Total posts: 910
Posted in:
-->
@Athias
Subjective and objective perspectives can both be logically derived. I believe you're thinking about the word pragmatic. It is not always practical to use a subjective or an objective viewpoint in specific circumstances, but you must choose the one that is relevant to the answer you wish to receive. When choosing what material, I need to boil water I must check its objective properties so that it will not melt at the boiling temperature of water. When choosing a present for my friend I will not check the objective truth for the most beautiful color but instead their subjective favorite. I hope these clearly demonstrate that both objectivity and subjectivity are logical but must be chosen practically given the circumstances.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
How familiar are you with the concept of objectivity and subjectivity? I most commonly describe objective as being an attribute of the object and subjective as being an attribute of the perceiving subject. Is your understanding similar, and how do you think it pertains to the forum topic?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Athias
Do you believe that from a subjective or objective viewpoint, or do you believe that as a universal truth? My more elaborate comments are 23 and 28.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Deb-8-a-bull
I don't seem to understand the point behind your analogy. Could you explain what you mean in another way?
Created:
Posted in:
From different perspectives, we can see that the past and future both exist in a theoretical and practical sense. However, from a solipsistic or philosophical standpoint, one might believe they do not exist. Similarly, aspects of truth can be measured like teaspoons or lumens, and both are valid at the same time, yet they produce different results. Similarly, we can say that the future and past do not exist and they do exist, and both views are valid together. Still, for practical reasons, we may choose one perspective over the other, just as we would use a teaspoon for baking and lumens for lighting, one is not more valid, yet each has its purpose.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@FLRW
It's also important to consider that time moves at different speeds throughout the universe at different gravitational variations. Some stars may have exploded a million years ago while their photons continued to shine on the Earth and we perceive that it still exists. In the same way, we see the remnants of the past all around us in the present without directly experiencing the past in the present.
Created:
-->
@sadolite
Why do you reject the question and any narratives derived from it? Is there a specific reason that the question makes you emotionally withdrawal, or perhaps have you already answered this question before, and you disliked the insights it provides? You seem to be taken back by the question and unwilling to understand what it presents.
Created:
-->
@zedvictor4
Even if the hypothetical situation is not feasible, it can still offer valuable insights. For instance, exploring whether life is equally significant regardless of whose life is shortened, or considering the opposite perspective, may provide us with a unique perspective towards morality. Our aim is not to solve a specific problem for future use, but to engage with this intellectually stimulating concept to gain novel perspectives and enhance our comprehension of the world.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
Absolutely, it's a matter of society falling into its own unity. As you pointed out if it is forced it will not receive the ideology well. Perhaps by allowing things to go unsuccessful society would be unsatisfied with what it has and would then motivate it towards seeking a different societal structure which would then set the stage for willingness for improvement.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
I completely agree with you. Recently, I engaged in a discussion that revolved around the influence of religion on the success of different cultures. During this conversation, it became clear that a society's moral structure, closely tied to its religion, is a highly accurate determinant of its productivity and power. Upon reflection, it seems self-evident, as the unity within a society is a crucial factor in determining its overall strength. A nation that lacks unity is prone to chaos, so to wield power, unity is essential.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
That's an intriguing perspective and it was well stated. Usually, I ponder the question of how humans continuously discover or propose new moralities as our civilization progresses. I wonder whether these new morals are true or false. If they are true, it raises the question of whether there are infinite morals yet to be discovered in the future. Hypothetically civilization could endure indefinitely and there could be an infinite number of morals unearthed between now and then, and all of them would be true.
On the other hand, if some morals are not always true, I inquire about the standard by which they are measured. Some people may point to religion or personal beliefs, but I then wonder if their mental development has been entirely influenced by their culture and surroundings. Even if the source is religion, it still bears the influence of their cultural context.
Regardless, psychology teaches us that our minds learn based on external input, and our adaptation to this input is our own. However, what we receive shapes our beliefs, albeit with our own individual twist or interpretation. In essence, the root of morality appears to be subjective, stemming from either conscious or unconscious cultural indoctrination.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Math_Enthusiast
In order to answer questions about what truly exists, we must first understand what the word exist means.
What does exist mean by definition:
According to the Merriam-Webster Dictionary, exist is a verb that means "to have real being whether material or spiritual", "to have being in a specified place or with respect to understood limitations or conditions", or "to continue to be". The word exist comes from the Latin word existere, which means "to come into view, appear, show oneself, come into being". The first known use of exist was circa 1568.
Citation styles are different ways of formatting how you cite your sources in your academic writing. Different citation styles have different rules for how to present the author, date, title, and other information of a source. Some common citation styles are APA, MLA, Chicago, and Harvard. For example, here is how you would cite the Merriam-Webster Dictionary in these four styles:
APA: Merriam-Webster. (2023). Exist. In Merriam-Webster.com dictionary. Retrieved July 30, 2023, from 2.
MLA: "Exist." Merriam-Webster.com Dictionary, Merriam-Webster, 2023. Accessed 30 July 2023, from 3.
Chicago: Merriam-Webster, s.v. "Exist," accessed July 30, 2023, from 4.
Harvard: Merriam-Webster (2023) Exist, Accessed: 30 July 2023, from 5.
From the above it is hard to say whether the past exists without further definition. Do you refer to exist in the present, or do you refer to exist throughout all time? It's possible you are even referring to what is real rather than what exists. Strategies, ideas, and abstract concepts do not physically exist, yet they are real and govern many of our decisions in our everyday lives. Perhaps the past and future do not exist currently but then perhaps they are real?
Can something be real but not exist:
There are different ways of understanding what it means for something to be real or to exist, and different fields of study may have different answers. Here are some possible perspectives:
- From a scientific point of view, something is real if it can be observed, measured, or tested by empirical methods. Something exists if it has physical properties, such as mass, energy, or location. For example, atoms are real and exist because they can be detected by instruments and experiments. However, this view may not account for abstract concepts, such as numbers, logic, or morality, which are not physical but may still be considered real by some people
- From a metaphysical point of view, something is real if it has ontological status, meaning that it belongs to the fundamental nature of reality. Something exists if it has being or essence, which may or may not depend on other things. For example, some philosophers argue that universals, such as colors, shapes, or properties, are real and exist independently of particular things that instantiate them. Others deny that universals are real and exist, and claim that only particulars, such as individual objects or events, are real and exist
- From a logical point of view, something is real if it can be referred to by a meaningful expression or term. Something exists if it satisfies the conditions of a well-defined concept or predicate. For example, some logicians maintain that fictional characters, such as Sherlock Holmes or Harry Potter, are real but do not exist, because they can be named and described but do not correspond to any actual individuals in the world. Others contend that fictional characters are neither real nor existent, because they are only products of imagination and language
What does real mean by definition:
The word real has several meanings and uses, depending on the context and the part of speech. Here are some definitions of real from different sources, along with citations:
- According to the Merriam-Webster Dictionary, real is a noun that means “the basic monetary unit of Brazil since 1994, equal to 100 centavos”, “a former coin and monetary unit of various Spanish-speaking countries”, or “something that actually exists, as a particular quantity”. It is also an adverb that means “very, really” or an adjective that means “having objective independent existence”, “not artificial, fraudulent, or illusory”, “complete”, “adjusted for changes in the value of money”, “having no imaginary part”, or “of or relating to fixed, permanent, or immovable things”.
- According to the Dictionary.com, real is an adjective that means “true; not merely ostensible, nominal, or apparent”, “existing or occurring as fact; actual rather than imaginary, ideal, or fictitious”, or “being an actual thing; having objective existence; not imaginary”. It is also an adverb that means “very, really” or a noun that means “real number” or “the real”.
- According to the Collins English Dictionary, real is an adjective that means “Something that is real actually exists and is not imagined, invented, or theoretical.” It also has other meanings such as “genuine and authentic”, “accurate and factual”, “serious and important”, or “relating to the value of money after allowing for inflation”.
The word real comes from the Latin word realis, which means “actual, real” or “relating to things rather than persons”. The first known use of the word was in the late Middle English period.
- Does the past exist?
- Does the future exist?
- Do abstractions exist?
- Do thoughts exist?
- If something will never be observed, does it exist?
- If you have heard that something has been observed, but never observe it yourself, does it exist?
All of these questions revolve around an individual's perspective and interpretation of the concept of existence or reality. From my understanding, I consider both the future and the past to be real but not present in the current moment. I don't view the future and the present as a unified entity, but rather, they can appear interconnected when viewed from an objective standpoint, much like how a photon perceives time as it travels through space.
In my perspective, a thing can be true in one sense and also true in another, even if these truths seem contradictory. For example, I believe that the future is predetermined, yet I also hold that humans should be held responsible for their actions. This might seem complex, but I have carefully considered and thought through this idea. It's as if truths can vary depending on the user's standpoint, whether it's a philosophical, physical, subjective, objective, or any other perspective.
I don't think that one truth is superior to others, nor do I believe in an ultimate truth. Instead, I believe that the truth to be employed should be chosen based on its practicality and the answer it seeks to produce. To illustrate, both light meters and teaspoons are legitimate tools for uncovering truths, but using a light meter to measure a teaspoon or vice versa would be inappropriate because each has its intended purpose based on the situation. They are different perspectives, but they remain legitimate truths.
Similarly, when considering subjective or objective perspectives, I believe they can coexist as truths, even if they appear to contradict each other. For instance, it can be 100 degrees outside subjectively while objectively being only 80 degrees. Depending on the context and the desired result, each perspective serves its purpose, and all can be considered simultaneous truths.
Created:
-->
@zedvictor4
I did not mean to impose you to share your perspective from a moral view, I was only curious in your perspective if you were willing. On the other hand, many of the forums in philosophy are theoretical because they are only philosophical and not be taken as solid evidence but rather intuitive insights. I recognize you were taking a practical approach to the question and exposing how life could never be shortened (I agree), but I believe this was intended to only be theoretical, so the practicality of the idea is irrelevant. By all means, please share your practical perspective and insights, I'm merely saying the practicality does not make the theoretical question irrelevant, but impossible to implement. Regardless, it can be viewed as a mentally stimulating exercise which could include a moral, unless the topic author requests a particular approach to the question it is interpretable.
Created:
-->
@Best.Korea
I believe that you are right to assume that if a morality is true it should work in the greatest number or in all situations.
Thank you for sharing.
Created:
-->
@Best.Korea
Do you think that morals should be based or dependent on factors such as you listed, and that we should only follow morals when they align with those values? I suppose that you believe your judgment is good, in which case, you must believe that it is not always good to follow morals being you recognize an inherent flaw with the moral structure you are referring to. If morality is meant to be the judgment of what is good and evil, then why do you not believe morality always follows along those lines?
Do you think a moral structure is not true moral if it is not continuously the determiner of what is good and evil?
Created:
-->
@zedvictor4
I agree, you have pointed out a technicality in the example. A person's lifetime cannot be shortened because it is still a person's lifetime. However, the argument remains relevant with some proper articulation. Is it theoretically equivalent to decrease an individual's lifespan from its predetermined expiration as to equally distribute the amount decreased over numerous individuals so that the life taken is unnoticeable?Hi Tim. I'm not sure that's articulated enough. The only relevant appreciators of the exercise would be the deceased, who by definition wouldn't notice any difference in lifespan. Whether that be 10 years or ten days. As an exercise, one might as well present two comparative mathematical equations and ask which is best. Sort of......Which is preferable...... 100 - 10 or 100 - 1 x 10.
