Some people believe that in order to thrive, a society must put its overall success before the well-being of its individual citizens. Others believe that the well-being of a society can only be measured by the general welfare of all its people

How to judge the success of a society? Some argue that the overall success is the most important criteria, while some deem that the general welfare of all its people is the only measurement. Although the former seems more plausible, the overall success is usually too abstract to be an appropriate standard, so I tend to support the latter position.

People have been finding ways to evaluate the success of a society for a long time. From the gdp to HDI and gini, indicators change from time to time as the development of the civilization. Even though it has become a consensus that the economic growth cannot represent the overall development of a society, the GDP indicator is still being used as one of the most important tools to reflect the progress of a nation, since the notion of a successful society overweigh anything else has entrenched in many heads .The saying does stand to some ground. For example, America has remained the leading role in total GDP for many years, so as its comprehensive powers in culture and politic.

However, it is obvious inadequate to epitomise a big society to such a number. In order to truly understand a society, one needs to learn more about its art and science productions, the gap between social classes, as well as the subjective well being, which may be better evaluated through the perception of people about the society. Since people consist the society and have the power to choose what life they want, their welfare may be considered as the most significant impetus to the thriving society. As the GDP numbers show ,many developing countries have large total GDP, but indeed their societies are far from those of developed countries. The welfare of their people have not virtually improved, because many problems such as crimes, enlarging gaps and social conflicts arise with the rapidly developing economy.

To take the step further, in different kinds of societies the key to thriving may vary. In a totalitarian(centralized) society, leaders may put more attachment to the overall success of it, such as the speed of economic growth, the increasing of science products, or how does the nation weigh in the international society . While it is almost different in a more democratic society. It does not mean that the democratic societies ignore the overall success of a nation, but they just put the welfare of all people in the first place. Since they have a mature election system, the citizens have the power to pull down the president if their life were not improved. Contrast to the Soviet Union which devote all resources to the national defense and military power which were seen as the symbol of a successful nation, the US held on to its democratic system, raising the general welfare of all its people while still racing with its rivalry during the cold war. From this case, it is clear that the total well-being of a society cannot be simply measured by the appearance of its superficial success, but rather by the improvement of general welfare.

In conclusion, I agree with it that in order to thrive a society, one needs to look more into the welfare of all its people instead of the overall success of it. Indeed, the two are not contradictory--the overall success, which contains various aspects of life, inevitably includes the welfare of all its people.