Modern Society’s Dilemma: Individual Differences in Ability and the Relativity of the Social Environment
Morality and economics are based on individual abilities and the social environment. Individual abilities vary from person to person, and the social environment changes with time and region.
Therefore, there is a relative relationship between morality and economics, and the social environment and individual abilities.
In this article, we will look at morality and economics from that perspective. From there, when we think about the strategic mechanisms of the progress of morality and economics, it becomes clear that there is a dilemma between the divisions that have become keywords in modern society and the progress of society.
Individual Differences in Moral and Economic Abilities
I do not like quantifying abilities such as IQ or EQ, but unfortunately, it is a fact that there are individual differences in emotional and intellectual abilities.
I believe it is better to act morally in the sense of improving human relationships and making life easier for oneself.
Also, living in a materially rich country with various social systems in place, I have lived thinking that if I do not have high expectations and do not compare myself with others, I can lead a sufficiently rich life, more than the minimum healthy and cultural life.
In that, there must be blessings of my intellectual and emotional abilities. I was at the bottom of the class in physical strength and athletic ability at school, so I am glad I was not born in a time or place where physical abilities are evaluated.
Conversely, imagining the opposite, there must be people who, due to individual differences in emotional and intellectual abilities, feel it is difficult to live or have difficulty acquiring wealth.
Of course, emotional and intellectual abilities do not determine all of one’s ease of living and economic wealth. Other elements such as luck and personal choices should also be considered. However, the influence of emotional and intellectual abilities cannot be ignored.
Relative Moral Environment of Society
Also, it is important to consider not only individual differences but also the social environment.
If, as depicted by Hobbes, we were thrown into a combative society in a natural state, a so-called survival-of-the-fittest society, acting according to our modern morality would be fatal.
In such a situation, it is impossible to expect the utility of morality, and we can only rely on our abilities without trusting anyone and always follow realism. It becomes necessary to defeat, deceive, and use others if the opportunity arises because the other person is thinking the same way.
On the contrary, in modern society where laws are well-established and public order is maintained, it is rational to act morally.
Some laws are strongly linked to morality, and violating them will result in significant penalties. Even if you do not violate the law, if you harm someone, you will be sued for civil compensation. Initially, if you always suspect others and try to secure a dominant position whenever there is a chance, it may only torment yourself and those around you.
In other words, for moral thinking and actions to be effective, a certain level of moral environment in society is required as a prerequisite. And if the moral level of the social environment is high, moral thinking and actions in line with it become rational.
In that sense, I think that emotional ability is not the ability to be kind to everyone and get along with everyone in any situation. Emotional ability is the ability to sense the level of morality in the social environment and show flexibility in making appropriate moral judgments.
Inhomogeneity of Social Moral Environment
Even if we live in the same society, I think there are differences in the level of social morality that each person feels. This includes individual differences in perception, but primarily because the moral environment of society is not homogeneous.
The baseline of the social moral level is provided by the strength of the law and its compliance mechanisms. On the other hand, the level of morality in the social environment has a self-reproducing aspect.
In places where many people trust social morality, a certain level is maintained. On the other hand, if many people doubt social morality, the level will decline.
This makes the moral environment of society inhomogeneous.
In real society, it is important to understand this inhomogeneity. As a life strategy, it is wise for many people to devise ways to place themselves in a social environment that matches their criteria.
Economic Environment of Society
Next, let’s focus on the economic environment.
If the whole society is materially wealthy, and the social welfare system to redistribute this wealth is well organized, even if an individual’s economic ability is not high, they can enjoy a certain level of material wealth.
At least in terms of absolute wealth indicators, being in an economically and institutionally advanced country already puts me in an advantageous position. Even with the same abilities, if I were born in a country with low material wealth, I would never have been able to acquire the same wealth.
In this way, like morality, the level of social wealth affects individual wealth.
Also, like morality, there is inhomogeneity in the social economic environment. It is easier to acquire wealth by placing yourself in a wealthier environment within the same society.
An example of this is the way urban families think about choosing a school for their children. Normally, it is believed that schools attended by high-achieving students have lower environmental risks in terms of morality and a higher likelihood of heading towards a better economic environment in the future.
Relativity of Self-Responsibility
So far, I have mentioned that there are individual differences in mental and intellectual abilities, and the level of moral and economic environment varies by society and even within communities in a society.
The level of the moral and economic environment of a society determines the threshold of abilities required from an individual.
In any society, there will always be people whose abilities do not surpass this threshold. For these people, a safety net is necessary in society. Also, for abilities that can be developed, it is desirable for society to provide support and training to develop those abilities.
On the other hand, if an individual’s mental and intellectual abilities surpass this threshold, that individual is, fundamentally, responsible for themselves.
Surpassing this threshold means that, by making full use of one’s abilities, desirable choices are possible. Regardless of one’s abilities, if one makes the wrong choices, it is natural to miss opportunities and lose something. Therefore, it is required to properly utilize one’s abilities, develop them if necessary, and make the right choices.
Of course, there are elements of luck as well. Even if one has the ability, a safety net is needed for those who are unlucky.
If possible, situations where people whose abilities surpass the threshold cannot demonstrate their abilities should be prevented. Before rescuing with a safety net, it is important to provide social support that enables such people to confront their own lives.
Also, it is necessary for society to take measures to reduce the abilities required by individuals concerning morality and economics. For this, cooperation from people who have room in both mental and economic aspects is needed.
