If a Society Is to Thrive, It Must Put Its Own Overall Success Before the Well-Being of Its Individual Citizens

In order to tackle the question of whether one should be made to conform to the society or the vice versa we must first define what is a society. Society is the the framework for a progressive developtment of the human kind. Laws and regulations are set to deter infractions and penalise the perpertrators. But as the common precept goes; laws are meant to be broken. Individualism and belief in self takes unaccepted elements for judgement by the society and the society is made to empathize and consequentially, change in laws. Thus we are faced with a dilemma whether to the society's interests before the individual's interests.

let us first listen to both the cases before judging. In order for a society to thrive it must set it goals. The first and foremost aim of societies will be protection of its members. For achieveing this aim or any other, it must define the right and the wrong. So the wrong are penalised and deter future occurrences. Thus the members must conform for the good of the society. Otherwise the society will move around only in circles and only anarchy will prevail. Obviously, the effects of anarchy needs no elaboration.

But can one define rules applicable forever. Can a city in the USA define the rights and wrongs for a city in India? No, for infinite reasons. Similarly a present society cannot decide and finlaize for itself in the future. In fact overall success of the society itself cannot be clearly defined. For a business man overall success will be in monetary terms but for a scientist it will be interms of advancement in science. And if you decide to include the interests of both these and others then we must include that of the non-conformist too. Thus the circle is complete and we can infer by this logic that non-conformity or individualism has the right to prevail. So why are you making it so difficult for yourself in trying to conform. History has proven that many laws that society wrote was changed after and they are accepted as the just decision now. A law that wil prevent someone from enfranchising because of race is absurd now. Here, credibility goes to the non-conformists.

Now that we have heard both the cases let us come up with a solution to break this conflict. Conformists' assert that Rules and regulations must be defined and enforced is valid so that anarchy is prevented. Individualists' evidence that what we define as wrong has a possibility of being right tommorrow is also valid with history itself supporting them. But history also shows that each society has listened and empathised in the past. Laws were changed when it was appropriately taken up with governing bodies. The people in charge are listening to the voice of the society. For example: Presidents have begun to include controversial words like 'gay' and 'lesbian' in there victory speeches. So we conclude that the rule books stay and all those offenced are asked not to lose heart but to fight