"
In the instance of America's shameful racial history, the self-interest of southern whites combined with the violent coercion of black slavery would produce a highly objectionable variance on the 'social contract.' It is therefore a decidedly important reality that certain individuals refused this contract, One is especially inclined in such instances to recognize the importance of non-conformity in helping to drive improvements in human rights, equality and other dimensions of positive civil order. For instance, we consider luminaries such as Martin Luther King, Jr. Or the earliest participants in the American feminist movement, whose willful decision to resist the forces of authoritarianism as self-defined individuals would be essential to moving our society in a more progressive direction. In the case of Martin Luther King in particular, we recognize the considerable risk to his own person that the Civil Rights leaders undertook in spite of the prevailing cultural mores of his time an place.
In other words, had King simply accepted the order of things based on the premise that the needs of the many call for adherence to the existing rules and values of a given society, he may never have levied the same impact on the world. When we consider the role played by individual dissent in bringing moral and ethical improvement to society, it becomes clear that discourse on the 'greater good' must be highly scrutinized before we commit to its moral value. In fact, this seems to be the cultural orientation of the United States, a nation given over to sustaining a distinctive social order and identity but also to serving as a forum for aggressive individualist self-determination.
As a result, today, there is a fairly nuanced spectrum of views of finding the proper balance. Some view communal...
According to Etzioni, "in Western democratic societies, where the pendulum has shifted toward extremes of individual self-indulgence and a lack of community responsibility, communitarianism often takes the form of a critique of this excess." (Etzioni, p. 1) This suggests that we could improve our collective experience as Americans by committing to less individualist impulses.
However this is sharply contrasted by through civil libertarians who view America as guilty of a distinctive form of ethnocentric authoritarianism. To their perspective, maintenance of social order is important but often gives way to a decidedly exploitive form of political control. According to the text by Knight, "moderate political individualists would, as noted above, reduce the functions of the State to the minimum that is consistent with social order and peace. As they view the matter, there is always a presumption against any intervention by the State in the affairs of individuals, a presumption that can be set aside only by the most evident proof to the contrary." (Knight, p. 1)
Conclusion:
What these discussion points generally reveal is that balance is required in shaping a progressive, equal and fair nation. The intersection of individual liberties with so-called natural laws is a debate that will be perpetually ongoing, serving as a sort of checks-and-balances system for the moral orientation of our society.
Works Cited:
Ahmad, M.T. (2010). Individual vs. Society. Al Islam.
Etzioni, a. (1997). Balancing Individual Rights and the Common Good. Tikkun, 12(1) p. 66-67.
Knight, K. (2009). Individualism. The New Advent.
Paul, T. (2009). The Individual vs. Society. The Freedom Thinker.
