The perfect world moral system

Author: Best.Korea

Posts

Total: 21
Topic's author
#1
Best.Korea
Best.Korea's avatar
Debates: 269
Posts: 7,597
4
6
10
Best.Korea's avatar
Best.Korea
4
6
10
1. Imagine the most perfect world you can think of, with all the desirable good qualities and without any undesirable qualities.

2. Take steps to move closer towards creating such a world. Do everything to make it happen without losing good faith.

This seems like a rather simple moral system. Of course, people might disagree on what desirable and undesirable qualities are.

People should always have their perfect world in mind when making decisions. Every decision should bring them closer to it.

One must construct his perfect world in mind before constructing it in practice. He must, like builder, imagine and create.
Topic's author
#2
Best.Korea
Best.Korea's avatar
Debates: 269
Posts: 7,597
4
6
10
Best.Korea's avatar
Best.Korea
4
6
10
The perfect world is made out of two components:

1. All the desirable things it has
2. Lack of all undesirable things

One can move closer to perfect world by creating more desirable things in the world or removing the undesirable  things.

There is, of course, a question of importance. Is creating more desirable things more important than removing the undesirable things?
#3
Critical-Tim
Critical-Tim's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 902
3
2
7
Critical-Tim's avatar
Critical-Tim
3
2
7
-->
@Best.Korea
I suppose I'll provide a bit of insight on my thoughts on morality, but I'll go in much more depth later on my journey after more research.

Here is my definition:
Morality is what is beneficial towards an entity, in a specific metric, considering a time frame, given an aspect,
Immorality is what is harmful towards an entity, in a specific metric, considering a time frame, given an aspect.

Here are the definitions.
The metric could be in terms of health, money, happiness, or something else.
The time frame could be in the immediate present (now), the sum of morality from now till a certain point in future, or the sum of morality from now till forever.
The aspect could be considered as consequentialist (based on outcome), deontological (based on action), or a virtue ethic (based on intention), or a combination of them.

In order to create a moral structure, we would need to find a variation of what we would describe as the metric, the time frame, and the aspect. Then we would plug them in, and we have our moral structure. I wonder if we can have more than one metric. We could but we would have to build a priority structure that determines the priority ratio, which would get more and more complicated the more metrics we add.
#4
FLRW
FLRW's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 5,122
3
4
8
FLRW's avatar
FLRW
3
4
8
-->
@Best.Korea
1. Imagine the most perfect world you can think of, with all the desirable good qualities and without any undesirable qualities.

2. Take steps to move closer towards creating such a world. Do everything to make it happen without losing good faith.
OMG, you are a Scientologist ! Are you really Tom Cruise?
#5
Critical-Tim
Critical-Tim's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 902
3
2
7
Critical-Tim's avatar
Critical-Tim
3
2
7
-->
@Best.Korea
Are we sure there is a perfect moral structure? How do you define perfect or ideal?
#6
zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 11,278
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
-->
@Best.Korea
People like to disagree.
#7
Critical-Tim
Critical-Tim's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 902
3
2
7
Critical-Tim's avatar
Critical-Tim
3
2
7
-->
@zedvictor4
I think it's quite the opposite. People don't like to be wrong because of the emotional pain caused from mental realignment, and the likelihood that two people who have evolved their beliefs over two completely independent lives are extremely likely to be different, which necessitates the common disputes.
#8
zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 11,278
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
-->
@Critical-Tim
Hmmmmm.

Not sure this is the opposite to people liking to disagree.

Presumably we achieve a certain level of satisfaction when we contend abstract concepts.

Some people still enjoy arguing the toss over the physical structure and appearance of our planet, when they obviously know that they are incorrect. And others will enjoy arguing the opposite even though they know that they are correct.


Topic's author
#9
Best.Korea
Best.Korea's avatar
Debates: 269
Posts: 7,597
4
6
10
Best.Korea's avatar
Best.Korea
4
6
10
-->
@Critical-Tim
I think perfect is that which is most desirable. That to me seems like a good way to start.
#10
Critical-Tim
Critical-Tim's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 902
3
2
7
Critical-Tim's avatar
Critical-Tim
3
2
7
-->
@zedvictor4
Perhaps it is true that some argue to defend their position as I explained, but others instead argue for the sake of bringing chaos out of order. It can be quite entertaining for some, especially if their life is superfluously structured.
#11
Critical-Tim
Critical-Tim's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 902
3
2
7
Critical-Tim's avatar
Critical-Tim
3
2
7
-->
@Best.Korea
So, I believe you define the perfect moral system as the most desirable by individuals even if it isn't perfect.
How do you measure the most desirable?

