Responsibility to the community... or not.
I wanted to throw out a general discussion on the notion of Responsibility, since it's come up in a few different threads on more specific issues. Specifically, to what extent are individuals responsible for their communities? Is the notion of responsibility a moral imperative as people on the Left are likely to argue, or is it a flimsy excuse for irresponsible socialism, as people on the Right might say? Is there a completely non-moral argument for fostering a notion of shared responsibility, or do the numbers support self-interest as a stronger long-term strategy for development?
Naturally a question like this doesn't have any "answers", at least not in the conventional notion of the word. What I'm more interested in is exploring the roots of why we think what we think, with the end goal of refining those beliefs so that, when they come up in future arguments, we'll all be on well-trodden ground.
My own notions are more squarely located in the Left, although I'm sure we all have different reasons. As an atheist I have no particular belief in an overarching moral system: at best I can say my own beliefs are "pseudo-moral" insofar as they share a lot in common with moral systems. I'd argue that the state of being human already creates a certain type of shared experience, and responsibility to the Other derives pretty naturally from that understanding.
More concretely, the state of being an unexceptional human creates an understanding that my own experience is easily interchangeable with the experience of another, and nothing but blind luck and circumstances dictate otherwise. This isn't to say that my choices don't play a vital role in shaping me (I'm an existentialist at heart), but that those choices are, again, unexceptional: removed to a different context, I could just as easily be in the position of someone else, and that person could be in mine.
Given that context, any notion of self-interest is easily converted to a notion of shared-interest, since anything that benefits me is equally interchangeable to the experience of another. The flipside is equally true: anything that benefits another is equally interchangeable to my own experience. These notions are abstract, of course (that is, giving someone a million dollars isn't likely to improve my own life, so "interchangeable" really is a philosophical rather than concrete notion), but the development of a community ethos in which everyone responds to the needs of the others also increases the chances that the community will be working towards fulfilling my own needs.
Is that socialism? Yes and no - there's a common philosophical base to both, but I have enough cynicism to keep an overreliance on government and community at bay. Competition is healthy and necessary, and I can't imagine any system that disregards this entirely. There are, however, places where the government (which is nothing more than a tool of the community) can help create circumstances in which the normal and necessary inequalities of daily life (strength, intelligence, beauty, talent, etc.) can play themselves out without the game being decided beforehand by the unnecessary and counterproductive inequalities of history, poverty, and bigotry.
This makes sense to me, regardless of whether the higher value is given to development of the individual, the community, the nation, or the species:
If the individual's development is paramount, then we already have a problem with the vast majority of this planet is born into crushing poverty. Philosophies centered on the primal importance of the individual (i.e. those that argue against community responsibility, and towards a more absolute understanding of individual responsibility) are utterly useless for most people in the world. Even more insulting, these philosophies tend to ignore the extent to which other people's notion of responsibility helps these exceptional individuals acheive - things like scholarships, mentorships, community support and stability, etc. If the individual is the most important part of a philosophical system, that system has to keep in mind that there are some 7 billion individuals whose circumstances determine their inability to participate with any freedom in their own development.
If the community, nation, or species' development is paramount, then the recognition of those inequalities which are unnecessary is key to maximizing that community's production. For example, if we wanted to talk about scientific development, we can envision two societies: one in which the smartest and most talented compete, and one which involves only the smartest and most talented of that pool who were born into circumstances that allowed for pursuing those interests. I'd argue the first scenario is going to get us a lot further.
Now all this may sound like I'm suggesting the creation of some brave new world, but the reality is a lot more benign: healthcare, education, equal access to government protections, basic quality of life. We can't - and wouldn't want - to tackle those inequalities that are necessary and productive, and above all we don't want to create a state in which individuality is squashed by obsessive conformity. But surrounding circumstances that don't relate to the person's innate worth - circumstances like poverty - aren't "productive" in any sense of the term.
This is long-winded, and I've digressed a little bit from the central question, but I wanted to lay out as much of this argument as I could before handing it over for comments. In essence, the health of the community benefits not only the community at large, but also me as a member of that community. In that light, a notion of shared responsibility is also essentially one of self-interest, even if the usual moral defense of responsibility is out of the picture.
So what about y'all? How do you balance notions of personal responsibility and shared responsibility? Are they interrelated and equally necessary? Is the second just an invitation to totalitarianism? Is the first just an excuse for selfish disregard of others? How do you place yourself in this discussion?
Comments :
Purpose of Society
I think this gets at the question of wht and why we have social organization in the first place. It's a topic of some interest to me as an anarchist because I suspect that the edifices we build poorly reflect the original blueprints.
