[D. Arnold]

Why do people subordinate their individual goals to those of the groups to which they belong, or to those of society as a whole?

User Detail :  

Name : D. Arnold, Gender : M, Sexual Orientation : Straight, Race : White/Caucasian, Religion : Atheist, Age : 37, City : Louisville, State : KY Country : United States, Occupation : English teacher, Education level : 2 Years of College, Social class : Lower class, 

[John-B29404]

The short answer is 'because they've been taught to.' The longer answer is that survival is a group matter, and a group that has no members who will sacrifice for it (a nation in which no one will be a soldier, a union in which no one will go on strike, a church in which no one will be a martyr, a PTA where no one will pay dues) is a group that won't last long. Most groups that command any significant loyalty are a lot older than one individual human life. That is, they're descended from a group that people sacrificed for - and that's why they're here. So the question is not what the individual gets out of it; if there is a question, it's 'What is it about some groups that's worth sacrificing for, often over a period of many generations?'

User Detail :  

Name : John-B29404, Gender : M, Sexual Orientation : Straight, Race : White/Caucasian, Religion : Atheist, Age : 43, City : rural area, State : CO Country : United States, Occupation : college professor, Education level : Over 4 Years of College, Social class : Upper middle class, 

[Michael]

One reason people subordinate themselves to a common goal is explained in John Locke's "Social Contract" theory. Locke, a political philosopher in the 1700s, argued that in a democratic society, citizens must give up the autonomy to do things they cannot physically, financially or institutionally do to a governing body. For example, a citizen, on his own, cannot defend his country from foreign enemies, but he can join the armed forces - a collective group - to do so. Therefore, people may give up some of their autonomy because they realize that without doing so, they cannot accomplish their desired goals.

User Detail :  

Name : Michael, Gender : M, Age : 30, City : Manassas, State : VA Country : United States, Occupation : History teacher, Education level : Over 4 Years of College, Social class : Middle class, 

[Augustine23592]

In American society, people typically do not do this, so I am a little puzzled as to where you've seen this take place. Broadly speaking, people work toward their own good and that of their families, and, following the 'invisible hand' philosophy of Adam Smith, this benefits society as a whole. There is a proud tradition of civic-mindedness in American society, and people do give generously of their time and money, but nevertheless, people tend to look out for themselves first and foremost. If they are loyal to, for instance, an employer, it is primarily out of self-interest and not because they admire the employer independent of their own interest. Some more 'progressive' communities in the United States (certain West Coast and Pacific Northwest cities, like Seattle, or Minnesota) have a higher-profile civic life, but even there, the American tradition of self-interest is the controlling factor. What you describe sounds more like a homogeneous, compact, resource-poor society like Japan, or the small social welfare states of northwest Europe. There, public assistance is viewed more as 'helping one of our own' rather than taking something from me (via taxes) to give to a stranger.

User Detail :  

Name : Augustine23592, Gender : M, Race : White/Caucasian, Age : 39, City : Columbia, State : SC Country : United States, Education level : Over 4 Years of College, Social class : Middle class, 

[Author]

Posts