218 réponses à ce sujet

[StephenCharles]

no, maybe if we all followed john lennon's advice because there would be nothing to fight over but that would NEVER happen, just being a realist here

[Shady314]

Are you saying that a perfect society would require everyone have a singular definition of perfection? You seem to be arguing for moral subjectivism there.



'Society X believes that raping puppy dogs and eating children is perfect, and if everyone agrees and they achieve that, then the society is perfect?”

No I'm saying WE would need a singular definition of perfection to label a society "perfect"or "imperfect." The word perfect does not mean "good" "nice" "peaceful" etc. as I am sure you are aware.

[Urgnu the Gnu]

the_one_54321 wrote...

assuming that all needed resources are fully provided to every member of society, with no outside influences, what then prevents that society from attaining perfection?

They are still humans, eh?

Are you familiar with the Federation, in Star Trek?

Modifié par Urgnu the Gnu, 20 octobre 2009 - 08:26 .

[the_one_54321]

a perfect society is one were no member of the society ever does any harm or wrong to another member of the society, with no consequences in place to prevent them from doing so.

[the_one_54321]

Urgnu the Gnu wrote...

the_one_54321 wrote...

assuming that all needed resources are fully provided to every member of society, with no outside influences, what then prevents that society from attaining perfection?

They are still humans, eh?

Are you familiar with the Federation, in Star Trek?

they have outside influences.

keep in mind, this is a thought expiriment. it is not meant to be prectical.

[Shady314]

the_one_54321 wrote...

a perfect society is one were no member of the society ever does any harm or wrong to another member of the society, with no consequences in place to prevent them from doing so.

Physical or emotional as well?

Modifié par Shady314, 20 octobre 2009 - 08:29 .

[Snoteye]

the_one_54321 wrote...

assuming that all needed resources are fully provided to every member of society, with no outside influences, what then prevents that society from attaining perfection?

We do. We'll always keep wanting more of something; or make sure others have less of it. Greed and fear, respectively.

[Linarc]

Maria Caliban wrote...

Maufurtado wrote...

The Man, before anything else, is an animal. A sentient one, but an animal. We have instintics that affect our choices all the time. But, we also have reason and conscience. So, we have a conflict within that stops us to achieve that perfect society.

In fact, to live in society we had to forces ourselves a group of rules of conduct, named Laws, so we could live in peace without trampling in each others rights.

To achieve that perfect society, in my humble opinion, The Human Being should supress those more harmful instintcs and change its views towards reality. (Yeah, very abstract, but that's the best I can do with my english. I apologize for any grammar mistake I might have done).

No, I think it's a very good start. If nothing else, a perfect society would require that its citizens supress those baser instincts. If we're killing each other in the grocery store, it just brings everyone down.

But what force would be effective enough that people would consistantly do so?

I agree with MauFurtado here. Sorry, but basic instincts include food, reproduction and breath necessity, and even if I understand which ones you are talking about, we wouldn't be here if those instincts were suppressed, we NEED to be able to kill, because we need to be able to defend ourselves, at least for survival matters. As some animals, we learnt that we would help our species living together, and killing your own species member wouldn't do any good to us (even though we kill the others, but we accept that as a necessity, can't be helped if we want to survive), so killing can't be accepted between us.

EDIT: well, doing a degree biology is doing this to me, celular biology and ecology are really influencing me, haha, that's not the topic point, I'll try not to base my opinions on them, next time I post.

Modifié par Linarc, 20 octobre 2009 - 08:39 .

[the_one_54321]

Snoteye wrote...

the_one_54321 wrote...

assuming that all needed resources are fully provided to every member of society, with no outside influences, what then prevents that society from attaining perfection?

We do. We'll always keep wanting more of something; or make sure others have less of it. Greed and fear, respectively.

hence the necessity of the mental faculty to actively choose to not behave in this manner.

[Amberyl Ravenclaw]

keep in mind, this is a thought expiriment. it is not meant to be prectical.

Exactly what led me to drop my philosophy class. I guess I feel the need to see some things put into workable practice, rather than just reflect endlessly on the unattainable possibilities.

Modifié par Amberyl Ravenclaw, 20 octobre 2009 - 08:36 .

[Maria Caliban]

Linarc wrote...

I think it's impossible, since you can't assume they will be happy just because they have everything they need. Millions of years ago, The cro-magnon species coexisted with our ancestors, but the cro-magnon, although smarter than us, were extinct because they weren't as violent as our ancestors. My point is, that we have instincts and characteristics that won't allow this to happen, we are always fighting to survive in a number of ways, and that is what make us evolve. There was some research years ago saying that unicelular individuals formed colonies faster if they were constantly in danger. We are animals, can't forget it, and if we don't have obstacles, we are nothing and will relegate ourselves to a meaningless existence; there won't be a challenge to be better at something, to study more, to work more, and all of that. For me, this society would deteriorate. Sorry for appealing to biology here and if I didn't make my point clear.

