Security as a Priority in the Satisfaction of Human Needs - Essay Example

Security Foundations Name Institution Course Date Abstract The Maslow’s hierarchy of needs evaluates the motivational factors behind the satisfaction of human needs and the priority that humans naturally have in the satisfaction of these needs. Different approaches have been presented that try to rank how important certain needs are and as such the urgency in their satisfaction. The essay evaluates the approaches that have been presented and their practicality in ideal situations. The approaches evaluated are the prime value approach, the core value approach, and the marginal utility approach. These approaches are evaluated so as to ascertain if security at all costs is ethically justified to safeguard the community. The essay explores all the possible arguments for and against the approaches and presents the ideal approach that is in most cases adopted by human beings in the satisfaction of human needs as postulated in the Maslow’s hierarchy of needs. The essay is helpful in the understanding of human nature and the reason behind certain survival behaviours that have been adopted since the beginning of mankind. Evaluation of the discussions in the essay will assist in the understanding of the needs that should be prioritized on so that law and order can be maintained to enable a peaceful society. Security as a Priority in the Satisfaction of Human Needs Introduction The Maslow’s hierarchy of needs classifies the needs that humans are motivated to satisfy based on conscious desires. The satisfaction of one of the needs motivates the individual to go after the secondary need and so on and so forth. The focus of interest in this analysis is security which is categorized in the safety needs category. Security is compared to the other needs in the hierarchy especially the physiological needs (Kenrick, et al. 2010). Security is a multidimensional concept that exists in different strata and can be achieved through various mechanisms of control. Security is defined to be the absence of fear; other definitions exist and in most cases they overlap with this definition. Another outstanding definition of security according to (Goble, 2004 is the lack of threats to existing values. The Australian security intelligence organization act 1979 defines security as the safeguard of the people and sovereign interests of Australia inside and outside the country against the threats of security that exist. Security is an essential need because its absence has many implications and as such depending on the particular threat to security, security can be considered to be of a higher order than most of the other values (Hoffman, 1988). There are however other needs that should be satisfied before and safety needs and they constitute the physiological needs. Therefore, even though security can be considered to come after the most basic of needs that are physiological needs (Smith, & Brooks, 2013). Consequently, given that security is in some cases a value of higher order than most of the other needs, it has motivated several measures that have been considered extreme in some cases. The absence of security deprives a society of the things that make it human; it also hinders the satisfaction of other basic needs particularly the physiological needs. The essay examines whether security at all costs is an ethical justification to the protection of the community. As such the analysis will be evaluating the different motivational needs of individuals to examine if the compromise of the other values to safeguard the community are justified. The essay will also be identifying cases that will be considered to be an exception to the rule. Even though there are situations where security at all costs will be an ethical justification to safeguard the community, this essay evaluates the average situations and not the extremes (Williams, 2012). Literature Review Security is achieved when an environment that is stable and predictable is attained such that citizens are free to pursue their objectives without disturbance, fear, harm, or injury (Fisher and Green 2004, p.21). The Maslow’s hierarchy of needs classifies security as one of the safety needs which comes after physiological needs. Security is as such one of the most basic motivational factors that individuals aim to satisfy. The need to satisfy physiological needs first implies that physiological needs are considered to be one of the threats to security. Also, the presence of other values implies that security is not the only need that humans will strive to satisfy. The longer human needs stay before they are satisfied, the longer they become a priority this is especially the case with physiological needs (McLeod, 2014). It is as such logical that the more an individual goes without water, they will get thirstier and as such will prioritize on more on water. Different approaches have been advanced to explore the priority of human wants and to rank the needs based on importance. The prime value approach, the core value approach, and the marginal value approach are techniques that have been advanced to determine the significance of human needs comparative to other needs (Tay, & Diener, 2011). . The prime value approach suggests that security is a prerequisite value for the utilization of the other values. The approach is based on the possibilities implied by the absence of security to the world. Even though there may be situations that this approach is true, for instance, in places where there are full blown wars, the ideal situation seldom subscribes to this theory. Therefore, flaws have been identified in this approach because there are other external factors that affect the pursuit of security. The Maslow’s hierarchy of needs places physiological needs especially food and water before safety needs (Security) and this has been witnessed in cases where individuals choose locations with less security but more food and water availability (Maslow, 1943). Even though security plays a vital role in the success of a community, if it is invested in it alone it will undermine the other values that are as well critical in enabling a successful society. Limited allocation to physiological needs like food, for example, will lead to an increase in organized crime which is a threat to security (Crow, & Semmens 2007).. The values that are being evaluated in this essay are consequently closely related, and their satisfaction should be somewhat simultaneous. Also, failure by a country to meet its food demands will lead to internal conflicts that will disrupt the security of that country. The association between the different needs of individuals has the insinuation that the satisfaction of one of the needs has the effect of partly satisfying some of the other needs. For example, when physiological needs are met, then the safety needs have also been partly satisfied (Baldwin, 1997). The core value approach considers security to be among the important values as such the decision by individuals to pursue certain needs is motivated by the individual’s classification of core and non-core values. The distinction of core and non-core values implies that core values will always be satisfied first before non-core values. The core value approach justifies the need for an individual to reside in a location with less security, adequate food and water over locations with more security, inadequate food and water