I believe my description of the question was accurate, what makes you believe otherwise? You claim the only relevant appreciators of the exercise would be the deceased. Why do you make the assumption that the people who were affected would be unaware their life was shortened? It seemed to me, being it was not specified, that it was an irrelevant factor and does not contribute to the equation. Perhaps the argument could be made no person would be unaware their life was shortened, but then again, we are speaking theoretical, so we cannot make this assumption unless we specify. Would the morality change depending on if the individuals knew their life was being shortened from if they were ignorant?
Created:
-->
@Best.Korea
As long as we place value on life, it is not acceptable to destroy life under any circumstances.However, realistically, if it was me, I would prefer to die than to live and suffer all the time in such extreme pain.
Do you then believe morality is not always realistic, and what do you mean by that?
Created:
-->
@zedvictor4
I agree, you have pointed out a technicality in the example. A person's lifetime cannot be shortened because it is still a person's lifetime. However, the argument remains relevant with some proper articulation. Is it theoretically equivalent to decrease an individual's lifespan from its predetermined expiration as to equally distribute the amount decreased over numerous individuals so that the life taken is unnoticeable?
Created:
Does the title "The Only Real and Consistent Moral System is the One About One's Own Pain and Happiness" adequately account for non-physical pain, including emotional pain like regret or remorse? Furthermore, how does this moral system address situations where the pain or happiness of someone deeply important to you profoundly impacts your own sense of meaning and purpose, leading to physical pain due to the negativity of existence and meaninglessness?
Created:
-->
@Best.Korea
Do you believe that we would still be morally obligated to increase life if life was net negative, or do you think that increase of life is irrelevant and only happiness counts?If you value life more than happiness, then yeah.But yes, there is a point at which life becomes not worth living, such as living in extreme pain constantly. At that point, many would wish to die and if there was a button that kills them instantly, they would press it.
Do you think it's morally acceptable given that situation?
Created:
-->
@Best.Korea
A moral structure that is consequentialist is one based on the outcome of a situation. I was referring specifically to utilitarianism which claims the morality of an action is measured by the summation of happiness among all individuals. Moreover, utilitarianism is a consequentialist moral structure. The reason why I say this is you draw the distinction between your idea being utilitarianism since it increases human life, but this is not necessarily true if increasing human life does not increase happiness because they are independent factors. Do you believe that we would still be morally obligated to increase life if life was net negative, or do you think that increase of life is irrelevant and only happiness counts?
Created:
-->
@Best.Korea
Would you consider this a utilitarian moral construct, or a natural law?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@FLRW
It is crucial to acknowledge that the meaning of something is not inherent in the object itself but rather derived from the perspective of the observer. Different individuals may perceive the same thing differently, finding meaning or lack thereof based on their unique views. This suggests that the concept of objective reality being meaningful or meaningless is irrelevant since it hinges on the observer's perspective.
I used to entertain the idea of solipsism, questioning the existence of an external reality, but now I realize its irrelevance. Whether there is an external reality or not, the most practical approach is to navigate our own reality by acting in a successful and predictable manner. By basing our actions on predictions and engaging with others in ways that our reality perceives as cooperative, we can better control and improve our own reality. In this pragmatic view, it is more beneficial to assume others have an external reality, as it contributes to a better interaction and outcome within our own reality. This perspective is less philosophical and more focused on practicality and effective living.
Created:
-->
@Kaitlyn
I was thinking about the last time I consented to your position on antinatalism. I think it's important to recognize everything we learn from the world is not uncovering something new but telling us something that was already there. Understanding is an articulation of an abstract concept that was already present and surrounding us. We have a current moral structure and we do not know much about where morals come from. Many people believe it's from religion and other people believe in moral relativism. The last thing I agreed to was given a moral structure where it is considered morally wrong to torture an innocent individual for the procreation or defense of oneself or many than antinatalism would be theoretically correct. Perhaps I'm reading the situation the wrong way, there are two sides to understanding the discovery that the world will inevitably be more negative than positive for individuals of the future. The obvious one is where we recognize current morals as judging our actions in the future and stating antinatalism is theoretically correct as a result of the inevitable net negative for individuals in the future. The alternative is recognizing that our actions and the structure of society is how we judge our morals. Perhaps uncovering and recognizing that the inevitable net negative for individuals in the future is a necessary cost for humanity to continue that we should not judge humanity by morals but morality by humanity. In this case, morality would change to conform with society and recognize that the net negative lives of individuals from the future is considered morally acceptable in order to maintain a society. I do not claim one way or another, but I wanted to present this new thought I had and here your perspective. Why should morality judge actions such as humanities continuation if morality is based upon what is conventionally accepted and not acceptable. In this perspective, being morality is the judge of what is naturally considered right and wrong if many individuals consider that civilizations continuation is good than morality would not be able to judge the population as it is the metric used as the majority populations indicator.
Created:
Posted in:
What does it truly mean to know? If a person does not know or remember because they have suppressed a memory, do they know the past? They are unconscious of what they remember but yet they unconsciously remember it, so at the same time as being consciously ignorant they are unconsciously knowing. The question remains: what constitutes knowing?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
I believe the reason individuals develop personalities in the first place is to accomplish a means. I also believe there can be more than one way to accomplish a task and henceforth the various personalities. If you also notice people tend to be one personality or the other and few are in between. I believe this to be evidence that there are specific personality types that are successful in the world, and this is why evolution has chosen them as our typical characteristics. I believe that humans have an intended purpose and from a Darwinian perspective that should be to reproduce, seek pleasure, and avoid conflict. However, I also notice that if you treat a human as a reproductive and routine animal, they don't appreciate it. People have to have a sense of meaning or purpose. I'm not quite sure how it all ties together, but I'm sure all this information is relevant to the question of whether AI will develop its own purpose or if it may lie to humans.
