
“Man is born free, and everywhere he is in chains.” – Jean-Jacques Rousseau
Here’s a scary question: do you owe anything to the world simply because you exist within it?
Are you obligated to contribute to society, or is your life your own to live as you wish?
The Push and Pull of Obligation
Society is, in many ways, a collective effort. Roads are built, laws are enforced, and the wheels of commerce and culture spin because millions of people do their part.
This cooperation creates an implicit social contract—one that seems to demand your participation.
But how binding is this contract?
The benefits argument suggests that you owe society because you benefit from it.
From education to infrastructure to healthcare, you have reaped rewards that others’ labor has enabled.
This isn’t just a philosophical abstraction; it’s real. If you’ve ever driven on a paved road or received a vaccine, you’ve been a participant in this vast system.
But there’s a flip side.
Some argue, as Rousseau might have, that these benefits come at a cost: freedom.
Society expects something in return—be it taxes, labor, or moral participation.
And this expectation can feel like a chain, especially for those who dream of a life that doesn’t fit the mold of “productivity.”

Is Free Riding Always Wrong?
A common criticism of those who choose not to contribute in conventional ways is that they’re “freeloaders.”
But consider this: What if someone doesn’t need much from society?
Suppose you live off your own savings or earn just enough to support yourself by playing video games or pursuing an unorthodox hobby.
Does this make you a drain on others?
The fair play argument would say yes. Even if you’re not directly harming anyone, you’re benefiting from a system that others work hard to maintain.
It’s like attending a potluck but never bringing a dish. Over time, this erodes the trust that keeps communities functioning.
Yet, some reject this analogy. You could argue that paying taxes or abiding by laws is a sufficient contribution.
If you’re not breaking rules or actively harming society, why should anyone care if you choose a quieter, less “productive” path?
Perspective | Key Idea | Example |
---|---|---|
Benefits Argument | You owe society because you benefit from it. | Using public roads or hospitals. |
Fair Play Argument | Society works because everyone does their share. | A potluck where everyone brings food. |
Freedom Perspective | Your life is yours to live, as long as you’re not actively harming others. | Living off-grid with minimal needs. |
Consent Critique | You never explicitly agreed to participate, so why should you be forced to? | Being born into a system you didn’t choose. |
Duty vs. Desire: Choosing Your Path

Imagine a brilliant scientist who decides to become a carpenter because it’s their passion.
Society might object, claiming they have a “duty” to maximize their talents for the greater good.
But does the world truly own a person’s potential?
Philosophers like John Stuart Mill have championed individual liberty, arguing that personal happiness and fulfillment are just as valid as collective progress.
At the same time, there’s a nagging question: What happens if everyone opts out?
Would society collapse under the weight of unmet needs? This tension—between duty to others and duty to oneself—remains unresolved, and perhaps it always will be.

Historical Examples
While history often celebrates those who actively engage with and shape society, there are notable individuals who chose to distance themselves from societal expectations and lived lives that suggested they owed little or nothing to the collective.
These figures embody a philosophy of self-reliance, independence, or rejection of societal norms.
Here are some examples:
Diogenes of Sinope (c. 412–323 BCE)
Diogenes is one of the founders of Cynicism.
He rejected societal conventions, wealth, and material possessions, living in a barrel and surviving on minimal resources.
Diogenes believed in living in harmony with nature and was famous for his disdain for societal values, particularly the pursuit of power and wealth.
His life was a direct critique of society’s expectations.
Henry David Thoreau (1817–1862)
The American transcendentalist writer and philosopher retreated to Walden Pond, where he lived in a small cabin for two years, seeking simplicity and self-sufficiency.
While Thoreau did engage with society in some ways (he wrote essays and supported abolition), his experiment at Walden reflected his belief that individuals do not owe society blind conformity or participation in its materialistic rat race.
His essay Civil Disobedience also challenges the idea of unquestioning societal obligation.
J.D. Salinger (1919–2010)
The author of The Catcher in the Rye became a recluse after achieving literary fame.
Salinger retreated to his New Hampshire home, shunning public life and refusing interviews for decades.
His withdrawal suggests a disinterest in engaging with societal demands or expectations tied to his fame.
He focused on writing privately, indicating a life on his own terms, free from societal pressures.
Christopher McCandless (1968–1992)
McCandless, the subject of the book and film Into the Wild, abandoned his privileged life, donated his savings, and set out on a journey to live off the land.
His ultimate retreat into the Alaskan wilderness was a rejection of modern society and its values.
While his story is tragic—he died of starvation—his life resonates with those who feel alienated from societal structures and seek liberation from its obligations.

Bobby Fischer (1943–2008)
The chess prodigy and world champion famously withdrew from public life after achieving unprecedented fame.
Fischer rejected societal norms, spurned the chess community, and lived a life of isolation, avoiding the trappings of fame or obligation to his sport.
His self-imposed exile reflects a desire to live on his terms, without catering to societal expectations.
Herman Melville (1819–1891)
Though celebrated now as the author of Moby-Dick, Melville’s later years were marked by a withdrawal from public life.
After facing commercial failure and criticism, he lived in obscurity, focusing on writing poetry that he knew might never find an audience. His retreat can be seen as a rejection of societal validation in favor of private fulfillment.
Hikikomori Phenomenon in Japan
While not a single individual, the hikikomori—a term used for individuals in Japan who withdraw from society and live in extreme isolation—reflect a growing global trend.
These individuals, often young adults, retreat to their homes for months or years, relying on minimal interaction with the outside world. Their withdrawal is not tied to a philosophy like Cynicism or transcendentalism but stems from a sense of alienation and rejection of societal demands.
Common Themes Among These Individuals
Many of these figures share a disdain for societal conventions, a preference for simplicity, and a sense of autonomy.
Whether motivated by philosophical beliefs (Diogenes, Thoreau), personal disillusionment (Salinger, Fischer), or a desire to reconnect with nature (McCandless), they exemplify the idea that one can live a life that contributes little—or nothing—to society as a conscious choice.
Their stories provoke questions about whether we truly owe anything to the world around us or if, in the end, our lives are ours to define.
My Personal Take
When I was younger, I spent a year working a corporate job that drained me. Every day felt like a march into someone else’s dream.
Eventually, I quit, trading the promise of a steady paycheck for the uncertainty of pursuing my own goals.
Was I less “productive” in society’s eyes? Perhaps. But I was finally living in alignment with myself.
I don’t believe anyone owes society their soul. Yes, we have responsibilities—not to freeload or harm—but those responsibilities should never eclipse our inner calling.
At the end of the day, the most valuable contribution you can make is to live authentically, because a fulfilled life ripples outward, inspiring others to do the same.
Final Thoughts
The question of obligation versus freedom will never have a one-size-fits-all answer. It’s a balance that each of us must navigate, guided by our values and circumstances.
And don’t forget Oscar Wilde’s famous quote::
“Be yourself; everyone else is already taken.”
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.