Should Society Be Structured around the Good of the Individual or the Collective - Essay Example

Module Should Society be Structured around the Good of the Individual, or the Good of the Collective? INTRODUCTION The debate about whether the society should be oriented towards serving individual interest or collective good has received diverse responses with varied points of view. The argument about the moral issue is a contentious one and has, over time, been meted with diverse responses. Thinkers and philosophers in the past have argued variedly about the issue regarding to moral imperatives. Should something only be wrong when an individual finds it so or when the whole society disregards it? Arguments have as well ensued about whether the society should be tethered around serving the interest of the individual members or the common good that benefits all. Those arguing for the collectivism claim that the society is a single unit defined by the collective functioning. It is, therefore, essential that individual members recognize this collectivity and work in alignment with the common social expectations and values rather than individual choices. On the other hand, the individualism gives the people the choice to work around serving their self-interests as well as meeting their objectives. This implies that the decisions they make should only be directed toward individual concerns/goods and not dependent on the wider collective interest of other society members. The society should be constructed to serve the collective interest. From the collective point view, the society is a super system that exists beyond the individuals. It is a single unit with different segments such as race, ethnicity, and religion among others. These are the sub-units that collectively make it whole and individuals have to belong to some of the social groups. Their behaviors, therefore, have to align to the expectations of those particular groups if order and stability are to be achieved. As Claassen (70) argues, the best society that is orderly, just and fair can only be achieved when the goals are shifted from meeting individual’s interest to serving the collective purpose. The prime purpose of everyone’s existence is to meet the expectations of the society in which they live in. Different philosophers have risen to support the need to have a collective society that works to support the social values and collective functioning rather than an individual-oriented system. Karl Marx is famously known for his socioeconomic communism system in which he campaigned for a social structure that reinforced communism. Marx argues that the socioeconomic balance and sustenance can only be achieved when people begin to mind about the wellbeing of the whole society rather than themselves. In situations where the people in political powers and governing positions are left to be ‘individualistic’ in thoughts and actions, the rest of the society perishes as they will most likely work toward their self-gratification. In such cases, social vices such as corruptions, favoritism and nepotism among others become inevitable. These disentangle the society and leads to several cases of injustices and impunity (Turner and Mark 98). Truly, it is in order to think independently. There is no debate about that. As John Stuart Mill argues, the role of each is to serve their society in the best way possible and the only way to achieve this is by staying loyal to the social morals of the society. Mill, a philosopher, affiliated to utilitarianism believes that the moral justification of actions comes about when individual’s behaviors serve a greater number of the population. Actions that serve to bring happiness and pleasure to several people are deemed to be morally right. While he believes that every individual should have the freedom to make their decisions, the consequences of their actions should judge them on the morality weighing scale. Mill conceives morality as a system of social rules, norms, and values that regulate individual’s actions so that happiness can be achieved for a large number. He claims that every individual has a moral responsibility to adhere to the set social rules and individual’s decision is null and void if they do not respect the overall society norms. In a situation where a person chooses abortion, such a decision can only be right if it is in line with the moral framework. The individual decision cannot count if it breaches the social rules and norms (Miller 132). Leaving individuals to act on their decisions while disregarding the larger social welfare will certainly result in conflicts and disorders. For instance, if a person decides, based on their thoughts and feelings, to kill another then such an action will not affect only the murdered person but also the larger society. A petty disagreement could have made the person to kill, but the impact will be felt by very many other parties like their deceased’s family, workmates, friends and even the society as a whole. Eventually, the individual’s decision (individual good) shall have caused pain to a considerable number of other society members. This makes it hard to separate completely a person’s action from the society (Claassen 61). There is virtually a thin line between an individual and the society. Practically no one exists alone. Everyone influence and is influenced by the rest of the society. Human actions from one region affect those on the other end and decisions individuals make should be considerate enough not to inconvenience or negatively affect other people. For example, a person with influence who is looked upon by many should act responsibly and abide by the social rules and norms. In a situation where they act in contrary to the expectation (acting on individual good), they are likely to mislead those who follows them. What is good for them should, therefore, be as well good to the society and if they realize it is not, their individual decisions should also change. The greatest guiding principle should be the society’s good and not self-interest. Free thinking is good and should be encouraged by it also needs to benefiting the society and not achieving self-gain at the expense of the other members. According to Turner and Mark (101), it is a task of every society member to think freely and improve the condition and not think to just progress alone. This implies that everyone is more beneficial when they collectively work to achieve a better society than when they work for themselves. Undisputedly, the society is comprised of diverse people with different needs and endowments. The disadvantaged persons may not be able to function with much zeal as the normal populations, and they have to depend on others. Having a society structured in a way that collectively functions to meet common needs would help these groups of people. A society that is oriented toward meeting individual needs will reduce sensitivity to these persons with special needs. CONCLUSION The best society to have is that which is sensitive to the collective good rather than individual needs. As demonstrated, a society is a collection of people who interdepend on each other to function and achieve stability. Utilitarian theorist including John S. Mill argues that happiness for all should be the prime objective of the society. As seen, having a society driven by the purpose to satisfy the needs of the majority will avoid vices such as corruption, unfairness, injustice and inequality among others. Also, the disadvantaged persons can best be assisted when the society is oriented towards a collective gain. Independent thinking and decision should only be a tool used to improve the lives of the society. This way, the society will be a good human habitat. Works Cited Claassen, Alfred. An Inquiry into the Philosophical Foundations of the Human Sciences. New York: Lang, 2007. Miller, Dale. John Stuart Mill. New York, NY: John Wiley & Sons, 2013. Turner, Stephen P, & Mark W. Risjord. Philosophy of Anthropology and Sociology. Amsterdam: Elsevier/North-Holland, 2007. Read More