[Equinox]

Originally Posted by Seablue To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Oh I agree, completely stupid. Nonetheless, you did say you would be okay with it. And you stated repeatedly that you wanted absolutes, ANY absolutes, even if yourself think these absolutes are actually bad or don't make sense. Which is interesting really, because a lot of people have fantasies of making the rules and imposing them on everyone, but fewer people have fantasies of having rules imposed on them whatever these rules are.

What can I say, I'm definitely not normal. But it's in the interest of society, not me personally. What I want doesn't matter at all.

	For the rest, Polymath20 beat me to it. We're never going to all agree on what is objectively reasonable. And if we just picked a tyrant randomly, he'll certainly choose at least a few laws that you or I would find completely unreasonable - so his absolutes won't actually be absolutes, since people would be rebelling against them, if only in their minds.

Don't you see though? Whoever's in charge gets to decide what's what, and those decisions become absolutes. You can't keep people from thinking, but mere thinking can't change anything. Ideally we could control thoughts too, but the fact that behavior is controllable is good enough.

---------- Post added 04-03-2012 at 12:07 PM ----------

Originally Posted by Polymath20 To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Pretty much any example you could give is objectively unreasonable to one culture or religion or another. Even murder. In some cultures, "an eye for an eye" is a perfectly acceptable reason for murder. There is an objective reason to allow it. You are suffering from the perspective that you were born and raised with, and your utter lack of other perspectives has given rise to the false belief that you know what is right and wrong and that these are universal truths.

Might makes right. What you believe is irrelevant if someone forces his/her way into power and dictates what's right or wrong. You conform, or die. I would be perfectly willing to die if my beliefs were totally incompatible with the ones forced on me, and I wouldn't mind conforming if the agreeable ideas outweighed the disagreeable ones. But then I'm not normal, because most people wouldn't just accept whatever happened and go along with it one way or the other.

[Polymath20]

Originally Posted by Equinox To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Might makes right. What you believe is irrelevant if someone forces his/her way into power and dictates what's right or wrong. You conform, or die. I would be perfectly willing to die if my beliefs were totally incompatible with the ones forced on me, and I wouldn't mind conforming if the agreeable ideas outweighed the disagreeable ones. But then I'm not normal, because most people wouldn't just accept whatever happened and go along with it one way or the other.

Civilization is about understanding and accepting differences, not enforcing one ubiquitous perspective. Understanding different values, traditions, and perspectives is integral to becoming a global community. Seeing different people who live different ways is one of the best ways to understand oneself.

Hopefully none of us alive today have to endure another Inquisition, which you seem to be advocating?

[Dru]

because letting people do what they want doesn't get you what you want -- is the only answer.

[plotthickens]

	Originally Posted by Equinox To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	But it's in the interest of society,

Yet this approach has been proven to be detrimental to society. How do you reconcile this?

[AlfredSchnittke]

What do you mean by "detrimental to society"?

Detrimental to the individuals in a society, or to the society as an individual?

[Equinox]

	Originally Posted by Polymath20 To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Civilization is about understanding and accepting differences, not enforcing one ubiquitous perspective. Understanding different values, traditions, and perspectives is integral to becoming a global community. Seeing different people who live different ways is one of the best ways to understand oneself.

Having an understanding, tolerant global community would be great. It's also never going to happen because too many people hate one another for completely irrational reasons. You can't force people to like each other, but you can force them to stop killing each other and submit to the same authority.

Also, understanding yourself < doing what's right. Understanding yourself is all well and good, but it's far more important that you refrain from causing harm to yourself or others. If the Hippocratic Oath is "first, do no harm," then mine is "first, do no wrong."

	Originally Posted by Dru To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	because letting people do what they want doesn't get you what you want -- is the only answer.

What I want doesn't matter at all. That's my whole premise--what we want shouldn't even be considered, and what we ought to do takes precedence.

	Originally Posted by plotthickens To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Yet this approach has been proven to be detrimental to society. How do you reconcile this?

It must not have been taken far enough, or was based on the wrong principles. If it had worked, there wouldn't be anyone saying it was detrimental to society.

	Originally Posted by AlfredSchnittke To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	What do you mean by "detrimental to society"? Detrimental to the individuals in a society, or to the society as an individual?

