A Social Doctrine for the Interests of a Unified Mankind

Social obligations or courtesies can mean different things to different people based on social cultures, or perhaps even, due to the particular beliefs of a single individual. In this sense, social courtesy can be subjective and feel as if it is not concrete but, like a piece of paper being ruffled by the wind, malleable, without a right or wrong answer.

However, if we observed humanity objectively as a whole rather than a fragmented collective, divided by region, religion, or opposing factions, and simply looked at what was in the best interest of the collective good, we might be able to understand what is truly important when it comes to being a responsible individual working in accordance with our nature in order to preserve our species. Because when we threaten or harm or refuse to look out for the best interests of our fellow man or woman, we only harm ourselves collectively.

How is this so? Well, we harm ourselves because, as an individual, we are failing our duty to the collective species and alienating ourselves from it. One ought, to the best of their abilities, seek to cooperate with the collective of humanity, because a species which works against its own best interests is a species which is falling short of its maximum potential for good, cooperation, preservation and the ability to survive long-term.

One can not deny their place as part of the collective species and so it is one’s duty to show a respect for humanity in the whole. Without cooperation, we could not flourish in the ways which we now do in the areas of science, engineering and civil advancements with regards to liberty, and yet all of this was achieved in humanity with a great deal of conflict, interference, and ill-will present in humanity as a whole. But how much more could we have achieved together in the same time with supportive cooperation and communication, with a critical approach to others which does not seek to shame the individual, but only to motivate them to their greatest potential, as one would a child, a lover, or a family member, without contempt and a ready forgiveness for transgressions–without revenge-seeking–in the name of love for the whole.

To the best of one’s abilities, one ought to seek cooperation for the sake of interpersonal mutual benefit in the long term, investing in the bonding powers of kindness rather than the degrading effects of harmful self-interest and outright hostility–which only ever provide short-term gains to a particular individual or group because of the brief and temporal nature of human existence. Between two allies of the human species, the best interest of each individual’s well-being ought to be worth equal value between the two in their transactions. Every action taken between man or woman ought to keep a balance of benefit where possible, and every action ought to be carefully considered and performed with great care in order to respect that balance.

If an individual shows hostility and tries to do harm or infringes upon the rights of another–through manipulation or by physical means–than, we ought to remain committed in aiding our fellow human being, both the victim and the provocateur, because a species which works against itself is a species which is inefficient, unstable and inferior. The provocateur ought to be educated and rehabilitated in some manner that still protects the dignity of that person and encouraged to change their actions and beliefs, not by force, but with guidance, education and by example from others (and from the state) which highlights the virtues desired in each and every citizen. Because man (or woman) is best led by example and the species which can harness its collective virtues in order to advance its wisdom, prosperity and long-term well-being is a species which will be most efficient and powerful.

Ever since men found individual identities and the ability to think as separate, autonomous beings, some men have sought to favor their own best interests against other men through dishonesty and negligence towards our collective best interests. The victim of the wrongdoing (if aware of such an affront) will lose trust in the collective and act with hesitancy to cooperate with others, or they may even resort to abusing others in this same manner. Then with our reduced abilities to cooperate with one another due to lack of trust, we collectively become less efficient to protect ourselves as a whole through rigorous cooperation and attention to the value that every life inherently holds.

When one wrongs another in the present, they also wrong themselves in the future by limiting their species’ cohesiveness and harming their greatest collective potential for survival and the survival of their descendants. And not just our survival, but we harm our species’ greatest potential for both peace, productivity and advancement.

What do you think? Should man’s ultimate priority in life be aiding and assisting humanity as a collective? And if not, why not? What do we gain by being in conflict with one another?

