Poll: Good or Evil?

[John Galt]

I touch my cake at night.

The same time you said that.

Ouch, that one hurt.

If I ruled the world, there would be three provinces. One would be your typical freedomless safe place, one is controlled anarchy where everyone is their own country and are only bound by international law. The other one is where people are raised. They choose which place to go. Once they choose there is no turning back.

You'd turn the world into a Mummorpugor?

Now, plenty of people get board when they achieve the things they *thought* would bring them happiness, but, that doesn't say anything about happiness--that just means they were wrong about what they really needed.

I think for most people, it isn't actually achieving the goal, it is more of the actual work and effort required to earn it. Sorta like my experience with WoW. I loved playing through it but once I got to level 65, things just tapered off until Grubbles the Gnomelock died, all sad and lonely. Ironically, thinking about getting to level 65 was much more fun than actually "being" 65. When I realized this I decided not to waste anymore time on it, seeing as how boredom would swoop in like a hawk and claim my $15 a month.

 

[Kikosemmek]

That's not true though--the murder of a heretic in a fundamentalist religious society not only does not lessen the peacefulness of a society, but rather, it increases it. If you define 'part of the community' as 'harm to that thing will cause a disturbance to the whole', well, then those things to which harm will not cause a disturbance to the whole aren't 'part of the community'. They become, in a sense, out-laws, beyond the protection of the law.

That's more than just the "sacrifice a bit of liberty," don't you think? To say that you have to sacrifice all liberty except that residual left over after the legal system has been geared to assure "safety from social (murder; riots; chaos), political (war, foreign relations and trade), and economical (mass inflation/deflation of currency value; gross disparities between social monetary ranks) catastrophes"? That my right to be free from deadly violence only reaches to the extent that others "will be affected and/or harmed"?

You say abortion would be legal under such a system. However, how is an orphaned person with handicaps severe enough to keep them from ever being a productive member of society any different than a fetus? In a sense, aren't they *less* than some fetuses, which at least have the possibility of becoming productive members of society?

I guess I have serious doubts about a legal system that fails to protect those most in need of legal protection, you know?

I'll respond to each paragraph in order quoted:

I apologize for not making the fabric of the society I am describing clear. It is all based on mutual agreement and equality between the consenting and contributing members of the society. In your example, while the murder of the heretic would bring peace of mind to the religious majority, the peace of mind and health of the heretic, a consenting member of the society are forfeit, and this is unequal treatment of a member of the society, so this would not be allowed. Bigotry is left to be dealt with by the people harboring it. Whether they hate or love a type of person is no business of the law. It is their own personal matter. The business of the law in this example is to uphold the rights of every member equally.

Sacrificing liberty is exactly what's required to be a part of such society- no more and no less. You must understand that if people agree to be part of a whole that has an agenda to watch over its members equally, everyone must give an adequate, acceptable contribution, because 'equal contribution' is a debatable margin. Think of society today. Do we not sacrifice liberty to live in it? In the U.S., one under the age of 18 cannot be outside their house after 11 P.M. unless accompanied by a legal adult. This is a very small and meager example, but every law in society is a sacrifice of liberty.

What must be made clear is that to live in a society should be seen as a choice, as humans can very well support themselves in wilderness and solitude. We are not stupid and incapable, but for those who want to live together to achieve something greater than what each can do individually, sacrifices have to be made. Respect is a price you have to pay for cooperation. This is something you would hear in a high school classroom, but it is very true. If one would prefer not to abide by the rules, then they should not be part of the society. The rules, however, though their description sounds like every other fascist regime's agenda (as they all pass their legislations under the pretense of protection), would have to be agreed upon directly by all members. Otherwise, the society will collapse. With this granted, you can be sure that this type of society will not be larger than a village or a city, in most cases, because direct voting and discussions will have to be present for a rule to pass- after all, the rules must be agreed upon by the consenting members of the social body. This is a liberty we do not currently have in most republics, as those rule themselves with a small body of electives. I do not believe in such an approach, but that's just my personal opinion.

A cripple (I'm going to assume that this is a helpless person on his/her own) in this case would not be a contributing member of society, and as such cannot be a consenting member, because he/she cannot contribute to support the outcome of his/her votes. The society itself may or may not agree to legislate laws to support the crippled, but that is for the society to decide. In the case of vegetates, the same rule would be applied: if the society deems it a good solution to support them, then they'll have outside help. Should they be killed through euthanasia, it would not be counted as murder, because they are unproductive and unconsenting (whether or not they can think is not the issue, but it's whether or not they can show us they can think, and they cannot do that) members of society.

