At the very base of human instinct is personal responsibility, self-reliance, whatever you want to call it.
no, actually, it is not. we are born with a sense of 'connectedness', we learn separation, we learn self-reliance. interdependence is nothing to be condemned. we are highly social animals. our interdependence is innate... language is innate and its only function is connecting to others.
The reason humans evolved into social creatures probably(IMO) stems from the desire to share responsibility amongst others. It is easier for people to engage in an activity or lifestyle they are more suited to if they are alleviated from the responsibility of taking care of other tasks. Its why turning into agricultural based societies was a huge step forward. Not everybody had to forage or hunt for food anymore and people could devote time to studies of mathematics, language, philosophy and thusly advancing their societies. And for others who are more suited for other tasks, they don't have to worry about developing the new theories and ideas, and can concentrate on being the producers in society.
there is some truth in this, with a few provisos; there is no reason for any evolutionary modifications - that is like saying the rock rolling downhill has a 'reason' to striking this bush and not that one.
secondly, we did not evolve toward being social animals, or prehuman ancestors were at least as social as we are. If anything, we evolved greater independence. chimps, for instance, do not separate tasks to the extent that we do. the separation of function within a society shows greater independence, not less. (though, see african wild dogs are a contrast)
It's not to be confused with "shared burden" which implies a negative impact of shouldering more than you should, but rather a duty to the society in which you live and partake of its benefits.
this begs a qualification of 'should'. what determines what you should contribute? abstract morality aside, the well-being of the group (family, neighborhood, city, state, nation...) is probably the best answer, though we get stuck in degree, as reponsibility tends to lessen the further from the self we extend it.
as a population, it is generally accepted that we 'should' do what best benefits our population. this would be the darwinst answer too. somewhere along the way we came up with the idea of 'one for all, all for one' - the individual became as important as the group - unlike other animals, we do not walk away from those incapable of keeping up. for good or bad, that has become a human trait.
what keeps social responsibility from becoming social burden is taking the idea of personal responsibility to the highest level you can. Control things in your life as best you can and don't require unnecessary demands for society to "lift you up".
forgive me if this sounds ungenerous, but that is simplistic.
The extreme end of avoiding personal responsibility, when people who aren't producers or of a net benefit to society seek to absolve all their responsibility to the society of which they are a part of and become a net drain on the resources available.
this come awfully close to the commodification of human life - it sounds as though you would say that people are only as valuable as what they produce and give to you. that is beyond cynical and i very much hope, even expect, that you do not think that way.
Its not that society should uplift individuals, it should be that individuals uplift society.
ask not what your country can do for you....? again, as much as i admire m. Kennedy and his desire to get americans more involved in the betterment of the nation, that is a bit trite. society exists to benefit us, not the other way around.
still, society and the individuals that make it up are inseparable and interdependent. the qualities that define a culture are emergent, they arise from the culture itself, inform the culture in the directions it takes and constantly re-emerge. culture and individual lift each other up... or drag each other down.
geo.