Both. By doing what you want, you act in your own interest. Acting in your own interest often has the consequence of harming others or yourself. If you want to do drugs, you're messing up your health. If you want to be rude to others to assert your supposed superiority over them, you're interfering with their emotional well-being. If you want to embezzle funds, you're harming a company. There's not always a conflict, but often there is. If people were all forced to do their duty and ignore their personal interests, there would by definition be no conflict, and society as a whole would benefit.

[Polymath20]

Originally Posted by Equinox To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Having an understanding, tolerant global community would be great. It's also never going to happen because too many people hate one another for completely irrational reasons. You can't force people to like each other, but you can force them to stop killing each other and submit to the same authority. Also, understanding yourself < doing what's right. Understanding yourself is all well and good, but it's far more important that you refrain from causing harm to yourself or others. If the Hippocratic Oath is "first, do no harm," then mine is "first, do no wrong."

You changed the subject from "Not having 50,000 perspectives" to "Don't hurt each other". These are not directly related. End of debate.

[Purgatid]

Individuals are rarely or never competent in all fields. Therefore - a totalitarian reaction may be invoked in order for people to be saved from themselves. In many cases, totalitaran force is very much needed to stem people from doing what they want, where the result may be harmful for others.

[plotthickens]

	Originally Posted by Equinox To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	It must not have been taken far enough, or was based on the wrong principles. If it had worked, there wouldn't be anyone saying it was detrimental to society.

If it had worked you'd have an example to cite.







Still waiting.

[AnotherAvatar]

The reason a totalitarian state doesn't work is that it's ran by the same idiots that are it's constituents.

First, is there a blueprint for the perfect society? Yes
Second, does the majority want to hold to it? Probably not.
Third, do the people in power want the ideal? Probably no more then the constituents.

A totalitarian state is no more then society that rules it's people toward a particular goal, and does so with efficiency.

I would argue that if the constituency are stupid and need 'managing' it would be hard to argue that those in government are actually a cut above.

[Equinox]

	Originally Posted by plotthickens To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Still waiting.

For what? An example? I could give you failed examples and tell you how they might have worked, but we can both agree that, thus far, there have never been successful examples.

---------- Post added 04-04-2012 at 12:46 PM ----------

	Originally Posted by AnotherAvatar To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	The reason a totalitarian state doesn't work is that it's ran by the same idiots that are it's constituents.

Yeap, which is why it's unlikely that you'll get a group, let alone one person, that's willing to ignore his or her desires and do the right thing with absolute power. For example, if Lenin and Stalin and all the rest had believed in Communism, they wouldn't have glorified themselves and lived in better conditions than everyone else--they would have been in the same small houses or apartments as their constitutents. But what if there was someone who, for the right reasons and not just to look good to the public, actually followed through and lived by the ideals they advocated?

	I would argue that if the constituency are stupid and need 'managing' it would be hard to argue that those in government are actually a cut above.

I think that often it's only the people at the very top, other than those who are just megalomaniacs, and often not even these people, truly believe that they're right. The problem is the bureaucratic mess in the middle. How are you supposed to get anything done when your means of managing the constituency is hiring constituents and putting them in a position to do what you say?

This is where I wish Plato's idea of the philosopher-king could be realized. If there was a powerful enough group of people who were truly dedicated to doing what was best for their constituents, then maybe we could get somewhere.

[Seriously]

	Yes, and if I disagree with or refuse to follow the code of conduct you set forth as right, then go ahead and execute me or whatever you deem necessary. If an absolute is declared, it's only fair that dissenters like me should be forced to either agree with it or face the consequences.

I don't believe you.

[AnotherAvatar]

Originally Posted by Equinox To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

For what? An example? I could give you failed examples and tell you how they might have worked, but we can both agree that, thus far, there have never been successful examples. ---------- Post added 04-04-2012 at 12:46 PM ---------- Yeap, which is why it's unlikely that you'll get a group, let alone one person, that's willing to ignore his or her desires and do the right thing with absolute power. For example, if Lenin and Stalin and all the rest had believed in Communism, they wouldn't have glorified themselves and lived in better conditions than everyone else--they would have been in the same small houses or apartments as their constitutents. But what if there was someone who, for the right reasons and not just to look good to the public, actually followed through and lived by the ideals they advocated? I think that often it's only the people at the very top, other than those who are just megalomaniacs, and often not even these people, truly believe that they're right. The problem is the bureaucratic mess in the middle. How are you supposed to get anything done when your means of managing the constituency is hiring constituents and putting them in a position to do what you say? This is where I wish Plato's idea of the philosopher-king could be realized. If there was a powerful enough group of people who were truly dedicated to doing what was best for their constituents, then maybe we could get somewhere.