Is it by the sum of each magnitude of happiness of the individual?
Is it by the majority vote?
Does it consider a possibly suppressed minority? (I mean actually suppressed as slaves) How does it account for this?
Topic's author
#12
Best.Korea
Best.Korea's avatar
Debates: 269
Posts: 7,597
4
6
10
Best.Korea's avatar
Best.Korea
4
6
10
-->
@Critical-Tim
When it comes to one individual, it is not difficult. He knows what he desires, what kind of a world he wants.

Over time, his views might change, which means that the meaning of perfect changes. It is not always the same for him.

However, when it comes to multiple individuals, each with different idea of the perfect world, it all comes down to pure negotiations.

Individuals with common ideas can work together to move closer to their ideal. On the other hand, conflicting ideas would likely fight.

The perfect world model serves for individual to give him way of making decisions to reach or move closer to desired world.

On a large scale, individuals unite around common goals, commonly desired world to help make that desired world a reality for them.

If it would be democracy or anarchy largely depends on the world desired by majority or by those with power to create.

It would be unfair to some. Those who cannot create their perfect world or cannot move close enough to it would suffer.

It is because different people have different and conflicting desires that exclude each other and cannot all co-exist at the same time.
#13
Critical-Tim
Critical-Tim's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 902
3
2
7
Critical-Tim's avatar
Critical-Tim
3
2
7
-->
@Best.Korea
You finished your comment with my thoughts precisely. Some individuals' values and beliefs are incompatible with others', so they cannot all coexist harmoniously.
How would the perfect moral structure accommodate this?
Would the people unwilling to negotiate be outcasts, or unwilling participants of society?
Topic's author
#14
Best.Korea
Best.Korea's avatar
Debates: 269
Posts: 7,597
4
6
10
Best.Korea's avatar
Best.Korea
4
6
10
-->
@Critical-Tim
I believe that being an outcast is better than being an unwilling participant. The term unwilling by itself means that person would be forced through some violence.

If someone doesnt want to be a member of certain society, he should be allowed to leave that society if he isnt a threat to that society.

That to me seems like the best way to resolve otherwise unresolvable difference. If two persons cant work together, it is better to separate than to fight.
#15
Critical-Tim
Critical-Tim's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 902
3
2
7
Critical-Tim's avatar
Critical-Tim
3
2
7
-->
@Best.Korea
Perhaps the perfect moral utopia is actually a united but separate nations? I wonder how many different nations would encompass the various incompatible human differences?
Topic's author
#16
Best.Korea
Best.Korea's avatar
Debates: 269
Posts: 7,597
4
6
10
Best.Korea's avatar
Best.Korea
4
6
10
-->
@Critical-Tim
The diversity of societies would likely help individuals find their place. Each individual is different and requires different things to realize desires.

I am not sure how well would it work in practice. But history tells us that all people cannot follow same standard, so maybe a variety of societies would help.

Even in social groups, people often seek like-minded individuals. In a sense, everyone wants to be with his own kind. Maybe that is perfect balance in general.
#17
Critical-Tim
Critical-Tim's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 902
3
2
7
Critical-Tim's avatar
Critical-Tim
3
2
7
-->
@Best.Korea
The issue at hand pertains to how frequently we should divide society to create distinct groups based on different characteristics. If we split society into two separate groups, individuals would naturally gravitate towards those most similar to them. As we keep dividing society, there's a scenario where nations align perfectly with individuals since each nation becomes synonymous with an individual. This raises the question: When do we decide whether those who don't fit in should adapt, or should we continue dividing society until each nation represents just one individual?

#18
zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 11,278
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
-->
@Critical-Tim
For sure.
#19
Critical-Tim
Critical-Tim's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 902
3
2
7
Critical-Tim's avatar
Critical-Tim
3
2
7
We can sort of see what I had described above as the United States, which are divided into many states, which have many cities, which have many counties, which have many towns and other subdistricts.
Topic's author
#20
Best.Korea
Best.Korea's avatar
Debates: 269
Posts: 7,597
4
6
10
Best.Korea's avatar
Best.Korea
4
6
10
-->
@Critical-Tim
Well, treating each individual as state would be a form of anarchy. It probably isnt possible to sustain. However, having 200-300 regions divided by opinions seems simple enough to sustain, assuming a central power regulates it.
#21
Critical-Tim
Critical-Tim's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 902
3
2
7
Critical-Tim's avatar
Critical-Tim
3
2
7
-->
@Best.Korea
I agree, I do not think anarchy would be sufficient to maintain enough power to defend itself and hold together. However, I believe that one nation with complete uniformity is either oppressive or non-ideal as it would cause people who don't align with that political structure to be forced into it. I'm curious as to how many times it is necessary to divide a nation into subsections in order to create the best ratio, balancing power and freedom.