Respecting individual choices is important, but it does not necessarily mean that we should immediately adopt a self-responsibility theory. As demonstrated, there are many things that society can and should do.
Moral Discourse, Methodology for Wise Living
Considering individual differences in abilities and the levels and heterogeneity of the social environment, understanding and consideration for individual differences are necessary in discourses that encourage morally correct attitudes and methodologies for wise living.
When recommending a certain moral act or way of thinking, some recipients may be in a social moral environment where it is impossible to practice it, or their mental abilities may not surpass the threshold. If the proposed morality does not reach such situations, it would be harsh to criticize them.
Famous people often make popular statements on how to behave wisely in economic activities. However, it is natural that there are people who can easily do it and those who find it difficult. There may be know-how valuable even if everyone practices it in morality, but it seems rare in the economic world.
If everyone behaves wisely, it often ends up being a zero-sum game economically. Therefore, from the beginning, it is a game of musical chairs, and it is a bad move that will inevitably bring a negative impression to society to label those who could not get a seat as foolish.
With this perspective, I think the key to creating a more comfortable society for many people is to make an effort to properly understand the complexity of society.
Strategy of Morality
It is possible to fill the individual differences in mental abilities by the level of the moral environment of society. Also, the moral norms of participating individuals will feedback, and the level of the moral environment of society should change. Moreover, it is important that there is know-how valuable even if everyone practices it in morality.
Based on these premises, the following moral strategy can be established.
First, find and list know-how valuable even if practiced by everyone in society. This is the categorical imperative mentioned by Kant.
Next, those with high mental abilities will practice it. People with high mental abilities can sense the moral level of the social environment and practice morality accordingly.
Here, the point is to practice morality at a slightly higher level than the current moral level of the social environment. If it is too distant, it will be difficult to practice, and not only will the first practitioners struggle, but the followers will not be able to keep up. It is not strategic to demand the practice of saints or Buddhas in a low moral level environment.
By this step, the moral level of the social environment will be partially raised. Utilizing the environmental change created by the top group of mental abilities, we will encourage the practice of morality in the middle layer of mental abilities. If this goes smoothly, the moral level of the social environment will be raised as a whole.
This may enable the practice of the subsequent layer of mental abilities, but there will be limits. Basic and easy moral practices are possible for most people, but it will become more difficult as the level increases. Raising social acceptance for such situations is a challenge that society must consider separately after the moral level of the social environment has risen.
Once this stage is reached, the top group of mental abilities can start practicing the next level of morality. In this way, we will gradually raise the moral level of society.
This is a strategy that can be practiced not only in the entire society but also in the heterogeneity within society. If you want to strategically raise the moral level of a group, you need to include a certain percentage of members with high mental abilities in the group. Then, within the group, cultivate the culture of morality step by step according to the steps mentioned earlier.
Rising Level of Social Environment
Looking at the steps of moral strategy mentioned earlier, one can see that it is similar to economic strategy.
First, highly capable individuals lead the way, followed by the middle class, and eventually involving the trailing groups in terms of ability. This model suggests that by repeating this process, the level of the social environment in terms of economics and morals will gradually improve.
Moreover, when a certain level of economic and moral wealth is achieved, new problems arise when trying to move to the next level, which is another similarity.
As the level of the social environment rises, even though the highly capable leading group may achieve it, the middle class struggles, and it becomes an insurmountable situation for the trailing groups.
In such a case, a system is needed to accept the trailing groups as a society, but if too much is demanded, dissatisfaction arises in the leading and middle groups. Then, social pressure to improve the abilities of the trailing groups increases, leading to the emergence of social dilemmas and divisions.
As advancements continue, only the leading group progresses, and the middle and lower groups cannot keep up, leading to dilemmas and divisions between the leading and middle groups, making society increasingly complex.
This is a territory unexperienced by human society, in both economics and morals, and this dilemma and division must be recognized as a contemporary new issue. While the theories and logic from the initial stages of economic and moral development are important as a foundation, new mechanisms for problem-solving are needed.
In Conclusion: Perspectives of Society and Individuals
I have always liked the motto from the Three Musketeers anime I watched as a child, “One for all, all for one.” I even think that this principle is ideal for society.
As much as the situation allows, society should respect individuals, and as much as possible, individuals should consider society.
To me, this seems obvious. In a small community, such an atmosphere will naturally be created.
There is often a debate between individualism and collectivism. It is natural that the debate cannot be resolved if both society and individuals start from the same perspective.
Social norms are defined by law, and in Japan, the spirit of basic human rights, namely the dignity of the individual, is enshrined in the constitution. On the other hand, individual norms depend on culture, and I think that the Japanese culture of harmony, cooperation, and caring about public appearance can be considered as a good example of balancing the individualism of the law.
Of course, there is plenty of room for improvement as it often leads to negative aspects when taken to the extreme. However, I believe that we fundamentally have a relatively desirable cultural infrastructure.
And instead of measuring equality with a ruler, we should focus on fairness that considers the unevenness of the social environment and the abilities and circumstances of individuals. From the perspective of social norms, this is the concept of the veil of ignorance proposed by John Rawls, and from the perspective of individual norms, it is the concept of humanity in the Japanese language.
Even if rights and opportunities are equally provided, paying special attention to insurmountable differences due to luck or ability and providing special support to maintain fairness is a basic condition for a prosperous society.
