How to better the world

[Asex]

I would like to see a world with less conflicts.

In the root of conflicts I find 3 things.

1. The facts: at least one of the parties lack an information that changes the picture.

2. The logic: at least one of the parties is unable to read the facts and find out what they prove.

3. The morality: at least one of the parties consciously discards facts in support of the other's thesis or the logic's conclusion on what is sound and what is not.

Please share your views and possible solutions!

[Zerο]

I'd largely agree with all three points, adding on nationalism and religion to problematic (and illogical) factors onto point 3.

[SexNotHaver]

Get rid of all the sexual orientations. Everyone has the same sexual orientation. Everyone wants to have sex with each other. That way, when anyone has some sort of conflict with another person, they'll stop, think and realise that it's not hatred, it's sexual tension. They'll have sex and the problem will be solved. Unless a child is born afterwards and there's a custody battle, but that's what condoms are for.

[Arte]

I think a lot of conflicts are caused by different opinions, so facts don't really matter. People just disagree based on what they know and have experienced, facts can't change opinions. Sometimes two parties can have facts logic and morality on their side and reach different conclusions.

[Exosk]

Edit: After thinking it over, my points were covered in point 2.

[5_♦♣]

As long as the human race exists, there will always be wars.

[Asex]

I think a lot of conflicts are caused by different opinions, so facts don't really matter. People just disagree based on what they know and have experienced, facts can't change opinions. Sometimes two parties can have facts logic and morality on their side and reach different conclusions.

I can't imagine them having facts, logic and morality on their side and reaching different conclusions.

Would you like to discuss with me as an equal?

[Arte]

I think a lot of conflicts are caused by different opinions, so facts don't really matter. People just disagree based on what they know and have experienced, facts can't change opinions. Sometimes two parties can have facts logic and morality on their side and reach different conclusions.

I can't imagine them having facts, logic and morality on their side and reaching different conclusions.

Would you like to discuss with me as an equal?

Of course, what I mean is that morality is subjective, so two different people can have facts and follow sound logic but reach different conclusions based on their morality.

[Guest]

Offer free cake, tea and cat cuddles for civilised debates. The Australians gave koalas for the G20 leaders and that alone made them smile.

[Sally]

Offer free cake, tea and cat cuddles for civilised debates. The Australians gave koalas for the G20 leaders and that alone made them smile.

Live koalas? Those things are not sweet-tempered. No wonder that meeting didn't turn out well.

[ballerina]

Ways to help create a better world with less conflict:

1. Create an equal economic platform - a universal currency. This will stop 1 US dollar being worth 60 Thai Baht, for example. Such inequality leads to conflicts when the haves and have nots cannot agree on priorities.

2. Dare I say it? I dare: get rid of all radical religious ideology. Stamp it out.

3. Share resources and skills between countries so there is balance between what each has.

4. Consider removing geographical borders .... let people pass through areas freely and settle as they wish.

No doubt there would be teething problems with such major changes, but this is about pie-in-the-sky thinking, anyway. So, I've put it out there, lol!

[SorryNotSorry]

Enough about how to better the world. I can show you plenty of people who want to worsen the world.

[lapat67]

Ways to help create a better world with less conflict:

Stamp it out.

[Næt.]

Better the world to what end? There's no point in asking how to better the world unless you have (quantifiable) criteria for 'Better', so you can measure whether or not you've succeeded.

For example - less than X% of the world's population live in poverty (Poverty defined as less than 60% of a given nation's median wage per year).

Also, 'Succeeded' has five unique letters in it, but it's ten letters long. I just noticed that.

[CharmVif3075]

Be kind to people. Simple. If everyone did it, the world would be a better place.

[Xavy]

Be the change you want to see in the world :)

[Robin L]

Be the change you want to see in the world :)

Terrorist groups, on the other hand...

[TooOldForThis]

Lead by example, be polite, be open-minded, try not to hurt people, act morally. Be polite. That one is really important because without it discussion deteriorates into one-upping and hate speech (tumblr, anyone?) and no one gets anywhere with it. So be polite, dammit. :P

[Perseus]

Educate people. Ignorance is the cause of most of the worlds problems.

[SexNotHaver]

Wipe Greenland off the map. They're awfully quiet, up there. They must be up to no good...

[Guest]

Offer free cake, tea and cat cuddles for civilised debates. The Australians gave koalas for the G20 leaders and that alone made them smile.

Live koalas? Those things are not sweet-tempered. No wonder that meeting didn't turn out well.

No, they were dead koalas apparently. That's why no one was harmed and even Putin was happy for a moment.

[Asex]

Of course, what I mean is that morality is subjective, so two different people can have facts and follow sound logic but reach different conclusions based on their morality.

In my opinion morality is not subjective, values are subjective and morality is staying true to one's own values, for example not having double standards and being able to stay true to the values when one is in conflict of interest.

Better the world to what end? There's no point in asking how to better the world unless you have (quantifiable) criteria for 'Better', so you can measure whether or not you've succeeded.

For example - less than X% of the world's population live in poverty (Poverty defined as less than 60% of a given nation's median wage per year).

Also, 'Succeeded' has five unique letters in it, but it's ten letters long. I just noticed that.