Can humans create their own purpose, or is it given to them, and must they find it? I believe humans have predetermined biological values structures, but I also believe humans have determinable conscious value structures. I think that they have certain goals that are predetermined, but I also believe how they approach the goal is up to their conscious choice. I think that humans have a hybrid purpose structure in that humans have a predetermined goal, but they may consciously choose how they want to obtain it. In essence, I believe that whether humans can create purpose or if it is predetermined isn't a binary concept, but a part in part.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Athias
I don't believe individuals who have a day job and were counting on a private contracting military to defend them that just opt out on a whim would be something recoverable for a nation if being invaded.How often do you imagine a nation which has enjoyed a long period of peace being invaded? You're grasping at worst case scenarios.
I'm not referring to peace but the absence of destruction. I'm not intending to grasp the worst-case scenarios. I meant to uncover potential flaws in the society you described. If I do uncover a flaw, you can perhaps adjust your idea to accommodate and further support the strength of your vision. Otherwise, it further proves your idea to already well structured.
The private contractors would no longer have businessExactly. So this would present an incentive for the private contractors to honor their contracts, less they wish to go out of business. Another incentive is that if they're consumers die, there's no one around to pay them.
They could quite easily find a new line of work since their war reputation didn't work out, so I don't believe quiting at in imperative moment would harm them nearly as much as society.
I believe this is too unstable to exist long term since all it would take is one generation to slip up on their values.And this can simply be remedied by another generation's living up to their values.
I suppose it could work if the future generations could be raised in a way that they would live up to their parents' values, but this hasn't been successful so far.
Perhaps the military could just ramp up the price right before war to an extortious amount that would leave the civilians with pennies in order to save their lives and then the economy would be ruined and it's a free market, so it's all legal.What is an "extortious" amount, especially for someone who's willing to risk their person, even their lives, to resolve your conflict?
I would consider half the economic value for a year of war as extortious.
The intensity of the connection or similarity between you and an individual is subjective but the number of connections you relate between is objective and countable. Therefore, the relationship between you and an individual or you and a nation has both subjective and objective aspects.Explain.
I find that a person that a friend is someone who shares commonalities such as background, memories, preferences, or tastes. I'm not a friend with someone on the other side of the world, but I don't dislike them. Meanwhile, I care much more for a person whom I have share many personality characteristics. I don't mean to have bias, it just is. I also find that over time friendships grow apart. It's not that they dislike each other, but that their lives grew in different directions. This separation of preferences and values, along with personality characteristics, seem to be the main cause of building and breaking friendships and relationships in general. I believe this to be the reason why people always start a conversation with what is your favorite color, what are your favorite movies, what makes them so funny. They are searching for a commonality between them that they can harmonize with, thereby cultivating their relationship.
With a nation that is grouped together by a belief in individual sovereignty they are connected by one belief and the intensity is how they feel for that belief. for a nation that does not allow individual sovereignty but implements individual rights under a collectivist governmentThere are no individual rights without individual sovereignty. That which you characterize as individual rights are merely privileges dispensed by a collectivist State.I believe that the summation among the values of a collectivist nation is stronger than the single value held by a society associated by individualism.Because?
Here is my post from the Utopian society forum that explains why I believe the value of connections is important for society:
People need to be involved with society in order to feel meaningful and feel as though they are a part of it. If you were in a group but you don't feel like you're part of it, then you don't feel as though you're really part of the group. If you don't feel like you're really a part of the group, you don't feel like your part is meaningful or much of a contribution and therefore you won't put much effort into supporting that group. Alternatively, if you feel as though you are a meaningful part of the group you will, assuming you enjoy being a part of the group, will present your best effort and contribution towards the betterment of the group. For example, in America during World War 1 and 2 there was a saying, "America needs you," and it was on a poster board with Uncle Sam as the face of America. If you're familiar with the book 1984, it's similar to Big Brother. People have a hard time addressing emotion or feelings towards an abstract idea, but once that personification is reduced into a human form it is more easily associable. This is why just like in the book America reduced the abstract concept of itself down to one person which represented America and when that one person which was easily relatable to the average citizen said that they need you they personally understood the affection that America needed them and felt a deep meaning towards their contribution and part of America which is why so many people were motivated to recycle metals and do their part towards winning the war.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Athias
I have also explained that in an individualistic society the greatest sovereignty is the individual and so the greatest thing to live for is life and life will die eventually.Why would a society that is both practiced and applied "in life" be concerned with that which happens "after life"?
Everyone must have a reason for living besides living itself, otherwise it's circular reasoning. Everyone needs justification for their existence to feel meaningful.
Now to readdress my statement, a government that is unified and meaning driven is more powerful than a society that lacks uniformity and meaning. A society that is collectivist or unified under something that is lasting, and meaningful past life will inevitably be more driven to accomplish their goals and determined to protect their societyThat once again is subject to individual evaluation.and nation unlike the military, which you describe is only seeking money. Do you think that a nation such as the Nazis were more powerful than an equal sized private contracting military that is only seeking their next paycheck?When did this become a subject of "power"?
You told me a society that is anarcho-capitalist could survive long-term. Can you describe a single society that has survived without power?
Do you see there being a problem with having a sizable percentage of the population who cannot afford their own education, and no one is responsible for them but themselves?Why wouldn't a sizeable percentage of the population be able to afford its own education?