Well I have said it a number of times that in our bunch of candidates there is probably one that is 'above' the fray so to speak...Ron Paul...he's a doctor, he doesn't need the power, the prestige, he's like 72, and he talks conceptually about right and wrong.

He's got backing but not the party system type of backing...I am left with the feeling that we have such a Machiavellian type of constituency that they can't see any one good up there getting anything done...so they just go 'tribal'...the leader of 'their' party, working for their interests.

[Distance]

	Originally Posted by Seriously To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	I don't believe you.

Neither do I, especially considering how he has issues with the legal process called abortion. Adhering to his purported views on totalitarianism, he'd just roll over about this particular legal process, rather than expressing his open disdain about this process.

[scorpiomover]

	Originally Posted by plotthickens To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Why do you think that everyone should be forced to do it your way,

I believe that people will always find a way to try to do what they want. Making people do what you want, will just give them the incentive to be more creative, to eventually find another way to achieve their goals. As a result, forcing people to do what you want them to do, works in the short term, but backfires in the long term.

If you see that people have problems, and you have a solution, you have to find a way to ensure that each person perceives that it is in his/her best interest to follow your solution.

[Subtle]

	Originally Posted by Equinox To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	What can I say, I'm definitely not normal. But it's in the interest of society...

It is a bit hard to fathom why you think that abstractions like the state, the society, or the nation are more important than people or individuals. None of these abstractions have wants or feelings, but people, humans, do.

In everyday speech, we give these abstractions human properties, yes. We say that an empire is "evil", a nation can be "strong", a state can be "benevolent", and a country can be "peaceful." As someone argued in this thread, things can even be "detrimental to society."

Humanized abstractions may have a semantic purpose, but they can unfortunately make some believe that these abstractions are valuable in themselves, just like people of flesh and blood. It becomes even scarier when you consider that it is always human puppeteers who run these facades, often for obscure purposes.

Why do you think that abstractions of the discussed type are more important than people, Equinox?

[Equinox]

	Originally Posted by Seriously To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	I don't believe you.

Sorry that you don't, but I'm dead serious. I gladly accept responsibility for things that I've done and mistakes that I've made, because I know that for a system to work, enforcement has to happen and punishments can't just be mitigated or waived.

	Originally Posted by Distance To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Neither do I, especially considering how he has issues with the legal process called abortion. Adhering to his purported views on totalitarianism, he'd just roll over about this particular legal process, rather than expressing his open disdain about this process.

If abortion was made perfectly legal and became an absolute, I would have to accept it. I wouldn't like it, but if that's what society wants, then what I want doesn't matter.

	Originally Posted by scorpiomover To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	If you see that people have problems, and you have a solution, you have to find a way to ensure that each person perceives that it is in his/her best interest to follow your solution.

...Which is impossible when you're telling everyone that the problem is their inherent human nature and inherent selfishness. Nobody (other than me, apparently) wants to be told "you should stop doing what you like because you'll be better off." Even if some people were persuaded, most people would completely ignore this idea because they want to do whatever they want, and nobody can stop them short of force.

Originally Posted by Subtle To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

It is a bit hard to fathom why you think that abstractions like the state, the society, or the nation are more important than people or individuals. None of these abstractions have wants or feelings, but people, humans, do. In everyday speech, we give these abstractions human properties, yes. We say that an empire is "evil", a nation can be "strong", a state can be "benevolent", and a country can be "peaceful." As someone argued in this thread, things can even be "detrimental to society." Humanized abstractions may have a semantic purpose, but they can unfortunately make some believe that these abstractions are valuable in themselves, just like people of flesh and blood. It becomes even scarier when you consider that it is always human puppeteers who run these facades, often for obscure purposes. Why do you think that abstractions of the discussed type are more important than people, Equinox?

Because society is greater than the individual. People are important, but in the end they're just tiny fractions of the human race. If everyone did what they wanted, humanity would pretty much be reduced to a barbaric, completely egoistic, base form of life. For society to improve, people need to give up what they want and do what they should. The root of all conflict and all immorality is selfishness. Destroying selfishness by definition ends the problems humans have to deal with that are caused by other humans.

[Typhon]

	Originally Posted by plotthickens To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	IE: why is totalitarian force better than allowing people to do as they wish?

People often have faith in the assumption that state-sponsored plunder and over-lordship is morally correct, generally due to some notion that the state has inherent "authority" and "sanctity" or some drivel like that.

