NationStates Jolt Archive

I was having this chitchat with some friends in a trendy café, over vanillattes, discussing the general meaning of societies, laws, ….

There I am caricaturing myself again.

More to the point: we couldn’t agree on the nature of individuality: telos in itself or tenet for some greater good ?

Would you say it should constitute the goal of a society (maximal freedom and comfort) or be subservient to some higher goal (mankind’s betterment, mutual aid, environmental equilibrium of some sort, etc.) ?

I know you can conjugate the two; they are not exclusive. Hell, I think most modern nations apply a good mix of both. For the sake of interest, let’s be cut and dried.

It should be the end. Of course people have lots of "higher" goals and desires. But every person should be free to pursue their meaning of life. Trying to set up one transcendent goal for all of society just amounts to letting one person use society for his ends and forcing everyone else to be his tool.

End.

If it were the other way around, individuality would be meaningless. Ideally, some (or most or all) individuals will choose to do what is good for society as a whole, but it MUST be the choice of each individual, or else we are nothing but cookie cutter drones.

I'm going to take the middle ground and say that individuals make up the whole. Thus, they are both the means and the end. I know I wasn't supposed to do that.

I will also take a middle ground. The goal of legislature and culture should be to cultivate and promote individuality and autonomy. This will allow some individuals (those heroic few that our casterated society no longer believes in) to rise to greatness and through doing so carry the rest of humanity with them. Thus, individuality is first an end and then a means.

Individuality is neither a means nor an end. It is a condition of existence. An individual is, by definition, an individual. Society is, by definition, not an individual. The singular condition and the plural condition are not fully combine-able but they don't cancel each other out. The individual may exist within the set that is society, but it can also exist outside that set. Being in the set does not affect the individual's needs, which are the same in the set or out of it. But if there are no individuals inside the set, then the set is empty and an empty society is a non-existent one. Also, the individuals within the set do dictate the needs and operations of the set.

So I guess society is more dependent on the existence of individuals than the other way around. So it is simply in society's interest to promote individuality. I think we can find historical examples of societies that tried to suppress individuality and had to give it up.

Seems I dozed off a bit.

Of course individuality is an essential part of society and humanity, Muravyets. I'm speaking more along the moral line, as in the 'goal' of society's laws and freedoms. If there is no doubt that unhindered individuality (maximal freedom) is the end goal - as well as means - of our societies, than why is it that we seem to have plenty of laws that speak in favour of some greater good: moral decency and the likes (the everlasting abortion and gay marriage thing, for once) ?

In a way, this primacy of individuals over groups and causes is not a complete reality, in various issues like drugs and marriage laws (G&L, but also polygamia, for instance).

Edit: I know I specified 'should' in the OP, inviting you to post your ideal view of it. I'm just indicating that quite a few people must have different views than the last few accomodating posts suggest.

My ultimate aim is my own happiness (or technically contentment). I promote tolerance of individuality as I believe it will lead to a happier world which, through empathy, will lead to a happier me.