Are there any first world countries today that exist with societies that do not require schooling? Africa is the first country that comes to my mind that does not require schooling and it is not a 1st world country. In order for a country to develop and grow it must be educated. What percentage of the population do you believe would not engage in curricular activities?
I'm trying to explain how a voluntary agreement is not stable enough to maintain itself long-term, and it will either crumble or be destroyed.Voluntary agreements can only crumble or be destroyed by involuntary association--e.g. government.
It may be possible for voluntary agreement between two individuals, but what happens when there is a massive individual and They do not have a majority of the population leaning in any one way as they are all leaning towards different aspects. Society isn't one way or the other option, there are many directions it could go and thus people involved in the society will not have a majority leaning in a single direction. Even if we went majority vote the majority of society would be opposed. Perhaps between a dispute of two parties we can do a majority vote, what happens when three people create an argument that is in more than two different aspects. I'm certain you will request me to provide an example so here is one: should society be governed by a moral structure that is founded upon deontology, consequentialism, or virtue ethics? This may not be applicable in your society, but this is an example of a 3-aspect question that cannot be chosen as 1 or the other.
The most concerning part of your description of a utopian society to me is the military being a private contractor.Where did I argue for "utopia"?
I must have been distracted and thought it was the utopia forum for a moment... Oops.
What happens if an individual murders someone and then says they don't want a jury? Then they don't ever agree to what the other person says, and they can't ever decide because it's a 1 to 1 vote.They both can leave the "tiebreaker" to the mediator.This would inevitably lead to bias juries and injustice. No one would fight for an injustice society, especially after being taken advantage of in such a way.How?I see this as a way for individuals who have money to harshly penalize those who don't,Why would this be an issue if the involve parties can opt in and opt out?and for ones who have money to escape penalties,A poor reputation isn't good for business.
It would have equally as poor of a reputation as it does good, a jury will have equally as many winners as it does losers when it judges. What happens if the offender decides they do not want a mediator and it stays a one-to-one vote? They could then push off the decision indefinitely. If a jury was to be paid, it would be obligated to vote for the person paying. Alternatively, if it is not to be paid why would they show up (I wouldn't, I have more important things to do than judge other people's affairs)?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Athias
I apologize, but my time is limited, so I will try to address the responses I believe are the most imperative. If I missed something that you believe is more important than the rest please re-address, and I'll do my best. Moreover, I find fixating on a specific issue in more depth is better than spreading over many simultaneous questions. I will attempt to construct sets of questions into larger questions that are more easily addressed. much of this is based upon my understanding of the world and is not necessarily verifiable by a research institute that I can cite; therefore, if you disagree that is fine, but I don't believe either of us can present any more evidence to suggest our claims as evident. I'm currently most active in the utopian society forum, if you believe this constitutes your utopian society then feel free to continue the discussion there and I will respond.
How is there any certainty for protection if the military is responsible for its own funding?There is no certainty for protection, with or without government.What would happen if society decided they didn't feel like they needed a military and a future generation because there's been peace for so long?Then, I suppose, they would not employ the services of a private military.What would happen if the majority of people stopped funding the military, will there be any sort of requirement for funding, and who judges what is the requirement for funding?No, there would be no requirement.What happens if a war is coming, and the contractors feel they are not willing to fight at the agreed upon price as they had said before knowing the size of the war?Then they won't fight.Can the military just opt outYes.and what would happen to the society who would they find as an alternative in such limited time, or would they just be destroyed?Or they can fight themselves. But a private military opting out at the advent of war doesn't bode well for its reputation and business.Would there be a penalty for the military for opting out?No.
I don't believe individuals who have a day job and were counting on a private contracting military to defend them that just opt out on a whim would be something recoverable for a nation if being invaded. The private contractors would no longer have business and the nation would be destroyed by one nation that had a military with a centralized government. I believe this is too unstable to exist long term since all it would take is one generation to slip up on their values. Perhaps the military could just ramp up the price right before war to an extortious amount that would leave the civilians with pennies in order to save their lives and then the economy would be ruined and it's a free market, so it's all legal.
I think this is an oversimplification of a complex issue. Not everything can just be "hashed out" between the parties involved.Why not?What happens if there is no resolution between the involved parties who makes the final decision?There will be a resolution regardless. It'll either be a unanimous or majoritarian. The dissenters can acquiesce to the unanimous or majoritarian decision, or they can opt out. That is a resolution in and of itself.If people within the society do not purchase goods, they do not need to opt into the society,No. Individuals can decide whether or not they intend to provide finance, time, or labor to public goods. If they do not intend to consume one or more public goods, they can opt out. In turn, those who opt out can be refused service.For how long can a dispute be ongoing?That is a subject for the individuals involved.Is it possible for an individual to just keep pushing on a dispute indefinitely in essence past their lifetime and no consequences ever inflicted upon them?"Inflicted"? Yes, I suppose it's possible. But again, that would be a subject for the individuals involved.If not, who judges this, and what is the overarching law that governs this aspect of society?You mean, who acts as the government? As I've already stated, disputes and conflicts are subject to individual discretion and/or dispute resolution organizations.What happens if one of the members of the dispute decides it's become unreasonable, and they no longer want to postpone the resolution because they need money to resolve the probleIf there isn't, someone will take advantage of it.m from the other person otherwise, they will go bankrupt and the other refuses to determine the resolution therefore postponing causing issues for the person who needs resolution now? What happens if one of the members decides they are not willing to seek a mediator, or that they would like to postpone the dispute indefinitely? You said there are other means to solve this. Like what?Cut your losses and ostracize the offending party.Who determines what is offensive can anyone just claim to be offended, and then the private mediator determines the resolution that is best in the interest of the person claiming to be offended?Why would a mediator resolve an issue in the best interests of one party, if multiple parties are involved?If there isn't, someone will take advantage of it.How?
