I'd like to get some opinions on this.

Does the individual exist for him/her - self?

or

Does the individual exist for the good of society?



"Fascist ethics begin ... with the acknowledgment that it is not the individual who confers a meaning upon society, but it is, instead, the existence of a human society which determines the human character of the individual. According to Fascism, a true, a great spiritual life cannot take place unless the State has risen to a position of pre-eminence in the world of man. The curtailment of liberty thus becomes justified at once, and this need of rising the State to its rightful position."
[Mario Palmieri, "The Philosophy of Fascism" 1936]

"We must stop thinking of the individual and start thinking about what is best for society."

[Hillary Clinton, 1993]

"When will the world learn that a million men are of no importance compared with one man?"

[Henry David Thoreau]

I think it's only fair to say that MOST individuals SEEM to exist for themselves. Certainly not every person or else we would really be screwed.

If you live your entire life without contributing something positive to mankind, you failed at life.

The individual SHOULD exist for the good of society, however, in far to many instances that is not the case.

I think it's only fair to say that MOST individuals SEEM to exist for themselves.

True, but it's also possible to live a self-directed life without being an asshole or a burden to those around you. It's even possible to lead a self-directed life while contributing to society in positive ways (think taxes). It's not a black or white thing; you can do both.

If you live your entire life without contributing something positive to mankind, you failed at life.
I agree, however I find there is more to life than being a servant to others.

I agree, however I find there is more to life than being a servant to others.

You don't have to be a servant to contribute.

If you live your entire life without contributing something positive to mankind, you failed at life.

what is your concept of contributing something positive to mankind?

being a tax payer?
raising your kids to be good members to society?
creating unlimited energy sources?
donating to charity, or volunteering?
being a big sister or brother?

Learning to break the cycle of abuse and poverty?

what is your concept of contributing something positive to mankind?

being a tax payer?
raising your kids to be good members to society?
creating unlimited energy sources?
donating to charity, or volunteering?
being a big sister or brother?

Learning to break the cycle of abuse and poverty?

All the above and plenty more, aside from paying taxes. I wouldn't really consider that to be a betterment of mankind.

you do not believe in paying for the war with out tax dollars is a better for mankind? LOL
J/k

The individual exists for himself.

you do not believe in paying for the war with out tax dollars is a better for mankind? LOL
J/k

Paying taxes is something you have to do. Paying your bills is something you have to do. Obeying the laws of the land is something you have to do.

Doing good things that you don't have to do, that is what matters.

that make sense. Going above and beyond the call of duty to better humanity. That is an interesting thought. Do you think helping young children who suffer from abuse and molestation is a better of humanity? I mean I am kind of doing it for a selfish reason in way because it make me feel better to put a smile on thier faces and show them there are good people out there not just people who will hurt them. I did not have anyone like that when I grew up. Do you think that is self serving?

I answer neither; rather, the individual exists for the good of all life.

Man bears a responsibility to nature the same way that a child bears a responsibility to its parents.

The individual exists for the good of him/herself, which SHOULD also be for the benefit of society since society increases the value of that life.

If you live your entire life without contributing something positive to mankind, you failed at life.

But why would you knowingly contribute to mankind unless that action made you feel good about yourself. The bottom line is that you will only purposely do things which influence you, directly or indirectly.

Not much of choice is it. All or nothing. What happened to somewhere in between, which is where i think it lies.

individual exists for the good of society...

America had that notion when first created. Do you think ALL of those men thought risking their lives, dying on the battlefield in lexington and concord, was a good time? To quote Tolkein from Lord of the rings (and quite horridly i must say) "You don't CHOOSE to go to war, war has been thrust upon you"... These people rallied, united, and did what was best for society. I'm sure they would have rather been on the coast, sipping Earl Grey and watching a cricket match from their mansion... but they didn't do that, or necessarily want that.

I'm like General Motors. What's good for me is good for society.

I've written about this before: http://www.allforums.net/showthread.php?t=24394

My contention is that the Individual exists only for it's own existence and for no one or nothing else. however, I believe that a society exists for the good of all those in it. For a person to be in a society, he or she must give up individuality. While not all of it may be forsaken, that person ceases to be unique. It appears though, as time and technology progresses, we will be forced to give up more and more of our individuality in order to fit more streamlined into society. Don't despair, though. Just because it will be different, doesn't mean it will be bad. We live in exciting times of social evolution.

*Leaves 2 pennies*

Society exists for the betterment of all mankind through the commons.
Individuals unwilling to contribute to the betterment of society or acknowledge the existence of the commons should be not be allowed to benefit from the institutions of society.

individual exists for the good of society...

America had that notion when first created. Do you think ALL of those men thought risking their lives, dying on the battlefield in lexington and concord, was a good time? To quote Tolkein from Lord of the rings (and quite horridly i must say) "You don't CHOOSE to go to war, war has been thrust upon you"... These people rallied, united, and did what was best for society. I'm sure they would have rather been on the coast, sipping Earl Grey and watching a cricket match from their mansion... but they didn't do that, or necessarily want that.

And they fought because they believed that they were doing something good - that they were fighting for a just cause. They believed in that cause. And making that cause happen made them feel good.

The only reason that we have societies is because when people work together they are more productive than when they work alone. A society working together is better for the individual than an individual working alone. Therefore it is in each person's best interest to work together - and it is in their best interest to make such a society work (which is why they fight for that ideal).

True.

However,

When it comes down to it, the individual must take care of him/her self.
They can't just depend on the government or others to do it for them.
The individual must take care of their own health insurance/ health care, their own retirenment, their own safety, their own lives.


Society exists for the betterment of all mankind through the commons.
Individuals unwilling to contribute to the betterment of society or acknowledge the existence of the commons should be not be allowed to benefit from the institutions of society.

So what do we do with the weak.. the mentally ill, physically handicapped and mentally retarded??

How are they suppose to care for themselves??

True.

I know, thanks for agreeing with me.


When it comes down to it, the individual must take care of him/her self.
They can't just depend on the government or others to do it for them.
The individual must take care of their own health insurance/ health care, their own retirenment, their own safety, their own lives.

This is where we disagree. All individuals are not capable of providing their own health care/health insurance, their own safety, etc.

That is what society is for.

Collectively, we can provide those things for everyone, but only by working together.
Because we are all in this together.

We need police, because individuals are not capable of taking care of their own safety and when they try, all you get is the Wild West.

I know, thanks for agreeing with me.



This is where we disagree. All individuals are not capable of providing their own health care/health insurance, their own safety, etc.

That is what society is for.

Collectively, we can provide those things for everyone, but only by working together.
Because we are all in this together.

We need police, because individuals are not capable of taking care of their own safety and when they try, all you get is the Wild West.

Well said. I don't agree with you most of your posts, but that was well put.

:)
Kimi

My contention is that the Individual exists only for it's own existence and for no one or nothing else. however, I believe that a society exists for the good of all those in it. For a person to be in a society, he or she must give up individuality. While not all of it may be forsaken, that person ceases to be unique. It appears though, as time and technology progresses, we will be forced to give up more and more of our individuality in order to fit more streamlined into society. Don't despair, though. Just because it will be different, doesn't mean it will be bad. We live in exciting times of social evolution.

*Leaves 2 pennies* yup.

The government should be in the business of providing police, millitary, and a secure border. As far as health care, health insurance, people need to make provisions for them selvs. Socialized medicine does not work well.




This is where we disagree. All individuals are not capable of providing their own health care/health insurance, their own safety, etc.

That is what society is for.

Collectively, we can provide those things for everyone, but only by working together.
Because we are all in this together.

We need police, because individuals are not capable of taking care of their own safety and when they try, all you get is the Wild West.

The government should be in the business of providing police, millitary, and a secure border.

Again, this is where we disagree. The founding fathers and myself all see government having a much broader and more productive role then mere police and military.

The preamble of the constitution names six purposes for our government, only one of which is providing for defense.


As far as health care, health insurance, people need to make provisions for them selvs.

As I pointed out, not everyone will be able to.

What about them?


Socialized medicine does not work well.

It works much better then profit driven system we have now.

Socialized medicine works very well in many nations around the world.

IF an individual exists for himself. .then why don't we go back to the State of Nature... complete freedom?

duh, you sacrifice freedoms for protection, law enforcement, etc.

Some people call it "freedoms being taken from the people".. others see it as "people giving up their freedoms for protection"... i guess it's the ol "glass half full" analogy.

Well said. I don't agree with you most of your posts, but that was well put.

:)
Kimi

Thank you very much. :thumbs:

I'd like to get some opinions on this.

Does the individual exist for him/her - self?

or

Does the individual exist for the good of society?



"Fascist ethics begin ... with the acknowledgment that it is not the individual who confers a meaning upon society, but it is, instead, the existence of a human society which determines the human character of the individual. According to Fascism, a true, a great spiritual life cannot take place unless the State has risen to a position of pre-eminence in the world of man. The curtailment of liberty thus becomes justified at once, and this need of rising the State to its rightful position."
[Mario Palmieri, "The Philosophy of Fascism" 1936]

"We must stop thinking of the individual and start thinking about what is best for society."

[Hillary Clinton, 1993]

"When will the world learn that a million men are of no importance compared with one man?"

[Henry David Thoreau]

Firstly Thoreau is one of my Heroes.
Good thing you brought up this " Individual " bidness.
Because right now,Hillary is mounting her strategem for getting her
party's nomination.
Few should doebt her seriousness,in acquiring that goal.
She is highly Goal driven.Too much so.She's Rabid with ambition.
That doesn't make for Good Leadership.
Makes for a Great Tyrant,though.
Hillary is trying out on the public,a little at a time a notion or
roundabout version of her - We,as a village - concept.
Whereupon,Our Founders wanted and craved an America full of
That Pioneer Spirit and Rugged Individualism,Hillary wants a Mommy State.
Pure Socialistic ideals.Have the State,virtually Guarantee ones
security and standard of Living,from cradle to grave.
Exactly what this Country WASN'T founded upon.
Hillary wanta Americans as One Large group or Grouips.
This plays extremely well with GenXers and Welfare Mommies.
Maybe some Soccer Moms.But the Soccer Mom block is smart and
busy taking care of Hearth & Home.They make not cotton to a State
where an Individual,may want a better than average Home,Car and
Lifestyle {clothes,vacations,spending money,hairdressers}.
Hillary is busy as a beaver Deconstructing the American Dream in favor
of overall Security and a means tested ideal of comfort joy.
Like I said,this appeals greatly to those whose ambition lays more in
Not excessive ambition or sweat SpamSpamSpamSpamSpamSpam,but more in easygoing ,untoiling
labor,such as a service economy {low paying ,don't manufacture but
provide basic services}.
My Proof.I've noticed that many whiners on Internet message boards,like
IMDb.com love to breeze the day away,not with stories of hardened
labor,but cushy little dabblings around thoughts of Computer gizmo stuff
and gossiping about Politics and peer pressure.
I Rest Me Case !

" No man ever followed his genius till it misled him."
-- Thoreau ; "Higher Laws"

The individual exists for himself. One of his interests might be to better society, and/or for everyone else to try to better the society. In that case, it would seem that the individual exists for the good of the society. But in the end it's based on the individual's own interests that personal decisions (including to live for the good of the society) are made.

And in the end, the individual is responsible for him/her self.

We must provide for our selvs, we must protect our selvs. We can't sit around and wait for the government to do it for us.

The individual exists for himself. One of his interests might be to better society, and/or for everyone else to try to better the society. In that case, it would seem that the individual exists for the good of the society. But in the end it's based on the individual's own interests that personal decisions (including to live for the good of the society) are made.

Once again, Dio provides a wonderfully simple explanation of the right answer. ::applauds::