GingerRose Posted November 13, 2020 Share Posted November 13, 2020 How to create a society from a blunt perspective (please add your own as well as debate or agree) * Choose which lives are inferior * Choose what causes a life to become worthless *Choose who can be eaten and who can't *Make rules *Choose how to enforce the rules *Choose what needs to be taught *Put in place a system for education ... Link to post Share on other sites
Fraggle Underdark Posted November 13, 2020 Share Posted November 13, 2020 I'd just copy The Federation from Star Trek, but without the prime directive. Spoiler Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Posted November 13, 2020 Share Posted November 13, 2020 30 minutes ago, GingerRose said: Choose which lives are inferior wtf? 30 minutes ago, GingerRose said: Choose what causes a life to become worthless People who "Choose which lives are inferior" 30 minutes ago, GingerRose said: Choose who can be eaten and who can't wtf? 31 minutes ago, GingerRose said: Make rules Uhhh, im bad at that... 33 minutes ago, GingerRose said: Choose how to enforce the rules Being shot into these when broken: 34 minutes ago, GingerRose said: Choose what needs to be taught Empathy 34 minutes ago, GingerRose said: Put in place a system for education Which suits a persons style of learning best. Link to post Share on other sites
GingerRose Posted November 13, 2020 Author Share Posted November 13, 2020 10 minutes ago, Phoenix the II said: 45 minutes ago, GingerRose said: Choose which lives are inferior wtf? 45 minutes ago, GingerRose said: Choose what causes a life to become worthless People who "Choose which lives are inferior" 45 minutes ago, GingerRose said: Choose who can be eaten and who can't wtf? This is accurate when we look at an average society (when including humans & animals) Who is inferior? Animals. (minorities too) Who do we eat? Animals Some lives start with worth but when they commit a crime, sometimes are deemed worthless. Like a murderer being put on death row. Link to post Share on other sites
Oberon Jasper Posted November 13, 2020 Share Posted November 13, 2020 * Choose which lives are inferior I'm assuming this includes animals, so in the similar ways to how we use them now as pets and such. * Choose what causes a life to become worthless Cold blooded murder, child rape/abuse, and similar crimes. *Choose who can be eaten and who can't Animals and plants *Make rules I'll add this later. *Choose how to enforce the rules encouraging people to be better and therefore they enforce them themselves. *Choose what needs to be taught Everything. All views, facts, and belief systems as the pupil chooses to learn. *Put in place a system for education I'll add this later. Link to post Share on other sites
Iam9man Posted November 13, 2020 Share Posted November 13, 2020 2 hours ago, GingerRose said: How to create a society from a blunt perspective (please add your own as well as debate or agree) * Choose which lives are inferior * Choose what causes a life to become worthless *Choose who can be eaten and who can't *Make rules *Choose how to enforce the rules *Choose what needs to be taught *Put in place a system for education ... How to create a society: 1. Start from a position of love and compassion. 2. Accept that mistakes will be made and be as compassionate as possible towards yourself and others when this happens. 3. Do not destroy your habitat. 4. Live in harmony with all existence. 5. If in doubt, see 1. Link to post Share on other sites
GingerRose Posted November 14, 2020 Author Share Posted November 14, 2020 3 hours ago, Iam9man said: How to create a society: 1. Start from a position of love and compassion. 2. Accept that mistakes will be made and be as compassionate as possible towards yourself and others when this happens. 3. Do not destroy your habitat. 4. Live in harmony with all existence. 5. If in doubt, see 1. #goals Link to post Share on other sites
GingerRose Posted November 14, 2020 Author Share Posted November 14, 2020 4 hours ago, Kieran said: Cold blooded murder, How do you define cold blooded? Does death penalty exist in your society? Link to post Share on other sites
Acerna Posted November 14, 2020 Share Posted November 14, 2020 56 minutes ago, GingerRose said: How do you define cold blooded? Does death penalty exist in your society? Although it wasn't directed at me I'd define "cold blooded murder" as someone who didn't have a motive, self defense, or did it because they enjoyed it (borderline psychopathic) and didn't feel any remorse. Link to post Share on other sites
Oberon Jasper Posted November 14, 2020 Share Posted November 14, 2020 2 hours ago, GingerRose said: How do you define cold blooded? Does death penalty exist in your society? No feelings of remorse for their actions. As in the human life no longer has value to them. Hard to prove and not commonly used. Personally, I have always had few problems with the death penalty, so if the rest of my society is on board it probably would. (Also, to specify, this is a realistic society, not my ideal one.) Link to post Share on other sites
Abigail Rose Posted November 14, 2020 Share Posted November 14, 2020 Have an idea. Advertise. Wait for someone to show up. Done. Link to post Share on other sites
GingerRose Posted November 14, 2020 Author Share Posted November 14, 2020 3 hours ago, Acerna said: motive Is enjoyment not a motive? Is legal punishment a motive? Link to post Share on other sites
Acerna Posted November 14, 2020 Share Posted November 14, 2020 7 hours ago, GingerRose said: Is enjoyment not a motive? Is legal punishment a motive? "Or did it because they enjoyed it" as I said later, that would be cold blooded because they were thinking of their own enjoyment instead of how it might affect the other person. If someone went out and shot a stranger in a middle of a city with no reason other than they wanted to, or they enjoyed it (e.g. Not for revenge of anything) and not doing it out of hatred, I'd call that cold blooded. If legal punishment is applied correctly then someone would only kill because they were threatened with harm on their own life. Link to post Share on other sites
Howard Posted November 14, 2020 Share Posted November 14, 2020 The following thoughts are inspired by Plato's Republic. I reserve the right to change my opinion at any moment. 19 hours ago, GingerRose said: * Choose which lives are inferior The ones who live for profit. The wealthy would be the class with the least political power to compensate for their financial power. 19 hours ago, GingerRose said: * Choose what causes a life to become worthless Plenty of things are worth less than life, particularly human life. 19 hours ago, GingerRose said: *Choose who can be eaten and who can't If you can ask questions about it using who, it shouldn't be eaten. 19 hours ago, GingerRose said: *Make rules The ones passing laws would be the ones, despite their education and military past, choose to live very humbly. They would be living in poverty but not below dignity. 19 hours ago, GingerRose said: *Choose how to enforce the rules The social class enforcing the rules would be the ones content with possessing only what they need, living inbetween the ruling and lower class. Sadly, Plato living before Charlesmagne, there was no education system at the time as we know it. Besides saying that it would be something better than having a private tutor, I'm not sure how to answer them. Link to post Share on other sites
GingerRose Posted November 14, 2020 Author Share Posted November 14, 2020 5 hours ago, Acerna said: applied correctly Still a subjective answer to think about. Link to post Share on other sites
GingerRose Posted November 14, 2020 Author Share Posted November 14, 2020 4 hours ago, Howard said: who, it shouldn't be eaten. Yes, because animals are considered "what" thus inferior. Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Posted November 15, 2020 Share Posted November 15, 2020 On 11/13/2020 at 1:22 PM, GingerRose said: * Choose which lives are inferior * Choose what causes a life to become worthless *Choose who can be eaten and who can't *Make rules *Choose how to enforce the rules *Choose what needs to be taught *Put in place a system for education Since you're asking to be blunt: -Whoever should be deemed as inferior, would be based on a survival of the fittest basis. I.E Which demographics socially that can't fend for themselves in general. -I don't think a life could be deemed worthless. Worthlessness to me, is indicative of someone not even eligible for medical care or any of their rights to be respected. Deemed as a social burden? See above. -I'm assuming you mean animals here. I would keep things the way they are, banning the hunting or eating of meats that are from endangered species. -I would leave the government to make rules. In a democratic system, I can at least have a voice in. -Law and order works for me, regarding to enforcement. Beyond that, you have the choice. -So many things should be taught socially. I think common sense and courtesy, as well as entrepreneurial spirit should be taught young. Teach children the skills of time and money management, and you'll essentially allow them to feed themselves, no matter what. -Not sure what the entire system would look like, but one thing I know for sure, is the way we teach speech should take a page from countries like Korea. I.E They learn speech phonetically. We learn through the alphabet. Creates a lag in learning, as letters aren't going to sound the same once placed in words. One of the many reasons why education is so much more advanced than North America, in countries like that. Link to post Share on other sites
gisiebob Posted November 23, 2020 Share Posted November 23, 2020 is the cost of caring for all who are wanted to be cared for by the society able to be paid by those who contribute to the society willingly and eagerly? and I don't mean in terms of currency, I mean in terms of actual cost. like one loaf of bread costs an egg, some wheat, fresh water, hands kneading dough, the heat of an oven. Link to post Share on other sites
Howard Posted November 26, 2020 Share Posted November 26, 2020 On 11/22/2020 at 10:08 PM, gisiebob said: is the cost of caring for all who are wanted to be cared for by the society able to be paid by those who contribute to the society willingly and eagerly? Call me selfish, but I don't want to contribute more than I already do, so about 1/3 of my effort can go to society. I'm not sure if everyone gives up as much/as little would be enough to care for all who want to be cared for, particularly bearing in ming corruption and waste on the government's part. Link to post Share on other sites
