Society's Benefit

Man is by nature a social animal. From the smallest unit of tribe and clan to the vast, complex societies of the contemporary world, there existed a certain bond shared between people. A common bond among people from tribes and clans to modern-day societies shapes the question as to why men live in society-a central concern of philosophy, which takes shape in political theory, ethics, and the understanding of human nature. This question borders on some fundamental questions of cooperation, morality, justice, and the tension between individual freedom and collective responsibility. I will take up in this essay, the philosophical motivations as to why we live in a society; look at the responses that thinkers like Aristotle, Hobbes, Rousseau, and others have given to this question; and discuss whether living in society is necessary to human flourishing.

Aristotle had famously declared that "man is by nature a political animal." In other words, for Aristotle, this is not a practical but an ontological necessity-humans are social animals by nature, and living in society is part of what it means for them to achieve their full potential. In his view, the state or the polis is the highest form of human association since it is here that the individual can live a virtuous life. The vision of society for Aristotle is not basically survival or material well-being but to provide an area where humans could practice justice, cultivate moral virtues, and live meaningful lives. To Aristotle, the life outside of society is incomplete, for humans need the structure and relationships provided by the community to reach eudaimonia, or human flourishing.

Though Aristotle viewed society as a necessity for virtue, other philosophers have more worldly reasons for man's living in society. For example, Thomas Hobbes famously argued that life without society would be "solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short." In his work "Leviathan", Hobbes describes a "state of nature" in which individuals, free of the constraints and structures imposed by society, would naturally look out for themselves, and would then naturally all but constantly war and commit other acts of violence upon each other. In that condition, everybody would be left to his or her survival, and the consequence of this would be a continuous war of "every man against every man." According to Hobbes, individuals come into societies by engaging themselves in a social contract meant to avoid this chaos and insecurity. They agree to submit themselves to a governing authority that enforces laws, thereby guaranteeing peace and protection against individuals harming others. For Hobbes, there needs to be society if people want to live in security and stability and pursue interests without being threatened by violence all the time.

Jean-Jacques Rousseau speaks to another reason why we live in society and develops this idea of tension between human freedom and social obligation. In the work "The Social Contract", Rousseau says, "Man is born free, and everywhere he is in chains." He believed through the state of nature, humans were free, living in relative peace, while as societies began to develop, so inequalities arose, and man became enslaved to social conventions, institutions, and artificial hierarchies. In society, however, Rousseau does assert that there is another, higher degree of freedom, which he calls "moral freedom." Thus, when one enters into a social contract wherein everyone agrees to abide by collectively made laws, freedom is accorded in living according to rules he has a hand in shaping rather than being at the mercy of the fancies of others. In that sense, society can give liberty beyond the individual freedom, as people can live in an assemblage and still maintain their personal autonomy.

In this aspect of Rousseau's vision of society lies an important feature of human life: cooperation and the desire for mutual interdependence. No human being can exist completely separate from others unless he or she is ready to forgo an ability to survive and meet his or her basic needs. Social animals derive needs from one another: food, shelter, security, emotional support. Society allows for specialization to form, division of labor, so we can do different tasks to contribute to the common good. Interdependence based upon cooperation is perhaps the main reason we have society. It allows us to accomplish that which we could not do by ourselves.

The proper context of justice, law, and moral accountability is society. While every human has a natural sense of right and wrong, it is the society which codifies these intuitions into laws and systems of governance. Society provides the leeway within which one can appeal for justice upon being wronged and assurance that morality will be observed. The philosopher John Rawls argued, in his "Theory of Justice", that a just society is one which generates fairness through a social contract whereby rational individuals accept rules that guard the rights and dignity of all its members. Society is the institution wherein justice becomes meaningfully realized because it provides the mechanisms for settling conflict and keeping people treating each other fairly.

At a deeper level, perhaps our reason for living in society has also got something to do with our need for meaning, identity, and belonging. Humans are intensely social, and a profound need exists to belong and be acknowledged by others. Society allows for the interaction among all individuals through social groups, friends, and family; hence, we take part in something larger than the sum of its parts. The existential philosopher Jean-Paul Sartre maintained that through relationship with others, identity is forged; it is only in society that we come to understand who we are. In this sense, society not only provides the material conditions of survival but also the psychological and existential context in which meaning is to be given to our life. Our identities, values, and sense of self are deeply influenced by the societies we inhabit.

However, as with all things, there is a price to pay for living in a society, since individuals frequently have to take up collective responsibilities against one's personal wants. Some philosophers, like Friedrich Nietzsche, even criticized societal constraints on the individual for being too restrictive to the individual human spirit due to too much conformity with societal expectations-a too rigid framework of rules that stifles creativity and individualism. He claimed that mediocrity and a herd mentality were what society imposed upon individuals, turning them into just the sort of people that follow rules instead of challenging or thinking for themselves. For Nietzsche, this means, to the true philosopher and creator, the necessary detachment at times from the social because he rebels against the very principles of valuation that have held people together and opens up new horizons.

Despite these critiques, living in society remains one of the central dimensions of human existence: in it stands security, a relation of cooperation, the creation of justice, and with it, a possibility of moral responsibility. It would be in society that men establish relations, share knowledge, and create meaning. It is the context for human flourishing, but it is also the structure through which humans navigate the trials of existence. Though it might impose limitations on individual freedom, society also enables a group freedom, a sense of justice, and shared purpose.

We live in society because it is necessary for survival, moral growth, and identity. From Aristotle's view of the polis as the basis of human virtue, to the pragmatic vision of Hobbes, who presents society as a bulwark against chaos, thinkers have long understood that one needs society. While society brings constraints and challenges, it is also in this sphere that humans can reach their best potential-not individually, but collectively. In this, living in society is not a practical need but one of the features constitutive of what it means to be human.