[plotthickens]

	Originally Posted by Equinox To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	If abortion was made perfectly legal and became an absolute, I would have to accept it. I wouldn't like it, but if that's what society wants, then what I want doesn't matter.

Within certain limits, it is. Some may disagree, but it is. So is it the 'certain limits' that bother you?

[Equinox]

	Originally Posted by plotthickens To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Within certain limits, it is. Some may disagree, but it is. So is it the 'certain limits' that bother you?

Yes. It should be totally banned or totally legal. Saying "sometimes but not always" leads to conflict because of gray areas, so if you get rid of the gray areas then people are either absolutely right or absolutely wrong. It shouldn't take long at all to be able to tell whether an action, on its face, is permissible or not.

[Sethis]

	Originally Posted by plotthickens To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Why do you think that...

No, I don't.

[plotthickens]

	Originally Posted by Equinox To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Yes. It should be totally banned or totally legal. Saying "sometimes but not always" leads to conflict because of gray areas, so if you get rid of the gray areas then people are either absolutely right or absolutely wrong. It shouldn't take long at all to be able to tell whether an action, on its face, is permissible or not.

Does this revilement of gray areas apply to everything? Killing, thievery, etc.?

[Polymath20]

	Originally Posted by Equinox To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Yes. It should be totally banned or totally legal. Saying "sometimes but not always" leads to conflict because of gray areas, so if you get rid of the gray areas then people are either absolutely right or absolutely wrong. It shouldn't take long at all to be able to tell whether an action, on its face, is permissible or not.

Nothing is that black and white. Why do you have such a hard time dealing with spectra of morality/issues?

[Equinox]

	Originally Posted by plotthickens To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Does this revilement of gray areas apply to everything? Killing, thievery, etc.?

Yes, with very, VERY limited opportunity to argue justification. True self-defense of yourself or those around you (backed up by security footage or something else conclusively proving you were attacked by someone without cause to go after you) would be a justification for killing, and of course legal execution would be acceptable, but nothing else. You're not getting off because you claim temporary insanity. It has to be something objectively provable.

	Originally Posted by Polymath20 To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Nothing is that black and white. Why do you have such a hard time dealing with spectra of morality/issues?

Because grey areas are complicated, frustrating, and unnecessary, and in a situation with grey areas, nobody wins (or at least not everyone wins). By attempting to strike a "fair" balance between two opposing viewpoints, neither side is fully satisfied and both still have grievances against the other. With absolutes, there is no conflict. There is only one side, and you're either with it or not. No more pointless debates. No more arguing over minutiae. You're either right, or you suffer the consequences for being wrong.

I don't want to be on the side of the right in some cases but not others, or deal with a world where there is no "right." I'll either accept everything society throws at me, or admit that I can't agree with the rules and accept the consequences.

[Polymath20]

	Originally Posted by Equinox To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Because grey areas are complicated, frustrating, and unnecessary,

Complicated and frustrating, sure. Unnecessary? Disagree completely.

	Originally Posted by Equinox To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	and in a situation with grey areas, nobody wins (or at least not everyone wins). By attempting to strike a "fair" balance between two opposing viewpoints, neither side is fully satisfied and both still have grievances against the other. With absolutes, there is no conflict.

WRONG. Only the side that got their way has no conflict, while the other side got the shaft. You are advocating for one group's rights to entirely supersede another group's rights. This is the foundation of elitism, sexism, racism, and bigotry.

	Originally Posted by Equinox To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	There is only one side, and you're either with it or not. No more pointless debates. No more arguing over minutiae. You're either right, or you suffer the consequences for being wrong.

Those consequences being dictated by whom? Arbitrarily punishing someone for having different views is not only absurd, but it's barbaric and simply a waste of energy.

	Originally Posted by Equinox To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	I don't want to be on the side of the right in some cases but not others, or deal with a world where there is no "right." I'll either accept everything society throws at me, or admit that I can't agree with the rules and accept the consequences.

That's a great place for you to have arrived it, if you feel like society hasn't wronged you. But this is not so for everyone. Also, the conclusions that society as a whole arrives at change over time - not to mention they are sometimes hideously inaccurate.

If you were so hardcore about accepting what "society throws at you", then you'd wake up and realize that society is throwing grey areas at you and you should learn to deal with them like an adult - the way the rest of us do. We seek to understand all points and join in on the debate. You are the sore thumb, the thorn in the side, wanting to fundamentally change the way society deals with issues.