So, here: if we approach this principle from the point of view of «the life owners», then humanism is the exclusive right of the latter-day «navels of the earth». They do not accept any restrictions, nor even calls for moderation in the spirit of the attitude towards «rational egoism». «Mine is mine, and yours are mine too!» The case of Clovis lives and wins! Let even common sense and humanity itself prevail.
But there is another point of view: the priority of public interests over personal ones. In my «work» I slipped exactly to it, unintentionally, of course, through carelessness. And did not want: it happened. But, if objectively, outside of my «accident»: it «has the right on equal rights» with rival. Moreover, today the rights of this point are preemptive. Willingly or unwittingly, I myself make them so, giving them an advantage.
Like a sweet dream, I see a reverse perspective! Oh, I would not consider my identity through the prism of society! Not to contact him even through good deeds, because they all have one way out: «sideways and always to the benefactor. Better it will be so: «mine is mine, and yours is yours!» – in the sense of «your problems». And do not ship me a question about the relationship between the individual and society! I agree: even there, abroad, today have already «fed up» with their former priority. Understanding, that the public is above the personal, is now universal. That is, the individual must make room, and if she does not want, then press her. And even oppress. And this is in the mainstream of universal understanding too, even under ritual spells about human rights.
So what I have, to whom and what to refer to. In case if this will be necessary. I am not about the judgment of man, and even not the Last Judgment: the judgment of his soul. So far with this business is the order: we «reached an understanding» with a friend. And if I condemn myself for anything, it is solely for the absence of indifference, saving and beneficial one, elixir of life and peace of mind.
Hence is my point of view on the question: do I, the individual, need to compromise personal for the sake of society? And not only to compromise, but to stand up for the one, who supplies me with some problems? Isn’t it easier to turn on the defensive reflex: «I see nothing, hear nothing, say nothing to anyone»?! And I, as a person, would not associate with society, if not other «personalities». Unfortunately, I am a different person myself. Not average, but social activist in misfortune.