You believe THAT?

Related to my other thread, pick apart eachother's philosophies and beliefs. Feel free to start with me.

Thread, you can ask me about my own.

Keep in mind my time and energy are limited if you start asking very specific policy questions I may have no idea what you're talking about.

edited 10th Oct '10 8:03:42 PM by MEPT72

Okay MEPT.

I hold it to be moral and optimal that the state should only be an umpire/rule maker. I say this first because of a belief in individual liberty as an inherent right, and because I think that the state is a blunt massive force instrument. Cultural religious social mores should be left to public debate unless there are direct harms of other people involved.

You mention no opinions on whether the state should be a monarchy, oligarchy, or democracy. Is this a matter of indifference to you, or do you have strong opinions you simply left out?

Best put I believe people have political rights and should be able to effect the system I hold no system to be uniquely perfect and care only for the one that does it best.

I believe that system is some form of democracy with needs for constitution etc as a part of my belief in the rule of law being both most "right" and most effective.

So put me in the Republic not a Democracy camp. I also believe what ever constitution/limiting document you have should be extraordinarily hard to change because changing it is a big deal and should be something approached as such.

Hmm, Rott I actually think 97% of what you said makes sense. The only part I'd question is probably the bit you were least expecting to attract flak.

6.To pull this off, the state needs a population with a shared body of myths, religious practices, and canon of great books.

EDIT: Quoteblock fail. Ah, there it goes! Thank you markup help!

I'm not sure the religion, which I assume refers back to your comment on "ritual" in point five of your normative claims, is necessary, it seems to me more a by-product of older societies when we didn't understand enough about how the universe actually functions and had to make up some kind of overall theory to make sense of our existence. Of course, religious people would argue we still don't know enough. However, I would say that the collection of myths, in terms of moral and cautionary tales, as well as philosophical works, which religious works fall under in my eyes as merely widely accepted philosophical works which also form a deep spiritual link with the wider population, is essential. While I'd group religion under this wider bedrock of morals and lessons, I'm not sure if religion itself is necessary. The tales themselves certainly are however. And the canon of great books is all the more necessary in the absence of religion; if people don't draw their morals from religion, it is necessary to get them somewhere else.

I think literacy and education has a lot to do with reducing religions importance in that regard. You don't need preachers and priests telling you right and wrong if you can pick up the books themselves and figure it out, and have an alternative intellectual background to fall back on.

The result of this is of course an overall culture and a general acceptance of what is acceptable and what crosses the line. Religion usually has a lot to do with how this develops, but the religion itself is not necessarily essential. It is perhaps essential in the formative stages of a society however.

Thats how it seems to me. I hope I expressed that well. By the way, everyone feel free to put my beliefs through the grinder.

edited 11th Oct '10 12:07:38 AM by GameChainsaw

I object to Rott's position that the protection of homo sapiens/the reduction of Homicide is the principle purpose of society.

As far as I'm concerned, the human body is entirely irrelevant except to the extent that it is a vessel for the mind-that is to say, a necessary thing for perceptions. To fixate on that element of humanity, rather than on thinking cognitive beings, is an oversimplification in my mind.

What is a society, if not an organisation for the protection of the overall interests of the humans it is made up of?

I'm not disagreeing with the idea that societies protect people. I disagree that the primary concern is the minimization of homicide. I think that's too narrow of a view that focuses upon the existence of "life" rather than the existence of "suffering and well being."

Good point.

I don't want to make this all about attacking Rott, but I'm afraid I just can't resist a few points.

You mention that societies are under selection pressure, and you later use this to argue that they are subject to some kind of evolution and therefore that the ones around today must be good, or at any rate better than what any one person could come up with.

I'm afraid it doesn't work like that. Societies don't really reproduce. While they aren't made in a vacuum, and do to some extent have ancestors (one could argue for example that American society has the British as an ancestor, who in turn have the Normans, who in turn have the Vikings, although this is vastly oversimplified), there is no evidence that better societies have more 'children' (e.g. the Romans were very successful, but had only one 'child', while some of their less successful neighbours had a lot more). Since no society lasts forever, they would need to reproduce for selective pressure to have any beneficial effect.

Even if they are subject to evolution, you have to bear in mind how inefficient evolution is. There is a lot of maths to show this, but the general idea is that any positive change will take a long time to spread, and may well not succeed at all. Basically, if you suggested to any biologist whether a species with a lifespan measured in centuries could improve at all given a few thousand years, they would probably laugh in your face.

Furthermore, since you define how good a society it is by how well it minimizes the death of Homo Sapiens, you need to show why the selective pressure favours those societies, above societies who kill lots of people. It isn't at all intuitive that not killing people is selected above starting lots of ugly wars to conquer all your neighbours, or slaughtering dissidents to maintain order, to give just one example.

While it happens that in the case of life on earth evolution is true, that's not to say that's the way it has to be for everything else. Intelligent design is far more efficient, and far more effective for choosing which traits you wish to create.