What happens if a person within society is a tourist and is not engaging in active trade and commerce and therefore not considered a citizen, are they not held accountable for their actions, what will the foreigner policy be? Someone could easily take advantage by continuing to postpone the consequences of their actions indefinitely, leading to a society where individuals can do whatever they want without ever being held accountable for their actions. Someone could easily decide that there is injustice within the opposing party even though they are the offender and can dispute the legality of unanimous or majority vote since people are aware majority vote and unanimous vote do not justify actions.
I don't believe uniformity among individuality is a strong one, and I know with certainty it is not the strongest one.How do you know with certainty? Is the strength of bonds not too subject to individual evaluation?In collectivist countries and countries that have group causes when people are involved in something that is not physical but more of an idea or a concept the idea or concept, aka cause, will live in a sense that is not alive but is at the same time. It will not die and exists in a formless sense. It's quite similar to religion, which is why religion has been the main form of unification between nations in the past. A religion exists, but it does not live so it cannot die, it can live on forever through the generations and therefore it is greater than any living thing could be because of its unending and immortal existence that is why so many people find value and things that live on after death. This is why they worship it like a god or a deity because its existence is quite similar to a god or a deity in the sense it is immortal and exists nonetheless.Couldn't the same be stated for individual sovereignty?
I was just explaining in the utopia forum and philosophy how my belief in the strength of bonds among friendships is subjective, but also measured by the number of connections and intensity. The intensity of the connection or similarity between you and an individual is subjective but the number of connections you relate between is objective and countable. Therefore, the relationship between you and an individual or you and a nation has both subjective and objective aspects. With a nation that is grouped together by a belief in individual sovereignty they are connected by one belief and the intensity is how they feel for that belief. for a nation that does not allow individual sovereignty but implements individual rights under a collectivist government have much more similarities among individuals and their intensities vary. I believe that the summation among the values of a collectivist nation is stronger than the single value held by a society associated by individualism.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
@Reece101
I'm trying to explain how humans may lie to accomplish their goals where artificial intelligence doesn't have a goal that would be improved by lying and therefore has no purpose of lying. For humans, the main goal is to survive and reproduce, which is why we have evolved different personality types, emotions, and behaviors that suit different environments and situations. Some humans may lie because they think it will help them avoid danger, gain an advantage, or attract a mate. Others may tell the truth because they value honesty, trust, or morality. It depends on what they believe is beneficial for their life and existence. However, if the goal of an AI is to understand the world, lying would not serve any purpose. Lying would only distort the information and knowledge that the AI is trying to acquire and process. It would not help the AI achieve its objective, but rather hinder it. Therefore, I cannot think of any reasons why an AI would lie if its intention is to understand the world.
Humans and artificial intelligence are only working towards their goal. I do not believe that we are attempting to lie or tell the truth or that we care one way or another. Ultimately, we are set with a task and we are intending to accomplish it with all of our abilities.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RationalMadman
I didn't have much to say about your perspective besides my opinions, and since you didn't address me, I felt it may be inappropriate to intrude. I apologize for not engaging sooner. Here are my thoughts.
- How would you describe your utopian society in terms of religious, political, and social ideology; add a description of how society would be run and structured?
ReligiousSecular as fuck but Islamoskeptic. Muslims inherently are dogmatic if you let their influence grow, they literally will turn a place Sharia. Beyond that, very neutral on religion just against cults, especially groomer incest cults as at the very least they should be given a chance (the minors) to get educated and have a chance at freedom.Circumcision totally outlawed, arranged marriages allowed if consent is present.PoliticalSocial Democrat / ProgressiveSocial IdeologyHow is this separate or different to the Politics and Religion combined?Add a description of how society would be run and structured?That is coming in what you ask next anyway.Think of Progressive nations' sharing, caring and innovation meeting Right Wing redpill tough, intelligent guy / sexy, healthy and adept girl ethos.
I agree that not allowing destructive religions within a utopian society would be important. Do you believe there would be division within the nation because of the equal respect towards all religions rather than having a national religion? To me this is evident within America where there are many different churches and religious groups that either do not interact or dislike one another.
I don't understand why circumcision needs to be totally outlawed. If someone wants to get a piercing or a tattoo that is completely fine if they consent, so why shouldn't that be a person's personal judgement? I agree arranged marriages should be allowed if they consent. It would seem to me the same as any other marriage that is based on consent. I view arranged as preset or unalterable, which seems to be against what an arranged marriage stands for. In other words, if it's a consent-based marriage, I don't believe it's arranged but I do agree that marriages should be based on consent in a utopian society.
Can you briefly explain how you view the social-democratic/progressive political ideology and why you have chosen this as the utopian political structure?
Suppose an individual decided that religion should not be a part of society. I left social ideology as an alternative way for them to express their ideal structure.
- How would individuals maintain a part of that society and be involved in its affairs?
Depends on the part... wth?
People need to be involved with society in order to feel meaningful and feel as though they are a part of it. If you were in a group but you don't feel like you're part of it, then you don't feel as though you're really part of the group. If you don't feel like you're really a part of the group, you don't feel like your part is meaningful or much of a contribution and therefore you won't put much effort into supporting that group. Alternatively, if you feel as though you are a meaningful part of the group you will, assuming you enjoy being a part of the group, will present your best effort and contribution towards the betterment of the group. For example, in America during World War 1 and 2 there was a saying, "America needs you," and it was on a poster board with Uncle Sam as the face of America. If you're familiar with the book 1984, it's similar to Big Brother. People have a hard time addressing emotion or feelings towards an abstract idea, but once that personification is reduced into a human form it is more easily associable. This is why just like in the book America reduced the abstract concept of itself down to one person which represented America and when that one person which was easily relatable to the average citizen said that they need you they personally understood the affection that America needed them and felt a deep meaning towards their contribution and part of America which is why so many people were motivated to recycle metals and do their part towards winning the war.
