For the Greater Good of All

It has been called “the master problem” of social life: What is the connection between the individual and the collective, including groups, organizations, communities, and society itself? Healthy adult human beings can survive apart from other members of the species, yet across individuals, societies, and eras, humans consistently seek inclusion in the collective, where they must balance their personal needs and desires against the demands and requirements of their groups. Some never sink too deeply into the larger collective, for they remain individualists who are so self-reliant that they refuse to rely on others or concern themselves with others’ outcomes. Other people, in contrast, put the collective’s interests before their own personal needs, sacrificing personal gain for what is often called “the greater good.”

Nature may be red in tooth and claw, but working together with one’s group mates can be an efficient way to increase fitness. Cooperation is common, for example, among capuchin monkeys. These monkeys are not only willing to help others obtain resources, but are more likely to share with individuals who help them. Cooperation can be risky, however, and not surprisingly capuchins are much less likely to cooperate when a partner is able to monopolize the reward. However, they also pay attention to the partner’s behavior; monkeys that share with their partners promote successful cooperation, and thus actually receive more benefits over the long term than those who always claim the best rewards for themselves. The ability to recognize inequity may be a mechanism by which the monkeys determine which partners are the best collaborators. The study of capuchin monkeys can tell us quite a lot about how, when, and with whom to cooperate, perhaps providing insight into the design and implementation of our own human cooperative institutions.

Research supporting the empathy-altruism hypothesis suggests that the value assumption of the theory of rational choice is wrong. Apparently, humans can value more than their own welfare. Empathic concern felt for someone in need can produce altruistic motivation with the ultimate goal of increasing that person’s welfare. But this altruistic motivation is not always a friend of the common good. Research also reveals that empathy-induced altruism can pose a threat to the common good in social dilemmas. Indeed, in certain nontrivial circumstances, it can pose a more powerful threat than does self-interested egoism.

What is the role of the individual in the collective good? From Rosa Parks to Mother Theresa, human history is rife with examples of prosocial change brought about by individual heroism. In this chapter, we explore the importance of the individual in shaping the collective good through the lens of cultural neuroscience. Specifically, we examine how fundamental components of the social brain, including self-knowledge, empathy-altruism, and a sense of fairness and justice, have been shaped by culture-gene coevolutionary forces and how we can understand individual and collective good as by-products of these core capacities.

This chapter surveys the idea and ideal of individualism in American thought. Beginning in the Founding Era, Daniels traces the intellectual trends that supported and critiqued individualism. Focusing on the key moments of debate and contention over individualism and its role in shaping American life and institutions, the chapter argues that an authentic individualism found its place at America’s Founding without a full theoretical justification. Over the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, critics of individualism bemoaned its baleful effects and sought to replace Americans’ commitment to it with a defense of collective action. In the middle of the twentieth century, individualism found its most ardent champion and a renewed debate about the term began. Daniels argues that a full understanding of the idea is possible only through this survey of the contours of how individualism has been understood and debated in our history.

This chapter examines the metaphysical, epistemological, ethical, and political implications of two opposite approaches to the organization of human society: individualism and collectivism. Individualism asserts that every individual is sovereign and grants the right of every individual in society to pursue his or her own rational self-interest without violating others’ rights, whereas collectivism advocates the subordination of the individual to the group. True individualism has yet to be realized, for even in contemporary societies that stress its ideals, individualism is increasingly compromised by the intrusion of collectivistic premises. It is argued that collectivism results in a dystopian society like that described by the philosopher Ayn Rand in Atlas Shrugged.

Anthropological theories of elites (leaders) in traditional societies tend to focus on how elites can be viewed as helping the community at large. The origin of elites is cast in functionalist or communitarian terms (viewing societies as adaptive systems). A minority opinion argues that elites were not established by communities for the community benefit, but emerged as a result of manipulative strategies used by ambitious, exploitative individuals (aggrandizers). While the communitarian perspective may be appropriate for understanding simple hunter/gatherer communities, I argue that elites in complex hunter/gatherer communities and horticultural communities operate much more in accordance with aggrandizer principles, and that it is their pursuit of aggrandizer self-interests that really explains the initial emergence of elites. This occurs preferentially under conditions of resource abundance and involves a variety of strategies used to manipulate community opinions, values, surplus production, and surplus use.

Not all civil wars are equal in damage to the collective good. Responding to Lenin’s invitation to compare his war with the English Civil War, this chapter examines the impact of leadership on the level and nature of violence. It sorts out three common problems, the captive monarch problem, mutiny, and protecting noncombatants, and examines the consequences of the diverging choices of Lenin and Oliver Cromwell. The general argument is derived from the logic of delegation and Machiavelli’s individualist analysis and advice. As the author of The Princ. knew, a leader’s beliefs and management style have a substantial impact on the course of events. His analysis suggests that events are explained by a combination of motives and opportunities. His advice is that effective leaders must be willing to use deception and unaccountable violence. Lenin followed his advice but did not subscribe to his analysis of political change. Cromwell followed his analysis, but not his advice.

The primary principle in the Hippocratic Oath—“seek to do good, but do no harm”—is a useful way of summarizing the ideal ethics of philanthropy, illuminating both the goals and the dilemmas of philanthropic leaders. This chapter explores how both parts of this ethical commitment can be applied to the essential yet risky work of philanthropists, including donors, volunteers, and nonprofit organizations. Questions about the good and potential harm done by two prominent philanthropic organizations—the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation and Teach for America—are reviewed in depth, along with other examples. The challenges of seeking to advance a vision of the public good through philanthropy are discussed, and a detailed list of types of potential harm is presented. Practical suggestions for how philanthropists can minimize harm conclude the chapter.

How and why do people become actively involved in doing good for others and for society by taking action to respond to social problems? Such involvement in social action can take the form of participation in volunteerism and philanthropy, community groups and neighborhood organizations, and social activism and political movements. In this chapter, I draw on coordinated programs of basic and applied research that help to explain why some people become involved in social action, what sustains their involvement over time, and the consequences of such action for individuals and for society. Then, in concluding remarks, I note the relevance of this research for social policy issues of affecting individuals and society, as well as possible contributions of the social sciences to the functioning of society.