The Individual versus Society
The other day at the dinner table the topic came up, which was more important the individual or society. Half at the table thought society should be placed first. I of course was saddened to hear this. It is the cry of today’s age that is getting stronger and stronger. It is a moral philosophy that people often times don’t understand and don’t fully comprehend. They want to be “good” and in so doing they seek to help as many as possible not realizing the result of such a mentality. I of course place the blame at the feet of modern education but that’s another topic. Thus, it is with good intentions that such paths are laid before us not understanding that within the means often times hides the ultimate ends – the society or the individual.
History holds an important account of the debate between the value of the individual and the value of society. Philosophers through the ages such as Locke, Hobbes, and Hume have basically argued for the importance of a “social contract” which stems from “natural law” (for this one can go back as far as Aristotle but also Aquanis and Hobbes). This “social contract” is provided only by the consent of individuals as natural law doesn’t apply to the society as a whole but to the individual. In other words, the “social contract” does not exist without the individual rights aligning themselves with the contract first. Therefore, the individual is superior to the social contract itself and the individual is superior then society as a whole.
Of course those that place society first will generally out of misunderstanding align themselves with the opposition. The opposition is not to shabby either. Marx, Neitzsche, or even though to a lesser extent Rousseau were effective in their criticsm of liberal values. The strongest of these of course being Marx who viewed history as the history of the struggle between classes of society or better said…
“The history of all hitherto existing society is the history of class struggles” – Marx
The United States of course was founded on the ideas of Locke, Hobbes, et al, as the Constitution itself was intended to protect the individual rights of man and out of this of course sprang the Bill of Rights. On the other hand Marx of course is famous for his ground breaking document the Communist Manifesto which attempts to lift society up first, as the individual serves the greater good. What you get is statism, behavorism and a proletariat morality if you attempt to make a cohesive worldview. In my opinion a dangerous path indeed.
Which do you think should get the highest priority or be the most important? Society or the individual? Let the sages of ages past answer for me…
“You have rights antecedent to all earthly governments: rights that cannot be repealed or restrained by human laws; rights derived from the Great Legislator of the universe.” – John Adams
George Carlin said:
“In 1942 there were 110,000 Japanese-American citizens, in good standing, law abiding people, who were thrown into internment camps simply because their parents were born in the wrong country. That’s all they did wrong. They had no right to a lawyer, no right to a fair trial, no right to a jury of their peers, no right to due process of any kind. The only right they had was…right this way! Into the internment camps.
Just when these American citizens needed their rights the most…their government took them away. and rights aren’t rights if someone can take em away. They’re priveledges. That’s all we’ve ever had in this country is a bill of TEMPORARY priviledges; and if you read the news, even badly, you know the list get’s shorter, and shorter, and shorter.
Yeup, sooner or later the people in this country are going to realize the government doesn’t give a fuck about them. the government doesn’t care about you, or your children, or your rights, or your welfare or your safety. it simply doesn’t give a fuck about you. It’s interested in it’s own power. That’s the only thing…keeping it, and expanding wherever possible.
Personally when it comes to rights, I think one of two things is true: either we have unlimited rights, or we have no rights at all.”"
Taken from:
http://mindofv.blogspot.com/2008/04/excerpt-from-george-carlin-on-rights.html
For follow-ups
In a post 9/11 world – How would you view George Carlin’s discussion of the Japanese internment camps? How would you view it if it was just a group of people rounded up for being Muslims in America? What if it were a group of people that were supposedly prisoners of war, yet you had not yet brought evidence or prosecuted (i.e. Guantanomo Bay)?
Your answers to these questions will likely determine whether you place value on the individual or society. I don’t think the question can be answered in this manner – because ultimately some individual (or group) is always jockeying for his (or their) own position in utilizing the social contract. By yielding to a social contract, the individual capitulated to the demands of society. Interesting thing is – I wasn’t around to negotiate my end of the social contract – I was born into it.
You don’t round-up citizens and put them into camps based on their skin color or ethnic background. A Muslim or arab decedent who is a citizen of this country enjoy’s the rights of this country.
