NationStates Jolt Archive

Debt to Society

In either abstract or direct terms, what does the average (Or specific) individual "owe" to their society?

I'm going with everything on this one... I mean, society comes from all of us. If we don't put anything in, we get nothing in return. I'd rather give it my all, and have a great society, than sit back and think everyone else should do more.

$1.05

I'm going with everything on this one... I mean, society comes from all of us. If we don't put anything in, we get nothing in return. I'd rather give it my all, and have a great society, than sit back and think everyone else should do more.
How can you owe anything to an imaginary construct? You might want to, personally, live exclusively for society, but how does that give you the moral imperitive to order others to give their all?
I'm going to say "nothing." Society should already be thanking me for not seeking its destruction.

Nothing is owed to "society", but I would argue that something is owed to the rest of mankind, which is an extension of what is owed to yourself.

You owe it to yourself to live life to the fullest, do the best you can, and respect yourself, etc.

By extension of respecting yourself (i.e. following your innate inclinations to be an empathic, sentient creature) you owe it to other individuals to allow them to do the same (i.e. live life to the fullest, do the best they can, respect themselves, etc.)

As an extension of doing the best you can and living life to the fullest, one can argue that you implicitly owe it to the rest of mankind to use your talents and ambitions to their full potential.

...That's my take on it.

How can you owe anything to an imaginary construct?
If what you owe is also an imaginary construct, where's the difficulty?

How can you owe anything to an imaginary construct? You might want to, personally, live exclusively for society, but how does that give you the moral imperitive to order others to give their all?
Society isn't imaginary. I live in a city... looks pretty real to me.

I'm going to say "nothing." Society should already be thanking me for not seeking its destruction.
How can you destroy something that doesn't exist?

More importantly, what does society owe me?

If what you owe is also an imaginary construct, where's the difficulty?

Your work, talents, contributions, and monetary gains aren't imaginary. "Society" is imaginary since it's artificially constructed by a collection of individuals.

Even if your talents et al. were imaginary, I don't think one can definitively answer whether a person can give an invisible apple to an invisible man (unlike the certainty of giving a real or invisible apple to a real man.)

Society isn't imaginary. I live in a city... looks pretty real to me.
The buildings exist, the people exist, but the "Society" that bonds them all together only exists in the minds of those people that choose to believe in it.
How can you destroy something that doesn't exist?
Just because something is imaginary doesn't mean it doesn't exist. The value of money is imaginary, matters of nationality are imaginary, and Santa Claus is imaginary. Yet, all three can be destroyed (by convincing everyone to ignore them, or killing those people who hold them as important), altered or used to influence the actions of others.

How can you owe anything to an imaginary construct? You might want to, personally, live exclusively for society, but how does that give you the moral imperitive to order others to give their all?
I'm going to say "nothing." Society should already be thanking me for not seeking its destruction.
darn skippy.

and btw, just where in the hell have you been? NSG is way crazy and boring and such without you

but how does that give you the moral imperitive to order others to give their all?

In my mind, the most important line.

The buildings exist, the people exist, but the "Society" that bonds them all together only exists in the minds of those people that choose to believe in it.


Why?

From a Hobbsian idea, society exists in order to enforce the social construct. We form society of law to keep us safe from harm.

We gain from society the enforcement of those laws, which protects us from harm. Ergo we owe to the society to keep our end of the social contract, namely, not to break it, by breaking the laws of the society.

The society, through law, benefits the individual. It is the individual's obligation therefore, to keep within the law.

From a Hobbsian idea, society exists in order to enforce the social construct. We form society of law to keep us safe from harm.

We gain from society the enforcement of those laws, which protects us from harm. Ergo we owe to the society to keep our end of the social contract, namely, not to break it, by breaking the laws of the society.

The society, through law, benefits the individual. It is the individual's obligation therefore, to keep within the law.

What if an individual feels that the social contract has been defied? Is he not only responsible but compelled to "right" it or deny the authority of such? But then, I must be careful not to always assume society=government. How can one even deal with a society that they think has betrayed them?

How can you owe anything to an imaginary construct? You might want to, personally, live exclusively for society, but how does that give you the moral imperitive to order others to give their all?
I'm going to say "nothing." Society should already be thanking me for not seeking its destruction.

