Individuals vs. Common Good Options

[*Kathleen*]

Another one of my past debate topics.

Resolved: As a general principle, individuals have an obligation to value the common good above their own interests.

I haven't completely chosen a side for this just yet. Even if you do help the community, for example, contributing to stopping a flood, you are still helping yourself for survival. I think I just decided to take the individual side on this. Sometimes if you take everyone into consideration, you get off track, or get pulled down. Haha I hope no one thinks I'm selfish for saying this, though.

[Spirited Away]

'We will bury you!'

That's all well and good for the individuals to act for the sake of society. But how realistic is that?

What we should do, ought to do, and are doing are three different ideas.

Anyway, on to the senerios:

Take a music band praticing in a garage for an example. If everyone decides that he/she ought to play and sing in sync and harmonize, then we do not have any problem because everyone is aware that they should work towards the common good (ie, getting a gig in a hot bar). But let say, there are two singers and they both decide that they be the lead singer and the other a backup singer, and both try to outshine one another, they'd have a hard time trying harmonizing.

Argh, my point is, greed and other human flaws cause us to act for our individual good first. Without compromising the individual benefits, people would never agree to work together.

A person will only act for the common good if he knows he will receive some benefit for himself, not so much because of greed, but because of human instinct.