1. Would a perfect society necessarily have all of its members be happy all the time? Happiness is not a base state, it's a triggered one and as far as we know, the brain can't constantly manufacture the chemicals to keep us in that emotional state.
Moreover, not all unhappiness reflects poorly on society. If I see a sad movie and cry, does that mean society is imperfect? If I break up with someone and feel glum, does that mean society is imperfect? If my mother or my friend dies, and I morn, does that mean society is imperfect?
Happiness is important to me, but I don’t know if I’d desire a life where I was *never* sad, angry, or even bored.

2. The idea that because you have food and shelter, you no longer have obstacles in your life is a strange one. It doesn’t fit with what I know of the world. Conflict happens naturally and can be healthy, so I don’t agree that a perfect society would have absolutely no conflict. I image there would still be sports, people would still play games, people would compete over lovers and friends, and try to out geek one another with Monty Python jokes.

[the_one_54321]

Shady314 wrote...

the_one_54321 wrote...

a perfect society is one were no member of the society ever does any harm or wrong to another member of the society, with no consequences in place to prevent them from doing so.

Physical or emotional as well?

no consequences whatsoever. again, hence the necessity to have the mental faculty to actively choose to not do these things.

it's something that plagues most of society these days. most folks do not have the mental faculty to simply choose to not do harm to others.

[the_one_54321]

Amberyl Ravenclaw wrote...

keep in mind, this is a thought expiriment. it is not meant to be prectical.

Exactly what led me to drop my philosophy class. I guess I feel the need to see some things put into workable practice, rather than just reflect endlessly on the unattainable possibilities.

read my last response. you will hopefully see how this is relevant to todays society.

also involved is societies inability, or unwillingness to provide all necessities to every member of society.

[Amberyl Ravenclaw]

Edited and deleted.

Modifié par Amberyl Ravenclaw, 20 octobre 2009 - 08:40 .

[Maria Caliban]

Amberyl Ravenclaw wrote...

keep in mind, this is a thought expiriment. it is not meant to be prectical.

Exactly what led me to drop my philosophy class. I guess I feel the need to see some things put into workable practice, rather than just reflect endlessly on the unattainable possibilities.

I don't know who you're quoting, so I'll just ask them not to speak for me. However, if their part of the conversation is purely impractical, that's fine.

[the_one_54321]

Maria Caliban wrote...

Amberyl Ravenclaw wrote...

keep in mind, this is a thought expiriment. it is not meant to be prectical.

Exactly what led me to drop my philosophy class. I guess I feel the need to see some things put into workable practice, rather than just reflect endlessly on the unattainable possibilities.

I don't know who you're quoting, so I'll just ask them not to speak for me. However, if their part of the conversation is purely impractical, that's fine.

do you believe it is practical to assume a society in todays world can fully supply all the necesary comidities to every member of society? i appologize if my assumption that this was a thought expiriment was inccorect. but i really dont see how it could be anything else.

[Shady314]

the_one_54321 wrote...

Shady314 wrote...

the_one_54321 wrote...

a perfect society is one were no member of the society ever does any harm or wrong to another member of the society, with no consequences in place to prevent them from doing so.

Physical or emotional as well?

no consequences whatsoever. again, hence the necessity to have the mental faculty to actively choose to not do these things.

it's something that plagues most of society these days. most folks do not have the mental faculty to simply choose to not do harm to others.

So emotional "harm" must be prevented in a "perfect" society? Even unintentional harm? That makes it nearly impossible to achieve then. Feelings are irrational and as such cannot be reliably guarded against. A "perfect" society would have to at the very least reduce the intensity of any "negative" emotion if not outright remove them through drugs/brainwashing/etc. Of course then there are those people that would say such methods are "imperfect."

Removing accidental harm requires no one ever make a mistake....
Not sure how that could be done with humans. Perhaps if we had the technology to rewind time or something.

By your definition I'd have to say then that it is impossible.