Do you mean an abstract construct instead of an imaginary one? I hope so, otherwise you allow many weird ideas that can occur within the imagination an equal ontological status as that of the concept, society.

Debt to Society

In either abstract or direct terms, what does the average (Or specific) individual "owe" to their society?
I kinda can't stand society. So, gimma mah moneh!

What if an individual feels that the social contract has been defied? Is he not only responsible but compelled to "right" itor deny the authority of such?

Defied, by the individual, or defied by the state?

If you believe it defied by the individual, then it up to the state to deal with that individual. Part of the agreement of the contract is, we form governments to punish those that act against the individuals. The obligation is to keep that contract, and let the government deal with the violator, which is their purpose.

Now, if you think the state did it then that's something different entirely. The purpose of the social contract is to the benefit of the individual. I give up my right to do X, and am required to do Y in order to support the government that will stop you from doing X to me.

I don't murder you, so you don't murder me. I pay taxes to fund the government to STOP you from murdering me.

If the government acts in a way that is not to protect individuals from harm, but rather does the opposite, than that government has violated its purpose.

And I see no problem with overthrowing oppressive governments.

Your work, talents, contributions, and monetary gains aren't imaginary. "Society" is imaginary since it's artificially constructed by a collection of individuals.

The value of work, talents, contributions, and money are are artificially constructed by a collection of individuals. If all or at least most peopled didn't think money were valuable it would be useless. I might be highly skilled at burping the alphabet, but because next to no one values that skill I won't be able to live off it.

Debt to Society

In either abstract or direct terms, what does the average (Or specific) individual "owe" to their society?
I 'owe' nothing. I choose to contribute however, as I think it works better when we do.

Individuals only owe to the government an amount necessary to sustain its necessary actions within a society. Society however, being as it has no duty for individuals as a whole cannot have anything owed to it by a law-abiding individual. Individuals within a society can owe each other things but society as a whole cannot act as a single force.

I believe that one should owe a debt of gratitude to society. How much that is depends on how grateful one is to society. It works out nicely because the happier one is, the more indebted they feel, and considering that people are striving to become happier, the contributions become greater as well.

If all one has is a society of ingrates, than it's not really a society that should receive any support.

I believe that one should owe a debt of gratitude to society. How much that is depends on how grateful one is to society. It works out nicely because the happier one is, the more indebted they feel, and considering that people are striving to become happier, the contributions become greater as well.

If all one has is a society of ingrates, than it's not really a society that should receive any support.

Well, this really more than one issue. Say Im a talented doctor, with many years of subsidized medical schooling, then one day, I decide I dont want to be a doctor anymore. I want to be a janitor. Have I betrayed society by destroying their perceptions of the "good" I could have done? Or am I just another investment and fully free to make that choice without guilt?

The buildings exist, the people exist, but the "Society" that bonds them all together only exists in the minds of those people that choose to believe in it.
I would try out this "not believing in society" thing, but I like things such as food, friends, business in general, and public transport too much to give them up.

Just because something is imaginary doesn't mean it doesn't exist. The value of money is imaginary, matters of nationality are imaginary, and Santa Claus is imaginary. Yet, all three can be destroyed (by convincing everyone to ignore them, or killing those people who hold them as important), altered or used to influence the actions of others.
If all this is imaginary, how can one owe money if its value is imaginary?

Well, this really more than one issue. Say Im a talented doctor, with many years of subsidized medical schooling, then one day, I decide I dont want to be a doctor anymore. I want to be a janitor. Have I betrayed society by destroying their perceptions of the "good" I could have done? Or am I just another investment and fully free to make that choice without guilt?

I think you should be free to make that choice without guilt, provided one can consider contributing to the welfare of society as a janitor is just as important as contributing as a doctor. For one, highly motivated janitors are hard to come by and two, I would be a bit concerned about a doctor that didn't care about their job working on my well being.

Education and training can be paid for by society, but dedication and enthusiasm are strictly voluntary.

