Non-aggression is not enough
Creating a great society means paying attention to the whole not just the part
This is a second, very short, mini-thought in a series on the ideas of Mòzǐ an under-appreciated Chinese philosopher from the period of the ‘100 schools of thought’ (诸子百家) you can read the first essay on the concept of “Promoting the worthy” here.
[Mòzǐ] said, “Suppose people were for others’ states as for their state. Then who alone would deploy his state to attack others’ states? One would be for others as for oneself. Were people for others’ cities as for their city, then who alone would deploy his city to assault others’ cities? One would be for others as for oneself. Were people for others’ clans as for their clan, then who alone would deploy his clan to disorder others’ clans? One would be for others as for oneself.
That being so, then states and cities not attacking and assaulting each other, people and clans not disordering and injuring each other, is this harm to the world? Or is it benefit to the world? Then we must say, it is benefit to the world.
Modern culture is deeply individualistic. People are oriented towards their own success and place their worldview above all others. We of course care about living in societies with “high living standards” but we hold on to the comfortable assumption that a libertarian non-aggression principle will achieve this outcome without compromising our prioritisation of number one.
However, this individualism is false. We are all deeply enmeshed in our social settings. To even have the thought that we could make do without other people relies on a language that presupposes the existence of those others. No man is an island. ‘Any man's death diminishes me, because I am involved in mankind.’
There are many ways that one could measure the ‘greatest’ society. It could be based on economics, scientific achievement, cultural significance, beauty or simply good character. No matter the aim though, the one thing that is certain is that it will not be possible to get there as a set of people all operating as individuals.
Surely, there will be some emergent patterns and a society of individuals could become surprisingly wealthy without the benevolence of the butcher. The most audacious aims though are always achieved through planning and conscious effort.
In a great society is things are well ordered, harmonious, and each person is able to contribute the best they can. To get there we must pay attention to the whole rather than the part. We may be comfortable with what can be achieved through tolerance alone but if we really want to reach these heights it is not enough to try to get the best outcome for ourselves without harming others. Instead we need to treat others as we wish to be treated and discover how best to serve the group.
Do you believe modern society is more individualistic than past societies? If so, what would you use as a reference point?