Annotation 3: On relationship between society and individual

 On Liberty is a book written by John S. Mill. The main idea of this book is to elaborate and approve the value of human freedom and rights. There is a chapter which called "Of the Limits to the Authority of Society over the Individual". In this chapter, the author talked about the relationship between individual and society. First, he admitted that some parts of individual in life belong to society, and others belong to him or herself. A person absolutely has individual rights and interests. As they don’t hurt the interests of other people, an individual’s rights and interests can have an inviolable space to work. Many people want to get maximal benefit. However, this sometimes may bring harm to other people. For example, a person wants to play karaoke at night. Unfortunately, this act breaks the silence of others. His or her neighbors won’t appreciate it and that is not correct. Before exercising right, a person has to make sure that people around him or she won’t suffer any inconvenience or harm.

  Even though the individual rights and interests are important for a person, it doesn't mean that people can be an egocentric who only cares about him or herself. The selfless contribution from individual is needed by society. Every public matter or development needs many individuals’ participation. In this way, the society can gain maximal interests. Besides, an individual who lives in society has the obligation to return the favor to it in any ways. Actually, everyone in society gets much benefit from it. A person may be protected by society or enjoy the use of the contribution from other people, such as public facilities. A person doesn’t have to pay and also can make use of them. Therefore, returning to the society is an individual’s obligation. Unless a person can live without any connection with other people and can live totally by him or herself without other help, like a hermit. He or she doesn’t have any obligation to anyone but to self.

   The author of On Liberty not only argued the importance of individual freedom and rights but also revealed the principles about dealing on individual and society. Society should respect individuals. However, individuals also have responsibility to society. John Mill talked about this topic from moral angle. I think this relationship is not only about moral issue but also nature instinct. Humans are social species. Helping each other is the way that people solve their real-life problems. Self-sacrifice is a form of help; it includes spending individual time, energy, property, life, and …so on. Some people may question the necessity of individual sacrifice for the society. Indeed, there are some personal interests with public interests appearance. However, a matter relates to genuine society’s interests needs many individuals’ participation or devotion. If a person ignores the society’s trouble, it may finally come to him or her. Moreover, if a person furthers the public interests, he or she may get the return in some ways.

Source:
http://www.utilitarianism.com/ol/four.html

Annotation 1 (Revised)

    According to the author's opinion in the composition, individuals' rights should be protected. However, if the individuals violate the interests of society, the latter one should be concerned first. Every individual definitely has his or her rights and freedom. Nevertheless, there is a prerequisite that a person must not do harm to the well-being and safety of other people, or he or she will be considered giving up the rights that a normal person originally have. People shouldn't always take care of individuals' rights and ignore the whole.

    In present world, everyone lives in a big society. It is impossible to live without any connection among other people. In other words, everything a person does may bring about some influence to the people around him or her. Some influence may be nothing. However, some may cause serious problems among people. When the conflict between individual and society relates to fundamental rights or public interests, things will be more complicated. In the composition I mention, a boy committed a crime and his rights might be deprived. It seemed like the punishment or cost after his crime. But, if a person, or people, who didn't commit any crime, suffering the threat to basic rights from society, what's going on? In the case of Wen-Lin Yuan(文林苑), Wang family’s house was planned as urban renewal area. They refused that. They hoped their house could be removed from the renewal area. However, the construction company didn't agree with it. In addition, there were thirty six householders who were willing to cooperate with renewal plan and moved out. With the deadlock between Wang family and construction company, the whole plan fell into difficulty. Those thirty six householders waited for several years and had no houses. Later, Wang family's house was pulled down, and the urban renewal kept going. In fact, there was no one got benefited in this case. Every individual has right of habitation. Nevertheless, Wang family's and other householders' right were all violated.

    The Wen-Lin Yuan(文林苑) case proclaims that the dispute between society and individuals. Everyone just wanted to defend their rights and interests. Who was wrong? Who was right? Or the laws and policies had problems right from the word go? In normal condition, there is no free benefit. For the society's well-being and safety, individuals have to pay or sacrifice sometimes. This is inevitable. It is not only building new houses for inhabitants but also furthering public safety (fire prevention and renovation of public facilities). In my opinion, take the thirty six householders in Wen-Lin Yuan case for example, they gave up their habitation rights and remove out. However, they knew they would get new houses. There are some intersections between society's and individuals' interests. After all, under the common situation, individuals can't just live for his or herself and have to contribute for the society if necessary.