Well, this really more than one issue. Say Im a talented doctor, with many years of subsidized medical schooling, then one day, I decide I dont want to be a doctor anymore. I want to be a janitor. Have I betrayed society by destroying their perceptions of the "good" I could have done? Or am I just another investment and fully free to make that choice without guilt?
Unless you sign a contract you have no obligation.

I think you should be free to make that choice without guilt, provided one can consider contributing to the welfare of society as a janitor is just as important as contributing as a doctor. For one, highly motivated janitors are hard to come by and two, I would be a bit concerned about a doctor that didn't care about their job working on my well being.

Education and training can be paid for by society, but dedication and enthusiasm are strictly voluntary.
I really don't think that contributing to society as a janitor really matters as much as contributing as a doctor unless you are a really good janitor and a really bad doctor and I would not be concerned about a doctor who didn't like his job so much as one who was incompetent or unethical. Not liking a job doesn't mean that you will be bad at it, only that it is something you don't like doing. At the very least I tend to doubt that many janitors get paid as well as doctors as the need for medical work tends to be greater than that of a clean floor.

I don't think I owe society as a whole anything. All society, as a whole, has given me is bigotry, self-hatred and a disdain for humans in general.

I owe some very important and special individuals an awful lot, though.

I really don't think that contributing to society as a janitor really matters as much as contributing as a doctor unless you are a really good janitor and a really bad doctor and I would not be concerned about a doctor who didn't like his job so much as one who was incompetent or unethical. Not liking a job doesn't mean that you will be bad at it, only that it is something you don't like doing. At the very least I tend to doubt that many janitors get paid as well as doctors as the need for medical work tends to be greater than that of a clean floor.

Societies function because there is an interdependent relationship between professions and the idea that one profession is more important than another can lead to disasterous consequences:

Golgafrincham, home of the Great Circling Poets of Arium, decided it was time to rid itself of an entire useless third of its population, and so concocted a story that their planet would shortly be destroyed in some great catastrophe. The useless third of the population (consisting of hairdressers, tired TV producers, insurance salesmen, personnel officers, security guards, management consultants, telephone sanitizers and the like) were packed into the B-Ark, one of three giant Ark spaceships, and told that everyone else would follow shortly in the other two. The other two thirds of the population, of course, did not follow and "led full, rich and happy lives until they were all suddenly wiped out by a virulent disease contracted from unsanitary telephones".
Granted, it is fictional, but it does illustrate the point I'm trying to make.

If anything, I could argue that janitors are more needed than doctors, considering that every business in the world employs a janitor where very few employ doctors.

I could ramble on more about this, but that's enough.

Societies function because there is an interdependent relationship between professions and the idea that one profession is more important than another can lead to disasterous consequences:

Granted, it is fictional, but it does illustrate the point I'm trying to make.

If anything, I could argue that janitors are more needed than doctors, considering that every business in the world employs a janitor where very few employ doctors.

I could ramble on more about this, but that's enough.
The importance of a profession is not an absolute eternal thing but rather a relative statement based upon the supply and the demand for it at a given time. At this point and in the forseeable future we can easily claim that doctors are more needed than janitors, if it were otherwise then our example would not have the same weight. I could ramble more on this as well, however, to say that all professions are equal at any given point is equally foolish as saying that one profession is eternally better than another.

Nothing, in fact humans are evil vile creatures and we must exhaust as many resources as we can to STOP THEM NOW! *Yes, I actually believe something very close to that.*

Nothing, in fact humans are evil vile creatures and we must exhaust as many resources as we can to STOP THEM NOW! *Yes, I actually believe something very close to that.*

Well, tell you what, you start by jumping off a tall building and I'll spread the word of your martyrdom to pursuade others to take up your cause.

Well, tell you what, you start by jumping off a tall building and I'll spread the word of your martyrdom to pursuade others to take up your cause.
No, I have other ways to hinder my fellow sheep. I'm currently on MSN with Bush trying to get him to push what he's calling "That shiny button Condi won't let me touch." Cross your fingers. ;)

No, I have other ways to hinder my fellow sheep. I'm currently on MSN with Bush trying to get him to push what he's calling "That shiny button Condi won't let me touch." Cross your fingers. ;)
If he listens, the world will have deserved it for letting him make global policy decisions based on IM Conversations with complete strangers.