Individual obligation vs. society's obligation

True or false...

An individual's obligation to society ought to outweigh society's obligation to the individual.

I'd like to see other people's viewpoints on such a topic. Personally, I think that this statement, for the most part, is true. An individual's obligation to society would essentially be for one to be a good citizen. One would have to refrain from stealing, murdering, arson, things of that sort. If an individual were to participate in any of the aforementioned, I don't think that a society should be obligated to house such a reckless citizen. Besides, in the best interest of everyone else in the society, it'd be best to remove said individual from the society lest he/she cause more damage to the people or the property. Of course there are ways of dealing with unruly members of society. (Prison, continuation facilities, mental institutions... lol) After all, it wouldn't be fair at all to go as far as to banish everyone who breaks the rules.

A society's obligation to the individual, I think, would be to keep things running smoothly including public sanitation, public transportation, public safety, amongst other things. But before such obligations can actually be satisfied, wouldn't the society need the cooperation of its members? A society cannot function if a large portion of its members have their own agenda. On the other hand, if a society is refusing to accommodate to the needs of its deserving members, the members could petition for reform and perhaps take things up with the big boys in the government. At least there is a glimmer of hope for change in this senario. What would a society do with tons and tons of unruly citizens? It's much harder to control, isn't it?

I overheard this topic during one of my classes and I've been thinking about it since then. What do you guys think?

Jam it back in, in the dark.

I don't really think society has any responsibility to the individual, because societies are constructs created through interaction between individuals. Societies essentially function in accordance to how individuals believe they should. Whether that involves an isolated or interventionist society is dependent upon the collective action of individuals. For instance, individuals through collective action may determine that society abstracted as government needs to provide the safety nets for individuals. Alternatively, individuals may instead create a social dichotomy in which individuals provide safety nets through personal responsibility, families, and communal support.

Societies cannot exist without the individual, and therefore creating an individual-societal dichotomy oversimplifies what should be, which I think is that individuals should only be obligated to each other. Justifying individual obligation to society being a societal obligation to the individual is in a word, collectivism. Something that I feel is inherently dehumanizing.

There's nowhere I can't reach.

Collectivism is the only way for long-term survival and adaptation to occur, however. Everyone looking out for themselves only leads to massive destruction, pollution, waste, and problems.

This thing is sticky, and I don't like it. I don't appreciate it.

I'd argue that the opposite is true, but then you weren't really paying attention to what I said. Individuals have no obligation to society because society represents the collective will of individuals. Individuals should instead behold themselves to each other instead of relying on a government which represents abstracted society to force them into doing so.

I am a dolphin, do you want me on your body?

This happens to be a debate topic for some team or another and apparently one must pick an affirmative side or the opposition, obviously. I was thinking, if one were for the affirmative, how would one have a rebuttal against the Great Depression? Regardless of the fact that many unemployed people clamored for change, there was little anyone could do. President Roosevelt tried helping by empowering labor unions and plans with the "New Deal" but in the grand scheme of things, it hardly put a dent against the society's economic low. It was WWII that brought the people out of depression. If one were to argue that individuals have the greater obligation to society and the individuals in the Great Depression could do little to help, what could be said? I suppose it was individuals that led to the participation in WWII, but is that a effective, valid statement?

I was speaking idiomatically.

Kinda going with what Brady is saying, I think there is a sense of sameness within the scope of societal and personal obligation. I mean, they are essentially similar terms.

I can liken a comparison to a swiss clock, in which the gears that make up the clock are also part of the clock. The gears symbolically can refer to the individual, society of course being the sum of those parts. In that way of thinking, whats good for one is good for the other so there is a sense of sybiosm. IMO, the important thing is to keep the gears well oiled so that each component of the clock moves with a similar purpose, like a machine.

What kind of toxic man-thing is happening now?