Poll: Good or Evil?

[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.