 |
| |
|
|
Lorizael
|
 |
The Cult Wins
Sep 2001
time: 00:13
|
|
What differences between people do you speak of? You talk about differences in sex (I assume you mean sex when you say men and women as opposed to gender) but this is, at it's core, a difference in reproductive systems. Sure, there are certain physical differences, but almost all of the other differences are brought on through the environment we live in based on our society. They are not real differences.
Neither are differences in nationality real. The people are still human, no matter where they herald. And to seperate them into different groups will eventually lead to discrimination because it is very difficult to have all of the groups being equal in power.
There is a question that must be answered before you can arrive at the answer to a perfect society. The question is, "What is happiness?" Without an answer to that question, it is impossible to determine what will benefit the most people.
There are only three things that people absolutely need for survival, and one of those two needs isn't quite absolute. People need substinence. That is a must for survival. People also need to healthcare of some type. Because no matter how good someone's nutrition may be, a person can still become sick. And people need, given our environment, shelter for survival. Shelter, while not necessary for survival, practically eliminates the dangers of predators or weather.
Since humans are also social creatures, we require relationships, social interactions, in order to be functioning members of society. Yes we can live without relationships, but we would only be a drain on society without these.
Therefore in a perfect society everyone should have shelter, health, food, and everyone should be have social interactions. The problem with this is that you cannot force "good" relationships on people. You can provide food and shelter and healthcare, but you cannot provide friends. All that can be done in this situation is to create an environment in which everyone has the opportunity to create relationships and where everyone has the opportunity to seek help with their social interactions.
Those, as far as I can tell, are the only things necessary to be a functioning member of society. In otherwords, a person who is content with life and who betters humanity through the actions the person takes (has a job, that sort of thing).
But is having food, shelter, good health, and friends all that is necessary for happiness? People also want and desire luxury items. Jewelry, playstation, or whatever it is they may want. Are these things necessary though? I definetely think that recreational items are beneficial for humans, but are they a must have?
If these things are not required, then a perfect society would simply be a communist state where everyone wants the communim. A state in which everyone has all that they need and these things are produced by the people or by the state itself.
If luxuries are in fact necessary though, which I think they are at least to some extent, how should one then go about distributing these to people? To simply give everyone all that they need and desire would require something akin to a replicator that never ran out of material with which to produce items. This may not even be possible.
But if not everyone gets what they want whenever they want it, how do you achieve equality? Capitalism may be an excellent method of creating a powerful economy, but it leads to large gaps in society which are not acceptable. You cannot have a world with seperate groups of very successful and very unsuccessful. Even if the poorest have all that they need, the rich would still have power which the could use to exploit others that do not have power.
I don't have a perfect society, not yet. Not until I figure out what happiness is. Until then I just have the *looks up at rest of post* rather long ramblings that spill forth from my head. Too lazy to proofread.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Stefu
|
 |
CLOWNS WIT DA DOWNS 4 LIFE YO!
Jan 1970
time: 07:13
|
|
Snappy's plan requires bit too much social engineering to be truly beneficial. Not to mention that it runs into problem of being ran by humans instead of angels: For instance, quotas always have the problem that they, when effect is achieved, aren't so easy to remove, considering the benefits they provide to one group and how that one group would be ready to protect the said benefits. And things like public funding and stronger anti-discrimination laws... tools in the hands of politicians, powerful tools in hands of easily corruptable.
quote:
Just have them sent to the gullags |
The "we'll send you to gulags/you'll be hanging from lampposts" speech by commies always reminds me of habit of certain right-wing Americans to utter things like "Kill them all and let God sort them out".
quote:
The question is, "What is happiness?" Without an answer to that question, it is impossible to determine what will benefit the most people. |
The way I see it, happiness of one person consists of getting things he wants and achieving his personal goals. For instance, we all are happy when we have food and shelter - we might not say things like "Golly gee, this shelter thing sure is sweet", but take them away, and we'll soon show how much we want them. Then there are more personal wants and needs. Some people are happy when they are occasionally administered a spanking, others would be most unhappy about that. Many of wants conflict with other people's happiness. People shouldn't be allowed to pursue their want of killing people even if it makes them happy, because it would make other people *very* unhappy, and thus would result to less happiness, generally. The thing is to find a way to satisfy people's wants as best we can while continuing to run a functioning society.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Akka
|
 |
In front of my computer.
Nov 2001
time: 06:13
|
|
quote:
As the title tells, I'm something of an utilitarian. Greatest good for greatest number - the utility maximization - has always seemed to me to be the best way to conduct the society - and your own life, too.
Of course, all people aren't utilitarians, and many of these utopists have other moral codes as basis of their utopia.
|
How can you talk about "greater good" if you don't already have a moral code that make the difference between the good and the bad ? 
Well, I can go further in the "utilitarian idea".
My first perfect society would be to have everyone killed. Then, no more suffering, no more troubles. That's a win.
