none the less.


Some things should be set as static. One of them I believe is the primacy of the individual. I realize your villainization of staticity is an attempt to undo the unique focus on individual rights and individual economic freedoms that has made this country great. I can hear you saying it, "Individuals shouldn't ALWAYS be so important, constancy is a moral evil."
Nice try, commie.

Sorry, but with the absolute primacy of the individual, you have anarchy. With the absolute primacy of society you have totalitarianism.

You heard wrong old son. Find the middle way. Find the balance which maintains the balance between the needs of the individual and the needs of society. Neither can meaningfully exist without the other.
 
Bully,

You and I disagree on many things, but you have some good thoughts in this post.

I think the integrating principle you are seeking can be found in Nash's equilibrium theory - that one's overall self-interest is served by balancing with and contributing to the self-interest / welfare of the other members of the community (ie, mutual cooperation). Neither the individual nor the community is subordinated and harmed - instead, the individual freely makes decisions and acts while taking into consideration the impact on others.

I do dispute that the Liberalism and Conservatism are on the opposite ends of the collectivist - individual spectrum. The tension is more between the concepts of equality and freedom.
 
Originally posted by Bullypulpit
Sorry, but with the absolute primacy of the individual, you have anarchy. With the absolute primacy of society you have totalitarianism.

You heard wrong old son. Find the middle way. Find the balance which maintains the balance between the needs of the individual and the needs of society. Neither can meaningfully exist without the other.

Primacy means that individuals come first. This is as it should be, as every person is an individual. This is not an advocacy of anarchy. Individuals are real. society is a COLLECTION OF individuals. You don't see the trees for the forest. And you attribute something to me that obviously did not say. This isn't suprising.
 
Originally posted by rtwngAvngr
Primacy means that individuals come first. This is as it should be, as every person is an individual. This is not an advocacy of anarchy. Individuals are real. society is a COLLECTION OF individuals. You don't see the trees for the forest. And you attribute something to me that obviously did not say. This isn't suprising.

Society is indeed a collection of individuals. However, if the rights and needs of the individual are inviolable and supercede the rights and needs of the society, whose rights and needs come first? Within this context, society devolves into survival of the fittest, social Darwinism run amok...anarchy.

The balance must be struck between the individual and society, with neither holding sway over the other.
 
Originally posted by Bullypulpit
Society is indeed a collection of individuals. However, if the rights and needs of the individual are inviolable and supercede the rights and needs of the society, whose rights and needs come first? Within this context, society devolves into survival of the fittest, social Darwinism run amok...anarchy.

The balance must be struck between the individual and society, with neither holding sway over the other.

No ones rights and needs come first. They're all on an equal priority.

Survival of the fittest is not anarchy. Is it your aim to stop human evolution? Why? Are you afraid you're not fit?
 
Originally posted by rtwngAvngr
No ones rights and needs come first. They're all on an equal priority.

Survival of the fittest is not anarchy. Is it your aim to stop human evolution? Why? Are you afraid you're not fit?

Some more equal than others, no doubt. In that case, you don't have a society, but rather a group of unrelated individuals fighting over the same limited pool of resources. If that's how you want to live, I would suggest getting yourself incarcerated in a maximum security prison.

Survival of the fittest is not a viable social paradigm.
 
Originally posted by Bullypulpit
Some more equal than others, no doubt. In that case, you don't have a society, but rather a group of unrelated individuals fighting over the same limited pool of resources. If that's how you want to live, I would suggest getting yourself incarcerated in a maximum security prison.

Survival of the fittest is not a viable social paradigm.

No. the institutions of human cooperation are many and varied. Governments. churches, corporations. All of these institutions create greater success for those individuals who embrace them.

Survivival of the fittest within the framework of pro-social cultural standards is a viable social paradigm.

You're insane if you think evolution will ever end. If you want it to end, then you're a monster.
 
Originally posted by rtwngAvngr
No. the institutions of human cooperation are many and varied. Governments. churches, corporations. All of these institutions create greater success for those individuals who embrace them.

Survivival of the fittest within the framework of pro-social cultural standards is a viable social paradigm.

You're insane if you think evolution will ever end. If you want it to end, then you're a monster.

someday, maybe people will 'evolve' to the point that we learn to live for/with each other instead of trying to accumulate the most before we die.

"he who dies with the most toys, still dies"
 
?iginally posted by DKSuddeth [/i]
someday, maybe people will 'evolve' to the point that we learn to live for/with each other instead of trying to accumulate the most before we die.

"he who dies with the most toys, still dies"
[/QUOTE]

Maybe. But you still admit evolution will occur. Your partner in crime, bully, thinks, and secretly hopes, that evolution is over. How incredibly daft, wouldn't you agree, dk?
 