[Amberyl Ravenclaw]

Just wanted to add this:

As for the creation of a "perfect society" as mentioned; has anyone thought yet about communes, and their complicated histories which have also included some rather terrible episodes and endings? One necessity, perhaps even flaw that ensures the community's constant survival is perpetuation of the norm by making sure of all-round consensus or indoctrination of the dominant ideals to a certain degree, but which - fortunately or unfortunately for them - some inevitably rebel against. Also it beggars the question of whether you can have a society that provides for all in terms of material comforts (and emotional, social comforts according to its own standards), but one that rests upon 'flawed' ideals - can it still be considered perfect through and through by all, not just by its own adherents which consider it as paradisal? Or does only the opinion of its members who *believe* that it is perfect count? Hope that isn't too convoluted.

Or do communes not count (even the ones which in the past have cut off all contact from the outside world), and why?

Modifié par Amberyl Ravenclaw, 20 octobre 2009 - 08:43 .

[the_one_54321]

Shady314 wrote...

the_one_54321 wrote...

Shady314 wrote...

the_one_54321 wrote...

a perfect society is one were no member of the society ever does any harm or wrong to another member of the society, with no consequences in place to prevent them from doing so.

Physical or emotional as well?

no consequences whatsoever. again, hence the necessity to have the mental faculty to actively choose to not do these things.

it's something that plagues most of society these days. most folks do not have the mental faculty to simply choose to not do harm to others.

So emotional "harm" must be prevented in a "perfect" society? Even unintentional harm? That makes it nearly impossible to achieve then. Feelings are irrational and as such cannot be reliably guarded against. A "perfect" society would have to at the very least reduce the intensity of any "negative" emotion if not outright remove them through drugs/brainwashing/etc. Of course then there are those people that would say such methods are "imperfect."

Removing accidental harm requires no one ever make a mistake....
Not sure how that could be done with humans. Perhaps if we had the technology to rewind time or something.

By your definition I'd have to say then that it is impossible.

no, only intentional. accidental, or unintended harm, is impossible to avoid on the scale of a society, and so excluding that would make the whole discusion pointless by default.

the point is that every member of the society must actively choose to not render any deliberate harm onto any other member of society.

[Shady314]

Maria Caliban wrote...
2. The idea that because you have food and shelter, you no longer have obstacles in your life is a strange one. It doesn’t fit with what I know of the world. Conflict happens naturally and can be healthy, so I don’t agree that a perfect society would have absolutely no conflict. I image there would still be sports, people would still play games, people would compete over lovers and friends, and try to out geek one another with Monty Python jokes.

Hence my curiosity what you meant by "perfect."

[Urgnu the Gnu]

the_one_54321 wrote...

a perfect society is one were no member of the society ever does any harm or wrong to another member of the society, with no consequences in place to prevent them from doing so.

Can you achieve that with just changing the system, not the people?

(Just to clarify, I'd say no. The people can change, but you can't assume they do.)

the_one_54321 wrote...

they have outside influences.

Not only. And shouldn't a perfect society withstand outside influence? I know this is specified in the OP, but is it perfect if it doesn't have outside influence?

[the_one_54321]

Amberyl Ravenclaw wrote...

Just wanted to add this:

As for the creation of a "perfect society" as mentioned; has anyone thought yet about communes, and their complicated histories which have also included some rather terrible episodes and endings? One necessity, perhaps even flaw that ensures the community's constant survival is perpetuation of the norm by making sure of all-round consensus or indoctrination of the dominant ideals to a certain degree, but which - fortunately or unfortunately for them - some inevitably rebel against. Also it beggars the question of whether you can have a society that provides for all in terms of material comforts (and emotional, social comforts according to its own standards), but one that rests upon flawed ideals - can it still be considered perfect through and through by all, not just by its own adherents which consider it as paradisal? Hope that isn't too convoluted.

Or do communes not count (even the ones which in the past have cut off all contact from the outside world), and why?

the issue is that we have no precedent.

there has never been a society that has been able to provide for every physical need of very one of it's members. those that may have been able to do so were likely inevitably eaten up by some other society that was not able to do so, and then as societies became bigger and bigger it became more and more difficult to look at the needs of any one individual.

hence, we dont really have a leg to stand on except to identify the individual short comings of todays societys, and to ponder what would be "next step" should those be able to be fixed.

[Maria Caliban]

the_one_54321 wrote...

do you believe it is practical to assume a society in todays world can fully supply all the necesary comidities to every member of society?

Yes. Everyone in America could have food, housing, an education, and basic medical care. The resources are there.

[the_one_54321]

Urgnu the Gnu wrote...

the_one_54321 wrote...

a perfect society is one were no member of the society ever does any harm or wrong to another member of the society, with no consequences in place to prevent them from doing so.

Can you achieve that with just changing the system, not the people?

well no. that's why i've been talking about the need for each member of the society to have the mental faculty to actively choose to make the society perfect.