Social structure is an imposition, but by definition one that ‘should’ be imposed, meaning by the origin of the meaning of “should” in the co-evolution of the social with our language.
This co-evolution is catalyzed by our mind’s higher order perceptions, which now equally co-evolve. Mind and perception themselves emerge via and imply a society of modules in mutual, naturally-selective discourse, for example inside our brains but it applies generally (Society of Mind [M. Minsky], Neural Darwinism [G. Edelman], Consciousness as Fame in the Brain [D. Dennett], non-anthropocentric, transhuman version of the ‘Publicity of Sense’ [Wittgenstein: “Philosophical Investigations.” (1953)]); all thought is inter-subjective, this puts Wittgenstein’s ‘private language’ arguments in the proper perspective.
Language and perception/mind are thus not just social, but in a sense doubly so, from above and below. ‘What should I do’ depends on whether the whole social structure is harmonious.
In other words: Via the emergence of all these distinctions (like mind versus perception), which is partially being created by accidents (like when different languages collide or merge) that are then naturally selected and shaped involving such macro-evolution struggles of survival as the market of memes, it is that imposed social structure ‘should’ be for the ‘good’ in a ‘harmonious society’. Of course, also by definition, as long as any individual participant doubts to be in a harmonious society, it is not harmonious. Am I in a harmonious society or, for example, do my powers of rationalization and self-deception make me claim so?
Take four ingredients toward a conclusion (UPDATE - look - this is alpha-meme - i.e. on the next level - if you think that I am on the childish level where one would seriously propose ingredients to get a happy-happy-joy-joy society, you are very very wrong - of course there is no harmonious society - it is an assumption toward an argument):
1) Doing according to desire is what we do anyway, even if we desire to suffer for some greater good which we may enjoy thinking to be thus part of.
2) Complexity makes it impossible to anticipate the long term consequences of decisions, say the decision to do the morally correct instead of following my desire.
3) Evolution theory as guide toward what can in general be anticipated: Flight evolves by systems doing something like flying. A system where we do what we desire evolves by doing what we desire.
4) Self-Consistency of Final State: A harmonious (~ evolutionarily fully integrated) society’s structure is by definition ‘well’ imposed, as it is desired by all participants (systems) involved.
These let me conclude that: Doing according to desire is consistent with being in a harmonious society, and thus, only aiming for such consistent harmony by doing according to desire, presenting this behavior as the environment which the rest of society must adapt to, can be expected to likely evolve a harmonious society – all other shortcuts like revolutions or charity have likely unintended consequences anyway while additionally hindering sustainable smooth integration into a harmonious super-organism.
The ‘good’ system, almost by definition, ‘should’ mainly be concerned with its own desires.
Desires are the direct and indirect source of suffering. Immediate gratification can leave you overall unsatisfied. Some desire to control and shape their own desires (Schopenhauer’s “Elimination of Will”), but end up frustrated due to this meta-desire being a moral responsibility rather than a will to power. We ‘should’ enjoy whatever we do or not do it.
Humans are nature’s robots. In terms of the ability to suffer/desire, human suffering implies that AI/robots can suffer, which implies at least a rather continuous scale (if not total applicability) of suffering, and thus that animals suffer. If the rescue of a tribe from the murder by a nation, for example, ‘should’ be done, we should completely intervene into nature, where evolution stabilizes such disturbing social structures as male ducks usually gang-raping mother ducks (and natural as well as ‘supernatural’ killing machines like cats).
Ducklings eaten while their mother gets assaulted by horny males
All ‘back to green’ approaches are callous Speciesism; nature must be completely replaced with green plastic if going green is to be ethical. Here yet again comes the idea to switch nature off to make the world a better place. But we belong to nature.
Would a harmonious future society desire to stop all suffering (i.e. desire) and thus commit what could be called ‘Global Suicide’, thus reaching full harmony at last?
The answer to the Fermi paradox lies in the Zen monk’s calm disengagement. He is human, so he will rise to eat his meal and he fears suicide. An advanced future society may be more rational and smoothly transition into nirvana.