Exotic Journeys: A Tourist's Guide to Philosophy

brought to you by Ron Yezzi

Emeritus Professor of Philosophy

Minnesota State University, Mankato

Author's Note: This account is adapted from Ron Yezzi, Directing Human Actions: Perspectives on Basic Ethical Issues (Lanham: University Press of America, 1986) pp. 267 - 269.

Suppose that we examine the positions taken with respect to the individual and society socially, politically, and economically. What do we find? Socially, we want to know how individuals should view their own development within the context of social relationships. Politically, we want to know what should be the organization and function of government. And economically, we want to know what should be the underlying economic structure. Be it noted though that all three parameters are not equally relevant for each philosophical position. Indeed, one problem worth thinking about is the priority to be assigned each parameter.

Topics

Summation

Social Comparison

Political Comparison

Economic Comparison

Individuals and Society:

Summation

Social Comparison

Socially, John Dewey offers three alternatives for the relation of the individual to society in the passage that opens this chapter. For our purposes, we can assign the labels traditional individualism, organicism, and collectivism to the alternatives. Traditional individualism stresses self- interest and the rights of individuals, with minimal obligations to act for the benefit of others or the social whole. Society exists clearly for the sake of individuals. At the opposite extreme is collectivism which stesses the subordination of the individual to the good of the collective social whole. Finally, the middle alternative is organicism which stresses the harmonious interaction of individual and society in service to the mutual interests of both. If we now locate the philosophers in the chapter on a spectrum, as a rough approximation, we obtain the following:

Traditional Organicism Collectivism

Individualism

Some assigned locations that may seem odd at first warrant special remarks. For example, Mill's Utilitarian position may seem to exemplify collectivism more than the bar graph indicates. But John Stuart Mill does not think in terms of collective social wholes; he strongly advocates the rights of individuals and he views Utilitarianism as producing the greatest good for the greatest number of individuals concerned. Marx may also seem to belong more firmly in the collectivist category. But Karl Marx does not expect individuals to take on subordinate, subservient roles in a communist society. Finally, Rousseau may seem to be more individualistic in outlook than the graph indicates. Still he belongs in the organicist category because of his envisioned accord between individual freedom and the general will.

Political Comparison

Politically, suppose that we consider four possibilities—anarchism, democracy, aristocracy, and dictatorship. Anarchism stresses the absence of centralized state authority. Democracy, for our purposes, stresses the basic liberties of citizens and a government where major decisions are made by all the citizens or by their duly elected representatives. Aristocracy stresses a merit system designed to bring a relatively small group of the best qualified, most dedicated persons to the important positions in government. And dictatorship stresses highly centralized, powerful state authority directed by a single person or a relatively small group. As a rough approximation, we can locate the following positions on a political spectrum:

Anarchism Democracy Aristocracy Dictatorship

Marx1, represents the governmental structure during the transitional stage toward a communist society, the dictatorship of the proletariat; Marx2 represents the government structure in a fully realized communist society.

Economic Comparison

Economically, let us consider just two possibilities, capitalism and socialism. Capitalism stresses a free market economy where individuals have the right to hold and dispose of private property as they choose. Socialism stresses a planned, centralized economy where economic benefits are widely shared by all. Accordingly, we would expect greater extremes of wealth and poverty in a capitalistically organized economy. (It does not necessarily follow however that a typical representative person will fare better economically in a socialist, rather than in a capitalist, economy.)

In locating positions on an economic spectrum, we will refer only to philosophers writing in the nineteenth century or later on the ground that only these later positions are fully appreciative of the importance of economic structure as a result of the impact of the industrial revolution. We will also omit Stirner because he would be very suspicious of any procedure by which society or the state might legitimize an economic structure. (Given a choice between capitalism and socialism however, we can be sure that he would reject the latter.) As a rough approximation then, the economic spectrum looks like this:

Capitalism Socialism