resources. This approach implies that the pursuit of non-core values will not be justified because they are in a sense considered to be unimportant. Nonetheless, the approach allows for several needs to be simultaneously important, as such the importance of physiological needs will not be jeopardized by the importance of safety needs (security). The shortcoming of this approach is that it fails to indicate that even though there are several needs that are important, the importance and as such the resource allocation for the needs will vary from place to place depending on the availability of that value. In secure locations, the motivation to satisfy will be less than the motivation to satisfy another need that is scarce. The core value approach acknowledges that there are values that are as important as security and as such it is not ethically justifiable to provide security at all cost to safeguard the community at the expense of other important needs. The relationship between the human needs complicates this theory because there are cases where the needs overlap. Also, there are cases where the human needs are closely interdependent and as such their classification will not be distinct. Safety needs may be considered important because of the association it has with physiological needs rather than when it is considered independently (Meadows, 1991). The marginal utility approach is an advancement of the law of diminishing marginal utility to the concept of security. A certain amount of the values is needed for sustainability. However, it does not mean that the need for that value is the same for individuals in different circumstances. Consequently, security just like the other values contends for the limited resources and as such they are subject to the law of diminishing utility (Baldwin, 1997). The marginal utility approach accommodates the varied needs of individuals in different geographical locations. This is because it uses availability and need as a measure of importance and as such scarce and important values will be prioritized over common and important values. The prioritized values will, therefore, vary depending on availability and the need at that time. Also, there will not be a time when certain values are considered unimportant but will all be satisfied over time based on the priority. The marginal utility approach provides the best argument against the topic being examined because it clearly explains the formula that is to be used in cost allocation for the different human wants. In addition, all the needs of the individuals are considered important and as such there is limited chance that some will be left unsatisfied if the resource availability is unlimited. The marginal utility approach reinforces our argument that it is not ethically justifiable to provide security at all costs to safeguard the community. However, if there is no other need apart from security, which is rarely the case, then it is ethically justifiable to provide security at all costs to safeguard the community (Rakowski, 2008). The prime value approach supports the thesis statement of this essay while the core value approach and the marginal utility approach oppose the thesis statement. Based on an evaluation of these three approaches, evidence indicates that satisfaction of one of the needs does not eliminate the need to satisfy the other needs. Evaluation of literature on the three approaches indicate that under normal situations it is not ethically justifiable to provide security at all costs to protect the community because there are other needs that should be satisfied as well. Conclusion There are certain values that are relatively equal to the need for security as a value, for instance, physiological needs especially food and water. As a result, the core value approach and the marginal utility approach are the approaches that are in most cases observed in reality. The argument by the marginal utility approach that the motivational need for a certain value highly depends on the availability of that value. For instance, the need, as well as the resource allocation for a value, greatly depends on the availability of that value as well as the circumstances. Therefore, security at all costs is not an ethical justification to safeguard the community if it compromises the other values. There are other needs that are of importance to the community, and subsequently, they require resource allocation for them to be met. It would be illogical to allocate all the resources to safety needs alone before the other needs are met. Based on the insatiable nature of human wants it is illogical to allocate all the resources to a single want. It does not make sense, therefore, that security is provided at all costs. Moreover, physiological needs are more of a priority than safety needs. Consequently, physiological needs are satisfied first before safety needs as postulated by Maslow. Safety needs will only be considered once physiological needs have been adequately satisfied (Hatley, 2014). Even though there are cases in which serious security threats will compel the allocation of all resources to safeguard the community, the ideal situation rarely requires it. To conclude, security just like any other value is restricted by limited resources and as such it cannot be offered at all costs because a compromise has to be reached so that the other needs can be satisfied as well. Therefore, there is no ethical justification to allocate all the resources to safeguard the community at the expense of other physiological needs for instance food (Maslow, 1970). References: Baldwin, D., A. (1997). The Concept of Security, British International Studies Association. Review of International Studies 23, 5-26. Crow, I., & Semmens, N. (2007). Researching criminology. Buckingham, GBR: Open University Press. Fisher, J., F., Halibozek, E., & Green, G. (2008). Introduction to security. (8th ed.). Butterworth-Heinemann. Burlington. (Chapter 1, pp. 3-17). Goble, F. G. (2004) The Third Force. The Psychology of Abraham Maslow. Richmond, CA: Maurice Basset. Hatley, D. (2014) Understanding Human Need. United Kingdom: Policy Press. Hoffman, E. (1988). The right to be human: A biography of Abraham Maslow. Jeremy P. Tarcher, Inc. Kenrick, D. T., Neuberg, S. L., Griskevicius, V., Becker, D. V., & Schaller, M. (2010). Goal-Driven Cognition and Functional Behavior The Fundamental-Motives Framework. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 19(1), 63-67. Maslow, A. H. (1943). A Theory of Human Motivation. Psychological Review, 50(4), 370-96. Maslow, A. H. (1954). Motivation and personality. New York: Harper and Row. McLeod, S. A. (2014). Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs. Retrieved from www.simplypsychology.org/maslow.html Meadows, R., J. (1991). Premises Liability and Negligent Security: Issues and Implications. Journal of Contemporary Criminal Justice. Rakowski, N. (2008). Maslow's hierarchy of needs model: The difference of the Chinese and the Western pyramid on the example of purchasing luxurious products. Norderstedt: Grin Verla, g. Smith, C., & Brooks, D. (2013). Security science: The theory and practice of security. Elsevier. Oxford. (Chapter 1, pp. 1-21). Tay, L., & Diener, E. (2011). Needs and subjective well-being around the world. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 101(2), 354. Williams, P. (2012). Security studies. (2nd ed.). New York: Taylor and Francis group. Read More

