This gets my joker levels up. it assumes that all people are willing to participate in the game of society and it's moral dictates but this rarely ever the case such as in the case of the shut in, the indifferent man who is very often apolitical, uninterested in the qualms of society. In consideration of the fact that these are the down trodden masses we come to the realization this leaves us only to politically interested people who have a stake in the game be it by risk of family, wealth or opprotunity to play the game of life, but this then creates another point. How much of their power actually matters? This question rids the masses and leaves only the elite kleptocratic class ruling for their own gain in a decentralized society following a false aversion of powers, in a common narrative world.
It's also dubious how true that is.
Human being are social animals and can only exist within a society. If you take a baby and put it in the woods, come ten years it won't and can't be human. That inevitablly means that a person's ability to affect or guide society is based on their socilization within society in the first place– making the entire concept of society self determining.
So as a starting place, there is an intrinsic amount that humans can affect that environment. There is perhaps room for change and the ability to enact it, but it's not infinite and practically speaking, it's highly unlikely. At best, you can act and try your best to drive soceity one way or the other, but unless you are the 1% of the 1%, there is practically very little you can do to make any substantial change as an individual. On a large scale, the concept of individual exceptionalism is pointless, and even the most exceptional is constained at birth.