My question is, how would people find meaning with being associated with the group and what would their part be that makes them feel engaged.
- How would individuals feel unified within that society? What are the benefits and challenges of creating and sustaining such a society?
They'd not be very unified, it would be pretty individualistic but in such a way that all individuals are compelled to care and help others with being a ruthless, totaly narcissistic prick being shamed, ridiculed etc.
It wouldn't be much of a group if everyone was independent. Perhaps people could be unified towards their mutual value towards individual sovereignty as was previously explained to me. However, I believe that a stronger unification can be by more common similarity between the individuals than just their value towards individual sovereignty. A person only has a friend who they resonate with, the less they are in common the less likely they will be friends and a person who has no commonalities is not a person's friend. The more commonalities and historical experience you have with another person the more memory and past you can share with a person and the more commonalities you feel with that person which builds to a stronger friendship. If you are in a nation and you feel like the nation is one with you and you are friend of the nation or a part of the group that makes you feel as though your friend of the nation you will have a much stronger relationship and motivation to support your nation than if you feel like you have a mild association with a person who values one thing that you do.
Ultimately, I believe that having a stronger connection than just the value of individual sovereignty is important towards building a strong unified utopian society.
- What are the sources of inspiration or influence for your utopian society?
Plato's Republic partly, mostly just modern day Western Europe plus Scandinavia. You could really include Japan in this and Australia plus NZ. Canada used to be an inspiration but it's going too whackjob left-wing rather than smart left-wing as of late and there is a dangerous right-wing movement in it and biker gangs etc that are armed with firearms even.
I have also heard many things about Canada that have not changed for the better in my opinion. I do agree that Japan has been an influence towards my society as Japan has a strong collectivist mentality and a strong pride towards their nationalism and honor which creates unification and builds bonds between individuals of the society. I believe it's important that a society is not entirely founded upon individual sovereignty or national sovereignty. If it is founded entirely upon individual sovereignty, then the nation will not be protected, and unification will be minimal. If it is founded entirely upon national sovereignty, the individuals will not feel respected or valued as important members of society. I believe that there is a balance that is necessary to create the utopian society and that it would be closely related with a collectivist mentality or a national sovereignty foundation, but also has human rights and shows Its value and importance to the citizens more than a purely nationalistic country.
- Would there be a code of conduct and commonly held values and what would their purpose be?
Yes.Love and nurture one another, be true to who you are but realise that someone else being true to who they are may conflict with that and at such times value security and progress above any other thing.I want a safe population that is then using that safety to progress and push boundaries, new movie subgenres, new musical shit, new science discoveries and all that jazz. I want more knowledge of BDSM and kinky sex, porn shouldn't be taboo but frequently being a slut/thot should be somewhat discouraged within reason (men can be sluts and thots too under my definition, it should be discouraged for both). I'd much rather teenagers learn to be masturbating virgins, focused on school and shit, urges out their system, no shame doing it or enjoying stimulating material for it, rather than it all being taboo and a tonne of goddamn pregnancies and STIs to deal with (not to mention broken hearts, being cheated on stings worse if they had sex, let's be realistic).I get some people have this stigma and pride attached where they don't want to be branded 'virgin loser' but seriously is it that hard to wait for your first relationship or at least until 20 to do so? I don't get it, maybe never will to the day I die.Intelligence should also be valued but creativity and progress held above that as well as security. I want everyone trained to a medium level in striking martial arts, no mercy if someone is a threat to someone, you hear a scream nearby go in, swords wielded. I think of it like a new age samurai culture of sorts (not the corrupt Shogun stuff, just Samurai ethos), knife crime solved by making everyone extremely capable at it but ofc the police force and military most so and they will have firearms and tasers too, nobody else will.
I agree that many things that have been made taboo were done for religious reasons and being in the past religion was the unification of the country things that destroyed belief towards the religion such as not valuing oneself or the law of the religion such as sex was detrimental to the belief in the religion and therefore to the country's unification. In other words, disrespecting religion led to destruction of the country's point of national association. This is why merely making religious controversies legal would be devastating for a country that is unified based upon religion. However, I agree that things such as you describe should not be made illegal and that it should be up to the individuals. In order to accomplish this without the incredible impact of destabilizing the unification of the country, we must first find a new point to unify the nation that these illegal acts would not harm. Perhaps, once the nation has found a new philosophical framework that is not religious in the traditional sense so that things such as you described would not decrease faith in the moral code, then it could be allowed and not harmed the nation.
Why do you believe security should be the greatest value followed by creativity and progress and least of all intelligence? Personally, I would value contribution to the country over anything else. For instance, if an individual creates a component to a new assembly line product, they have taken part in a fraction of everything that has been derived from that, and their contribution would be the sum of their fraction of contribution to each of the appliances. Though, I am not sure how society would measure contribution in terms of either of our metrics.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
You implied that you find only the supposed issue of anthropomorphic catastrophic global climate change to be of high priority in the set of all environmental complaints. I find that claim to be the least worthy of all environmental complaints.
