The individual v. the greater good
November 20, 2019
Who is the individual within their society? Would they be the same without it?
What is the role of the self in furthering societal aims? Or should we strive towards self-development, above all?
And which should we prioritise – the individual, or the greater good – when their interests do not align?
Throughout this semester, Regent’s students in philosophy have wrestled with these questions.
To read their thoughts, click here:
Who is the individual within their society? Would they be the same without it?
Society is the collective community of individuals who tend to work together to achieve goals and foster relationships. Humans are social animals and so cannot be happy if they operate purely as individuals, so some form of society is needed. However, amongst any society there are always a number of individuals who display more individuality than their peers. These individuals may go against societal norms but also can create change and innovation by creating new ideas and customs.
What is the role of the self in furthering societal aims? Or should we strive towards self-development, above all?
The self is an important role in society because you have to understand and accept your ‘self’ before you can integrate properly and contribute to society especially when forming relationships. Self development is of course important but if we were to strive for self development above all we would become individual and selfish.
And which should we prioritise – the individual, or the greater good – when their interests do not align?
Humans are wired from an evolutionary perspective to place our individual self as the most important however if society did not work for the greater good, then this would negatively impact and discomfort the idividual.
-Cosmo
Society is a collection almost. A collection of both good and bad. Some come together to form a common good, others will come hoping to form their own individuality. In concept this is a brilliant ideal however in practice ideals will get lost in the mix. The Need to stay together goes against the idea of the individual. The common good satisfies those outside the need of individuality. The individual is someone who choses not to follow the societal view of the mass. An individual is one who often has an opposing view that chafes against the views and societal norms of the mass of people who belong to a society of their own.
A society is made up from a collection of individuals who have decided to come together for some common good. That common good satisfies the needs of the individuals which is why they agree to stay together as a society. If you try and switch to some ‘need of the society’ and that need goes against the individual then you will have a situation where individuals quit trusting the society and if the distrust reaches a sufficient level the individual will leave the society, or rebel against it with the hope of forcing the untrustworthy out.
Maria,
this is true in abstract – but what about in practice? Is it always true that a group of individuals decide to stay together and form a society for the sake of some common good? Does this EVER happen? Isn’t each of us born in a society already, where we invariably stay whether we feel that it provides that ‘common good’ you talk about or not, or whether we personally identify with that ‘common’ good? Where is the threshold for leaving or rebelling? That’s where the interesting debate starts.
The Individual within the society is someone who does not follow the criteria of the mass and often has a different or even an opposing view in contrast to the most of the people who belong to one society. Therefore the lack of similarity makes the Individual stand out and therefore makes an individual oppose the society.
With regards to societal aims, we can look at this issue from a political point of view, for example, if we take socialist point of view, it would require us to have a contribution towards society even if we have to give up something of our own, as it would require everything for the greater good of the society rather than an individual.
On another hand if we take a Conservative point of view, it would require us to be more focused on the development of one person, as conservatism would take a position of success of an individual could be better for the society.
The modern world id democratic, and if we look closely at that word we can split it in to two, where one is "Demos" and the other is "Kratos" which means peoples power or ruled by people, hence why from this we can make an assumption that in our world today the greater good or the interest of the mass is much more heavily respected than the will of the individual. Furthermore, from this we can draw a tendency that the world today or even the modern democracies today, prioritise the greater good over the individual which means that the world is moving more towards the left of the politiical spectrum, as one could say that the world today could be associated with the classical utilitarian ideas of greater pleasure for the greater good.
Grigorii,
well done to attempt a reflection on this. You follow several lines of argumentation, each of which needs further development / clarification.
First, the fact that an individual stands out doesn’t mean (s)he opposes the others. One can stand out by being more articulate or confident than others, without necessarily adopting opposite views.
Second, when you talk of conservatism, it is unclear if you refer to the political ideology (as the use of capital letter seems to indicate), or to the adjective ‘conservative’ in the sense of ‘classical’r or ‘traditional’. Either way, you leave your rationale open for interpretation. Always make sure to finish each line of arguments.
Third, your point about democracy understood as the rule of the people and what this might mean for our debate, is better developed. The link between this and your interpretation (in a political note) that the world is moving towards left, is very interesting.
Your last point about utilitarianism, is somewhat out of context. Those of us who were in class when we discussed it, might understand the sentence, but not the larger meaning of your intended association. You really need to spell everything out – concepts, theoretical framework, meaning of key words etc., and then patiently and carefully develop your line of arguments, point by point.