More on mores and laws

But laws and mores are also designed for the benefit of the "or". For what many if not most of them protect are individual rights; the right of the individual to live(thou shalt not kill), individual property rights (thou shalt not steal) etc.  Thus, social cohesion (the and) is thought to result from the protection of individual rights, the right of the individual to function with a certain amount of autonomy (the or).  It might be asked, "Did the "and" use the "or" to its benefit?"  Or did the "or" hold the "and" hostage, telling the "and" that if it wanted cohesion, it must first preserve the individual(s)? Perhaps it would be more accurate to say that here, as well as elsewhere, the two exist in a symbiotic relationship.  And we know that the erosion of individual rights (the or) often leads to the disintegration of the "and" or social cohesion.
Of course, we can't take this too far.  Laws that enshrine individual rights without recognizing any obligation to the collective may please Ayn Rand and various tea partiers but result in a society that is coming to resemble modern day America, where a select few control most of the wealth.  Rather, as in other cases, the "and" and "or" must work in harmony, and strike a balance, as set forth in my April 17 post on societal extremes.