Societal Maximization

What should a society seek to provide for its members? The most basic goals have to be the survival of members of the society and inducting new members into the society. Any society which can not achieve these goals will fail. (The most obvious way to induct new members is to have children, but there are successful micro-societies formed entirely from immigration, such as the Vatican.)

There are many choices beyond the basics. Some popular choices seem to be freedom; security; stability; opportunity; happiness; religious adherence; ethics; perpetuation of the power of the leader(s); support of a given ethnic group. Of course all societies have these goals and many others in different proportions, but different societies emphasize different ones. Is it possible to decide which ones are best?

In particular, is it possible to decide which ones are best if we know that different societies exist? A society which loses its members due to emigration or invasion would seem to be unsuccessful. The required security may conflict with other goals.

But if we speak too seriously about goals like survival of the society, and protection against other societies, then we are heading down the path of equating “good” with “survival,” which also pretty quickly leads us to determine that the societies which exist today are the best ones so far. Is this reasonable? Can we speak of an ideal society which existed once but no longer exists? Presumably an ideal society ought to be able to cope with natural disasters of at least intermediate scope—e.g., short of the sinking of Atlantis. Or what if the ideal society emphasizes freedom, and everybody chooses to leave?

But if survival is not the major goal, then what is? Since different societies have different ethical beliefs, how can we choose among them? If we think they are wrong, and they think we are wrong, then how can we decide? Determining the ideal society would seem to require first developing a universal ethics.