Bleeding heart liberals

[Damian Mahadevan]

I am on your side Jemy but you are wasting your time. There are people who, despite evidence to the contrary, cling to the belief that "choice and consequence" rule is universal and should apply with no exceptions. They want you to believe that a child born in a trailer to a single mother has the same choices as one born into educated middle class family. They want you to believe that all blacks and Hispanics can make the same choices as whites and that adolescents are able to make the same choices as adults.

I agree with this, however it is beside the point. You need to separate the people who are harmful to others to those that are peaceful to others or they will destroy the peaceful. That is a univeral truth regardless if you are a secular humanist or a person of religious faith.

 

[DArtagnan]

Harm is about perception.

Supporting a system that harms, because you believe it benefits, has the same outcome as doing harm yourself.

It's not about responsibility - because that's largely useless. For responsibility to be useful, it would require the action or inaction made with total comprehension of both short-term and long-term outcome. No human being in the world can fully comprehend such a thing as a result of action or inaction.

So, it's not about who is superior in a moral sense.

It's about who's right, and that's not about being superior. Largely, it's about investment and care. If you invest yourself in truth and you care about it - you will likely end up with something closer to it. People who don't invest themselves, no matter how smart they are, will most likely end up with something further from the truth.

The problem with truth is that it demands total dedication and detachment. You can't care about truth except in terms of what it is. You can't seek it wanting anything but what's there.

Terms which very few human beings are willing to operate under.

 

[JemyM]

I agree with this, however it is beside the point. You need to separate the people who are harmful to others to those that are peaceful to others or they will destroy the peaceful. That is a univeral truth regardless if you are a secular humanist or a person of religious faith.

I am not sure a humanist or a Christian would fully agree though.

Few are either 100% peaceful or 100% harmful. A humanist promotes the potential in each person and their capacity to change, given the chance to do so. A Christian promotes the idea of forgiveness which leaves an open door for those who seek redemption. In order to change a person, setting them straight, offering redemption, one often have to hold back judgement as far as possible and allow oneself to ask "what went wrong" instead of "is this person harmful".

Also, even the self-righteous tend to do more harm than good.

Social pressure is one of the greatest forces behind moral development. Isolation, separation and segregation rarely lead to good results.

 

[Damian Mahadevan]

I am not sure a humanist or a Christian would fully agree though.

Few are either 100% peaceful or 100% harmful. A humanist promotes the potential in each person and their capacity to change, given the chance to do so. A Christian promotes the idea of forgiveness which leaves an open door for those who seek redemption. In order to change a person, setting them straight, offering redemption, one often have to hold back judgement as far as possible and allow oneself to ask "what went wrong" instead of "is this person harmful".

Also, even the self-righteous tend to do more harm than good.

Social pressure is one of the greatest forces behind moral development. Isolation, separation and segregation rarely lead to good results.

I agree no one is 100% peaceful or 100% harmful. I look at people in tiers. In america and Australia people are spearated by how they behave. Thieves and alcoholics are put into certain areas. Violent people are put into jail. And the not so harmful people are in other areas. That doesnt mean there arent exceptions to the rules.

What happen when you put a violent person next to a peaceful person? The peaceful person has no chance.

It would be ideal if we could wave a magic wand and change the behaviours of these tiers. It takes time and constant work to do it. Both the Governments in Australia and America do half assed jobs of changing these cultures, you really cant jsut throw money at the situation and expect change.

As for Christians, there is nothing to say either way. However we are supposed to go into these dark places and show love and be "lights of the world".

 

[DArtagnan]

There is only one way to change the world that I find plausible, and that is to create a separate world society (if enough people found the will to pursue it) - which would be available to those interested in living under a new set of conditions. It's impossible to change anything at the core with the way the world is today, and it'll take hundreds of years to get people to a place where they're willing to live together without needless divisions.

 

[fatBastard()]

I am not sure a humanist or a Christian would fully agree though.

Few are either 100% peaceful or 100% harmful. A humanist promotes the potential in each person and their capacity to change, given the chance to do so. A Christian promotes the idea of forgiveness which leaves an open door for those who seek redemption. In order to change a person, setting them straight, offering redemption, one often have to hold back judgement as far as possible and allow oneself to ask "what went wrong" instead of "is this person harmful".

Also, even the self-righteous tend to do more harm than good.

Social pressure is one of the greatest forces behind moral development. Isolation, separation and segregation rarely lead to good results.

Very true ... but it is all based on the concept of trying to help, better and improve the lost sheep so it can find its' way back to the flock again. Is there never a point where you say: "Enough is enough. There is no longer any point/reason/justification in wasting time and the flock's resources to attempt to help a sheep that clearly (and often repeatedly) have demonstrated that it doesn't want to be part of the flock"?

Also I find it a little difficult to see how spending a lot of effort on one black sheep instead of focusing on helping the bereft sheep in the flock to overcome their loss is deemed more "worthy"? (I'm talking about murder here). Why is the life/future of the black sheep more important than the lifes/futures it took away from other sheep?

 

[dteowner]

It seems to me that the prime difference lies in whether being a part of society is a privilege or an inalienable right. Our resident academic and fuzzy types seem married to the latter concept. Those of us in the real world understand that each person chooses to abide by the social contract. Further, we understand that people, for whatever reason, can choose not to abide by the social contract and choose not to be a part of society, thus no longer getting to enjoy the benefits of it.

And we've got a wonderful proportional system in place to dictate what offenses get you a slap on the wrist, which ones get you a temporary removal, and which ones get you a permanent removal. It's really a very logical system. You'd think all those impressively smart folks could grasp the concept.

 

[DArtagnan]

It seems to me that the prime difference lies in whether being a part of society is a privilege or an inalienable right. Our resident academic and fuzzy types seem married to the latter concept. Those of us in the real world understand that each person chooses to abide by the social contract. Further, we understand that people, for whatever reason, can choose not to abide by the social contract and choose not to be a part of society, thus no longer getting to enjoy the benefits of it.

And we've got a wonderful proportional system in place to dictate what offenses get you a slap on the wrist, which ones get you a temporary removal, and which ones get you a permanent removal. It's really a very logical system. You'd think all those impressively smart folks could grasp the concept.

It's not interesting whether it's a right or not. Everything we conclude would be human perception anyway. There's no inherent visible "right" in the universe. Until we can prove otherwise, that's something in our heads.

What's absolutely certain from a logical viewpoint, is that we're ALL better off if we have a society with a minimum of violence and division. I know rich people think they're better off not distributing wealth evenly, but that's because they're stupid enough to forget that they suffer from violent crimes like we all do - and our technology and other means to provide security and good health is completely stunted by our system of extreme division.

The kicker is that it's DOABLE if we want it. But if we hold on to archaic and ignorant concepts of justice and punishment - we'll keep living in a world full of pain, poverty and exploitation of the weak.

 

[Rithrandil]

I pretty much agree with everything DArt said until his last paragraph. I don't think humanity is capable of existing in any sort of coherent, organized sense without fear of punishment or a monopoly of force on the part of the government.

Remove the government's monopoly on the ability to kill you and violence and fear will become democratized. *Shrug*

 

[zahratustra]

Unfortunately you are quite right Rithrandil. History teaches us what has happened when such state monopoly was broken.
On the other hand, it's probably one of the main reasons (at least IMO) why central government (with its monopoly on power) evolved.

 

[JemyM]

Very true … but it is all based on the concept of trying to help, better and improve the lost sheep so it can find its' way back to the flock again. Is there never a point where you say: "Enough is enough. There is no longer any point/reason/justification in wasting time and the flock's resources to attempt to help a sheep that clearly (and often repeatedly) have demonstrated that it doesn't want to be part of the flock"?

Also I find it a little difficult to see how spending a lot of effort on one black sheep instead of focusing on helping the bereft sheep in the flock to overcome their loss is deemed more "worthy"? (I'm talking about murder here). Why is the life/future of the black sheep more important than the lifes/futures it took away from other sheep?

I do not look at it from an empathic perspective. Basically I believe hosting someone until they die is a costly affair and it also feels somewhat meaningless. There are cases in which a person simply do not work in society though so there's no choice, but if they can be put to some use that's preferred in my book.

 

[JemyM]

Our resident academic and fuzzy types seem married to the latter concept.

I am interested in neither really. I am simply interested in what makes a society function, not moral questions about how an individual shall be treated. To me we speak about to do about statistics, not people with privileges.

Those of us in the real world understand that each person chooses to abide by the social contract. Further, we understand that people, for whatever reason, can choose not to abide by the social contract and choose not to be a part of society, thus no longer getting to enjoy the benefits of it.

It shouldn't be hard to understand why the idea about "choice" fails, it really shouldn't. Which is why I find it fascinating.

 

[dteowner]

"Choice" fails because y'all have pushed society to a position where people are automatically absolved of the consequences of their choices. "Choice" is truly a non-entity if all options are forced to be equally good via the elimination of consequences and failure.

 

[JemyM]

"Choice" fails because y'all have pushed society to a position where people are automatically absolved of the consequences of their choices. "Choice" is truly a non-entity if all options are forced to be equally good via the elimination of consequences and failure.

Choice is what we call the sum of what's on the table. What's on the table cannot change by choice.

 

[DArtagnan]

What I'm talking about would be an entirely different world society. As I said, in our current society - there's no path towards a feasible system without some kind of punishment/justice. At least not for hundreds of years.

That said, I have no doubt that we will eventually end up with the kind of thing I'm talking about. I'd just rather have it happen sooner rather than later.

Though none of us here would get to enjoy it either way.

 

[dteowner]

Choice is what we call the sum of what's on the table. What's on the table cannot change by choice.

We have a definition problem then, which might explain some of our disconnect. "Choice" is the single item you pick up off the table. It represents an action, rather than a collection of things. I would consider the sum of what's on the table to be "options" or "opportunity" (although each of them might be referred to as choices, so perhaps English is letting us down a bit here).

Choice and consequence is, by its very nature, an action-reaction concept, so I'm not sure how you could reassign the meaning to something that doesn't even follow the context.

 

[Thrasher]

Dart, have you read the Red Mars series by Kim Stanley Robinson? The colonists create a new society on Mars without money (I believe). Excellent reads, BTW.

 

[dteowner]

Dart, have you read the Red Mars series by Kim Stanley Robinson? The colonists create a new society on Mars without money (I believe). Excellent reads, BTW.

Good series, indeed. I thought Blue Mars was a little too thick on the soap opera treatment of social reform, but still very good stuff. You've definitely got to work at those, though--Red Mars is full of highly technical stuff. It's all understandable, but it takes a little more concentration than your typical paperback.

 

[Thrasher]

Yeah, they are definitively "hard science fiction", but still not totally believable. I mean the part about pumping heat into the atmosphere from solar energy was rather bogus. Characterizations of the shifting first person protagonists were wonderful, I thought.

 

[DArtagnan]

Nope, I haven't - but I've heard good things about them.

My idea is involved enough to fill a book of its own - but the basic gist is somewhat similar. Except, I don't have an ideal place for a new world society. If what some people claim to be true about our current level of technology, it's not entirely unfeasible to establish a major colony (or city) ON the sea - and work from there.

But, I think it's simpler to establish a mutually beneficial relationship with the current world society - and agree to a piece of land somewhere to start with.

That would be after many years of research and development of technology, though. The key thing to focus on would be large-scale automation and optimal processes for the ideal foods and such. Another major focus should be technology with which to actively monitor every single human being for as many details as possible. This information, including all bio-signatures and accurate positioning AT ALL times - should be easily available to everyone at any time.