Can you 'objectively' define a better world?
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
27-01-2012, 08:53 AM
RE: Can you 'objectively' define a better world?
(26-01-2012 06:37 PM)Zat Wrote:  
(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.

But better is imprecise, therefor it is not possible to uniquely define a better world.

We, collectively, have to agree on the terms of a social contract. When we do, it will be a better world.

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
27-01-2012, 09:21 AM (This post was last modified: 27-01-2012 09:30 AM by Zat.)
RE: Can you 'objectively' define a better world?
(27-01-2012 08:53 AM)Chas Wrote:  But better is imprecise, therefor it is not possible to uniquely define a better world.

We, collectively, have to agree on the terms of a social contract. When we do, it will be a better world.

Chas, I see you are still hung up on the word 'objectively' that I used, unfortunately, to suggest that I was looking for a principle or method, rather than a shopping list of personal (therefore 'subjective') preferences.

As far as a new social contract is concerned, in my previous life on this board I proposed one here.

It might work, for a while at least, as we discussed it in that thread.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
27-01-2012, 10:18 AM
RE: Can you 'objectively' define a better world?
(27-01-2012 09:21 AM)Zat Wrote:  
(27-01-2012 08:53 AM)Chas Wrote:  But better is imprecise, therefor it is not possible to uniquely define a better world.

We, collectively, have to agree on the terms of a social contract. When we do, it will be a better world.

Chas, I see you are still hung up on the word 'objectively' that I used, unfortunately, to suggest that I was looking for a principle or method, rather than a shopping list of personal (therefore 'subjective') preferences.

As far as a new social contract is concerned, in my previous life on this board I proposed one here.

It might work, for a while at least, as we discussed it in that thread.

I'm not hung up on it - I'm responding to the question you asked.
If you meant something else, then re-phrase the question.

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
27-01-2012, 10:24 AM
RE: Can you 'objectively' define a better world?
(27-01-2012 10:18 AM)Chas Wrote:  If you meant something else, then re-phrase the question.

I have, several times in this thread -- not very successfully, it seems. Sad
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
03-02-2012, 02:37 AM
RE: Can you 'objectively' define a better world?
Remove central banks.....issue money interest free (just like libya used to before they got invaded)

Legalise all drugs......any tax revenue can be pumped into rehabilitation (seeing as drugs being illegal doesnt magically make them go away) and money left over (billions????) can be spent on other things.

Make an upside down pyramid of democracy......where the majority make and vote on decisions instead of the few.

Those first few steps would make me "happy"

For no matter how much I use these symbols, to describe symptoms of my existence.
You are your own emphasis.
So I say nothing.

-Bemore.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: