Justice @ Rhodes

In considering the implications of a social system which recognizes the obligations of solidarity as equally relevant in our decision making as voluntary and natural obligations and duties, we begin to solve some of the problems we have with an increasingly independent and individualistic society. If individual agents conceptualize their existence as entirely self-defined, they fail to grasp the breadth of responsibility we have for our own existence.  Although we are born and die alone, our existence is defined by forces over which we have no control. Thus, in defining your own existence, it is imperative that you recognize the constraints and benefits you enjoy as members of communities with varying degrees of influence on your life. At some point, we must rank and identify which of the obligations of solidarity hold more weight, but without recognizing them in the first place, we lose the ability to discuss or conceptualize them when dealing with moral choices involving varying degrees of obligations, or voluntary or natural duties.

When examining the weight of obligations of solidarity, the separation of the actual weight of the emotional consequences and the logical social systems that attach us to certain individuals in certain ways is imperative because it allows us to distinguish between conflicts and objectively evaluate the problems we encounter. We may recognize that we have an emotional connection to a certain individual, but recognize that based on our value systems, we may choose to harm or fail to help that person in order to achieve a greater good.  When we establish reasoning behind our value systems, and fully recognize the external and internal forces in play in such decisions, we are able to make objective choices, despite finding our individual emotional attachments running contrary to the choice we have made. The fighter pilot refused to bomb his own village, because he felt a stronger sense of duty to his immediate family than his national duty. This is a reasonable decision, both emotionally and logically. Yet if he had bombed the village, he could have still claimed himself subject to the conflicting obligations, but as having made the decision that the good of his country was greater than the negative consequences he personally may have felt in violent assault on his home.