When asked, do individuals have a greater obligation to themselves or to their society, the answer to that should be, yes. There can be no society without people, and it is up to each person to help with the continuation of that society. On the flip side of the issue, if a society is growing itself at the expense of its individual citizens, there can be no justification for the continuation of that society. As an alternative to either choice, both individuals and the society they live within could choose a new path, one based on the idea of act-utilitarianism. In this type of society we would weigh our acts of right and wrong by placing intrinsic value not only upon ourselves, but also of those around us who would be affected by our decisions.

In a society such as this, no act would be considered deontogical, with the implication that an act is always right or wrong under any circumstances; instead actions would become teteological, in that they would change according to each situation in which they were encountered towards a purposeful end. In this culture, no person could be a personal ethical egoists, in which only the person themselves matter, regardless of the consequences or how great the intrinsic pleasure they were to gain. Each person would be required to weigh not only the personal benefits of an action but the effect such action would create in regards to those around them.

Societies based on Hedonism had a glimmering of understanding of this concept, but they only went to the extent of individual’s priorities, not to the society as a whole. Although they did stress prudence in all activities, by explaining the “hedonist paradox”, you cannot have a stable society when it only thinks of the pleasure it can obtain individually without taking the whole of society into account.

To create such a society, individuals would need to understand the basic principles of utilitarianism, that each standard or rule applies to an individual or action would be based on the implied assumption that this action would increase the general populations happiness, or decrees unhappiness. With this basic principle in place there would then be a relativity of morals, there can be no absolutism in any rule or standard, because everything depends upon each situation as it occurs. This does not imply that there can be no wrong or injustice, for any act that would increase the general or personal misery of another, could be deemed “wrong”.

Each person would then become a moral agent and be held fully responsible for every action, while also realizing there could be no deviants when there are no absolutes in this culture. Keeping this in mind, all individuals must have some form of moral consciousness which is to be used to base whether an action is positive or negative, and society as a whole would be responsible for keeping in check those that do not have the ability to differentiate between an act that is positive or negative for the welfare of the general population.

This does not however mean that people will not suffer minor and in some cases major discomfort in there lives, when weighing the positives of the whole against the wishes of the individual. An example of this would be, if a person commits an act of violence against another, the person committing the act would be held accountable for their actions, resulting in having their personal happiness, i.e. the ability to continue beating on another, restricted, with the possibility of incarceration due to their actions, to keep the general population safe. While this person’s general unhappiness is increased due to being restrained from an action that hurts another, the general population’s happiness increases due to their personal safety and welfare being protected.

Since each action is weighed not as an absolute right or wrong, but based on the general welfare there would be fewer restrictions on individual actions. As an example, you may drink all you want, you may even drink yourself to death, since you have freedom of personal choice for your life, but if you get behind the wheel of a vehicle and endanger others by your actions, society has every right to stop you and hold you accountable for your actions. The ultimate rule of thumb would be: you may do anything you want up until the point that your actions infringe upon another, in other words, your freedom of movement ends where my nose begins. The population thereby experiences a more stable and equitable living arrangement through only restricting actions that affect another person, since anyone can do as they deem fit as long as they are not disturbing the safety and well-being of others.

Rule-utilitarianism can then be used as a standard for actions, although there are no absolutes, it can contain guidelines. It can help you determine whether an action is a positive or negative based upon the compiled evidence in which a situation occurred. Even though all situations are different, they can be similar to some extent, and then when all the alternatives are explored you can decide upon the correct course of action. When action can not be thought out so carefully, an individual’s actions will depend on previous experience and common sense. Most people have done this on a daily basis all their lives without ever thinking about it, the only difference would be, each person would be asked to consciously think about problems on a bigger scale. Although the guidelines set up by rule-utilitarianism are not absolutes, to be followed exactly all the time, but can be thought of as helpful “traditions” on which to better guide individuals to the positive course of action.

There is one major drawback to an act-utilitarianism culture, while in general most people are ethnocentric, as defined as individuals looking out for the well-being of society, the flip-side to that is often people will become stagnated in their actions and what once was considered nothing more than a guideline or tradition can harden into a steadfast, non-changing rule. For a society such as this to survive, there must continue to be a fluidity of thought and a willingness to change as circumstances change. Stressed at all times in this culture would be the acceptance of new thoughts, ideas and actions as long as they are not destructive to the whole of society.

Taken as a whole though, the culture created with these actions and tolerances towards the individual, while always keeping the good of the general populations in mind, could far exceed the current governing skills that are now in place in most societies. Since society would have to be treated as a whole, not a just based on individual wants, needs and beliefs without regard for the harm it would cause, there could be no discrimination or division based on ethnic, sexual, religious or social barriers, since by doing so it would bring down the intrinsic wellbeing of not only the individual but of the society as a whole. With personal freedoms at its maximum, yet with safeguards in place for society as a whole, it would enable personal growth, safety and freedom as yet undiscovered in our attempts to govern ourselves.