V: I think most of the problems stem from a change in cultural values that reflected a nation grateful that it had survived and triumphed in WWII, despite many painful sacrifices, to one wherein the individual feels entitled to do what he/she wants.
L: I see self-actualization as a positive cultural value. It's only a problem when accompanied by disregard for others, the whole, or the future. It is the latter that damages the commonweal, not the former.
V: (new) I agree with this. What I see currently is the disregard for others, the whole, or the future as being the value that is in the ascendency. I speculate that not having a universal requirement to serve the nation has helped in the ascendency of this negative value.
V: The concept of shared sacrifice is no longer there.
L: As for sacrifice, see no value in sacrifice unless there's no alternative. Making sacrifice a societal ideal seems depressing and defeatist to me. The better approach IMO is to value community smarts and vitality so as to obviate necessary sacrifices to the greatest extent possible.
V: (new) The nation was born, more or less, and preserved, more or less, within the framework of this concept--shared sacrifice. The value is that the individual cannot exist, in meaningful way, without the framework of values that the community and nation provide. Defending the nation is everyone's job. We are all equal in that regard. Implementation of this policy would align the professed ideals with reality. Service takes the individual out of his/her melieu and makes him/her part of a larger concept (not to mention out of their physical milieu also). Those individuals are then imbued with an ethical framework in which to return to the community and imbue it with their smarts and revitalize it. Yes, we have a meritocracy, but all individuals must serve the common good first for the good of the whole. |
