Society vs Nakama

Which is more important to you? Remaining fair, just and loyal to your society/government/nation as a whole or specifically to your Nakama (including your family, if applicable)?

Sure, the ideal is to have both, but if you had to choose, which would it be? Let's assume the following scenarios:

• Society is right; your nakama are wrong. (Ernest Hemingway: "It is the proper office of a friend to side with you when are in the wrong; nearly anyone will side with you when you are in the right.")
• Society is wrong; your nakama are right. (Carl Schurz: "My Country, Right or Wrong; if right, to be kept right; and if wrong, to be set right.")
• Both are wrong.

On each of these scenarios, which would you choose?

---

For myself, I'm fairly sure I lean toward the government. If the government is right or wrong, I'm on their side—although I'd probably try to work against the flaws in the system. Even if I failed at that, I'd still side with the law. Even if my Nakama were completely in the right and declared me a traitor, I'd side with the law.

edited 1st Dec '10 1:56:01 PM by KingZeal

I don't really like the concept of equating society with government, but in any case, I suppose you can say I value individuals over the masses.

Helpful Scripts and Stylesheets here.

Both are wrong, sometimes... I find myself siding with common society in certain manners, and with a select few on others. Occasionally, both will agree.

It's kind of situational, really.

Happiness is zero-gee with a sinus cold.

Shouldn't you weigh each situation on a case by case basis according to who you theoretically objectively believe to correct, rather than basing your moral decisions on predetermined loyalties?

Furthermore, I think Guantanamo must be destroyed.

^ Basically what I said.

Happiness is zero-gee with a sinus cold.

I don't owe either of the two any principal loyalty. I'll be the first to dopeslap a buddy if he subscribes to behaviour which is in my opinion stupid and not worth the risk, thus enforcing society's mores. However, if he has a valid reason for violating any written or unwritten rules, to hell with whatever the uninformed masses might think or do.

Edit: Ninjas stealing lines.

edited 1st Dec '10 3:11:57 PM by InsanityAddict

I know what you said, sugar, but 'platonic' still entails a world of ideas.

I go case-by-case as well. My bias is towards not being mean, so that generally favours individuals. I don't really have "nakama" though.

Helpful Scripts and Stylesheets here.

Another vote for case-by-case. (Then again, I am of the opinion that true friendship means also calling your friends on their shit when they do bad things. And the same applies to society as a whole: Loyalty doesn't mean blind loyalty. And people are more willing to listen to those close to them than strangers.)

The owner of this account is temporarily unavailable. Please leave your number and call again later.

For clarification - nakama is my friends and people I've promised loyalty to. Friends, kin and liege.

• Society is right; your nakama are wrong - depends on exact situation. There are certain wrongs which would cause me to lose all respect for a person and thus no longer consider them my nakama - rape, torture, murder (in absence of sympathetic motives), bullying and general abuse For the Evulz, anything to do with human trafficking, hate crimes. In this case, they are no longer my nakama and I'm siding with society against them. But then again, even if some of those actions are supported by society I'll still be against them. Anything less than that - I am on nakama's side, no matter what the law says.
• Society is wrong; your nakama are right - I stand with my nakama.
• Both are wrong - stand with nakama. If I did not consider them more right or less wrong than most people, they wouldn't be my nakama to begin with.

edited 2nd Dec '10 12:06:26 AM by Beholderess

If we disagree, that much, at least, we have in common

Neither, both are capable of doing something reprehensible enough for me to disown them.

I lean heavily Nakama, mostly because I don't trust society or its leaders worth a damn. But I also accept that it is, at least, somewhat situational; I'd Take a Third Option of Morality, which is what I judge everything else by. My Nakama have to work a lot harder to breach my Morality, and I'm not totally certain my love could ever do anything to cause me to reject her, but in the end, even they are subject to my Morality.

It depends. If I know my friends care about me and willing to support me through and through I go for Nakama.