Sorry, for the delay in response I’ve been on vacation out of town for a bit. As for prisoners of war they are a different breed. First they aren’t citizens and second they are captured on a battlefield where evidence gathering is somewhat different. They are probably lucky they weren’t just shot for convenience sake. Terrorism does present political challenges on how to handle intelligence and evidence and prosecution even. What has to be done is sometimes probably not to pretty. On the other hand we could just shot the person again for convenience sake. I’d prefer to hold them though until the war on terrorism is over though. I think Obama is trying to get at a shot them and be done with it mentality though.
The social contract is always being negotiated in a representative democracy. If it is not to your liking you have the choice to petition for changes or to leave. Unfortunately, leaving America is rather challenging because they still tax you unless you revoke your citizenship. It hasn’t got to the point where it is worthwhile (for me) to revoke my citizenship still to many benefits, family, etc.
As for the whole “rights” thing I disagree slightly with Carlin. I do think we have rights. They are just VERY few. The rights to life and liberty (religious, economic, social, etc.) Currently, the government is and has been for nearly a century slowly encroaching on certain liberties though. We must continually fight for our rights though as it’s an ongoing battle.
The key to a “social contract” is agreement (or at least temporary collusion) on the part of each individual in becoming a part of the proscribed group. This is the basis for the varying forms of democracy to be found around the world.
Marxism, socialism, “progressives” – whatever the hell they choose to identify themselves as these days – are simply a titular mask utilized to hide the tyrannical exercise of power over a captive populance that is the antithesis of a free society.
We are endowed with “rights” only if we choose to exercise (and defend) them and this is a never-ending struggle against those who would promote their own personal objectives and gain over the “public good”.
The deterioration of America under a succession of statist administrations is a perfect example of what can happen when citizens allow the expansion of greed and corruption in the name of governance.
It is indeed an ongoing fight. I worries me that fewer and fewer people know what the fight is for at the differing levels of world view or ideology. How the individual is being weakened for the benefit of the group. Your right on mainnowandthen!
I totally disagree. I see selfishness and elitism in the idea that you are presenting. There are definitely times when the whole must come before the individual. I think the Carlin quote is totally innapropiate, as is the example of Japanese internment. Absolute rights require a total revamping of government, which would turn into anarchism. In modern society, liberty must be constrained or we are required to protect ourselves from the outside world. Food, clothing, and electricity rely on the government; without it we are lost. Your selfishness in astonishing and alarming. The rich would die slower than the poor, but still generations would become smaller, and the world would become a different place, a much worse place. Western individualism will tear our society apart unless we cling to each other with support.
Is this a joke? You see selfishness in individuals taking care of themselves and altruism in the government stealing? You’ve got to be joking?
Why is “man” so good that we can “cling” to him for “support”? You can’t be that naive…
Do you really rely on the government for “food, clothing, and electricity”? If you do that is quite sad. Get off of food stamps and subsidies would be my advice to you and stop wasting time at the library using their free computer and go get a job. If your just speaking/writing off the cuff then you are very naive if you truly think the “government” has anything to do with supplying the above listed items!
Back to the selfish issue. You sir are the selfish person who’s selfishness is both astonishing and alarming to try and attempt an argument at rights when saying that we should depend on others like the government for things such as food and clothing. The government only gives food through subsidies and food stamps and these are only supplied by stealing from others. The very basis of the concept you’re advocating is thievery. Stealing is the most selfish act because it takes from somebody else of which they earned by their own right! Yet, you claim because the government steals and I don’t let them steal happily and advocate individual liberties I am selfish. Do you realize the ignorance and arrogance in this argument? It’s like saying earning a paycheck is bad while robbing a bank is altruistic. That is what is astonishing and alarming here.
Now if you want to come on and debate moral relevance or some type of proletariat morality where stealing is good as long as the ends justify the means then that is a different issue. But to say to me just out and out that stealing is good and individual rights are bad. Ha! You must be joking! I advise you to read some Locke and Hobbes before giving all your support to Marx and Nietzsche. If not you’ll end up with millions dead but perhaps that is altruistic too as long as the ends justify the means!?!?!?