Civilization: Good or not?

Before I start, let me just say that I have morals not much better(in the christian sense) then a satanist. (if you dont actually understand satanism, check out Dr. Satanicals Satanism posts, they are very informative for those curious).

That being said, i want to know if there is any reason we shouldent lie, steal, and even kill to get what we want. (I’ll ignore the current law for now) I am a decent liar, a very big guy, and good with a gun, so i have confidence i could exist in such a society as well as I could in this one.

Thoughts?

BTW, I know this should probably be in social sciences, but you never get replies there

civilization is good for the herd animals… not much more…

-Imp

What are you going to do by knowing that reason? Your satanic morals are not going to allow you to consider those reasons.

Suppose you encounter a person who is a great liar, a really big( bigger than you ) guy, and who handles all weapons easily. What morals do you expect from him? Your satanic morals?

Why wouldent i be able to consider those resons? And in this world, id expect christain morals, in the world im thinking of id expect morals more like mine, selfisnes,ect…

Borr.

I am a decent liar, a very big guy, and good with a gun, so i have confidence i could exist in such a society as well as I could in this one.”

From this post, I suppose that this means that you are a scrawny little guy who has never seen a gun (and probably has fantasies about being something a bit more). :smiley: Go ahead, live un-civilly. If moral theories are right, you’ll get yours. If they are not, you win, whatever that means.

Dunamis

I think capitalism has created a reason to act “un-civilly.” Survival of the fittest dude. If we didnt have the mindset of strong competition and selfishness… things might be different. If we emphasized the collective instead of the individual, I think there would be less “acting out.” But we wouldnt have as much innovation.

For some answers read

Practical Ethics by Peter Singer

I am!!

EZ$

singer is an environmentalist wacko…

insects have more rights than humans

-Imp

The thing about selfishness is that society is the best thing for the individual. You say you’re good with guns: go out in the woods by yourself and fashion a gun out of rocks and trees. What’s that? You can’t? It takes a society to make a weapon like that. Even simpler weapons like swords were developed from years of social exchanges.
Be it information, physical resources, or added strength, the benefits of society are vitally important to the survival of the human species. We are herd animals.

Why not to lie, kill and steal?
Aside from christian prefab morality, there are very good reasons not to do these things. The reasons however have nothing to do with ‘morality’ and everything to do with pragmatism.
First, every action has a reaction, very often taking the form of a concequence. Lying opens yourself to the possibility of being caught. Even if the chance is minimal, it is greater than if you din’t lie at all.
Killing is a serious undertaking. Not only do you have to deal with the law, but in it’s absense there is vigilante justice to bear in mind. A very hefty risk.
Stealing to incurs great risk;from jail time to being labeled as a thief.
These are all very undesirable concequences.
Morality is bogus, but the action/concequence relationship is very real.

^What he said^. Hey Satanical, maybe im a satanist? Have you read any of my stuff? We have alot in common…

That would not be a society. You want to deal with other people, you need some form of social order. And one might posit that we only reach maturity in a society – and therefore is our only claim to true happiness (not just the posession of more things gotten by force.)

As Aristotle said: “The man living outside society is either a god or a beast.”

my real name

Carleas hits the nail on the head, IMO- that’s the main argument against anarchy. Many punk kids think anarchy would be great, so long as someone in an Asian sweatshop keeps cranking out skateboards and Mountain Dew. Real anarchy would mean no cars, guns, grocery stores, etc. Even the simplest services we take for granted would be gone. The big cites would all be charnal houses as the human rats fought to the death over scraps, Road Warrior-style. All large cities would be doomed, along with their inhabitants.

Civilization: Good or Bad? That depends. If you enjoy 21st Century life, along with food to eat, water to drink, cell phones to prattle inanely to your friends on, etc., then it’s a blessing. If good and evil are human inventions, then we have to bow to utilitarianism/pragmatism- does it serve the greater good for the majority of humans? I’d argue that it overwhelmingly does. My vision of humanity definately requires an advanced civilization.

In fact, if some catastrophe (eg war, natural disaster, etc) erased all traces of civilization, I’m not sure I’d want to survive on as an animal. That is assuming civilization was irrevocably gone for the foreseeable future (say, a century or so).

If you live this way, you will have an unhappy life, despite the shortsighted appeal of immediate gratification. It may not seem that way now, but someday you’d come to understand it. Hopefully you won’t have to get to that point.

I guess I knew all that, I just wanted to see if there were any good arguments for anarchy, or any against I hadnt heard. Anybody got those?

No good arguments for anarchy in the absence of morals.  If you don't care about morals, then forcing other people to do what you tell them by any means necessary must be high on your 'to do' list (and if it's not on yours, you can bet your ass it's on mine), and what kind of anarchy is that?  Arguments for anarchy come from (misguided) appeals to human value and the importance of freedoms. 
Besides, without ethics, what is an argument [i]for[/i] anarchy anyway? Surely not an argument for what government system is good, or preferable (who cares what other people prefer?). It must be one about anarchy's being coherent, or inevitable, or capable of existing for a prolonged period of time. I'm sure there are arguments for that sort of thing, but is that what you are really after?

Borramakot wrote

The world is like that now, so you are living the dream :wink:

I would say that the larger the society the more immature, lacking responsibility etc., its members are. Smaller societies members tend to be far more responsible at a younger age.

Remind me to avoid Australia! :astonished: :stuck_out_tongue:

Thanks, yall have helped me get some ideas to prove my point to a friend