Those who are physically and mentally crippled do not need the help of the law. They need the help of family and friends. If they have none, what disorder will come of their deaths? They are not productive.

From my angle, no one is forced to be part of the society unless they request to be treated as part of the society and receive it's benefits. They must understand that to act within the whole means that they have to cooperate and contribute to the whole. If they do not agree with it, then they may complain, as all humans do naturally. No one is automatically counted as a member if they are born to members if the society, either.

The nature of the contributions can vary, as I mentioned, and some people may opt to become temporary members if they need others to help them with a task, contributing as the society asks and they themselves see fit. Going back to the cripple example- if man with no arms or legs happens to be the wisest person in the earth, then his abilities as a consultant or advisor would be invaluable, and he would then be counted as a productive member of society. Broaden your mind and accept any contribution!

This type of society that I describe is dynamic and localized. I do not find myself believing in being part of a country of millions, where my voice is not heard and no candidate seems to represent my opinions. My world is the immediate physical one that I have a living in. In fact, I'm an anarchist. I'd probably be one of those people living on the fringe of that society, enlisting and retiring as a member as I see fit, because sometimes I just don't agree with others. By my standards, it should be fine to disagree peacefully.

 

[The Reverend]

Well Kikosemmek, that kind of society, like communism, would work well in theory. Practically applying it in even a small collective of people would ultimately lead to a failure, in my opinion, due to human nature itself. Its in our nature to destroy ourselves (why do you think there's so many emo kids out there) and with the added "funbox" of the multitude of human emotions, such ideas of "disagreeing peacefully" would only last so long. After all, some people have shorter fuses than others, and there are a multitude of things that can wind someone up and ultimately lead to not so peaceful disagreements. A fine idea, but impractical, methinks.
(My scanners detect that there is high possibility that I am talking out of my arse. If this is the case, I don't apologize in advance, due to article 6 of the international declaration of human rights, freedom of expression. And arse talking is one form of accepted expression. Just ask any politician. You may however, ignore the above comments.)

Oh and as for what I would do with this "responsibility.." well, I'd fulfill my own desires and then dispense vengeance and benevolence when I saw fit. Because I'm a bit of a mustard.

 

[John Galt]

Its in our nature to destroy ourselves (why do you think there's so many emo kids out there) and with the added "funbox" of the multitude of human emotions, such ideas of "disagreeing peacefully" would only last so long.

I disagree, I don't see humans as self-destructive, I see us for the most part as wanting to advance the goals of the self. However, after millenia of being indoctrinated in the ways of altruism, we see discarding the needs and wants of the self for those of the others as a value. Because our morality is focused not on improving the self, but of sacrificing it to the whims of others,we often destroy ourselves thinking we're achieving a higher goal, when in reality we are damning ourselves to failure. Yes, all people have the capacity to behave in an emotional, self-destructive way, but as living creatures, we also have an innate drive to live and survive.

This predisposition towards altruism allows a well-meaning, rational society to be destroyed by an individual or group of individuals who see force as a valid means of control. People will commit great and horrible atrocities if lead to beleive it is for the greater good.

 

[Easykill]

This predisposition towards altruism allows a well-meaning, rational society to be destroyed by an individual or group of individuals who see force as a valid means of control. People will commit great and horrible atrocities if lead to beleive it is for the greater good.

You are nothing but an obstacle on the path to a moral soiciety! You must be destroyed! For the Greater Good, rise against this spawn of shaitan!

 

[John Galt]

*Activates landmines prepared for the Negotiator*

Y'all commies aint gonna get me,ya hear?!

 

[Easykill]

Hell, I'll just wait till he does the job for me. Not enough landmines, Galt.

 

[Kikosemmek]

After a lenghy post I just made I decided to erase it all because I realized that I'm unable to describe what I mean to you. So, I humbly withdraw myself from this debate.

What I meant to say is that a society should never legislate based on morals of relative paradigms. I withdraw because I see no need to contest my point- it makes sense to me. I merely hoped to make it make sense for everyone, but I'm not everyone. I'll wait around till we all have telepathy, then we'll talk social contract.

Thanks for entertaining my neural synapses, though. It's good to do that lest my I.Q. starts dropping.

