Sixth in a series
Once more into the breach lads and ladies (or is that Ladies and Gentlebeans, Boys and Girls, Friends and Enemies, Pickles and Onions – oops, let’s not digress there just yet) … and let’s see where we land.
Society: What is it that we expect from it in our social contract?
That really is the problem facing people these days, isn’t it?
I mean it seems to be a tussle between what the individual is expected to do for himself versus what society is expected to provide for the individual. I am torn, sometimes, twixt the two; especially, since the modern definition of society has been replaced by “the government.”
Because, to me, it comes down to who is in service to whom? It would seem that an equitable contract would be that both sides would have obligations to fulfill and in some sense those obligations would equal out. You know, value for value.
Now, you may not agree, but I think people deserve to be compensated or rewarded for their work, efforts or ideas without “society” dictating what that compensation should be. Society doesn’t own those things. I am just of the opinion that people deserve to receive whatever other individuals choose to give them in return for whatever the individual is offering. It is not up to me or you to dictate that choice. And it doesn’t matter whether you or I consider those things necessities or fill some perceived need. We don’t have the right to demand that we get them and demand that society provide them for us.
There are those who would argue differently, especially those who have been raised in a social value system that emphasizes social obligations over individual choices or a system that argues for the equality of outcome. To me these people are saying that you belong to the society you are in, and as such its demands on you take precedence over the choices you might make as an individual. You might have a different take, but that is your privilege.
Now, I am not saying a) I am right or b) they are wrong, but it does represent two distinctly different philosophical views of the world. Heck, I may be wrong, but it is my belief that the individual and his or her choices are more important that the obligations imposed by society – whether it is law, tradition or a leader. You are free to disagree. I call it freedom of conscience.
However, that puts me solidly in a camp that may be different than a very large portion of the world’s population. I can accept that … the question is can they accept my position with equal equanimity? Unfortunately, in my humble opinion, they can’t because while I can accept that as individuals they have made different choices, their view of society means that I have to accept their choices and make them my own. I am not sure they have the right to do that.
So, I am of the opinion that society should expect us to be willing to fend for ourselves as best we can, when given our individual circumstances. This is the price we pay for having the liberty to make our own choices about what we want to do with our lives and how we want to go about living them. When we stop making those choices, then we have to live with the choices made for us by others.
This is not to say that “society” cannot agree to offer assistance if the various individuals who make up that society make that choice and agree to offer it. What I am saying is that I, as an individual, cannot demand that society do anything for me as a matter of right, other than leave me alone. Radical concept, I know. And it fails to adhere to the concept that we are all our brothers’ keepers, but what the hay? My conscience is clear. I have chosen to help those in need when I can and I haven’t demanded that that society help me when I have been in need.
Society can, by the same token under the contract, insist that I observe certain rules, which I have the choice not to abide by but must be willing to accept the consequences such as the condemnation of the society.
Now, and this is where it gets murky for a lot of people, I also feel that as an individual I have a personal obligation to choose to help others in my society as my part of the social contract. There is a difference between demanding my help and my offering my help as a freely arrived at choice. Again, you are free to disagree with me here.
Does society have the obligation to provide me with the basics for survival such as food, shelter, protection, etc.?
There are those who believe it does. In fact, it seems that such a premise rapidly is becoming the dominant socio-cultural belief in the Occidental World. To them, if I am interpreting them correctly, because we are told by our religious texts that we are obligated to help the less fortunate then society is required to provide these things for the individual. The argument goes, so it seems, that it frees the individual to pursue higher ambitions not tied to necessities of survival, like the pursuit of fulfilment or truth. I am not sure that really works but I think that is what its proponents think.
I have a number of problems with that conceptualization of society. First and foremost being is that it fails to take into the most basic component (some will say flaw) in human nature and that is that each individual basically is selfish; not only selfish, but also lazy and prone to take the path of least effort whenever possible. You are free to disagree with me on this point, but I would invite you to review the history of mankind – in fact all the rules of the universe (the concept is known as conservation of energy) – and show me where man has not shown himself to be such a creature. (I concede there are isolated instances, but generally and predominately, people – left to their own devices – always will look for the easy way out that takes the least amount of effort and gives them the greatest benefit, regardless of the cost to others or society at large.)
Since people, really individuals, always are looking for ways to get more out than they are putting in, you have a problem. The equation, the contract, just won’t balance out as it has to … Nature so loves balance that she gets rather nasty when things upset her equilibrium and so do social structures (which tend to collapse when the balance gets too far out of whack).
Secondly, if there is no price to be paid for these necessities of survival, then they have no value. If something has no value, then it is not appreciated. If it is not appreciated and taken for granted, then it usually is wasted and abused. That, too, pretty much is a component of basic human nature. If it ain’t “ours”, then who cares what happens to it? If I am not invested in “it”, then why should I care?
Thirdly, no matter how you want to cut it, slice it or dice it, resources are limited. They have to be distributed and they have to be rationed. This sets up a conflict between the producers and the consumers. Who gets what and for how much. Unfortunately, such is life and such is the lot of humankind. Until we can provide every need, and fulfill every want and desire, to every individual, then there will be conflict over the distribution of what resources we do have. There will be competition.
Unfortunately, there are those who look on competition as a bad thing. Nature doesn’t, but people do. Competition is inherent in our universe and to deny it is there is, in my humble opinion, another attempt to deny reality.
So, I hope you can see that in all things there is competition, literally and figuratively. It is how we deal with the competition that marks the differences in world views. We can either accept it as a basic premise in our social structure or we can try to ignore that it is there and wish it away. (Hint: The latter view doesn’t really work very well).
And finally, my interpretation of those religious texts is that they are directed at the individual – choices the individual should be making – and not being forced to make. (I know I probably not translating you correctly, Martin Luther, but that is what I take away from your explanation of what Jesus the Christ was telling us.) It is through our individual faith, choice and actions that we “earn” salvation, not through what we are forced to buy or do by some social hierarchy.
I hope that gives you some food for thought.
Nuff said for this go-around.
No comments:
Post a Comment