Source: Kozlov, J. (1997). Society's rights should often take priority over individuals'. Retrieved October 22, 2013, from http://www.dukechronicle.com/articles/1997/06/19/societys-rights-should-often-take-priority-over-individuals

Reflection 1

Group Reflections

1. Tony and 朱品晶 : 

    This group wanted to do about human flesh searching. They wanted to find out a point that the two members can fight each other. However, it was difficult to relate it to political issue. Their argumentative point was can human flesh searching be included in formal legal system. Professor asked every student in the classroom to give them some suggestions and thoughts. I brought up my thought that the police can do the things like human flesh searching nowadays, such as search IP. Actually, I was not sure what they really wanted to fight each other. They just couldn't find a key point to solve their problems. Later, my partner told them the innate character of human flesh searching by a case in reality. Professor also tried to guide them to a feasible way by giving some examples or theory, such as Mikhail Bakhtin's carnivalesque theory. After all, I wished they can clarify their ideas and topics and understand what they should do.

2. Knot and Robert:

   Your annotations 2 were focused on the influence of ECFA on Taiwanese economy and some industries. I think this is a discussible issue. In fact, I sometimes doubt of the efficacy of this policy. You can find more information about the standpoint of every trade nowadays. It can make your next presentation more persuasive.

3. Phoebe and Niki:

   You want to do some research about show girl and study some theses from college of communication. I think your topic is interesting. Both your annotations 2 have strong standpoints. I sometimes wondered which the main character is for the customers in an exhibition. Products? Show girls? You can quote the points of businessmen, show girls, customers, and the critics.

4. Vivian and Lisa:

   Both your annotations are persuasive and well organized. Your resources are very professional. I always can learn many things from your works. Your topic really draws my attention and arouses my reflection on corporate social responsibility. I look forward to your following works and presentations.

Self Reflection

5. Tim Cheng and Tim Kuo:

   My partner said that he would read some theses from a graduate institute of building and planning. He will still fight my opinion. As for my plan, I wanted to read John Stuart Mill's On Liberty. There is a chapter which is named "Of the Limits to the Authority of Society Over the Individual". I hope I can get something in this chapter. The title totally related to my topic. I focused on the examples of the conflicts between individual and society in my previous works. In the following works, I wanted to read some theoretical stuff. Actually, I tried to find out the crux which behind the conflicts.

Annotation 2 (Revised)

The conflicts between individuals' and society's interests are hard to solve. Individuals may claim that they have inviolable interests. The side of society may emphasize its priority. No one is willing to make concession easily. How to gain the most interests and lessen violation to both sides? The article points out that the solution to this kind of conflicts is communication and empathy and finding the balance between society and individuals. Basically, I think there is no one is willing to lose his or her interests. The best situation is everyone gets which his or her want and has no loss. Individuals have innate interests that no one can violate as the article says. People establish society and its norms to bind everyone together. Therefore, they will follow the norms which often relate to maintaining and gaining public interests.

Generally speaking, society's interests don't come into existent groundless. It must have some foundation to form it. This foundation just comes from individuals. For example, if people want to manage the garbage collection, they may establish the correlative rules that people can only throw out their garbage in fixed sites and time. Discarding garbage arbitrarily is inadmissible. The cost of this action is inconvenience to individuals. They have to go to specific sites in time instead of anywhere and any time. That is a restriction, and even a sacrifice of rights and convenience. On the other hand, this measure brings a clean public space. You won't see discarded garbage everywhere. It's not only for society's own good but also individuals'. Everyone shares the public spaces. Sometimes there are some people don't obey the rules. After communication and education, this insubordination disappears gradually.