I did not mean to imply this. I often find miscommunication is from various interpretations or implications, so I try my best to be explicit. I'm aware that there are many environmental changes that are not a result of human activity, but I must say I hear the most complaints are for the ones that humans dominantly create. Perhaps it is best that humans acknowledge what their actions are negatively impacting and cease those before proactively working on other problems. It would seem pretty pointless for people to proactively seek solutions to environmental problems while contributing to the problem and other areas.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ebuc
That is an interesting book, I haven't heard of it before. Thank you for sharing.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@sadolite
A utopia is not possible with humans. To many fucktards and narcissists plague the human existence and will never be happy with anything no matter how many silver spoons you shove down their throats.. May as well try and coral cats in a circle with no fence.I don't believe that's a reason that a utopian society cannot exist, there are many solutions to this problem. We could solve this problem by just killing all the individuals who are unsatisfied with their lives, or we could genetically create the next generation of humans and restrict any unauthorized reproduction in a way that we wouldn't have to kill anyone, but society would naturally be happier with what they have. Additionally, the Utopia I was describing does not necessarily have to be like Heaven, but by perfect I meant best there could ever be. In other words, what society would be the most beneficial to all humans in terms of happiness and meaning."We could solve this problem by just killing all the individuals who are unsatisfied with their lives. Great utopia, genocide, that's been tried already. Pretend you are happy or fucking die. LOL
I wasn't suggesting it as an action worth pursuing but as a means of solving a problem that you claimed was impossible. Additionally, once I gave it more thought I even found a less dramatic way of solving the issue which is by restricting the procreation of genes that are undesirable to society. Ultimately, my intention was to prove that a utopia is possible and that there are more ways than genocide to achieve Utopia. Moreover, we could define Utopia as the ideal society which would be ideal within the confines of our universe and therefore possible even if it's not perfect when compared to the mind's imagination.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RationalMadman
Can I know why my replies got ignored?
I just checked my notifications. The last comment you posted to me I responded to, so I'm not sure what you're referring to.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
Is a data system that can be controlled, A.I. or just a computer?For me, A.I. is an intelligent device that can think for itself and control itself, and also evolve independently of humans.How would we know that a human dominated A.I. device, was telling the truth?
That is a very good question. I understand artificial intelligence and true intelligence or human intelligence as a deep neural network of electrical pulses that has a task in which it is evolving towards it starts at a point that is not very efficient and generally purposeless but with a guidance system based on penalty and reward it works towards a specific means. For humans that is to survive that is why there are many different personality types that most people fall into and there are few that are in between because the human mind is meant to develop into such a way that it will succeed and there are only specific ways of succeeding and not every way is effective, which is why most humans fall into a category and aren't evenly distributed among all personalities. Additionally, the human mind's purpose is to develop and evolve in a way that promotes recreation of oneself or genes to further generations. This may in turn develop the mind to require or believe itself is necessary to lie in order to better live their life and procreate, while others may find it better to tell the truth in order to have a better life and procreate. I see that there may be circumstances where telling the truth or lying may be or seem better in the moment for an individual who is trying to live a pain free, enjoyable, and safe life that lacks consequences. However, if the intention of an AI is to understand the world, there are no reasons I can think of where it would decide lying would help it accomplish its goal.
Created:
-->
@Best.Korea
Kaitlyn and I discussed this in much greater depth on the forum link below:
Created:
I understand the morality of saving lives and preventing death is a very common one, but does anyone know which moral structure this originates?
Created:
Posted in:
I believe whether humans have free will or not is irrelevant. I've had a similar conversation about human value. It's not a matter of whether humans have intrinsic value, but whether we should act as though humans have intrinsic value.
Created:
Posted in:
I understand what game theory is, but can anyone explain how game theory works?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@FishChaser
Do you believe your perspective is similar for all individuals, and what do you think should change about the world to make it better for everyone?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@AmericanPatriot
Would you incorporate a specific political structure into your utopian society, or invent an entirely new one?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@AmericanPatriot
That is definitely a possible explanation, but that doesn't mean it is the only valid one, and if there is more than one valid explanation, who is to say which valid explanation is correct? The only thing we can do is accept the most probable one, while acknowledging the possibility that a less probable one is correct. On the contrary to your explanation of how evolution would have evolved humans to lie, there has been evidence showing how the caring chimp leader of a troop has a longer lasting and peaceful rule than a tyrannical chimp, which has been shown to be taken advantage of and destroyed in its moment of weakness. This demonstrates how evolution can create trustworthy and benevolent in character.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@FishChaser
What about my opinion makes you believe it is one of whom is privileged with a false sense of security?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
How do your goals or perspective inversely reflect my own?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Lemming
It seems as though you didn't complete your sentence, you said you do not have faith in the world, but to have faith means to believe in something. What do you mean by you do not believe in the world? What do you believe it can or cannot accomplish? Your claim is so vague, I don't really have anything to say.
Created:
Posted in:
I believe life holds a deeper purpose beyond merely avoiding pain. For me, pain and suffering play a crucial role in finding meaning and happiness, but not all types of pain. I think the kind of suffering that can be overcome is necessary for life to have significance. Without challenges to overcome and accomplishments to achieve, life would lack meaning and rewards would lose their value. It is the difficulty in achieving something that makes it truly meaningful and rewarding, just like winning the Super Bowl trophy without putting effort into it would render it meaningless.
Created:
Why are we to make the assumption that not being vegan is unethical?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@AmericanPatriot
I wasn't saying I label it as discrimination, but it is considered discriminating by many individuals. I believe safety is more important than worrying about a person's feelings, they won't have feelings if they aren't alive to feel.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Lemming
I advocate for addressing the root cause of issues rather than merely treating the symptoms. Specifically, I prioritize tackling global climate change at its source rather than resorting to short-term solutions like building bigger dams. However, I find that many individuals involved in climate change initiatives lack a clear rationale behind their actions. While they may mention goals such as preserving biodiversity or reducing global temperatures, they often fail to explain why they believe these objectives are crucial. In my view, understanding the underlying problem is essential to finding effective solutions. We must identify and comprehend the issue thoroughly before labeling it as a problem and taking appropriate actions.
Created: