What is Social Responsibility?
Before I mention the idea of social responsibility in another post, it may be beneficial, for me if no one else, to explain precisely what I mean. Up till now I’ve refrained from writing much on the campaigns for the 2012 election, but you can now expect me to dive into the fray head first. Or maybe gut first; we’ll see. Anyhow, Mitt Romney can safely wager $10,000 that social responsibility will be a reoccurring theme in my coverage and commentary, so now’s as a good a time as any to define my terms.
I speak of social responsibility in two ways: first, as the responsibility of the individual for the good of society, i.e., the common good; and second, as the responsibility of society itself, as a singularity, for this good. For example, I as an individual have responsibility for my own health, the health of my family, the health of my neighborhood and nation, and the health of humanity. On the other hand, my family, as a social body, has its own responsibilities that are not reducible to the individual responsibilities of its members. I can’t procreate on my own. Not the spawning type. My city, state, and country each have their respective responsibilities for the common good. So does the global community as a whole.
Underlying each of these definitions is a distinct abstract concept of humanity: first, humanity as the sum total of many autonomous individuals; second, humanity as one, singular body. Contemporary Western thought, at least here in the States, often tends to emphasize the former over the latter, even in reference to social bodies like the family and the country, but the latter concept of humanity lingers in our discourse.
Scientific investigation stresses the singularity of humanity when, for example, considering human beings as a species. Religious discourse does likewise, arguably with even stronger emphasis on the oneness of humanity. In the Adamic myth, for example, all of humanity suffers from the singular fall from grace, sharing in the consequences of one man’s sin. According to Catholic theology, the atonement (at-one-ment) of humanity can take place only within the holy community, the singularity, the one mystical body. (Some Protestant theologies, on the other hand, by stressing the relationship of the sinner alone before God, emphasize the individual when conceiving humanity).
In looking at history, we see the negative and sometimes disastrous social consequences of conceiving humanity only in terms of the many or the one. Extreme individualism has led to the enthronement of selfishness and greed and to the deterioration of society. Collectivism, both authoritarian and totalitarian, has been responsible for the suppression of the individual, the stifling of virtue, and, ironically, mass murder.
As a true understanding of humanity sees it terms of both the one and the many, true social responsibility, I submit, is found in balancing the responsibility of individuals to the good of society and the responsibility of society itself, as a singular body, to the common good. In some situations, the individual should be stressed; in others, the collective. Determining the appropriate balance involves applying the principles of subsidiarity and solidarity.
Individuals promote the common good through the exercise of liberty and virtue, but of course society itself cannot follow suit. Society as a singularity cannot practice charity or any other virtue. Instead, it has to respond to the demands of the common good through the political. Social responsibility for the common good, then, must involve both the logic of virtue and the logic of politics. It is irresponsible to ignore or dismiss the necessity of either.
Follow me on Facebook and Twitter.
Comments are closed.
When individuals — exercising their unalienable right to liberty, endowed by their Creator — do whatever the heck they want in their own individual self-interests, that while not infringing on others’ like right, societies thrive . . . every single time. When do-gooders employ force (say, government) to take the lives, liberties and properties of some to redistribute to others, societies wither and die . . . every single time.
“Social justice” is code for the latter.
Zut alors! My code’s been deciphered!
thedrpete is simply wrong, and American history is the best proof-case. Prior to the 1930′s and the adoption of Keynsian checks and balances on unregulated capitalism, the economy was in recession fully 40% of the time. From the 1930′s to the late 1970′s, the economy was remarkably stable and prosperous, and the top marginal tax rate averaged over 70%.
But all that aside, on his website Pete tells us that he’s “retired.” I wonder whether he has renounced his eligibility for Social Security and Medicare, two redistributive social programs dressed up by “do-gooders” to look like “insurance” to make them palatable to guys like Pete.
Did you know that Social Security and Medicare is going broke, Mark? It’s such a good system, I wonder why that is? I pay into both and you know what? I’m not going to see either because it will both be gone with the baby boomers. This should be a clear example of why we don’t need Govt. handling more socialistic programs.
Nate, Social Security is not going broke (though due to continued underfunding Medicare is). For the last 25 years we have been putting more money into Social Security than we have been taking out. The plan was that when baby boomers begin to retire, we would then take out more money than we put in. Now that baby boomers are beginning to retire people are shocked (shocked I tell you!) that we are taking out more money than we are putting in., But every critic of SS and every person who claims it is going broke knows this and this has been stated many times, but they continue to pretend they don’t.
If nothing changes (and things always change) by 2035 the surplus will be gone and social security will only be taking in about 70% of what it is paying out. Both the year and the amount change based on predictions of the economic conditions over the next 20 years. This can be fixed rather painlessly by several suggestions that continued to be ignored.
Medicare requires the relization that our method of distributing health care is broken. The ACA fixed several problems related to peoples abbility to get healthcare, but did not fix the basic problem. We continue to refuse to even consider what has worked in many other countries, but instead insist on a system that produce expensive poor quality health care. The conservatives believe the fix is a system of complete individual self supported healthcare and using charity for the poor. This system has never worked at any time or poace on our planet.
You are right, Mr. DuBois, “Social Security is not going broke”. That is because Social Security IS ALREADY broke. The Social Security Trust Fund is a pile of IOUs, all of the moneys already having been spent as part of the General Fund.
The IOUs represent no-nil-nada-zero-zip-zilch contract with the people who have “contributed”, so sayeth the U.S. Supreme Court in 1935. Further the issuer of the IOUs is broke, with current debt of more than $14.5 trillion and future “obligations” of more than $110 trillion.
As to “health care”, there is no such thing. The subjects here are “medical treatment” and “pharmaceutical treatment”, neither of which can make a person well, just unsick. No one — absolutely not a single person — has a right to the life (or part thereof), the liberty, or the property of another. ANY person wishing medical treatment or pharmaceutical treatment must come to agreement (liberty) with another to exchange value for said.
Medical treatment and pharmaceuticals will be rationed by the marketplace. Price is the messenger of the relationship between supply and demand. If you choose to dictate price, then supply will dwindle, someone will dictate how the rationing goes . . . until the supply all but disappears. That’s why Brits remove their own infected teeth with pliers.
Kyle, you’ve created a great setup for a thought provoking discussion. Hopefully, it won’t descend into entrenched positions on particular social programs too quickly…
thedrpete…“When individuals — exercising their unalienable right to liberty, endowed by their Creator — do whatever the heck they want in their own individual self-interests, that while not infringing on others’ like right, societies thrive . . . every single time.”
Fine, but what happens when responsibilities to God, family, nation, world, and all others conflict with ‘doing whatever the heck we want’. I’m thinking of responsibility of one spouse to another, and children; of the responsibility to defend family and nation at the cost of one’s life if necessary. None of these ‘demands upon us’ have yet reached the threshold of ‘infringing on others’. How can an individual or society ever expect to live the command of ‘loving one another as I have loved you’ or ‘love your neighbor as yourself’ if there involves no cost of sacrifice of ourselves? Where does the response of ‘self sacrifice’ and living ‘outside onself’ enter the common ground?
“I speak of social responsibility in two ways: first, as the responsibility of the individual for the good of society, i.e., the common good; and second, as the responsibility of society itself, as a singularity, for this good.”
I agree with you that as Christians we are obligated to help those in need. I disagree with your proposal that people should have a gun put to their head and forced to help others. That latter is called Socialism, which I’m sure you’re well aware of.
Many posters here seem to think that we need Socialism and that everyone would be equal and live in this wonderful rainbow utopia full of unicorns and happiness. This, however, is a very foolish idea.
1. Socialism has been tried several times throughout history and has failed every time See Russia and China. The only thing that the people were equal in was their sharing of misery and fear of power.
2. We can be socially responsible without Socialism. We don’t need an authority figure to tell us what to do or tell us how we should spend our money. I think most of us are intelligent human beings who are capable of making decisions on our own. Also, we can be socially responsible without doling out money. We can lend a hand to anyone that needs it. We can open our homes, listen to the heartbroken, etc.
3. Socialism breeds more irresponsibility. I’m sure one of the main appeals to Socialism is the “take from the rich and give to the poor” idea. Does that sound familiar? Sounds like the wonderful Occupy protestors. The problem is that with this system Govt. tells you what is best for you. And the people stop working as hard because what’s the motivation to work harder? Your not getting a raise, what’s the use?
In conclusion, I welcome your call for social responsibility for the individual, but do not agree that we also need to be forced by Govt. We do not live in a perfect world and the world will never become perfect. If the world was perfect, what would be the use of going to heaven? We live in a world of sin and poverty. That’s just how it is. We need to help everyone we can as we are commanded, but forcing people, even the ones who are not Christians, is unethical and economically unwise.
Mark,
I paid into Social Security — because and only because I was forced unconstitutionally to do so — and now gladly take money out of the hands of the national government with glee. I paid in to Medicare — because and only because I was forced unconstitutionally to do so — and now have Medicare Part A, though have not used it, and have refused Parts B and D.
Keynes was woefully wrong from the get-go, and only folks who are economics-illiterate pay any attention to his drivel.
Except you’re not taking the money out of the national government’s hands. Social Security and Medicare are transfer programs. You’re taking them out of my hands, and all the rest of us who are still working. And you’re doing it by force. If you’ve been retired more than a couple of years or had even one significant illness, you have long since taken out of those programs what you put in. In other words, you are acting in contradiction to your own stated principles. You are a hypocrite.
Pete, I guarantee that you know next to nothing about Keynes. Hayek didn’t consider Keynes to be drivel, and neither did Friedman. They disagreed with aspects of Keynes’ presciptions for saving capitalism from its own excesses, and with much of what passed as Keynsianism after his death, but they didn’t consider Keynes’ work to be drivel. The fact that you do only suggests that you have no idea what you’re talking about. The word “Keynes,” like the word “unalienable,” is just a talisman for you. A buzzword. Too much Fox News at 5:00 pm, I suppose.
I have record, Mr. Gordon, of my “contributions” to Social Security and, thus, those of my employers both over the period 1958-2006. Applying to those a mere 3% interest rate on principal, I am far from yet relying on the “contributions” of others.
Social Security isn’t a “transfer” program; it’s a Ponzi scheme, albeit worse. The assertion that I am taking your money by force is ludicrous. If it were true, I’d long ago have been in jail.
Your point about Keynes (versus how Keynesians misconstrue his economic prescriptions) is fair. I stand corrected.
Tausign,
Methinks that God did NOT delegate authority to governments to see that we behave according to His will. Judgment of the rightness or wrongness of our choices and behaviors is to come later and from a higher court than governments have.
Indeed, it is from Him that each human being is endowed with the unalienable right to life, the right to liberty, and the right to property (from whence comes the pursuit of happiness), and the right to self-defend those rights.
Property = Happiness: the bedrock of Christian teaching. Amen.
Kyle:
I don’t necessarily disagree with you, but I honestly have trouble thinking of a group of persons as a unit with responsibilities. A group of people doesn’t have a mind or a will, other than the minds and wills of its members, so how can it be responsible apart from the individual responsibility of each member?
If a group-unit fails in its responsibility, is their group culpability? If a group-unit may be held culpable, is punishment due to the group, as a group, and not to the individual members thereof?
If so, isn’t this what people deplore about corporations? That a corporation is considered a person under law; and if it misbehaves, the corporation may be held accountable but not its individual shareholders?
Again I’m not necessarily dismissing the idea of group responsibility, but I also can’t bring myself to assent to it in the current state of my thinking.
Agellius–
Then what is the concept of “the Body of Christ” worth? Or the concept of “Original Sin?”
Rodak:
I think this is different. As to the Body of Christ, it has a head, who is Jesus. We are only his members. The Body as a whole cannot sin, since Jesus is its head. Only individual members can sin. And, when members sin mortally, they cut themselves off from the Body.
As to original sin, that’s not a case of the group being held responsible for the sins committed by the group as a unit. Rather, it’s the sin of an individual, for which his descendants, by inheritance, are made to suffer the consequences.
Applying that idea to society, I agree that society suffers from the sins of individuals. I don’t have a problem with that. My difficulty is with the idea that the society can sin (or be responsible) as a unit.