The Greater Good

[TeleFuzz]

Life is a balance, but in this balance act there is only a theoretical center. There really is no center because there really are no definite answers; at least we do not have these answers.

There are generally two schools of sociopolitical that you could spring every other school off of.

The first is that of individualism and self interest. Which basically says that human beings, even in society should be concerned with only themselves. If we look out for our best interests we will do well. Now you could also add "by looking out for our best interest we will also learn that sometimes our best interest is to help others". But the generally accepted principal is that the government is to make laws to keep us from killing each others, as self interest would get out of control.

The second school is "the greater good". It is not technically a communist or socialist idea, but it certainly has some connections. This school believes that human beings should look out for each other and with every action be concerned with how it impacts others.

Under these are several different variations. For example, the American system of government was built on an individualist idea, but with a twist. The government was built in such a way that Politicians struggled over power, but no one could ever truly hold all of it. It was built with the idea that "human beings are self interested monsters." The system of checks and balances used to keep the power spread out.

So which school of thought do you belong to? Is the individual more important than the group? Or is the group more important than the individual. For now, lets take sides for arguments sake. I understand that neither answer is 100% correct, but lets have some fun.

Personally I believe in the individualistic side.

[PaulNZ]

You'll know doubt be familiar with the works of John Locke on this topic TeleFuzz.

He was grounded in the belief of safeguarding individuals from being singled out in a particular way by the state legislature (which exists with the consent of those to be governed) whilst at the same time protecting their natural rights to life, liberty and property, by way of the social contract.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Locke#Constitution_of_Carolina

I'm no expert but I suppose if we are going to enter into a circular discussion it is as good a place as any to respond to the question posed.

This governing framework allows for the individual to explore his or her self interest whilst at the same time having the protection afforded by the social contract, for the greater good.

;-)

[TeleFuzz]

I always liked Locke, its a shame so many avoid him and his works. I have no idea why.

I agree, individualism is important, but when entering into a society the social contract is a good way to counter those who would cause a rift in that society.

One may pursue his individual interests, but not at the expensive of infringing on others individual interests as well.

For example. I am a farmer, I farm wheat and corn. The farm next to me is an animal farm for live stock. It is in the animal owners interest to allow his animals to eat my crop. However that would be infringing on my right to have my crops protected.

The social contract today however is almost completely ignored.

The group mentality is very dangerous, YET at the same time it can be very useful.

In the military the groups interest come before the individuals. One mans life is sacrificed to save a platoons. A platoon is sacrificed to save a company. A company is sacrificed to save a battalion, and so on and so forth.

However in normal society it can become dangerous. The group is a dangerous idea, capable of exerting its will on whomever and whatever it chooses. At least someone is interested in philosophical discussion.

[PaulNZ]

True enough TeleFuzz, the group mentality can be a dangerous thing and Locke counters this with the consent to govern for the greater good, being afforded by the group being governed.

Of course human nature being what it is and the corrupting influence power can have, requires safeguards such as a separate judiciary etc.

In fact Locke had degrees of control of the governing group, the last and most drastic of which was revolution!

It's interesting that you should bring the military into the discussion because I have heard an argument against Locke's theory based on military conscription; that being a direct conflict with the state not singling out any individual for whatever purpose, in this case potentially to lay down the persons life for the greater good.

As hunter gatherers are we programmed by evolution to follow a free market model where he who dies with the most stuff wins?

I cannot envisage a perfect system because the raw material we build civilization from (us) is so flawed. The system must allow for personal growth whilst protecting the rights of the individual and the group. As you say, a balance is required.

:hat:

[TeleFuzz]

Very true.

But one could also counter *arguing for the sake of fun here* that there is no perfect balance between the group and individual.

For example, there is a school of philosophy (though I forget the name) that believes in a balance of life that in some ways is sort of forced.

There can be no good without evil, no up without down, no right without wrong, no happiness without sadness, no peace without war, etc.

With this in mind there must always be someone, or a group of people who voluntarily take on the hardships, while others reap the benefits.

In some ways it is true in everyday life. Those in management positions reap the benefits of those under them that labor. Those as CEO's reap the benefits of an entire company.

This is not to say they do not sacrifice themselves. They do, you sacrifice time with friends and family to work. But they reap the benefits of others work.

In society we cannot have unless someone works to obtain that "thing" we want, need or desire. We would not have freedom if men were not willing to sacrifice their time and possibly lives to serve in the military.

We would not have cars and buildings if men were not willing to do the same to build them.

One could also argue that at times people need to be forced to do things so that others may prosper. Had we not had a draft for the first and second world war, we would have surely been doomed.

Would all of those men volunteered? Who knows, it is certainly possible.

The question is not is sacrifice necessary, but is it necessary to force sacrifice?

[PaulNZ]

Interesting shift. If I were have a stab in the dark, as an observer rather than being a scholarly type, I might suggest that evolution of the specie may play a part in our hierarchical structure in society.

Up until the arrival of agriculture about 10,000 years ago we had spent the previous 90,000 years as nomadic hunter gatherers in small extended familial units. Possibly toward the end of that period in tribes, but certainly nowhere near in the groupings of people that occurred after the development of agriculture. That means that from an evolutionary perspective we were programmed to form tight units in which each member had a role to play to effect a group goal - to kill an animal for example.

To achieve the goal in this case might pose several dangers to the participants. Survival of the group might rely on the kill being made, but survival of the individual within the group whilst making the kill requires organisation and a reliance on others. This would require a hierarchy.

A hierarchy means some would lead, some would follow, a requirement to achieve the group goal whilst maximizing the odds of the individuals surviving the task at hand.

On top of this instinct to form a hierarchy for survival purposes, we also have an instinct to hunt and gather for survival from our 90,000 years of doing so; evolution doing its thing.

I suppose this observation might allow us to draw the inference that we are predisposed to forcing sacrifice for the greater good and we are also predisposed to being materialistic.

Or is that a cop out?

[TeleFuzz]

No not necessarily a cop out.

It is a very good point. For a good portion of our existence we were more animal than man. We acted much like a pack of wolves would, or primates.

When we really get down to our history, we are nothing more than animals, deep down. And we are social animals at that, we have a tendency to form societies, and like social animals we have a tendency to have an "alpha" male. There are those on the "top" and those on the "bottom".

Even when we established a farming society we did not give up our urge to have a leader.

Human beings are odd, because while deep down at our base we are animals, we do not always behave as animals. Even if one says "we desire sex simply to continue the species" we still play the game of love. If it was nothing more than 100% "lets make kids" then people would not bother with the game. We would not bother with birth control either.

It all comes down to human beings are very similar to other social animals. But... at the same time we are not. Though one could counter that very easily by saying: one plays the game of love like an animal choose the proper mate. Who is the best? Who is the strongest, smartest, etc.

BUT you could counter that by saying people do not always choose the best. Not every attractive male has an attractive female, and vice versa. Same applies with the strongest or smartest.

So now we have gone from group mentality to animal instinct. No wonder it takes so long to write a philosophy book.