 

[Easykill]

I always liked the Canadian Rights better than American ones. Ours are easier to implement and the government is never forced to make exceptions because they are based on the system instead of the individual. Like the right to life, liberty, and security of person.

Also, the people who keep telling MGG=Reviews to keep trying is a good example of doing good in order to feel good, as all it will do is extend his suffering a bit. This doesn't include me yelling at you guys that one time, because that was just saying you're all a bunch of dicks, not defending him.

 

[Break]

A cripple in this case would not be a contributing member of society, and as such cannot be counted as eligible to vote, because they cannot contribute to support the outcome of their votes. If they can, then they may express their consent in society. The society itself may or may not agree to legislate laws to support the crippled, but that is for the society to decide. In the case of vegetates, the same rule would be applied: if the society deems it a good solution to support them, then they'll have outside help. Should they be killed through euthanasia, it would not be counted as murder, because they are unproductive and unconsenting (whether or not they can think is not the issue, but it's whether or not they can show us they can think, and they cannot do that) members of society.

Those who are physically and mentally crippled do not need the help of the law. They need the help of family and friends. If they have none, what disorder will come of their deaths? They are not productive.

That's about all I--and I think anyone else--needs to know about the 'fabric of this society'.

I don't mean that in a snarky way, but, I mean it in the sense that just about everyone who might agree with broad statements like "I'd say that I believe in a society where the only rules are those that apply to direct assurement of safety..." will find details like the one you gave above to be unacceptable in deciding if a legal system is fair/moral/acceptable/whatever. That's my prediction, anyway.

I'd also add that while if we go by the literal meaning of the word, this qualifies as anarchism, it's really not a part of any tradition of anarchist thinking *I* know, even anarcho-capitalism. I really wouldn't call this anarchism, because anarchism tends to be about opposition to law including contract law, which is at the core of your society. It's really closer to social contract theory, and even there, way closer to Hobbes than to Rousseau and the social contract theory that influenced liberal thought in the west.

I think it would be more accurate to say you're a hyper social contract thinker than an anarchist.

The whole point of his utopia is that concepts like what is "good/moral/acceptable/etc." are discarded for the fallacy that they are, and the only reason laws are made at all is to keep people from infringing on the basic rights of others. As such, it would be a perfect society, as long as it was intergrated well enough that everybody learns that an arbitrary concept like morality should have no standing on law, and how people behave towards each other. A near impossible task, considering quite how stupid humans are, but one that, if truly successful, would result in a perfect world.

 

[Break]

Double post. On the bloody wii. I had to sit here for five minutes holding the erase button.

 

[Kikosemmek]

Ah, Break's got it. That's what I meant to convey, but ultimately failed to.

 

[Break]

Nah, call it combined effort. I had come up with the same basic concept, but hadn't yet figured how I'd build a society around it. Very well done.

 

[Metonym]

Not if you internalized altruism so it comes like "second nature" then you will lower the surge of "chemical reward" The action itself is just carried out like riding a bicycle or crossing a street. The highs will level out "with time" and repeated "exposure". The ping of selfgratitude will eventually fade until you can´t distinguish so called "altruistic" actions from mundane tasks.

Many behaviors produced by humans are defacto carried out without rendering things in the moral spectrum regardless if the behavior is prosocial or not. To state that noone does "anything without a reward" is using the concept of "absolute truth" like a crutch.

Altruism is an absolute concept existing in a vacum void of selfserving and any "antisocial" psychological mechanism. Since very few of human behaviors/intentions/motives are carried out in vacum, it makes for an ill informed baseline from witch to start a serious discussion about good/bad/evil.

However altruism and the different kinds of prosocial behaviors that propelled us hominids in the evolution are not the same concept. Altruism in the western culture are either perceived as some twisted way towards selfserving in the end via a "rewardsystem" or a stupid behavior that show weakness. Leaving an opportunity for other more selfserving people to take advantage of the altruist or mother Theresa type.

 

[John Galt]

The whole point of his utopia is that concepts like what is "good/moral/acceptable/etc." are discarded for the fallacy that they are, and the only reason laws are made at all is to keep people from infringing on the basic rights of others. As such, it would be a perfect society, as long as it was intergrated well enough that everybody learns that an arbitrary concept like morality should have no standing on law, and how people behave towards each other. A near impossible task, considering quite how stupid humans are, but one that, if truly successful, would result in a perfect world.