15 thoughts on “A Social Doctrine for the Interests of a Unified Mankind

  1. Hi! I think what we are seeing here in the US regarding the attempt to mitigate Covid 19 is a perfect example of some members of a society working against the overall good of the population. By claiming these methods are a violation of their personal rights although they are necessary to save lives they endanger their fellow man. I could say it turns the ideals of liberty against the very people who hold it in such high regard as to bring about disease and death among the majority. I hope I have it strayed from your topic but as a nurse this issue comes to mind. Wonderful text Mathew, I enjoyed and found it very thoughtful. 🤗

    Liked by 2 people

    1. Not at all! This is more of a philosophical thought exercise than anything else. I’m glad to hear other opinions, perspectives and even to be challenged.

      I completely agree with you though that those in charge in the USA right now are looking out for the best interests of only a minority of people while disregarding the welfare of many others.

      I hope you’re doing well and staying safe Holly ❤

      Liked by 1 person

  2. In an altruistic sense it is best to serve the collective for the overall benefit of all individuals. But your next to last paragraph sums up the reason we can no longer hope to think that way collectively. We have historically worked are way into smaller and smaller social groups until the individual now seems to reign supreme. You can’t get five people to agree on where to have dinner much less the mass of humanity to begin to give a shit about someone else. But I do wish we could all think the way you described it. Well written, my friend! Hope you are your daughter are well!

    Liked by 2 people

    1. So you think we’re ultimately doomed then as a species? I think we will eventually start to see humanity come back together again at some point, but because of the unregulated nature of social media and the way that fringe views have become popular there, I think it would take some intelligent policy decisions and a few generations to get there. I think technology evolved faster than our ethics on it could keep up!

      But, who knows right? Fingers crossed though. I try to be eternally optimistic! Thanks for your comment Brad and sharing your perspective. 🙂

      Like

      1. I would like to think we find our way back, but I have no concept of what the catalyst would be to cause that to happen. I used to think that if we faced a global threat, it would force us to work together. But the pandemic has proven that even that doesn’t work. I hope you are right!

        Liked by 1 person

  3. I do think we are responsible for others, and I think we can see that in action when there is a crisis. For most people, their natural response is to help others who have been harmed in some way. However, when there is no crisis, it seems like most people are out for themselves.

    Liked by 1 person

  4. Oh, how I dream of an altruistic world where humanity is genuinely good at heart. I agree with a lot of the key points you made. I think conflict will always be a part of humanity because it’s instilled in us. People have this need to argue for some reason, take Hatfields and McCoys, for example. Blood was shed over a friggin’ pig! So stupid! That’s why sports are so popular, we have a competitive nature. However, I do think we need a lot of restructuring, conflict itself is okay, we all have our own thoughts, views, and opinions, but we should be able to sit down and talk about any issue with respect for one another & without a need for violence. I like to believe this is possible, but I’m just not sure. So many people view others as something less than human, if they’re not the same skin color, if they’re poor, etc… they fail to see the human spirit that lies within, and that’s the problem. I think we need to start focusing on the “why’s”. I’m pretty sure it’s fear, fear of change, of losing power, social status, etc… How do you teach people to care? I don’t have the answers, unfortunately; but I stand with you in wanting better for our fellow men, women, children, and the planet. We need more people with open minds and empathetic hearts in position of power.

    Liked by 1 person

    1. Oh yeah, I suppose what I was suggesting was a completely idealistic world that would never actually happen, but it’s something to aspire towards, maybe?

      Sigmund Freud even wrote about how aggression is innate in each of us and we need to find an outlet of expression for this in order to feel human. Whether that’s sports or business or yelling at someone etc.

      …And this world will never be perfect because humans are perfect and our world is an extension of our behavior, as well as our perceptions. Some people could still be much better than they are before they’re anywhere close to perfect though.

      The right wing is entirely fueled by fear, absolutely. Especially the fear of anything that they don’t understand or know personally–immigrants, the secular world or anyone with different beliefs. They preach love in private but practice hate towards everyone outside their circle. I’m generalizing, and not all may think this way, but too many do think this way I’m afraid. It’s just sad to watch the hypocrites struggle to try and convince themselves and others of their “beliefs” they contradict over and over again.

      Like

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s