Human or societal agreement
What is the Human Agreement? Is there one? Do we agree to get along? I feel this question's answer is the building block to any social society and as much as we have accomplished we haven't made this basic agreement. There are many levels of social society and this agreement would be more prevalent and understood at the personal level but on an international level it becomes completely blurred. The line lies somewhere between empathy and greed. But do either exist if there is not a human agreement? I have innocently assumed most of my life that there was an underlying agreement that we all want to get along in general. But is this really true? I would argue that the constant redefinition of this agreement and ones mastery of it at all levels, is what provides all value of societal life.
Comments (20)
A simple definition is "an implicit agreement among the members of a society to cooperate for social benefits, for example by sacrificing some individual freedom for state protection. Theories of a social contract became popular in the 16th, 17th, and 18th centuries among theorists such as Thomas Hobbes, John Locke, and Jean-Jacques Rousseau, as a means of explaining the origin of government and the obligations of subjects."
And here's a more in-depth explanation:
https://www.iep.utm.edu/soc-cont/
But somehow it begins to break down over distance. Or is that just over differences? There seems to be a perceived threat from something different. Which is understandable. I feel that one has to get some benefit from an agreement, even if you make trade offs. An agreement might be reached between tribe or village, but country to country is a problem. For one you don’t even know who they are except what you’re told. Imagine North Koreans trying to understand us. Is distance, then, the problem.
An individual or group of individuals might decide their way of functioning is to give away everything they come into ownership, except what they need to survive. This puts them in trouble whenany supply of resources isn't attainable, so they have nothing to fall back on, so either they change their way of behaving, or they end up living on the street, or they die....so that mode of behaving doesn't survive and spread well in society.
An individual or group of individuals might decide that they will behave in a way which exploits all manner of means to obtain what they need and excess too. This might bring them into conflict with other parts of society, if they end up breaking existing laws...this mode of operation, seems to be sustainable to some extent, as there is always the possibility of storing resources, and as long as there is a society to exploit, there may be avenues of obtaining resources.
If the exploitation mod becomes too prevalent in society, then society begins to break down, which leave fewer and fewer avenues for the exploiters to obtain resources.
So there is always an emergent form of behaviour within society, with a play off mainly between the creators of resources, and the exploiters.
There may be various philosophies that individuals or groups, have which lead them to behave in one way or another., though..
Law also emerge to try and sustain the production of resources.
But if it doesn't affect the production of resources, it seems like one society is quite capable of exploiting another society, eg the production of materials, the mining of minerals, in other countries that us slavery....so this makes me think the behaviour of any society is based mainly on what sustains that society, and less based upon some moral philosophy.
'do unto others as you'd have done to you' gets turned into 'you can't do it to me(because you are a poor slave in a foreign country), so I can do it to you'...and I don't have to do anything about it, as I am just following the mode of my own society.
As to 'agreement', all you have to do is choose your own mode of behaviour, there isn't really any need to agree to anything, is there?
or maybe that is too cynical and simplistic.
There can be all sorts of agreements going on, like an agreement that two entities share certain beliefs, values etc..
Agreements on how two entities will interact in future.etc
I think any idea of society being moral must mean that morality is emergent from individuals in society, so the morality of the society is based upon the morality of its individual members, which comes back to personal responsibility.
Do you take responsibility for any exploitation you might participate in by buying products made using slave labour, for example?
'I'll turn a blind eye to your exploitation of stuff in the normal range of exploitation, and you'll do the same for me, good fellow..?'
weird isn't it? :)
I tend to think that’s how things are going now. Until someone treads on someone’s toes, then the unspoken agreement is under pressure. For instance, countries ignore human rights issues in countries because it suits them, this tacit agreement lasts until interests put pressure on the agreement. Which suggests a pretty cynical view on agreement. But is that what agreement is in essence?
But what do these agreements really mean?
They are codes of behaviour about how the two countries will interact, but these codes are written in words, and word and sentences are always open to interpretation, ie subjective. So there is plenty of room within formal agreements, and so informal ones too, as how two entities can act and still adhere to those agreements.
Then I suppose you bring in 'good faith' which would be about trying to stick to the agreements in spirit as well as letter...
With or without written or tacit agreement I think we agree day to day to get along. The slightest perceived threat and the agreement becomes shaky. After all, why do we need agreement unless there were these perceived differences in the first place. All agreements are perceived by each individual as serving their interests, maybe it’s protection, gain or some sort of freedom, whatever it’s for it’s a trade.
But what if you have nothing to trade?
Then I guess someone has to fall back on people's philosophy of charity..or something like that.
I think for someone who bases their comfort/safety on large amounts of money, will never have enough to feel secure. You can have x amount of money one day, and you can lose x amount of money the next day, quite easily for a number of reasons. If society broke down x amount of money would be worthless..I think some rich people must worry about money all the time.
One might say that we are hyper-cultural animals. It's not just that some things are forbidden while others are encourage.
Our very ability to think (even as anguished individuals) depends on us having 'absorbed' a supremely sophisticated system of communicative conventions (along with various bodily conventions including skills with tools, how close to stand to others, and so on).
Quoting Roberto
If I read you correctly, this 'superior platform of existence' is what I mean by culture. The last phrase reminds me of Freud's vision of civilization and its (necessary) discontents.
If society is the 'redeemed form of man,' then we society types still suffer and delight in some nasty dreams, brought to you by the 'it' (the old Adam.)