Here's a list of societal purposes I came up with previously:
Biological- Society exists to promote survival
Eudamia- Society exists to enable individuals to better themselves
Baconian- Society exists to increase the sum total of knowledge/science
Narcissistic- Society exists to create personal comfort
Epicuran - Society exists to promote personal and collective happiness
Ordnung- Society exists to create timeless institutions/monuments
Nihilist- what purpose? Society is.
Religious- Society exists to fulfill divine mandate.
Materialist- Society exists to create the infrastructure that allows for wealth and goods.
Xenophobic- society exists to destroy all "others."
No society is likely to embody one of these purposes. But which ones get mixed in, and to what proportion is the question.
The responsibility of the individual to society, and vice versa will depend heavily on how you answer that question.
I came. I saw. I posted.
Veni, Vidi, Bitchy.
That's a good point,
and I were given that set of choices, I'd cobble together something from the Biological, Epicurean, Nihilistic, and Materialist arguments: society has no "purpose", but it does help on issues of survival, comfort, and commodity.
As an anarchist, what do you think?
Saint, n. A dead sinner revised and edited. - Ambrose Bierce
Well...
As an idealist I lean toward the Eudamia ideal. As an anarchist I think organized societies all fail in one sense or another.
Human potential seems so unlimited that it pains me that we choose to wallow in our own worst aspects, but we do and I'm not likely to change that.
I came. I saw. I posted.
Veni, Vidi, Bitchy.
my choices would be
Heavy Biological / Heavy Eudamia / Light Baconian / Light Narcissistic / and very Light Materialistic...
Society should promote survival through funding the Military and the Judiciary to protect all the individuals and things like CDC to fight possible epidemics.
Eudamia speaks for itself
I think society should place some emphasis and give financial enticement to those who would work in the scientific fields.
Some welfare is appropriate for the very poor and those unable to take care of themselves for reasons they are not responsible for.
As for Materialistic, society should not place impediments between individuals and creation of wealth. Policies promoting capitalism while policing for corruption should be in place.
Individual's responsibility should be limited to the following:
1. Paying taxes for the above mentioned protections and institutions to make the above happen.
That's it... There should be no further requirements on the individual as the money that individual pays to the government would
a. implement military/courts/police to prevent that said individual from infringing on other people's rights
b. implement CDC and other institutions to monitor health related issues
c. implement some form of welfare for disabled and the very poor unemployed
d. have a watchdog department to monitor our markets and companies for fraud/corruption
Other than paying taxes an individual should have no other responsibilities to society at large. People employed by the government, funded by those taxes, should be responsible for using those taxes for societal goals.
"To discuss evil in a manner implying neutrality, is to sanction it." AR
I appreciate the attempt
to appeal to self-interest via "the health of the community benefits not only the community at large, but also me as a member of that community." Of course that's true to an extent, but in general I think that a straight up +/- accounting would discourage helping the community at your own expense. Some people still see it as worth their time/money/effort to contribute, and thank goodness for that, but I think that altruism is a shaky foundation upon which to build anything vital.
So I'd codify the responsibility, make it the job of somebody to be responsible for healthcare or welfare or education. The extent to which this would discourage people stepping up on their own to try to solve problems is open to debate. I guess it's sort of a cop-out from your framework, since I'm essentially agreeing that as an individual I'm not responsible for others while at the same time saying that I want someone else to look after those others.
I think this is spot-on:
(Note that the "If" is not necessarily automatically accepted -- some would prefer to target only those barriers that threaten their advancement. So I don't think this resolves the issue but I do like this way of looking at it.)
Come, my friends. 'Tis not too late to seek a newer world -- Tennyson
Agreed that self-interest
is a tricky one to get past. I've always thought of it as a sort of game of probability: if X% of children die young because of preventable causes, then I had an X% chance of being born into that kind of circumstance, therefore significantly lowering X is also in my best interest. Of course, if you think of yourself as a singularity, it's a nonsensical argument (I'm already born, so why bother?).
But I see what you're saying, and altruism is definitely a tricky deal. On the other hand, sometimes it's more dependable than a codified form of public aid, as the Katrina debacle showed (whether that was an issue of general public inefficiency or specifically Bushite inefficiency is a moot issue for people who went through it, after all).
I haven't thought my way through all this - but I figured if we can start some discussions it'll force me to write, and through writing clarify.
Saint, n. A dead sinner revised and edited. - Ambrose Bierce
continuum
I think it depends a lot on where you are on the inequality spectrum. If everyone is basically getting by and just some are a little above or below the mean then I think you're right. On the other hand as the situation gets more and more unequal, and more and more are being put into untenable situations you reach and pass a tipping point and suddenly giving up a little may get you a lot in terms of reduction of crime, social stability, and general goodwill.
The question of course is where is the tipping point?
For my part I'd say that when a person expiring of inadequate food or shelter is national news, then we're back on the correct side of that point.
I came. I saw. I posted.
Veni, Vidi, Bitchy.
Now that I think about it,
there's another flaw to my argument, and it's related to what you've pointed out (which is why I'm posting it here). Basically, my own argument for personal responsibility hinges on why it's a good idea rather than why it's an imperative. But the word "responsibility" necessarily connotes some kind of moral imperative - so I'm really arguing past the issue. From my point of view that's fine, since I'm really only talking about how I personally approach this, but it's unlikely to convince anyone who's looking for a reason why it's some kind of moral necessity.
Saint, n. A dead sinner revised and edited. - Ambrose Bierce
Very impressive
diary that deserves more thought than just a fleeting comment, so I will get back to you. (On my last batch of homework papers, then I'm free!)
A quick question in the meantime (open to anyone):
How do you reconcile LZ's monetary value of human life regarding your position?
Great topic and well-written.
We are all mediators, translators. - Derrida
http://signicide.blogspot.com/
I'm actually hoping that LZ comments,
because those are exactly the kinds of ideas I want to have discussed in here.
thanks, and good luck with your papers. I recently got done with my last batch, blech.
Saint, n. A dead sinner revised and edited. - Ambrose Bierce
Obligations
My attitude toward politics is pretty straightforward. I have a great deal of obligations toward my family, and I simply include all of humanity in that family.
Nothing idealistic about it -- simply take an objective look at people, and its as easy to love them as your brother or sister. Makes it very easy to justify raising taxes for schools, armies, doctors, police, firemen, which I want ALL of my family to have access to free of charge.
Those who don't feel this love for their fellow men are simply not patriotic enough. This of course raises the question: who or what am I a patriot for if I feel in community with all of humanity?
Simple: I'm a patriot for the planet Earth.
Socialisme ou Barbarie!
Doesn't work for me
Sorry, but ties to family are stronger than those to strangers, and local affairs more important than national, and my country matters more than does another. I think that's just human nature, and I suspect your own attitude is unusual. Maybe that's the direction our society is heading, but if so there's a long way to go.
Come, my friends. 'Tis not too late to seek a newer world -- Tennyson
you are more in the middle on this
and your views definitely make much more sense. Outside of the general survival imperative and protecting other humans from some alien invasion, our country's business is a whole lot more important than any one else's.
"To discuss evil in a manner implying neutrality, is to sanction it." AR
Meh who am I to say...
...that a life lived here in the U.S. is more important than a life lived in some other country? Take yourself for example-- If you had not moved to the U.S., should I value your life less, simply because you are not here in my country? It's natural to have some common purpose with your countrymen, but I think that we should look out for world interests, not just American interests.
skymutt: accept no substitutes!
if the question is
"is a life lived here in the US more important than a life lived in some other country?" then I would say no, not necessarily, it depends on a life. BTW I do not believe that everyone is equal or equally important or any such nonsense. But the question is really relative to you and not in some objective sense. Of course you personally should not value my life, if I was still in Russia, as much as a fellow American. For example I would go to war to defend US people against any other country but I would not do so for any other people... That automatically means I value American lives more. Don't most people in most countries feel the same?
As a country we are a collection of individuals and our desires to look out for ourselves should be reflected in our government that should primarily look after American interests.
If it helps US to improve someone else's lives in another country then I would be all for it, but if it is not in our interests then not. Selfishness is definitely a huge virtue on the global stage and every single country practices it.
"To discuss evil in a manner implying neutrality, is to sanction it." AR
Good points
And I do value country over world, as I said before-- but not to some superpatriotic extent. I'm willing to sacrifice marginal benefit to country for clear, greater benefits elsewhere. For instance, I would sacrifice flat wages for a decade and a few tenths of a percentage point of unemployment here in the US for tens of millions of steady jobs in developing nations and an emerging middle class in India and China and elsewhere. I would sacrifice some of our soldiers lives and a few billion dollars from the treasury to stop a genocide of a million people even if there was no significant U.S. interest in the region.
I think that we increasingly need to take on a world view when we face issues such as global warming-- our nation's interests may not coincide with world interests; for instance, using a strictly nationalist approach, the best outcome would be for Amarica would be for the world to limit its greenhous gas emissions while we continue to do whatever we want. But it is clear to see that if all nations behave in this manner, the problem will not be solved. So we need a government that balances national and world interests, not one that looks primarily toward American interests alone.
skymutt: accept no substitutes!
Tragedy of the commons
for instance, using a strictly nationalist approach, the best outcome would be for Amarica would be for the world to limit its greenhous gas emissions while we continue to do whatever we want. But it is clear to see that if all nations behave in this manner, the problem will not be solved.
Time for a global carbon tax! More realistically, the US has a lot of clout in terms of controlling the behavior of other countries, and we could provide technology/incentives for them to reduce emissions. If the US and Europe really started pushing limits to greenhouse gases the rest of the world would eventually fall into line, I think.
Come, my friends. 'Tis not too late to seek a newer world -- Tennyson
You're probably right on this
I've tried to argue that the hit to the US economy in the past 20 years due to globalization has been insignificant compared to the hundreds of millions who have climbed out of poverty in Asia especially but also South America, former Soviet republics, etc. Nobody seems to give a damn about that, even if it just costs us a soft job market and flat wages for a period of time. Personally, I think that globalization has been terrific for the world and is good for the United States in the long run as it will create new markets for our goods and services that literally did not exist before, in addition to creating an English language hegemony which benefits English speakers. But people seem to tend to focus on layoffs here in the US and blame big corporations for doing comparison shopping for labor in a world market.
Obviously my family and friends come first, but beyond that, country only gets a somewhat minor nod over world in my hierarchy.
skymutt: accept no substitutes!
But the whole reason...
...that the corps move overseas is because of lax environmental, worker safety, and worker compensation laws. All we've done is export the same f**king slavers we'd finally gotten a hand on in this country to go exploit the rest of the world. Oh and let them go back to the same kinds of environmental damaging practices as we had at the turn of the century.
That's hardly "hundreds of millions who have climbed out of poverty in Asia especially but also South America, former Soviet republics, etc." meanwhile those same countries have had their national utilities taken over by private firms leading to an inevitable decline in quality.
I came. I saw. I posted.
Veni, Vidi, Bitchy.
My response
If they're so evil, you should be glad to see them go, eh?
If the developed world is the model, progress on the environment follows economic growth and prosperity, and progress on worker's rights and worker safety follows economic growth as well. In the early stages of development, the workers are just by and large relieved to have money to put food on the table for themselves and their family. I think that growing pains must be allowed for, to create a better world in the long run. I don't think that leaving Asia and Africa and South America to economies based on subsistence farming was an answer to any of the world's problems.
Nothing is ever perfect. Economic growth around the world has led to better standards of living, better education, and higher life expectancies, but new environmental concerns. You point me to a time when the world has ben problem free, and I promise you, I'll agree to go back to whatever rules were in place at that time.
skymutt: accept no substitutes!
Letting them go
It's like owning a mean tempered pitbull that you keep tied to a stake in your back yard. Yeah, it may bite you occasionally but you know the risks, and you're the one who raised it from a pup so it's your risk to take. Letting the dog go free to maul the neighbor's kids isn't an acceptable response to the situation.
I disagree. Progress on both fronts follow regulation. Rich corporations are no more likely to behave well than poor ones, less so in fact since they have the clout to steamroller any attempts to control their misanthropic tendencies. Economic growth has nothing to do with it, it is about the will to use government power to tame them. Notice that many of the greatest leaps in US workers rights came as a result of the great depression era New Deal, certainly not a period of economic prosperity.
I'm not arguing that they are. But to go from subsistence farming to child labor farm is hardly an improvement. Is that really the best we can do? To force every developing country to emulate the disgusting abuses of our own past, at best, in fast forward?
I'd think we could do better by them. And in doing so we'd also be doing better by us.
I'm not asking for perfect. I'm just asking that we not make the same mistakes over and over. Unregulated business excess is a mistake we (i.e. the developed western nations) made once. It was ugly, and brutal, and we finally got past it in large part. So why then are we eagerly encouraging the rest of the world to make the same mistake all over again except on a larger scale?
I came. I saw. I posted.
Veni, Vidi, Bitchy.
Governments without a tax base...
...can't create U.S. style regulatory bodies to enforce regulations. Regulations therefore follow the creation of a tax base, which is the result of business activity and job creation.
And it doesn't have to be a centuries-long process. Look at South Korea. Look at Japan. Look at Taiwan. Look at here in the United States even. Modern economies can emerge within a generation, and modern regulation with environmental safeguards, worker safety and worker rights and the whole kit and kaboodle generally follow. India and China are following on the path of the other modern Asian economies, and it is a great thing to see.
And if you're concerned about child labor-- well I can say that subsistence farming and lack of large-scale business pretty much guarantees a high rate of child labor, and a low rate of schooling.
skymutt: accept no substitutes!
Regulations therefore follow
How do you reconcile that view with the New Deal? The Great Depression I'm guessing did a number on US taxes despite the subsequent increase in rates.
If the problem is that developing nations don't have the funds to police corporations operating within their borders then the answer is to create international regulatory agencies.
What reason do we have to believe that these changes are spurred by globalization? Especially in China the main change seems to be that the government has simply been, over time, adopting a less and less communist approach to matters. I don't see any indications that it is the penetration of foreign businesses that has made a difference.
Certainly, and that's bad. But it's also pretty fixable. nobody in that case is profiting by the arangement, in the sense that the family would almost certainly prefer to adopt modern methods which would increase their harvest as well as allow their children to attend schools. So if the opportunity is available they will take it.
On the other hand if the children are in a sweatshop there is a very powerful individual who has every incentive not to allow things to change and progress- the sweatshop owner. He profits directly by maintaining the oppressive circumstance. It is against his interests to allow these kids to get an education or to pay them well. He has to keep them poor and desperate in order to be able to keep profits up. He will always be an impediment to any progress because progress for him is bad.
Why let such a parasite flourish in the fist place?
I came. I saw. I posted.
Veni, Vidi, Bitchy.
How do you reconcile that
While a tax base is one requirement for a government to afford to put in place a regulatory regime, a tax base is by no means the only factor in play that would affect the possibility of establishing modern government run regulations. The U.S., I would argue, had many advantage over many developing nations of today, even during the Depression, that enabled the progressive interventionist policies of the New Deal:
1) the U.S. had a strong system of government already in place, with 150 years of history and relative stability behind it;
2) The U.S. still had great wealth, which did not disappear altogether during the Depression;
3) The U.S. had a well-educated population;
4) The U.S. was able to sustain government fuction thru deficit spending during the period;
5) The U.S. dollar was a viable and established currency;
6) The U.S. already had ground-breaking regulatory laws and established agencies in place prior to the New Deal dealing with safety, labor, and business; See the Food and Drug Act, Sherman Antitrust Act, Davis-Bacon Act, the Railway Labor Act, etc.
skymutt: accept no substitutes!
Good points. -nt.
I came. I saw. I posted.
Veni, Vidi, Bitchy.
Individualism
I don't know if it "works" for me or not, it's just how I feel. As an atheist I see people as being equal -- all just animals. Why would I care more for an American kitten than a Malaysian one or a French one or whatever?
I take a strictly individualist line, here: a human is a human is a human, regardless of where they come from. Black, White, Eastern, Western, we are all the same animals and have the same inalienable rights (which are largely disrespected in most countries). I stand up for the rights of foreigners just as fervently as I stand up for the rights of Americans, because they are all part of the same biological family -- and biology, to me, trumps any other form of understanding humanity.
Nationalism is the grossest form of collectivism and I put it right up there with racism in terms of damage done to the people of my planet; both are self-serving illusions used to feed one's ego, which is the last thing a just, noble person needs to feed.
Socialisme ou Barbarie!
I believe in individual autonomy.
But sometimes, my autonomy conflicts with the autonomy of another, who thereby becomes a "stakeholder" in my action -- even if they aren't a participant in it.
In such a case, to act with disregard for the consequences I will incur for them is deeply irresponsible. Human beings are not freely floating atoms. Like it or not, we are social creatures, with social responsibilities.
While we are individually responsible for our choices, they are constrained by the context in which they are made and must be evaluated as such.
"Everyone believes in the atrocities of the enemy and disbelieves in those of his own side, without ever bothering to examine the evidence." - George Orwell
but in this case
the social responsibility you are talking about is the natural "do not do anything to harm/affect the autonomy of others" which is only fair.
That does not necessarily translate into feeding, curing, clothing, housing, etc much more involved "social responsibilities" that liberals mean.
"To discuss evil in a manner implying neutrality, is to sanction it." AR
It depends on the degree to which you recognize social...
...relationships. For example: one could argue that the work I do is only possible because of work that others do. If I didn't have this keyboard, monitor, or computer I couldn't type to you or hold my current job; the same is true if the electricity that is powering it, and so forth. Do you believe that these relationships are contained entirely in the act of buying the given commodity, or that they extend beyond it?
We also have externalities to price -- like pollution and global warming. Do you believe we bear responsibility for the effects caused by the products we consume?
There's more to discuss, but I'll let you get back to me.
"Everyone believes in the atrocities of the enemy and disbelieves in those of his own side, without ever bothering to examine the evidence." - George Orwell
thanks
Social relationships that you speak of are also natural byproducts of each individual trying to do what is best for him/herself and without actively trying to benefit others with a larger society in mind. Individuals invented computers and electricity and everything else either for the sake of the process of creation itself, or for creating wealth, or for any other reason than just to benefit society and others. Yes, their and our actions are made possible by those other inventions that came prior but it is a natural progression by independent individuals not working out of some sense of social responsibility but instead mostly out of pursuing their own happiness.
Very few individuals, relatively speaking, actually act out of the sense of social responsibility but society as a whole benefits when individuals pursue their own happiness. Our founders might've had a better idea of how those things work and the idea that people must be forced to literally recognize some sort of responsibility to everyone else is relatively new and imo bogus repressive nonsense.
Pollution and Global Warming are a bit too global to assess individual responsibility for. If it is a factory that gives out a measurable amount of pollution that affects the community in its proximity, then yes something should be done to either limit that pollution or compensate the unfairly affected individuals. If it is an individual measurably polluting the atmosphere or something else then someone should bring a suit against that individual, but that other individual bringing a suit better have some experts with all the measurements of crap observed emanating from the offender.
I find attempts to hold individuals responsible for imprecise global phenomenons rather laughable to be honest.
"To discuss evil in a manner implying neutrality, is to sanction it." AR
No problem.
Not quite. There are all manner of relationships within civil society that are more easily understood as altruistic and empathic. Familial and extended-familial (though not so much in this country) relations are cases in point, but there are others, like charity organizations, labor unions and other social movements. The model of the individual utility maximizer acting with perfect information and rationality is a gross oversimplification that falls far short of explaining the totality of human behavior. The point is plain enough, but I'm willing to argue specific examples if you do not wish to concede it.
Manifestly untrue. Computers, and their constituent elements (like transistors and integrated circuits), came about through massive government economic intervention and violation of laissez faire doctrine, which, depending on the specific instance, may have taken the form of direct subsidies, lavish contracts, guaranteed loans, the excessive profit rates of regulated monopolies, and de facto industrial policy embodied in advanced defense/space research. But I’m sure you know this, given that you work in IT.
The electrical grid, in turn, is largely a product of investment in public infrastructure (particularly in rural areas).
I do not contend that all these actions were pursued explicitly for reasons of social responsibility. Rather, I am pointing out that we each benefit immensely from the work of others on a daily basis (not just from past inventions) and that this mere fact carries social responsibilities. In our present economic paradigm, the myriad of ways in which we make each other’s lives possible have vanished into a scalar abstraction: prices. This occludes recognition of relationships that in past societies would have been self-evident, falsely isolating us from one another. It is difficult, for instance, to fully appreciate the hardships faced by farmers and even more so to actually do something about them, because we no longer interact on a daily basis with those who grow our food.
Yet, without them, we would could not live as we do.
That’s an incredible generalization. While there are certainly people who act out of pure egoism and self-interest, there are many who do so for the benefit of their family, their social network, or society as a whole; more often, these conflicting imperatives coexist within the same person. It’s also fallacious to draw sweeping conclusions about human nature on the basis of a particular historical moment or mode of social organization. The notions of social and environmental responsibility are not new at all. I would posit, based on my understanding of evolutionary theory and history, that inter-group competition and intra-group cooperation have been the norm for the vast majority of our species’ existence.
On the contrary, it is the conditions and assumptions of modern industrialism that are quite new and alien. When evaluating contemporary societal problems, we should examine the channels this organizational form provides for the expression of human nature: which qualities are reinforced and rewarded, and which are illegitimated?
This isn't nearly as clear cut as you claim.
You rightly point out that it is hard to assess individual responsibility for global phenomena. One--but not the only--mechanism to begin to do this is pricing that accurately reflects the true costs of production. Ultimately, however, thinking in terms of groups rather than individuals proves useful: we know that we represent only 5% of the world’s population, yet account for roughly a quarter of global energy consumption, and a comparable level of carbon emissions. Our actions do not occur in a vacuum, but have tangible repercussions for others whom should have input into our decisions in proportion to the degree to which they are affected by them. When through our agency the full range of possibilities is denied to others, so too do we deny the basis of their humanity. It’s not realistic or feasible for an Indian subsistence farmer to bring a suit against an individual in another country for a loss incurred by that specific individual’s greenhouse emissions. The fact is, global problems necessitate global solutions.
"Everyone believes in the atrocities of the enemy and disbelieves in those of his own side, without ever bothering to examine the evidence." - George Orwell
hmmm
But I would exempt caring for the members of your fmaily from the greater civil society responsibilities. It still falls under the selfish pursuit of happiness as you usually take care of those you love and makes you feel good to do so. Participants in the charity organizations (separate from just donating) are few in number and same for some "social movements". Labor Unions are vehicles for individuals to gain more rights/money for themselves and participation is selfish in nature for almost everyone involved. So aside from the minority in the charity organizations and whatever "social movements" most other individuals are not acting out of greater altruism and/or empathy for their fellow human beings outside of their immediate circle.
Perhaps computers along with space research are not good examples due to the obvious fact of our government's interference and intervention as you say. But who funded Bubbage, Edison, Bell, Fermi, Franklin, Wright Brothers, Henry Ford, Da Vinci, Pasteur, and countless other geniuses through the history of our civilization? Yes, governments can speed up technological advances through brute force and incredible funding, but they cannot create inventions out of thin air without the individual brilliant breakthroughs before them.
You romanticize the benefits we derive from the various peoples' work. Each individual worker is compensated for the products they create. They are not creating their products to benefit greater mankind but simply because they are filling a need that is there. If someone decided not to fill a particular need/demand, someone else would jump in at the opportunity. I don't care who provides the products I consume, but do care about the quality and price. There is no social responsibility either way. I'll swap stores and providers to find the best deal and that is what capitalism is all about. Producers are competing for their slice of demand and it has been that way since America was founded, regardless of whether some of those relationships were personal or not. As societies grow in size, those personal relationships disappear, but competition to provide supplies will continue.
If some farmers disappear, others will step in, or even corporations who would do it with illegal aliens or robots or whatever. I do not care but the food will still appear in the supermarkets. Why should I appreciate someone elses work when I pay for their products and vice a versa they pay for the products I produce.
True historically and true on a grander scale in US when it comes to major conflicts. I think it is wonderful that the US social model has moved on away from the primitive intra-group cooperation and inderdependence that was necessary for the more communal societies. Capitalist competition and a premium on individualism prevalent in US has advanced humanity tremendously. So just because something was the norm in the past, does not mean it is the superior societal form.
"To discuss evil in a manner implying neutrality, is to sanction it." AR
An existential question
With no single right answer.
Speaking practically, I'd have to say that the "right" answer is best determined on specifics, not generalities, and it should be determined by whatever mechanism the society has in place. For example, is it"right" to require the wealthy to pay more taxes than someone with less wealth? We have answered that question through legislation. We may change that answer through different legislation. Is either answer more objectively right than the other?
We each bring our own internal morality to the table, but ultimately we have to forge a solution that is acceptable to more than just ourselves. I can govern my own actions using my own notions of responsibility, but to govern yours also, well, that's something very different. To coerce or to attract? Hmmm.
Speaking philosophically, I offer this video. "Half" is of course used in the metaphorical sense:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WfQpBdG1QYw
Edit: Yes, I've been spinning ancient music today. . .
"The human race divides politically into those who want people to be controlled and those who have no such desire." --R. Heinlein
Debate by Youtube
Love it! Just curious if we can directly embed videos... lemme try:
Heh, fun.
Come, my friends. 'Tis not too late to seek a newer world -- Tennyson
Off topic
but weakly related to both my prior post and to politics. I plead for your indulgence as a long time Rush fan ;}
The Huffington Post has posted a review of their latest album, Rush (The Band) Takes on the Religious Right.
I'm not a regular reader of the HP, but this reviewer seems to have overlooked the fact that Rush has always dissed those who believe in an actively interventionist God. So in that light, this album is not that unusual, or at least not as unusual as he makes it sound. But it is a highly political album nonetheless.
And, FWIW, although the Half the World song might be seem very liberal at first sight, it's not, and their roots (and much of their philosophy) are very Rand-ian. Their 30-year-old classic 2112 being the best example.
"The human race divides politically into those who want people to be controlled and those who have no such desire." --R. Heinlein
heh.
That makes like half the site Rush fans.
I came. I saw. I posted.
Veni, Vidi, Bitchy.
My take
It's obvious enough that I reject the concept of social responsibility. By and large, I believe every individual should just be left free to do their own thing.
Why have a society in the first place? Out of Tlaloc's reasons, the only two that appeal to me are the biological and materialistic explanations. Thanks to specialization and comparative advantage, I am better off trading with other people than I am living by myself. ("Trade" can encompass knowledge as well as physical goods.) There is an obvious benefit to living in a society with other people. It is in my self-interest to do so.
I am a fiercely independent person. I moved away from my parents at age 16, and probably would have sooner if I had had the choice. Right now I am well under way in planning to quit my job to go and start my own company -- it's been a lifelong dream of mine to Do My Own Thing. I get angry when "society" gets together and tells me there are certain things I'm not allowed to do. I also get angry when "society" decides that it is entitled to a cut of all the money I make. My basic response to "society" is one giant middle finger: "screw you -- it's my life, it's my money, and it's none of your business to interfere." It is only your business if I do something that *harms* someone else (e.g. murder, theft, etc.). If my decision is to go smoke crack and shoot heroin and fry my brain doing so, society has no business stopping me.
Democracy is nothing other than tyranny of the majority. A majority of people voting for a policy does not make it right. A perfect example: here in California, an initiative was recently passed to jack up the top income tax rate from 9.3% to 10.3% for people earning more than $1M a year. The majority voted to take away another slice of the property rights of a small fraction of the population. This is nothing other than organized plunder -- a giant protection racket. It's not right just because the government is the one doing it.
The only real tension I have when it comes to the role of government is utilitarianism vs. libertarianism. On one hand, I believe taxation is theft. On the other hand, I also am not an anarchist, and think we need at least a minimal government with a military, police, and court system. I don't think voluntary taxation will work. So there's a question of the lesser of two evils.
Now, if this was the only tension it would be no big deal. It takes maybe 5-10% of GDP to run military, police, and courts, and over time this percentage could decrease further if government runs a tight ship (in private industry we have to get more efficient ever year -- we have to do more with less -- I expect government to do the same).
But there are some other areas where I see a utilitarian argument for some modest amount of government intervention. Let's take roads as an example. Is it right for the government to levy a gas tax and spend the proceeds to build roads? My libertarian side says no -- taxation is still theft. My utilitarian side says yes -- if done right, this coercive act can improve *everyone's* well-being. Of course my libertarian side will respond that we could also solve the same problem with private toll roads. My utilitarian side will then acquiesce because I believe that modern technology has made it possible to run toll roads with very low transaction costs (whereas 50 or 100 years ago transaction costs would have made such a system impractical).
Some utilitarians will go further and say that utilitarianism justifies taxing the rich to redistribute wealth. (The classic formulation is that your utility is the logarithm of your wealth, representing the idea that a particular dollar is more valuable to the poor than to the rich.) I disagree. My conception of utilitarianism rejects interpersonal utility comparisons as meaningless. I believe the soundest metric we have for interpersonal utility comparisons is dollars, not unitless "utils." And on a dollar basis, taxation to pay for welfare programs clearly destroys wealth on net, so my utilitarian side will quickly reject such a program.
I also think the bounds of utilitarianism have to be clearly defined. A hard-core utilitarian might justify murder on the grounds that if my murdering someone increases my utility more than it decreases the utility of the person who was murdered, it's a good thing on net. So if someone happens to have a personality where they get horribly depressed if they haven't killed anyone lately... This example makes it obvious to me that utilitarianism is not, by itself, an adequate moral framework. It needs to be bounded by a larger moral framework.
At the same time, my utilitarian side provides a modest counterbalance to my hard-core "taxation is theft" libertarianism, reminding me that if I *really* wanted that, I could just move to Somalia any time I want. My utilitarian side says: yes, property rights are good. Yes, taxation harms the economy. Yes, many government programs do more harm than good. Just don't throw out the baby with the bathwater.
Both sides agree on the fundamental rule that the best approach is to let everyone do their own thing. What they disagree on is whether this rule should apply 100% of the time or just 99% of the time.
Excellent post,
although naturally I disagree with a lot of it. We do overlap in some places - I agree that democracy is the tyranny of the majority, and you're lucky if the majority is on the right path.
Where we most significantly depart - and this is a philosophical, not political difference - is in this notion of independence. You've led what you consider a strongly independent life (and good on you, since apathy seems to be our most crippling social disease), but from my perspective, it's still a very dependent one, even if those dependencies are more intangible. I don't know anything about you personally, but unless you were living on the mountainside subsisting on nuts and berries, there's a whole network of social interaction that's gone into making you who you are - even those that occurred long before you were born and merely set up a context for your development. In my mind, that sets up a reciprocal relationship between the people who've provided you with that context and the context you provide for others - a dependence that exists whether we like it or not.
Whether it's best to transform that into a social policy or simply recognize it and move on is another question.
Saint, n. A dead sinner revised and edited. - Ambrose Bierce
The balance of personal
The balance of personal responsibility and social responsibility is definitely a precarious question that shows many of the differences between the libertarian wing of the right and most everyone else (including the religious wing of the right, most of the left, and most moderates to some degree or another).
It is also clearly a moral issue, and some theorists believe it is also a developmental issue. Whether this development regards morals
and ethics 
, ego 
or psychosocial 
elements, faith 
, or cognitive 
development, surprisingly most of these theories share something in common. All of these theories suggest the final stage of human development is universalizing or going beyond the self. These theories suggest that once you take care of yourself and your more immediate needs, the natural tendency is to help others. Pico hints at this by saying that his existence as a human is interchangeable with others' contexts, so by recognizing his status as the same as others, he feels no separation from himself and others in his condition (humanity). This is a universalizing or a 'going beyond the self'.
Furthermore, almost all moral theories say the same thing. Kant's categorical imperative
suggest we should do what is right without a selfish thought, Sartre's existentialism 
says we should ask ourselves how a model human would act in this situation, utilitarianism 
(Mill and Bentham) says the greatest happiness for the greatest number is best, Jesus 
had many proclamations of helping others, and even the founders of capitalism and the democratic republic style of government which our founding fathers based our government on, John Locke 
, argues that it is our duty to help out another once our needs are met.
So let's see. The highest developmental stages say it is important to feel responsibilities for others as do all moral systems.
In our society, it also has practical effects as others have mentioned (increased productivity and a healthy workforce).
Lastly, I just want to state that those who do feel that it is a moral necessity to have responsibility for the community do not advocate or endorse the strawman of the wealthy welfare mother' or laziness. We believe that meeting basic human needs including health, shelter, and food are our moral responsibility, but luxuries are not part of this responsibility (depending on the context, of course).
We are all mediators, translators. - Derrida
http://signicide.blogspot.com/