Everyone is welcome to come here and state what their idea is about how the world would be better.

That is subjective.

Now if you want to know about my case- less conflicts in terms of quantity means a smaller number of conflicts.In terms of quality it means conflicts that are of smaller scale like a few swear words for example.

[Arte]

Of course, what I mean is that morality is subjective, so two different people can have facts and follow sound logic but reach different conclusions based on their morality.

In my opinion morality is not subjective, values are subjective and morality is staying true to one's own values, for example not having double standards and being able to stay true to the values when one is in conflict of interest.

Whether you use the word value or morality, it's still subjective. My point is, I'm sure we could find something we disagree on where neither one of us is explicitly right.

[Asex]

...My point is, I'm sure we could find something we disagree on where neither one of us is explicitly right.

That's why I had in mind when I used "at least one of the parties" in my first post.

Whether you use the word value or morality, it's still subjective...

Then I have a question: What does morality mean to you?

I ask because I suspect we understand different things.

[Asex]

Be the change you want to see in the world :)

Terrorist groups, on the other hand...

I find them neither to be the change they want to see in the world, nor changing it for the better.

I find Tibethan monks to be that.

By the way I am not telling you you are wrong, I just share my opinion.

And I think we should talk with these people, help them see they are wrong by communicating with them.

In order communication to be possible we must not label them with the t-word, a dialogue needs both sides to be equal.

I think there ought to be more dialogue.

I am sad people can't have an argument without a fight or a full stop of discussion.

[Sally]

And I think we should talk with these people, help them see they are wrong by communicating with them.

In order communication to be possible we must not label them with the t-word, a dialogue needs both sides to be equal.

I think there ought to be more dialogue.

I am sad people can't have an argument without a fight or a full stop of discussion.

The Islamic State, Al-Quaeda, Boro Haram, and other groups have no desire to talk to anyone, and they certainly don't feel they are wrong. They don't talk, except to urge other young men and women to join them. They don't have "dialogue"; they kill.

[Næt.]

And I think we should talk with these people, help them see they are wrong by communicating with them.

In order communication to be possible we must not label them with the t-word, a dialogue needs both sides to be equal.

I think there ought to be more dialogue.

I am sad people can't have an argument without a fight or a full stop of discussion.

The Islamic State, Al-Quaeda, Boro Haram, and other groups have no desire to talk to anyone, and they certainly don't feel they are wrong. They don't talk, except to urge other young men and women to join them. They don't have "dialogue"; they kill.

While ISIS - or IS or ISIL or Daesh or whatever - and Boko Haram in particular do have the unpleasant habit of killing everyone they come into contact with, it would be a mistake to believe that they're uninterested in talking. There are (Believe it or not) what might be termed 'Moderates' within al-Qa'ida and the Taliban who are willing to talk. Even the Provisional IRA were willing to talk.

[Arte]

...My point is, I'm sure we could find something we disagree on where neither one of us is explicitly right.

That's why I had in mind when I used "at least one of the parties" in my first post.

Whether you use the word value or morality, it's still subjective...

Then I have a question: What does morality mean to you?

I ask because I suspect we understand different things.

If you believe two people can hold different opinions and neither be explicitly right, then you agree with me that facts, logic, and morality(value) don't bear the truth. The reason for this is that morality(value) isn't black and white. There are gray areas where opinions take up the argument. For example, we agree killing a person is wrong, but in certain scenarios it's permissible, and that is the gray area.

mo·ral·i·ty

məˈralədē/

noun

1. principles concerning the distinction between right and wrong or good and bad behavior.

[Asex]

To be honest you made me thinking very deep, I find discussing with you very fruitful.

It appears to me we understand different things under morality.

To me morality is the following of the values, which are subjective, but their following is either or not, so morality is not subjective to me.

To me values are black and white, you mentioned a specific gray scenario which is included by now new value of killing only when there's no other option.

By opinion I understand something whether right or wrong that is grounded on facts and logic.

Thus two people can hold different opinions and neither be explicitly right but that doesn't alter reality of truth.

[Arte]

To be honest you made me thinking very deep, I find discussing with you very fruitful.

It appears to me we understand different things under morality.

To me morality is the following of the values, which are subjective, but their following is either or not, so morality is not subjective to me.

To me values are black and white, you mentioned a specific gray scenario which is included by now new value of killing only when there's no other option.

By opinion I understand something whether right or wrong that is grounded on facts and logic.

Thus two people can hold different opinions and neither be explicitly right but that doesn't alter reality of truth.

If we had the reality of truth there would be no need for opinions because everyone would just know what is true, but we don't have that. We do have a lot of information that can point towards the truth but facts and logic aren't the equation for truth. For example, America has the highest prison population in the world, that's a fact, now you could draw several different logical conclusions based on this. One, America has a lot of criminals and is a bad place. Two America has done a good job of capturing most of its criminals and is now a safer place than ever. Three other countries have sub par police forces. And you could draw any number of logical conclusions from that one fact, but what's interesting is that you find truth in all three opinions, now yes if we had the objective truth someone would be right and someone would be wrong, and I totally argue against opinions all day long, because I think I'm right, just like you think you're right, and that will always be the case, because we'll never have objective truth.