...Society is an entity which is evolving continuously. It is when we attempt to concretize or render absolute the institutions of of our society that we set the stage for disaster.

Also, the balance between the rights and needs of the individual and those of the society in which they live is a dynamic one...one which changes and evolves, while never sacrificing one for the other.

A static society is a stagnant society is a doomed society. Which is what is great about America. With the continuous infusion of influences from cultures around the world, American society is continuously evolving. It has a richness and a vibrance that I have seen in few other places around the world.

Sorry about any misunderstanding, but what you're advocating still sounds like social darwinism. But let's keep talking about it. Perhaps we can find out where the misunderstanding arose.
 
Originally posted by rtwngAvngr
?iginally posted by DKSuddeth [/i]
someday, maybe people will 'evolve' to the point that we learn to live for/with each other instead of trying to accumulate the most before we die.

"he who dies with the most toys, still dies"


Maybe. But you still admit evolution will occur. Your partner in crime, bully, thinks, and secretly hopes, that evolution is over. How incredibly daft, wouldn't you agree, dk?
[/QUOTE]

yes I would. life IS evolution. It's like time, or the earth, It cannot be stopped or all life would cease to exist.
 
What is it that you fellas understand by the word "evolution"? What is it's mechanism? Bully has said nothing against evolution, and in fact, evolution is enhanced precisely by the systemic dynamism which he advocates. Even so, your use of the term is characteristically unclear. For example, is evolution always progressive? That we know of, no distinctly new species has appeared since we started paying attention, and certainly no new species has appeared that can be shown to be superior to its "predecessor". The fossil record is particularly unclear on this question: there are gaps between any evolved exemplar and its immediate predecessor. Should these gaps be considered simply gaps in the record in which is hidden a very gradual change, or are the gaps indicative of evolutional leaps? If they are to be understood as leaps, then the mechanism is not necessarily competition. Competition would certainly lead to the final primacy of the genetic "innovation", but it could not be considered as the cause of the evolution. On the other hand, competition is the mechanism of adaptation, a related but not identical concept. Adaptation under certain conditions does produce apparent changes within generations, but these changes are inherently possible within the limits of the already established genetic code (as opposed to evolution which supposes an innovation of the genetic code itself). In neither case is individualism to be considered a necessary mechanism of adaptation, for the simple reason that was indicated by DK: a social adaptation which prompts humans to a higher level of social interdependence would hardly be produced by individuals who were radically inspired in their actions by self-interest. In any case, the notion of "survival of the fittest" in any scientific sense has almost no impact on the day to day workings of the individual or the society. It may be used as a metaphor for economic competition, but it is just a metaphor and the two concepts are not interrelated. The fact that some manage to accrue far more material possessions than others has nothing to do with survival. In fact, it has been pointed out that those who are perhaps least fit to function in our societies are frequently those that breed most.

Indeed, RWA, it seems you take issue with facets of Bully's post with which you seem to be fundamentally in agreement. (Not that this response on your part is in itself surprising or uncharacteristic.) The issue at stake for either of you is not that the individual must concede certain aspects of his freedom in order to exist in a society, but rather the extent of those concessions.

Bully, you speak of the principle of self-interest which is innate in individuals. Is it not also possible to speak of a principle of society-interest which is also innate in individuals? Individuals form societies not just because it is in their self-interest but because they are instinctively social. To put it simply, we're lonely when we're alone. RWAs example of the church is a good example of people forming communities which serve little if any practical self-interest other than the reinforcing of the bonds of the community. College Freshman are disposed to humiliate themselves in front of almost complete strangers and pay large sums of money in order to be accepted into a ready made community (fraternities). Alternatively, the heroes of our society are most frequently those that have sacrificed their freedom or their life for a perceived good of the society, and even in cases (the majority) which do show elements of self-interest, it is their moments of self-sacrifice in terms of devotion to or sacrifice for the betterment of society which make them heroic. I can't think of many heroes that are extreme examples of the principle of self-interest, apart from the pseudo-heroes like sports athletes.

If, then, we can speak of a social instinct which is always present (in varying proportion) alongside the instinct of self-interest, would that significantly alter your schema? The idea that all of our relations are most importantly characterized by mutual self interest seems repulsive if not blatantly inaccurate. In general, I prefer the company of people I like over the company of people I stand to benefit from. Families which have long since outlived any practical service to self-interest maintain close ties just because they like each other. In short, the inner workings of human behaviour, on an individual and a communal level, are sold short by your simplification to the principle of self-interest.
 
Originally posted by Bry
What is it that you fellas understand by the word "evolution"? What is it's mechanism? Bully has said nothing against evolution, and in fact, evolution is enhanced precisely by the systemic dynamism which he advocates. Even so, your use of the term is characteristically unclear. For example, is evolution always progressive? That we know of, no distinctly new species has appeared since we started paying attention, and certainly no new species has appeared that can be shown to be superior to its "predecessor". The fossil record is particularly unclear on this question: there are gaps between any evolved exemplar and its immediate predecessor. Should these gaps be considered simply gaps in the record in which is hidden a very gradual change, or are the gaps indicative of evolutional leaps? If they are to be understood as leaps, then the mechanism is not necessarily competition. Competition would certainly lead to the final primacy of the genetic "innovation", but it could not be considered as the cause of the evolution. On the other hand, competition is the mechanism of adaptation, a related but not identical concept. Adaptation under certain conditions does produce apparent changes within generations, but these changes are inherently possible within the limits of the already established genetic code (as opposed to evolution which supposes an innovation of the genetic code itself). In neither case is individualism to be considered a necessary mechanism of adaptation, for the simple reason that was indicated by DK: a social adaptation which prompts humans to a higher level of social interdependence would hardly be produced by individuals who were radically inspired in their actions by self-interest. In any case, the notion of "survival of the fittest" in any scientific sense has almost no impact on the day to day workings of the individual or the society. It may be used as a metaphor for economic competition, but it is just a metaphor and the two concepts are not interrelated. The fact that some manage to accrue far more material possessions than others has nothing to do with survival. In fact, it has been pointed out that those who are perhaps least fit to function in our societies are frequently those that breed most.

Indeed, RWA, it seems you take issue with facets of Bully's post with which you seem to be fundamentally in agreement. (Not that this response on your part is in itself surprising or uncharacteristic.) The issue at stake for either of you is not that the individual must concede certain aspects of his freedom in order to exist in a society, but rather the extent of those concessions.

Bully, you speak of the principle of self-interest which is innate in individuals. Is it not also possible to speak of a principle of society-interest which is also innate in individuals? Individuals form societies not just because it is in their self-interest but because they are instinctively social. To put it simply, we're lonely when we're alone. RWAs example of the church is a good example of people forming communities which serve little if any practical self-interest other than the reinforcing of the bonds of the community. College Freshman are disposed to humiliate themselves in front of almost complete strangers and pay large sums of money in order to be accepted into a ready made community (fraternities). Alternatively, the heroes of our society are most frequently those that have sacrificed their freedom or their life for a perceived good of the society, and even in cases (the majority) which do show elements of self-interest, it is their moments of self-sacrifice in terms of devotion to or sacrifice for the betterment of society which make them heroic. I can't think of many heroes that are extreme examples of the principle of self-interest, apart from the pseudo-heroes like sports athletes.

If, then, we can speak of a social instinct which is always present (in varying proportion) alongside the instinct of self-interest, would that significantly alter your schema? The idea that all of our relations are most importantly characterized by mutual self interest seems repulsive if not blatantly inaccurate. In general, I prefer the company of people I like over the company of people I stand to benefit from. Families which have long since outlived any practical service to self-interest maintain close ties just because they like each other. In short, the inner workings of human behaviour, on an individual and a communal level, are sold short by your simplification to the principle of self-interest.

Bry, your really need to get yourself under control, intellectually. This is the intellectual equivalent of diarrhea.
 
Originally posted by Bullypulpit
...Society is an entity which is evolving continuously. It is when we attempt to concretize or render absolute the institutions of of our society that we set the stage for disaster.

Also, the balance between the rights and needs of the individual and those of the society in which they live is a dynamic one...one which changes and evolves, while never sacrificing one for the other.

A static society is a stagnant society is a doomed society. Which is what is great about America. With the continuous infusion of influences from cultures around the world, American society is continuously evolving. It has a richness and a vibrance that I have seen in few other places around the world.

Sorry about any misunderstanding, but what you're advocating still sounds like social darwinism. But let's keep talking about it. Perhaps we can find out where the misunderstanding arose.

Say something new, man. Some values should be constant. I bet you also believe the constitution should be a "living document".

I'm not sure what your fixation on "social darwinism" is all about, and really I don't care. Evolution is not over, it never will be, and the mechanism for change will always be variances in the reproductive success of individuals, despite whatever lefty crap you have swallowed. Need some milk to wash it down? Soy milk?
 
Say something new, man. Some values should be constant. I bet you also believe the constitution should be a "living document".

In some respects, it probably should be. In fact, alot of the republican party pushes that without realizing it when they make the argument for the war on terror. How could our founding fathers have realized jet airliners and nuclear weapons back then?

The framework of the constitution should remain the same but adaptations need to occur to respond to the progress of evolution, both good and bad, so that our country can grow and prosper.
 

Forum List

Back
Top