Without society, man is selfish

The argument

A society's core function is to protect and preserve those within it, and on this account it does so by giving individuals something to hold in common. We form societies as a way to work towards a shared goal; we establish a set of rules that reflect our goal, and we all behave in a way so as to observe those rules and further our society for the collective benefit. The rules are not arbitrary constraints imposed from outside but the expression of the goal in practical form, which is why they can be followed voluntarily rather than only enforced. The evidence offered is what happens when the arrangement fails. This is evident in the way humans behave in the absence of a society: when society is weakened, humans become more selfish, more ego-centric and less compassionate. That change is presented as a reversion rather than a corruption. Each person or family becomes focused on self-preservation and survival, and the shift is intelligible on its own terms, since where nothing collective is being maintained there is no longer any reason to give anything up for it. What this reveals is the direction of the dependence. The common goal collapses and is replaced by the individual goal, which means the co-operative behaviour observed in ordinary conditions is sustained by the shared purpose rather than by any stable feature of human character. If people behaved well because they were simply disposed to, the weakening of institutions would not change how they act; that it does change them indicates the disposition was being supplied by the arrangement itself. On this account society is not a container for people who would be much the same without it, but precisely the sharing of a common goal.

Context

Without society, man would be brutal, nasty and selfish. Humans’ sole concern would be self-preservation and the preservation of one’s family. We form societies to work with others towards a shared goal.

Premises

Counter-arguments

While this may have once been the case, there is scant evidence to suggest that modern societies consist of groups working towards a shared goal. In early societies, members of a society might trade with members of another society to procure products that would benefit the collective. This fundamental economics supports the idea that, at one point, collective groups may have formed around the existence of a shared goal. However, modern economic models show no evidence of a shared goal. The whole economic system has shifted from a model designed to offer protection and shared security, to one which speculates for the sake of speculation. The modern economic system promotes competition and encourages individuals to chase wealth at the expense of their counterparts. In the postmodern world, we cannot define societies as collectives working towards a shared goal. In light of modern economic models, we can only reasonably conclude that societies are born from something other than a shared objective, or that societies, as they were originally devised, no longer exist.

Rejecting the premises

[Rejecting P2] Modern economic models demonstrate the opposite. In modern societies, the common goal has been replaced by the individual pursuit of wealth.

Framing

To best understand what something is, it can be helpful to examine what would happen if it were eradicated. In the case of society, if it were eradicated, man would become selfish and ego-centric, with each individual focused on their individual goal. Therefore, society unites people around a shared goal.