gisiebob Posted November 26, 2020 Share Posted November 26, 2020 6 minutes ago, Howard said: Call me selfish, but I don't want to contribute more than I already do, so about 1/3 of my effort can go to society. I'm not sure if everyone gives up as much/as little would be enough to care for all who want to be cared for, particularly bearing in ming corruption and waste on the government's part. yes, I agree I think getting paid for work is a horrible deterrent Link to post Share on other sites
Alawyn-Aebt Posted November 27, 2020 Share Posted November 27, 2020 On 11/13/2020 at 1:22 PM, GingerRose said: * Choose which lives are inferior * Choose what causes a life to become worthless *Choose who can be eaten and who can't *Make rules *Choose how to enforce the rules *Choose what needs to be taught *Put in place a system for education - Inferiority is a gained status granted to those convicted of the worst crimes, however, they can be redeemed. - All lives are equally worthless. - Assuming there are no cannibals: non-endangered animals, strict laws on eating non-domesticated animals. Some laws to prove better lives for domestic eatable animals. - Government would make laws, and could change laws. Laws are not social mores, which are what the previous 3 recommendations would be. - Enforcement is again a legal question: therefore one of government rather than social mores. - Everyone should be allowed to study everything. Practical and theoretical, abstract and concrete, everyone should be allowed to learn everything regardless of reason. - Most education, beyond letters and numbers which seem the natural domain of parents, should be provide by a neutral party. A government would probably be best, although not ideal, for the position. Abolish private schools and homeschooling as they either allow students to become academically stunted, or grant them privileges exceeding the 'all lives are equally worthless' command. Link to post Share on other sites
GingerRose Posted November 27, 2020 Author Share Posted November 27, 2020 21 hours ago, Alawyn-Aebt said: All lives are equally worthless And yet we have laws and bans protecting some lives over others. Link to post Share on other sites
uhtred Posted November 27, 2020 Share Posted November 27, 2020 I think its backwards, talking about means before discussing ends. What is your final goal? What do you want the world to be like in 1000, or 10,000 years? Peaceful settlements of artists painting water lilys? Galactic empire with planet-sized cities? Return to a natural state, but with the bad things removed? Trans humans merged with our machines? First decide where you want to go, then decide where to turn at the next corner. Link to post Share on other sites
gisiebob Posted November 27, 2020 Share Posted November 27, 2020 2 minutes ago, uhtred said: I think its backwards, talking about means before discussing ends. What is your final goal? What do you want the world to be like in 1000, or 10,000 years? Peaceful settlements of artists painting water lilys? Galactic empire with planet-sized cities? Return to a natural state, but with the bad things removed? Trans humans merged with our machines? First decide where you want to go, then decide where to turn at the next corner. I don't think that is a useful way of thinking about things, because individuals should have the freedom to steer towards where they like to. where as where we are in the present and where we can go in the immediate future are things we can know, or at least grapple with understanding. Link to post Share on other sites
Tetus Posted December 2, 2020 Share Posted December 2, 2020 You might be interested in the concept of the Veil of Ignorance as proposed by John Rawls: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Original_position At root, it's the idea that in order to craft a fair set of rules (he refers to this as a 'social construct' which you may have heard of before), the citizens of the society would need to decide on the rules before knowing their place in the society. This includes things like race, gender, sexuality, physical and mental ability, and so on. Obviously we can't actually do this precisely in practice since we already know about ourselves, but the idea is to try and put yourself in that mindset when thinking about society should be like. I will say Rawls does assume that you will know your own species going in, so the animal rights undertones I'm picking up are probably not going to be applicable directly, as it would be difficult to determine a society that you'd want to be a part of if you were a microbe or a fly or something. Maybe it works? .... *does some quick searching* .... Actually, it looks like there ARE a number of people making a Rawlsian argument for animal rights, though I've not read their work and can't fairly represent it, so maybe take a look into that if you're interested! That aside, when animal rights comes up, my mind always goes to Peter Singer, so if you're interested in a modern philosophical take on the way we balance human vs animal welfare, he's definitely worth looking into. I was very lucky to be able to hear him speak when he came to my college years ago, and while I do still eat meat, I find him very compelling and worth listening to. For me, what really caught me was his "Drowning Child" thought experiment: https://www.philosophyexperiments.com/singer/ Link to post Share on other sites
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.