My second perfect society would be Matrix-like : everyone locked in a nourishing cell and living in a virtual world, not knowing what the reality is. Of course, the computer that generate the world in which each people live will analyse their wishes, and then each one would have his perfect little utopia, so everyone will be at the pinnacle of happiness.
So you will have the perfect society, because everyone will be happy about the world he thinks he lives in.
Then the computers can let the humanity die as each human reach the end of his life. After all, nobody is aware that humanity is dying, so no problem, the "overall happiness factor" is still perfect. You can also note that, like the previous one, this society is perfectly stable, no one can trouble it or make it fall.
It's just so dumb to mix mathematics and moral question, reducing the "good" to the mere sum of standard of living of people...
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Stefu
|
|
CLOWNS WIT DA DOWNS 4 LIFE YO!
Jan 1970
time: 07:13
|
|
quote:
Difference is though Stefu, I don't actually mean it |
Hah. Neither do most of those right-wingers.
...
Many of those right-wingers.
quote:
How can you talk about "greater good" if you don't already have a moral code that make the difference between the good and the bad ? |
Well, I define "greater good" as "more happiness", and I defined happiness above.
quote:
My first perfect society would be to have everyone killed. Then, no more suffering, no more troubles. That's a win. |
Most people, in fact almost all of the people, have this wish of not getting killed. Having this wish broken against would make them -most- unhappy. Also, while minimization of suffering is important to utilitarian, it's only as means of achivieng maximization of happiness. In post-everybody-gets-killed world, there's no more suffering, but no more happiness, either. Thus, negative effect would be acheived, and that's not remotely utilitarian.
quote:
My second perfect society would be Matrix-like : everyone locked in a nourishing cell and living in a virtual world, not knowing what the reality is. Of course, the computer that generate the world in which each people live will analyse their wishes, and then each one would have his perfect little utopia, so everyone will be at the pinnacle of happiness.
So you will have the perfect society, because everyone will be happy about the world he thinks he lives in.
Then the computers can let the humanity die as each human reach the end of his life. After all, nobody is aware that humanity is dying, so no problem, the "overall happiness factor" is still perfect. You can also note that, like the previous one, this society is perfectly stable, no one can trouble it or make it fall. |
Now, the second one is more problematic. Still, this is not really utilitarian. For one thing, most people still want to live in real world, and again, we shouldn't really go against this wish. As technology progresses, there doubtlessly will be opportunities for people to start living in fantasy world. And if they want to, who are we really to stop them doing so? We just have to tell them the risks.
Your scenario also involves humanity dying out, most likely because computers wouldn't allow people to breed. Well, if for some weird reason this would be required for entrance in computer world, then that's for humans to decide, too. Most people have an evolutionary want for humankind to go on, and wouldn't so readily sacrifice the species.
And, of course, the system could break. People would be shocked back to real world. The shock would likely break their psyche or even reduce them to vegetable level. How utilitarian.
Still, if we could have theoretical system which provides life without danger and with our every wish fulfilled, and system wouldn't break down, and we could breed if we want to, then why the hell shouldn't we take it? It's just some kind of primal urge to cling on to "real" life. If I was completely sure that the machine wouldn't break or start getting homicidal, and I'd have the choice to plug out if I want to, then I'd hook myself up, certainly. Wouldn't you?
quote:
It's just so dumb to mix mathematics and moral question, reducing the "good" to the mere sum of standard of living of people... |
What's mathematics in it? Terms might be a bit clunky, but basically, utilitarians just want everyone to be happy. Looks a better moral system to me than the other options.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Akka
|
|
In front of my computer.
Nov 2001
time: 06:13
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Stefu
Now, the second one is more problematic. Still, this is not really utilitarian. For one thing, most people still want to live in real world, and again, we shouldn't really go against this wish. |
Put then in the fantasy world without them noticing it (chemical stuff in their food to make them asleep, then put them in the machine, ie). Then there wouldn't have any trouble due to protests.
quote:
Still, if we could have theoretical system which provides life without danger and with our every wish fulfilled, and system wouldn't break down, and we could breed if we want to, then why the hell shouldn't we take it? |
We already have lots of way to die without pain. Why don't we suicide immediately ourselves ?
quote:
It's just some kind of primal urge to cling on to "real" life. If I was completely sure that the machine wouldn't break or start getting homicidal, and I'd have the choice to plug out if I want to, then I'd hook myself up, certainly. Wouldn't you? |
Never, rather be dead meat than dead mind.
quote:
What's mathematics in it? Terms might be a bit clunky, but basically, utilitarians just want everyone to be happy. Looks a better moral system to me than the other options. |
Maths are a simple addition. Morality is principles. Harming two people is not worse than harming one, what make one thing worse is the morality of the action.
Practical example : two people want to kill me. I don't want to. I have to fight and I kill them, or I don't and they kill me. If we're mathematics, then it's better for them to kill me (one dead) than for me to kill them (two deads). Though, morally, it's unacceptable.
So talking about "average" or "addition" or anything like that is futile when you come to principles, which are what make a society.
|
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:13.
Apolyton Time is 00:13. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
04-05-2002 23:46
.
?
|