Basically, both society and nakama are held to the same standard, but one gets to choose worthy people as nakama while society is given and thus much less likely to be worthy. Besides, nakama had demonstrated qualities you find admirable, concern about your wellbeing and willingness to return your loyalty, while the same cannot be said about society. So, all other things being equal, nakama gets the benefit.

edited 3rd Dec '10 5:25:59 AM by Beholderess

If we disagree, that much, at least, we have in common

"Neither, both are capable of doing something reprehensible enough for me to disown them."

If someone wants to accuse us of eating coconut shells, then that's their business. We know what we're doing. - Achaan Chah

Another thing to consider.

• Is my nakama loyal to me? If it is indeed a nakama, then it is
• Is state, society or law loyal to me? They aren't. My well-being does not mean anything to the state. I am a statistic, a number, less than nothing. They won't hesitate even for a moment about using, discarding and replacing me.

So, most of the time nakama is more deserving of loyalty, for they are loyal themselves.

...And, honestly, the notion of betraying those who would die for you because state, to which you and your loved ones are nothing and which won't take heavy risk in order to help you said so is...scary.

If we disagree, that much, at least, we have in common

As a general statement, society can go fuck itself.

Fight smart, not fair.

I'd side with my nakama. They are my nakama for god sake! They mean more to me than anything. Nakama isn't a for simple friendships or allies, It's a term than indicates bond on level with those of love without the intimacy.

Those who would take the side of society over their nakama never had a nakama to begin with and don't deserve the right to use the word!

'Those that break the rules and regulations are scum. But those who abandon their comrades are worse than scum. If I'm going to be called scum either way, I'd rather break the rules! '

This is the most coherent I could make this post in my current state of emotions, it be an Under Statement to say this issue is close to my heart.

[[User Banned]]_ My Pm box ix still open though, I think?

Anyone brought up False Dichotomy, yet?

Or do I misunderstand the OP?

I spread my wings and I learn how to fly....

Many people opted for the Take a Third Option route.

But the nature of the question presumes a hypothetical situation in which two sides are mutually incompatible.

I'd go with a small group of people I trust very closely than a large group I don't trust at all.

I think most people would.

I spread my wings and I learn how to fly....

I would probably side with society if it came down to absolutely having to make a choice and my friends doing something horrible. It's not because I have any love for society, but because I'm more loyal to my principles than I am my friends in most cases. If supporting society at large would violate those principles, I wouldn't do it then either.

My choice to invoke a Lawful Neutral response (way back in Post #1) stems from a hope that there's a legal means to achieve any good. Even if that good goes against everything modern society stands for, if I'm convinced it's the right thing to do, I'd do everything in my power to change the system, not hinder or defy it. In other words, I believe in civil disobedience rather than outright revolution.

I see a drawback in the "change the system" approach— the time required to change the system may exceed the time remaining in your life expectancy. In fact, attempts to change the system may lower your life expectancy.

I can't say, as the term "wrong" has little meaning to me.

What I can say is that I perceive society as a necessary evil at best, and the term nakama seems inappropriate to describe the people in my life. My family are something more akin to allies— although my self interest has significant overlap with theirs, they ultimately are autonomous individuals with their own wants and needs. They therefore cannot be trusted completely, as the possibility remains that their interests will at some point come into conflict with my own. Only I can be counted upon to support me unconditionally. I must be prepared to part ways with everyone else, if need be. So my first loyalty is to myself, then to my family, then to those less close to me, and so on.

edited 6th Dec '10 11:04:47 PM by Tongpu

But if there aren't such means? Or, at least, it will be far too late for your nakama even if you manage to use them?

Say, there is a state in which homosexuality is illegal and punishable by death. You do not share the sentiment. One of your nakama is homosexual. Police is at their door. You have a chance to save them while breaking quite a lot of laws yourself, thus defying the state.

If we disagree, that much, at least, we have in common

This problem was a reality for many Americans during the eras before and during the "Civil Rights Movement". While many did take the militant route and try to fight for their lives, arguably the most "effective" results came about because of Dr. Martin Luther King's practice of non-violent civil resistance. I don't know if I'd have the courage or strength of will to do as he did, and continue to promote peace even after his house was bombed or his friends and family beaten, but the practice seems far from hopeless.

Anyway, as for your question: it would depend on what saving their lives would involve. There are lengths I would go to to save them, and lengths that I wouldn't.