    Of course the interests are desirable. However, they are not free. Sacrifice is usually necessary no matter what the type is. The problems are how much the cost of a society's policy decision and how much individuals can sacrifice. It can be nothing or a matter of life and death. Society's interests may mean many individuals' interests. When the majority and minority fail to meet each other and want to defend respective interests, the conflicts start. The minority may surrender to the majority. Also, the latter may give way to the former. After all, sacrifice is inevitable. Thus, finding out the extent that both sides can accept by negotiation and empathy is very important.

Reference:

Hsu, R.J. & Chen, A.C. (2012). 左右看: 如何解決個人與群體利益衝突。Retrieved November 4, 2013, from

http://www.lihpao.com/?action-viewnews-itemid-118390

Annotation 2 Transcription

I think individual have to sacrifice for the society if necessary. In the present world, most people live in groups, such as family, society, or nation. People know they can gain more strength when they get together. They can do more things that a single person can’t do. But, as the time goes on, the group will grow bigger and more complicated. To manage and solidify it well, a common goal and norms must be established to maintain the order and the public interest. That’s the typical form of a society. We must have the experience that our parents or teachers…they tell us that we have to be a useful person for the society or we have to contribute for other people. It sounds like we have the responsibility for the society not only for ourselves. In other aspect, such as garbage collection, we have to throw out our garbage at specific place and time. We can’t just throw out our garbage anywhere, such as road, and stairs. Or we will be fined. It may be inconvenience for individual, but it can bring clean environment. And this is not only for the whole good but for individuals’ good. But… because the public interest doesn’t come into existent groundlessly. There must be foundation for it. It comes from individual restriction. We can’t do anything we want to do. We… have to think about others.

     In my annotation 2, I cite a column from Taiwan 立報(Lihpao Daily). It talks about Wen-Lin Yuan (文林苑) case. Everybody knows that a Wang family’s house was dismantled. And they fought for their right of inhabitation. But there were thirty-six householders… they agreed with the urban renewal and they moved away and their old houses were dismantled. They wanted for the new houses. But, because of this case, they couldn’t come back their home. And they didn’t know when it would end. Actually, I think the public interest is composed of many individuals. And fighting for the interest is human’s nature. No one is willing to lose the rights or interests. So when the majority and the minority fail to meet each other. The conflict will start. But, I think the problems are why we sacrifice our rights and interests for the society. Because it will finally gain our individual interests, so we help the society and it will help ourselves.

Annotation 2

   The conflicts between individuals' and society's interests are hard to solve. Individuals may claim that they have inviolable interests. The side of society may emphasize its priority. No one is willing to make concession easily. How to gain the most interests and lessen violation to both sides? The article points out that the solution to this kind of conflicts is communication and empathy and finding the balance between society and individuals. Basically, I think there is no one is willing to lose his or her interests. The best situation is everyone gets which his or her want and has no loss. Individuals have innate interests that no one can violate. People establish society and its norms to bind everyone together. Therefore, they will follow the norms which often relate to maintaining and gaining public interests. However, society's interests don't come into existent groundless. It must have some foundation to form it. This foundation just comes from individuals. For example, if people want to manage the garbage collection, they may establish the correlative rules that people can only throw out their garbage in fixed sites and time. Discarding garbage arbitrarily is inadmissible. The cost of this action is inconvenience to individuals. They have to go to specific sites in time instead of anywhere and any time. Every individual shouldn't throw out garbage as his or her will. That is a restriction, and even a sacrifice of rights and convenience. On the other hand, this measure brings a clean public space. You won't see discarded garbage everywhere. It's not only for society's own good but also individuals'. Everyone shares the public spaces. Sometimes there are some people don't obey the rules. After communication and education, this insubordination disappears gradually.

    Of course the interests are desirable. However, they are not free. Sacrifice is usually necessary no matter what the type is. The problem are how much the cost of a society's policy decision and how much individuals can sacrifice. It can be nothing or a matter of life and death. Society's interests may mean many individuals' interests. When the majority and minority fail to meet each other and want to defend respective interests, the conflicts start. The minority may surrender to the majority. Also, the latter may give way to the former. After all, sacrifice is inevitable.

Reference:

Hsu, R.J. & Chen, A.C. (2012). 左右看: 如何解決個人與群體利益衝突。Retrieved from http://www.lihpao.com/?action-viewnews-itemid-118390