mmt@dciem.UUCP (Martin Taylor) (12/03/84)
===================
did freely -- "society" is an abstraction meant to avoid the
complexities of dealing with the myriad individual choices, but breaks
down when one talks about "the motives" of society, or debts owed to
"society".
===================
And "psychology" is an abstraction meant to avoid the complexities
of dealing with the myriad individual interactions of nerve cells,
but breaks down when one talks about "the motives" of a person, or
debts owed to a person.
We (persons) see from the viewpoint of persons, but there are other
levels of interaction that are not readily dealt with from that
viewpoint. Just as the health of a person affects the interactions
of their nerve cells (and vice-versa), so do the health of society
and the welfare of the people in that society.
It's not at all clear that the behaviour of society can *in principle*
be derived from the behaviour of its people, any more than biochemistry
can be derived from quantum chromodynamics. Maybe both can be derived
from the lower-level constructs, but maybe they can't. We have no
evidence either way.
I don't like the term "debt to society" because of its connotations
of prison, etc. We don't as individuals owe fixed money debts to society.
We owe the recognition that without society we wouldn't have what we
have or be able to do what we do. When society breaks down (the
management of society is what really breaks down) we get starvation,
warring power groups (e.g. feudal times, Mafia families), and
general unhappiness. Government is what we call the institution that
prevents these conditions when it works well. There is a happy medium
between anarchy and tyranny, and it is a perpetual balancing act for
society to maintain that state.
--
Martin Taylor
{allegra,linus,ihnp4,floyd,ubc-vision}!utzoo!dciem!mmt
{uw-beaver,qucis,watmath}!utcsrgv!dciem!mmt