At the level of the whole, the individual can only have an "abstract" goal of "spontaneous order", and cannot have other "concrete" goals. And why the understanding of concepts such as society, civilization, the rule of law, and virtue must be based on the "theory" of economics.
The interests of the individual depend to a large extent on a "society" characterized by spontaneous order, because a society characterized by spontaneous order will constantly promote the interests of the individual. Therefore, "spontaneous order" is the only goal that the individual needs to have at the "whole" level, and of course, it is also an abstract goal. If the individual has other specific goals, such as the maintenance of a particular institution (e.g., statehood, religion, culture, etc.), then this specific goal will conflict with the "spontaneous order". Because in order to achieve a specific goal, it necessarily means sacrificing the need for spontaneous order. At the expense of spontaneous order, the general increase in individual happiness is sacrificed. For it is the spontaneous order that promotes the happiness of the individual, not the order under a particular system. For individuals in a society, they can only choose between "spontaneous order" or "order under a particular system". It's a choice between prosperity and poverty.
From this perspective, we can also re-understand the conflicts in today's world. If the pursuit of specific goals replaces the goal of spontaneous order, spontaneous order is undermined and conflict ensues. In the case of taking spontaneous order as an important goal of one's own, cultural differences, institutional differences, and so on do not create conflicts in themselves. Conflict occurs only when the goals of spontaneous order are replaced by these goals, so that the rules that preserve spontaneous order (meaning law in the true sense of the word) are replaced by artificial rules (which are necessarily made to achieve a specific purpose).
In this way, we can also re-understand Western civilization. If we understand the society that was the first to achieve universal prosperity and prosperity in history as "the West", and recognize that spontaneous order is the only way for a society to prosper, then we will recognize that the essence of Western civilization is spontaneous order, not a specific culture, religion, system, and so on. Some conservatives, as well as Max Weber and others, have made the mistake of grouping the essence of Western civilization into specific cultures (religions).
Like the philosophers we criticize, perhaps everyone can define concepts such as civilization, the rule of law, and virtue according to their own "understanding", but this "understanding" is necessarily arbitrary and has nothing to do with the question of the existence and prosperity of society (the question of civilization). It is only with the help of a "theory" (economics) about the existence and prosperity of society that the understanding of concepts such as civilization, the rule of law, and virtue is not arbitrary, but can be determined and accurately understood from this "theory", which will also contribute to the existence and prosperity of society (spontaneous order).
How people "understand" society will "produce" what kind of society, "society" is shaped by people's understanding (action), and it is also the means by which individuals achieve their own ends. Therefore, the understanding of society, including the concepts of civilization, the rule of law and virtue, cannot be arbitrary. This is because if society is not "understood" in terms of economics and its conclusions, the "principle of spontaneous order"—the theory that makes social existence and prosperity possible—then this "understanding" will not produce a prosperous society. In other words, if we want to have a "prosperous" society (civilization), then we must understand society in terms of the "theory" (economics) that makes this prosperity possible. If, on the other hand, people understand society in terms of other theories, but at the same time they want to have a prosperous society, then this is bound to be the opposite of the truth.
Therefore, economists who grasp the principle of spontaneous order should have the most say on "society" and concepts such as civilization, the rule of law, and virtue. Regrettably, however, the notions of "society" constructed by historians, philosophers, ethicists, etc., as defined by historians, philosophers, ethicists, etc., have been taken for granted. On these issues, they dominate. Since they are ignorant of "economics", that is, the theory of why society exists and thrives (spontaneous order), it is naturally impossible for them to understand the concepts of society and civilization, the rule of law, and virtue on the basis of this "theory".
In other words, the ideas created by these thinkers do not have the "theoretical" basis described above, and therefore they do not lead to actions that produce a prosperous society. Of course, the masses themselves are "economically impoverished," which means they also lack the ability to question these notions. As a result, they will accept this idea, not to mention that they think that "people have always thought this way". Therefore, one of the very difficult tasks of economics is to correct people's understanding of the concepts of society, civilization, the rule of law, virtue, and so on, and to use the theory of economics to reshape people's understanding of these concepts, so that it is possible to have a society characterized by the continuous expansion of spontaneous order.
Economics is a theory of division of labor and cooperation, and therefore of "society". This theory forms the basis for understanding civilization, barbarism, the rule of law and virtue, among others. Prosperity is only possible if society is understood in accordance with this theory. Therefore, economics constitutes the "meta-theory" of civilization formation, which must become the basis of a social consensus, otherwise civilization is hopeless;It must be a "scientific guide" that guides a society towards modernization, or it will go the other way.