The Australian security intelligence organization act 1979 defines security as the safeguard of the people and sovereign interests of Australia inside and outside the country against the threats of security that exist. Security is an essential need because its absence has many implications and as such depending on the particular threat to security, security can be considered to be of a higher order than most of the other values (Hoffman, 1988). There are however other needs that should be satisfied before and safety needs and they constitute the physiological needs.

Therefore, even though security can be considered to come after the most basic of needs that are physiological needs (Smith, & Brooks, 2013). Consequently, given that security is in some cases a value of higher order than most of the other needs, it has motivated several measures that have been considered extreme in some cases. The absence of security deprives a society of the things that make it human; it also hinders the satisfaction of other basic needs particularly the physiological needs.

The essay examines whether security at all costs is an ethical justification to the protection of the community. As such the analysis will be evaluating the different motivational needs of individuals to examine if the compromise of the other values to safeguard the community are justified. The essay will also be identifying cases that will be considered to be an exception to the rule. Even though there are situations where security at all costs will be an ethical justification to safeguard the community, this essay evaluates the average situations and not the extremes (Williams, 2012).

Literature Review Security is achieved when an environment that is stable and predictable is attained such that citizens are free to pursue their objectives without disturbance, fear, harm, or injury (Fisher and Green 2004, p.21). The Maslow’s hierarchy of needs classifies security as one of the safety needs which comes after physiological needs. Security is as such one of the most basic motivational factors that individuals aim to satisfy. The need to satisfy physiological needs first implies that physiological needs are considered to be one of the threats to security.

Also, the presence of other values implies that security is not the only need that humans will strive to satisfy. The longer human needs stay before they are satisfied, the longer they become a priority this is especially the case with physiological needs (McLeod, 2014). It is as such logical that the more an individual goes without water, they will get thirstier and as such will prioritize on more on water. Different approaches have been advanced to explore the priority of human wants and to rank the needs based on importance.

The prime value approach, the core value approach, and the marginal value approach are techniques that have been advanced to determine the significance of human needs comparative to other needs (Tay, & Diener, 2011). . The prime value approach suggests that security is a prerequisite value for the utilization of the other values. The approach is based on the possibilities implied by the absence of security to the world. Even though there may be situations that this approach is true, for instance, in places where there are full blown wars, the ideal situation seldom subscribes to this theory.

Therefore, flaws have been identified in this approach because there are other external factors that affect the pursuit of security. The Maslow’s hierarchy of needs places physiological needs especially food and water before safety needs (Security) and this has been witnessed in cases where individuals choose locations with less security but more food and water availability (Maslow, 1943). Even though security plays a vital role in the success of a community, if it is invested in it alone it will undermine the other values that are as well critical in enabling a successful society.

Limited allocation to physiological needs like food, for example, will lead to an increase in organized crime which is a threat to security (Crow, & Semmens 2007)..

Read More