Can you 'objectively' define a better world?
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
25-01-2012, 11:59 PM
RE: Can you 'objectively' define a better world?
Leibniz couldn't.

As it was in the beginning is now and ever shall be, world without end. Amen.
And I will show you something different from either
Your shadow at morning striding behind you
Or your shadow at evening rising to meet you;
I will show you fear in a handful of dust.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
26-01-2012, 06:59 AM (This post was last modified: 26-01-2012 07:03 AM by Zat.)
RE: Can you 'objectively' define a better world?
(25-01-2012 10:29 PM)Peterkin Wrote:  As you said, Zat, local and small in the key.

It boils down to the 'taker' mentality.

Due to the alienation in a cog-in-a-big-machine existence we have been having since the industrial revolution herded us into big-city factories, we forgot the joy of participation and community.

Since most of us had no meaningful community any more, we adopted the mentality of "what's in it for me?"

We go to vote every few years and never realize that democracy is an ongoing process that requires constant vigilance and participation.

We want the benefits of democracy, without making the effort it requires to be meaningful and functional.

It can be so much joy to be part of our neighborhood, our community, to help each other when needed and to share the benefits of cooperation.

This joy is missing from most people's lives today.

As I said in another post: education is the key. If we don't get that right, nothing will change.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
26-01-2012, 07:29 AM
RE: Can you 'objectively' define a better world?
(25-01-2012 04:07 PM)Zat Wrote:  
(25-01-2012 03:07 PM)Leela Wrote:  A better world wouldn't have anything to do with my hobbies.

I think I need to clarify the OP a bit here.

I used the “better world” expression the way people talk about wanting to “make the world a better place”. The intention is noble, the goal is nebulous. I was curious how people see this” better world”, from the perspective of individual freedom versus societal responsibility.

Sorry but:
1st: At least half of the examples in the first post was about something the person likes or a hobby. And in my opinion a better world is not something individual but something global so I did not aggree with it.

2nd: I stated my opinion of a better world exactly as I picture it. My personal Utopia. What's wrong with that?

"Freedom is the freedom to say that 2+2=4" - George Orwell (in 1984)
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
26-01-2012, 07:40 AM
RE: Can you 'objectively' define a better world?
Leela, I have already admitted that my OP was not very clear -- that is why I had to clarify it.

There is nothing wrong with your answer and it is a perfectly good answer to a different question than the one I meant to ask -- not very well, admittedly.

If you read my attempt at clarifying the OP, you will see what I am trying to accomplish in this thread.

I am sorry that I mislead you. Smile
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
26-01-2012, 09:02 AM
RE: Can you 'objectively' define a better world?
Joy comes in many forms - including such vital matters as stopping a war and such trivial ones as a soccer game.
Fun is as important to human well-being as is social status and effectiveness; we also need outlets for aggression and competition; physical challenges to stay fit; mental challenges to stay alert; bonding rituals, art, song and laughter.

All of those joys are accessible to all people in a world where all people are valued.
The trick is to organize societies in such a way that all people - and all animals, and trees and rivers - are valued. That kind of society doesn't require taxation or charities, because everyone contributes as naturally as they do in their own families.

If you pray to anything, you're prey to anything.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
26-01-2012, 09:38 AM (This post was last modified: 26-01-2012 06:40 PM by Lilith Pride.)
RE: Can you 'objectively' define a better world?
Perhaps the best type of society would be one that I saw in a manga, there is no money, instead you accrue karma points as you do things for others. this can then be used or saved up. This allows a higher variation than a paper economy if the simple act of doing something gives an acceptable amount. the idea of such a system is that everyone is then able to contribute and help. The detraction is that greedy people will not see actions as all acceptably useful and try to suggest things which do not count. It's an interesting idea to be able to gain currency by making others happy whether it's cheering a little kid up or giving someone something they've been wanting to have. It was an interesting take on currency.

I see one simple overall policy. A world without borders. If you are free to move around to find where you want to be then it is more likely small pockets of people will band together. The real issue with utopia is that in one way or another there needs to be less people than there are. Either more worlds or less people your choice. The perfect life people seek is not really attainable when they focus on things which make them seem completely unimportant.

And in all truthfulness the easiest way to build a utopia would be for a staple part of it to be the fear that there is something bigger. People live nicer lives with each other if they feel there is adversity to overcome from outside their group. Otherwise they just start going at each other.

I would probably have to say that my ideal life would be one where the world is harsh and it's seen as inevitable that not all will survive. As long as there is some force which seems oppressive there will be much less reason for people to oppress each other. I like tribal life though I've yet to run off to it, because there is a strong connecting force when you know you can't control much.

I'm not a non believer, I believe in the possibility of anything. I just don't let the actuality of something be determined by a 3rd party.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
26-01-2012, 01:32 PM
RE: Can you 'objectively' define a better world?
No, because 'better' is subjective.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
26-01-2012, 03:44 PM
RE: Can you 'objectively' define a better world?
*shrug* fine

"Freedom is the freedom to say that 2+2=4" - George Orwell (in 1984)
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
26-01-2012, 06:37 PM
RE: Can you 'objectively' define a better world?
(26-01-2012 01:32 PM)Chas Wrote:  No, because 'better' is subjective.

Yes and no.

'Better' may imply 'Intent', or it may imply 'Need'.

Intent is subjective and often people intend to achieve something that is bad for them. Smoking for example.

Need is a different story.

If we make the assumption that a person hopes to live a healthy (both physically and mentally) life, then there are certain rules that need to be observed.

Striving for a world where those rules can be satisfied, by most people most of the time, could be justifiable called "striving for a better world".

Yes, I know, as with everything, there are the rules and the exceptions.

However, statistically speaking, we can reasonably be sure that 'better' is not entirely subjective.

We still need to establish some kind of a principle by which we allocate our resources between individual interests and societal responsibilities. That is the context in which I was trying to ask my question -- admittedly not very well.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
26-01-2012, 08:58 PM
RE: Can you 'objectively' define a better world?
(26-01-2012 06:59 AM)Zat Wrote:  We want the benefits of democracy, without making the effort it requires to be meaningful and functional.

Freedom ain't free.

As it was in the beginning is now and ever shall be, world without end. Amen.
And I will show you something different from either
Your shadow at morning striding behind you
Or your shadow at evening rising to meet you;
I will show you fear in a handful of dust.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: