Should people have the right to make bad decisions?

Setanta: By "associations for the furtherance of their self-interest" are you referring to birth? I wanted to clarify that point before I responded fully. Thanks.

I cannot for the life of me understand why you would equate "associations for the furtherance of self-interest" with birth.

No, i mean things such as the Rotary, the Knights of Columbus, the Democratic and Republican parties . . . although i was thinking along more ancient, Hobbesian lines--i throw those examples out so the general reader will understand . . .

Where did you come up with birth ? ! ? ! ?

Setanta: Because you had referenced birth in the preceding paragraph, and then referenced "men and women associating for the furtherance of their self-interest". The only thing I could think of that fit based on context was birth, but that didn't make sense, hence, the question.

In that case, what is the purpose of your last paragraph? It doesn't seem to fit in with the other two. You started off talking about how we first invent and then inherit the social contract, then make a point about how the "inheritors" can, if unhappy, rebel. Then you respond as if to an argument that people should be allowed to "associate". What was the thought process there? Thanks.

The societies themselves are associations to secure self-interest. Within those societies, other groups associate for self-interest. So the point is, yeah, so what? I have a problem with the condemnation of self-interest as though it were preferrable for everyone to be altruistic and self-sacrificing. The latter just won't happen. Good things can come of the associations of the self-interested, if society can manage them. Society is itself an association of the self-interested.

Setanta said:


Fair enough, but first of all, who said anything about condemning the "self-interested"? And secondly, since you brought it up: really? I think society would move much smoother if everyone put the needs of society over their own. I'm not saying have no self-interest, but I think it would be beneficial to have self-interest secondary to group-interest. Thanks for the reply.

Not to be rude, Taliesin, but you're not the only one in this thread.



In light of this, i thought it important to point out that societies are established exactly so that people can protect their own interests.

Setanta said:


Actually, we have been the only two for the last page or so, but in light of your quote of the cause, I understand your point. I apologize if I seemed rude, but I wasn't aware of Val's post; I must have missed it.

Moving on, I would still like to know why you feel the members of society should put their own needs above society's needs. Thanks.

Saying that i don't believe it reasonable to expect that individuals will put the needs of society over their own is not tantamount to saying that i recommend that individuals put their self-interests above the interests of society. In the first place, when the organs of society function well, you need not make any significant sacrifice of self-interest in your daily life. In the second place, people are not thinking in such terms when they make decisions. To seek one's own interest is the most natural thing in the world, and i'd warrant that few people think about the possibility of a conflict with society in making such decisions.

I'd like to take this opportunity to point out that although it is fun and easy in debate, it is unrealistic to speak of human history and human institutions in terms of polar opposites--of black and white, of good and bad, of right and wrong. Therefore, if i suggest that people are unlikely to put the interests of society before their self-interest, it does not automatically follow that i recommend they put their interests above those of society.

Ask yourself how one is to know in making the dozens of quotidian decisions we all face which will be best for oneself and which will be best for society. Additionally, the human talent for self-delusion is such that some of the worst offenders, some of the most venal, some of the most oppressive of powerful people in history have always identified their self-interest with societies best interests. Clowns like the Shrub are usually sincerely convinced that in helping out their cronies, they're doing what is best for everyone.

In the course of discussing whether or not people have the right to make bad decisions, our JoeByTheBigStinkyLake made the simple, and to me obvious observation that people organize societies, and authorize the governments of those societies to laws governing what decisions may not be made by the individual, or, at the least, which decisions by an individual may result in legal sanction. At that point i became interested in what i had previously considered a silly thread.

For more on the endlessly fascinating topic of society, i would recommend not only Jean-Jacques Rousseau's The Social Contract, but his lesser known, and to him much more important essay--On the Origins of Inequality.

Then if you feel primed, and ready for some heavy reading, try Thomas Hobbes, The Leviathan, which is in fact in the public domain, and therefore available online. I suspect the same is true for the Rousseau works. Hobbes' Behemoth is even more instructive as to his views on social organization and responsibility, but it's style makes it lugubrious and inaccessible to all but the most dedicated readers (it concerns the English civil wars of the 17th century, and is written as a dialogue between two unnamed individuals). As Joe has pointed out, Hobbes is certainly not the last word on the subject, and it can be viewed with a good deal more subtlety than Hobbes deploys. Nevertheless, Hobbes' work was seminal in the field, and to a great extent, influenced John Locke, as well as our "founding fathers."

Then you should probably read John Locke--at which point, you will have barely skimmed the surface of this topic, but you will, at least, have found the pond.

In answer to the question "what is society?" I am inclined to repeat Louis Armstrong's response to the question "what is jazz?" "Man, if you gotta' ask, you'll never know." For our purposes, however, we can define society as the political state in which a person lives.


If the state is a player that doesn't mean it cannot also the arbiter. Those roles may be distinct in sports and the law, but there is no necessary distinction in society.


This is very confusing. If you don't know what society is, how can you say that society made any choices?

joefromchicago

I didn't say that I had no idea about what society is. Perhaps I was not clear, but I mentioned "individuals in opposite interests, groups with opposite interests, in a dynamic of compensations or ruptures".
I insisted in that idea not only because I reject Plato's view of society as "functional body" but also because I can't accept Hobbes theory.
The state is not above the conflicts of interests between individuals and between groups, and most of it's actions - or omissions - are done with the purpose of supporting the interests of one or several groups against the others.
When I say "interests" I don't mean only economical interests, but also religious, cultural or even ethnical interests.
Part of the state's activity, at a given historical moment, has the purpose of keeping a "status quo", a situation of balance between a dominant group (or groups) and all other groups with opposite interests. In order to assure that status quo, the state can even legislate, in minor matters, against the dominant groups in order to prevent the exasperation of the conflicts (example, the famous statement - I believe that it was from Louis XIV- "il faut changer quelque chose, pour que ça reste égal".

This said, it is understandable that when I say that the state is not only an arbiter but also a player, I meant it has interest in influencing the result of the game.

So what? How is that observation relevant to the subject of this thread?

joefromchicago

It started to be an answer to your post of April 22.
Then, you know, discussion leads us to new perspectives, enlarging the ambitus of the initial thread.