How does one establish a set of "basic rights" without a code of morality? If there is no moral "right" or "wrong" how can there be a legal "right" or "wrong"? Also, one of the inherent flaws in utopias are that they are always impossible with large human societies(Utopia is literally "not place" in Greek). You could have an entire rational society brought down by someone who decided to self-destruct.

 

[G.]

How does one establish a set of "basic rights" without a code of morality? If there is no moral "right" or "wrong" how can there be a legal "right" or "wrong"?

It's a great question, and here's my shot at it: one can't be incoherent. What I mean by that is there is one thing everybody wants: freedom. Not necessarily the freedom to vote or anything, but just the freedom to do as one sees fit. That's something no one can escape, even someone that wants to live under a dictator--you still want to be 'free' of the right to vote. You can't make the assertion "I demand the right to be unable to make any demands." It makes no sense.

I distinguish this from even a social contract theory of government--there's nothing illogical about breaking one's promises. Something dishonest? Sure. However, as you've pointed out, if there's no 'moral' right or wrong making dishonesty wrong, where's the problem with being dishonest; with committing a 'legal' wrong? You're right, I think, that there is none.

So my philosophy is that laws should always be geared towards increasing the freedom of the individual to do as he or she pleases. Thing is, humans don't get very far without each other. We aren't even *created* without the 'sweat of the brow' of our parents. So sometimes the government has to pass a law that might take away one person's freedom to increase the freedom of others.

I won't pretend I've got it all figured out, or that I don't go back and forth within the philosophy I'm talking about. However, *I* think it's the only way to base a legal system on anything other than a decision about morality. And that this idea shows some promise, that it doesn't lead to some unacceptable scenario.

I hope you do realise that saying that the statement "Laws should be geared towards increasing the freedom of the individual to do as he or she pleases" is, in itself, a moral statement at the basis of that legal system? Laws are inherently a statement of what a society deems "good". You can't say "It's the only way to base a legal system on anything other than a decision about morality". It makes no sense.

The whole point of his utopia is that concepts like what is "good/moral/acceptable/etc." are discarded for the fallacy that they are, and the only reason laws are made at all is to keep people from infringing on the basic rights of others. As such, it would be a perfect society, as long as it was intergrated well enough that everybody learns that an arbitrary concept like morality should have no standing on law, and how people behave towards each other. A near impossible task, considering quite how stupid humans are, but one that, if truly successful, would result in a perfect world.

Ah, Break's got it. That's what I meant to convey, but ultimately failed to.

This type of society that I describe is dynamic and localized. I do not find myself believing in being part of a country of millions, where my voice is not heard and no candidate seems to represent my opinions. My world is the immediate physical one that I have a living in. In fact, I'm an anarchist. I'd probably be one of those people living on the fringe of that society, enlisting and retiring as a member as I see fit, because sometimes I just don't agree with others. By my standards, it should be fine to disagree peacefully.

Perfection is stasis, antithetical to dynamic. Besides, in using the word "perfect", wouldn't that be a moral judgment of that world, ie should have no standing on law?

You're all confusing me.

 

[Larenxis]

I'm okay with imposing some of my morality on other people. It's a matter of priorities. My right to kill is lesser than your right to not be killed. Of course, more debate can come from this. Is someone who gets completely drunk, gets in a car, and runs over someone, killing them, a murderer?

 

[Foss]

In my experience, no matter what you do, there's always someone who has a problem with it.

So I'd just concern myself with myself and leave everyone else to their own devices.

 

[John Galt]

I'm okay with imposing some of my morality on other people. It's a matter of priorities. My right to kill is lesser than your right to not be killed. Of course, more debate can come from this. Is someone who gets completely drunk, gets in a car, and runs over someone, killing them, a murderer?

Yes, they may not have wanted to harm the victim but motives do not change the action, and since that action results in the unwarranted death of another human, the perpetrator is indeed a murderer.

 

[Duck Sandwich]

I'm okay with imposing some of my morality on other people. It's a matter of priorities. My right to kill is lesser than your right to not be killed. Of course, more debate can come from this. Is someone who gets completely drunk, gets in a car, and runs over someone, killing them, a murderer?

One might argue that they're not, because they didn't have control over themselves. But unless someone forced a river of alcohol down their throat, they CHOSE to do something that would impair their judgment, and as such, should be held responsible for the consequences.