We are all individuals, with our own wants, desires, and interests. We love individuality and uniqueness so much, that as a society we joke about the fact that “everyone is unique, just like you!” The point, though, is that our actions have an effect on the people around us. If I do whatever I want, or just live by my rules, then it would seem that I could create a pretty nice situation for myself. Basically, I could try to create a situation where the world revolves around me, as it were.
The problem with this, however, is obvious. If I get to create my own rules, then doesn’t the guy next to me get to create his own rules? And, what if his rules contradict with my rules? Who is correct? Pretty soon we get into a situation where, even though everyone is doing whatever they want, it doesn’t benefit them, because everyone is also doing whatever they want. Thus, instead of a utopia for me, we have created a completely dysfunctional society, where no one is happy. (Unless I happen to be powerful enough to force people to abide by my rules, but that is beside the point!)
My reason for describing this somewhat hypothetical situation is to show that we as people realize that we have some responsibility to each other, because if we all just disregarded each other, then society would be a mess. The example I gave was farfetched, because it assumed that no one cared about anyone but themselves. I think we would all agree that as some fundamental level we all realize that there are certain qualities of life that we are entitled to. That is, we all basically agree that I shouldn’t kill you, steal from you, hurt you, etc.
I guess I this topic can somewhat be boiled down to the fact that we live in a world with limited resources. Therefore, I should not take away the resources that are intrinsically yours, like life, health, happiness, etc. I would say that social responsibility is the manner in which we use the resource that we collectively share. The environment and natural resources are a perfect (and probably over used) example of this, so I will only mention it briefly, so that you know that I am talking about. We all “share the world”, which means, before I go waste resources, or “hog” them, as it were, I should consider how I would feel if you, or everyone, did the same thing. Another, perhaps less obvious example (and maybe not even a good one) would be the resource of time. We have all been given the same 24 hours (give or take a few seconds) for each day. Therefore, I should consider if my actions are causing you to waste your time.
While this might be somewhat of an abstraction, I think that it has an interesting application with respect to traffic, so allow me to digress for a minute. We are a familiar with the situation where we are driving down the interstate and because of road construction two lanes are reduced to one. And, I would say we are all familiar with the fact that the traffic jam happens before the lane reduction. As soon as you reach the part of the road that is one lane, as a general rule, traffics speed up, despite the fact that you are now driving in one lane instead of two.
Why is this? It is because we are all trying to do what is best for ourselves. We have all been annoyed at the person who, when everyone else is merging, flies down the open lane to “get ahead” of everyone. It is this self serving attitude which causes everyone to try to wait until the last possible minute to merge, thus causing a huge traffic jam. If everyone would just merge way out ahead of time then things would actually be better for everyone, because, if you recall, a soon as everyone was down to one lane, traffic speed picked back up. While this isn’t exactly related to social responsibility, it does give an example of how everyone doing their own thing is actually worse for them then if everyone would just do what was better for everyone. (This actually nicely agrees with the free rider problem that we talked about earlier in class.)
Now, where was I!? Oh yes. At a certain level, we are all responsible to each other, and, in general, doing so we make things better overall. Said another way, we should strive to have a society where everyone put’s each other first. Even in strictly mathematical terms this makes sense. If I do what is best for me, and you do what is best for you, then we each only have one person looking out for us. However, if we all do what is best for everyone else, and then we all have everyone but ourselves looking out for us! (This is directly related to the prisoner’s dilemma. Everyone working together creates the best situation, whereas everyone working against each other creates the worst situation. However, everyone wants to be the “one guy” who gets special privileges, by mooching off of other people, which by nature leads to everyone working against each other, and hence the worst possible situation.)
I realize that the principles I just talked about might not be representative of the way we typically think of social responsibility, but I think that the name still fits. I would also like to mention this principle is such a good one that the Bible teaches it many times. It is no wonder, given the explanation I just gave, that the Bible commands us all to love one another. I believe that this is stated very succinctly in Mark 12:31, where is says “Thou shalt love the neighbor as thyself.” The question then becomes, how do we become a society where we love one another. (let me clarify that I don’t mean this in a fluffy “lets love everybody” sense, but rather in the true definition of a serving love, as set forth in 1 Corinthians 13.) The simple, though incredibly difficult answer, is that it starts with me.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Prof Arvan,
ReplyDeleteI tried to implement some of your suggestions into this post. Specifically, I tried a "looser" writing style, I tried to not leave "open topics" hanging, and I trying to tie in other sources. I would appreciate any feedback you might have as to whether or not I was successful.
I will write a bit first about the essay itself. Then I will conclude with some comments about the writing experimentation.
ReplyDeleteI really like the middle of this essay. The traffic metaphor with the two lanes merging into one was very helpful in describing the larger issues you are talking about. The point that as a group the traffic moves faster when all the cars have realigned into a single lane is very good indeed. In some sense, you are describing the fair solution. And I liked the description that others want to fly by in the lane that ends so they can cut in further down the road. Linking that to Free Rider Problem and the Prisoner's Dilemma was good and appropriate. Selfishness is a problem in establishing fairness.
I had issues with the first part of the piece. You treated personal predilection as partly or mostly about choosing a system of rules to live by. I think much personal taste entirely outside the ethical domain and in matters of conscience that happens mostly prior to rules or, perhaps, there is one primary ethical dictum, The Golden Rule, and all else gets worked out in context without appeal to subsidiary rules.
A case in point, you chose to vary your writing style with this post in response to our one-on-one last Monday. Was that a rule driven response? or something else? And is determining that the important thing to focus on? That you did respond shows that you took our conversation seriously.
I also had a little difficulty with the concluding paragraph. Take a look at this site which talks about the "Ethic of Reciprocity" and shows that it is a common element to most religions, though it is not completely universal. Were you trying to make your point applicable to people of other religions as well as to your own? If so, could you have made the same point more generally without the reference to Mark or to Corinthians?
Now let me turn to the experimentation. I see a bit of change, perhaps less dramatic than it seems for you. I do hope you keep at it in future reflections, even if some of this feels uncomfortable now. There will be learning from doing so.
Prof. Arvan,
ReplyDeleteI guess I don't quite understand your comments with respect to the first paragraph, so am not sure how to respond.
Concerning the writing style, I realize that my changes were minor. I find it somewhat hard to leave a style that I am comfortable with, especially when I don't have as much time as I'd like to try different things. (I.e. when pressed for time it is easiest to do what you already know how to do.)
That being said, however, I do want to try to put forth the effort to make the necessary changes. I would appreciate any specific suggestions you would have on what to change in the writing. Am I still lacking in depth of discussion? Or, do you just want me to try to say the same thing, but use a different style, just for the experience of it?
Concerning the Bible, I realize that some principles (not doctrine) are somewhat similar (like the golden rule) across all religions. With respect to love, I was thinking of the very specific definition of love given in Corinthians 13, and thus used this to make my point. Therefore, the exact point I was trying to make was directly from the Bible.
(At the risk of being blunt, I as a Christian would be amiss if I avoided using the Bible just to please everybody. I don't wish to argue about that here, but do want to make sure you know where I am coming from.)
The first paragraph, and the second too, set up the problem. As I understand it, the problem you aim to describe is selfish behavior --- a person hogs a scarce resource that others make use of as well. By inference, it is also meant to apply to cases where an individual can "pollute" a social setting and thus ruin the experience for others, as when somebody talks aloud on a cell phone while in the audience attending a performance.
ReplyDeleteYou attribute this sort of behavior to individuals, "setting their own rules." Yet taking an individualistic approach and pursuing those things that interest the person while alone doesn't mean the person will act selfishly in a social setting. So right off the bat, before you get into the main point, there is now a distraction. That distraction is not helpful to this piece. That is what I was commenting about earlier.
There is a different point that I didn't make in the earlier comment. It seems to me that selfishness can arise for two very different reasons. One is a knowing form of selfishness; the person doesn't care about the negative consequences on others. Changing the rules might help with this. The other is an unknowing form of selfishness; the person is ignorant of the negative consequence. If the person were made so aware, the person might very well modify the behavior. Rules don't help with this second form at all. Sensitivity to the social environment might help. Education about the social environment might also help.
I made the point about your closing paragraph because I sensed a tension with what it says and the points you made in the middle of your essay, particularly as those points apply to our class setting. We have class members from multiple cultures and multiple religions. We want to have open discussion in class. Do you expect class members to understand the exact point you were trying to make irrespective of their background?
I agree that you should not try to please everybody in class, in making point about your religious belief or in making any other argument. However, you should try very hard to make your points understood by all. There is no argument without such understanding.
Thought I would throw in my two cents here - both on your writing and on the actual thoughts.
ReplyDeleteFirst off, when you use a lot of parentheses and when you say things like probably been used too often, etc. you come off not confident in your ideas. Personally, I would like to read something where I am convinced the writer is convinced.
Also, I am not really sure of the point of this essay. Were you trying to explain social responsibility? If so, it would have been nice after an explanation your suggestions and ideas for improvement.
I liked your tie ins with the bible and the prisoners dilemma - they were easy to relate to. Obviously, as you can see from my posts, I am nothing close to a writing professional, but I thought you would like a student perspective. I would love if you could let me know what you think about my book review!
-Alessandra