The question of what, if anything, is owed to a community by a thinking person is a pressing one. In an age where it is easier than ever to reach out to other humans, and also to become educated, due to the prevalence and accessibility of the internet, there has never been a more pressing time to discuss the issue.

There are several philosophers, and, in fact, superheroes and politicians, who provide marvellous answers concerning the duty of the thinking individual. The thinking individual has a duty to their community, and the debt can never be paid in full. It is the responsibility of thinking individuals to educate people in their community, which in the modern day, extends globally. Socrates is the first philosopher to be examined, followed by Soren Kierkegaard. Spider-Man and Pierre Elliott Trudeau will be examined next.

For Socrates it was not a question of whether or not a thinking individual had a duty to his community, but rather to what length a thinking people should push themselves in aiding their fellow citizens. With Socrates, there didn't seem to be a limit. A thinking individual owed it to his community to question everything, and to make sure that others were being engaged. Not even the threat of death should stop the thinking individual from performing his duty, as Socrates forfeit his life to demonstrate.

Socrates was exceptional in his perseverance and determination with educating his fellow man, and believed god had charged him with the task of educating others. This led to his strong conviction with educating his fellow citizens, which would not even be broken by the threat of charges or death. Socrates explains how he wanted to educate citizens to become wisest and best:

“That is what I did. I tried to persuade each of you to care first not about any of his possessions, but about himself and how he'll become best and wisest; and not primarily about the city's possessions, but about the city itself; and to care about all other things in the same way.”

Socrates did not understand how these men did not see the good he was doing for the community.

The fact he was not well-accepted by his fellow citizens did not dissuade him however. The topic of becoming an outcast, or at least having to sacrifice greatly to helps others, will be discussed at great length when Kierkegaard is examined.

Socrates saw his impending death as something that would do more harm than good to his city. “You may be sure that if you put me to death – a man of the sort I said I was just now – you won't harm me more than you harm yourselves,” he said during his trial. This quote does not simply define his position in regards to the amount of good he was responsible for. The statement also demonstrates the sincerity with which he approached life, and the general education of himself and his fellow man. Socrates did not mean any harm with his questioning, and was quite sincere with his attempt to do good. As we will see later, when superheroes are discussed, intentions do not often save one from being on the wrong side of public opinion.

Socrates' intentions are further expressed in his response to the punishment of exile, which he brings up as a possible punishment that he could never serve. In discussing exile, he also discusses the manner in which others view his attempts at performing good as something negative:

“If I say that to do that would be to disobey the god, and that is why I can't mind my own business, you won't believe me, since you'll suppose I'm being ironical. But again, if I say it's the greatest good for a man to discuss virtue every day…on the grounds that the unexamined life isn't worth living for a human being, you'll believe me even less.”

At this point, Socrates discusses how god has charged him with the duty to educate others, how he is often misunderstood or seen as a negative force in the community, and how he knows few people believe him when he suggests the unexamined life is not worth living.  He can not allow himself to be exiled, as he is performing god's work, but he also realizes no one will believe him when he claims he is following god's will. After trying to explain how he is performing his duty to the community, and failing to persuade the jury, he is sentenced to death. After he is sentenced, he has some more sincere, if not slightly mocking, words for the jury.

“When my sons come of age, gentlemen, punish them by harassing them in the very same way that I harassed you, if they seem to you to take care of wealth or anything before virtue, if they think they're someone when they're no one. Reproach them, just as I reproached you: tell them that they don't care for the things they should and think they're someone when they're nothing.”

The snarky nature of his comments should not undermine the meaning behind them. He sincerely hopes that there is someone around to question his children as they grow up, in the manner he questioned people. He sincerely wants to make people the best they possibly can be, and he feels his approach is a good one. Therefore he hopes someone pushes his children in the same manner he pushes others. The fact that he is using his limited time to address the public to discuss this matter should also be noted, because of its sincerity.

It is worth briefly mentioning Aristotle's belief regarding virtue being attainable for everyone. We will see a contrast with Kierkegaard's views, which will be discussed shortly. Aristotle believes the “best state” will be one in which virtue or “excellence is a mean,” which will be attainable by everyone. Therefore he believes that in the best state, virtue will be attainable by everyone. This is obviously an idealistic perspective of what a state should be, but the important thing to note is that he believes eventually virtue will be attainable by everyone. It is uncertain whether or not he means virtue in the same manner Kierkegaard does, but it can be assumed that he does.

At the time of Aristotle's writing, there was not the distinction between regular virtue and the higher virtue, which is discussed at length by Kierkegaard. Kierkegaard does not believe true virtue is attainable by everyone, and his arguments are more geared towards the separation of regular folks from the “thinking” folks. That being said, Aristotle is obviously not talking about the lower form of virtue when he is discussing it, and more easily fits into the higher virtue discussion.

Kierkegaard's concept of “double danger” adds an interesting element to the discussion. The first part of this concept is that humans must “overcome the natural selfishness and simple inertia that push us towards the satisfaction of our own desires when those desires conflict with the good of others.” The second part is that humans who have undertaken the first danger must also “put up with being abominated almost as a criminal, insulted and ridiculed.” Furthermore, he argued an individual who wishes to be truly good, and in doing so rise above the ordinary level of moral virtue, must accept the negative reaction from others. C. Stephen Evans summarizes it, “We may admire saints at a safe distance, but an actual encounter with heroic selflessness is likely to disturb us.”

According to Kierkegaard, a thinking individual owes the community an existence in which they may be seen as an abomination by their fellow citizens. This is a fairly harsh judgement from him, but something that is not uncommon in history, or even fiction. Kierkegaard's “double danger” concept is seen clearly with Socrates. He was too just for his fellow citizens, and was simply too good, it would appear. Therefore, he drew their ire, so much so, that he ended up dying by their hand. Those familiar with superheroes will see the concept of “double danger” quite clearly with the earlier days of Spider-Man.

The Spider-Man comic series has a famous saying: “With great power, comes great responsibility.” The line is told to Peter by his Uncle Ben early in the series, and resonates throughout the entire series.

The concept was also used heavily in Spider-Man 2 (the film). Peter Parker, Spider-Man's secret identity, is frequently forced to sacrifice his own happiness in favour of his duty to the community. He often forgoes chances at love and happiness, or even a regular life in general, so that he may aid his fellow citizens. He is often criticized in the Daily Bugle for his efforts, despite how heroic they are. These criticisms match up with Kierkegaard's concept of the second danger perfectly. In the presence of one so heroic, J. Jonah Jameson, the editor-in-chief of the Daily Bugle, is disturbed and therefore tries to bring Spider-Man down. Spider-Man has not been forced to drink Hemlock yet, but that is not for a lack of trying on Jameson, or some of the other villains' part.

One might argue that a superhero is far removed from the 'thinking man' we are debating in this paper, but I disagree. The thinking man has an extraordinary gift, which allows him to help people in a manner regular people are unable to. Superheroes have super-powers, or are blessed with superhuman abilities at least, which allow them to perform public duties regular humans could not generally perform. In both cases, the individual is responsible to their community, because they are able to help where others might not be.

This duty may not be something that is natural for humans. In fact, judging from the works of Socrates and Kierkegaard, it would seem it is quite unnatural for humans to behave in such a good manner. Humans are more likely to try and disgrace, or even kill, someone who is attempting to behave in such a good fashion. For the last section of this paper, Trudeau's beliefs regarding international aid will be discussed.

In his recent book While Canada Slept, Andrew Cohen discusses Trudeau's outlook on foreign aid. “Trudeau was intellectually committed to foreign aid,” he says. “Having travelled widely in the Third World, he understood the obligation of the rich to the poor.”

Whereas Socrates focused on benefiting his fellow citizens of Athens, and Spider-Man generally focuses on his city as well (with the occasional saving-the-world event thrown in for good measure), Trudeau was a global thinking man. I'm not suggesting Socrates wasn't universal in his philosophical discussion, but his scope of impact was limited to Athens during his life. Trudeau chose to focus on international aid, as he lived in the modern day 'global village.' Trudeau speaks of the importance of international aid for the countries receiving the aid, but also the positive effect doing good has on the giver (which is a bit of a contrast with Kierkegaard, no doubt):

The social, economic, and political betterment of any man anywhere is ultimately reflected in this country. Unquestionably the concept of international assistance is appealing because it is one of the most uplifting endeavours in which man has ever engaged. But we must never forget that in this process Canadians are beneficiaries as well as benefactors.”

Trudeau's view is that performing good deeds helps the giver, as well as the receiver. This is a direct contrast to Kierkegaard's “double danger” concept. However, both men agree that there is a duty to perform good actions when one is capable of doing so. Both would also agree that the thinking man should educate others, just as Socrates did.

In the end, Socrates, Kierkegaard, Trudeau and Spider-Man all agree, in principle and often in action, that good should be performed whenever it is possible. The thinking man has an obligation to his community to help make the members of their community as wise as possible, and to help make them the best human beings they can be. This is a responsibility that falls on every thinking person, in every community, and to push it aside would be an act of evil.