Society or what exactly is going on here?

[Peter_Kropotkin]

Society. A rather big subject to cover and often so big as to be scary.
but let us break it down a bit. First, government is part of society, not
society being a part of government. That is important.
Secondly, Society is so big, I just don’t see as conspiracy theorist see,
a group of people running things, calling the shots and the rest of us dancing
to their tunes. Now can you get a group having undue influence? yes, I believe
groups can have undue influence in society, but more like trying to nudge it
one direction or another. I believe society can have movement and directions,
society can become more conservative or more liberal or more warlike or more passive.
Society has many different moving parts, many different directions people want to move it to,
sometime those many different directions become one but quite often the currents go many
different ways.

Now the role of society, the basic function of society is the transmission of
knowledge from one generation to the next. The knowledge transmitted is the
collective knowledge deemed necessary by society to allow society to go on.
so for example, we want the next generation (our children) to be religious,
so we pass along, transmit, the knowledge of religion and god to the next generation.
We have our institutions such as government and the military to protect us while we
engage in this transmitting of information to the next generation.
We have as the main (but not the only means) of transmitting information vital
to the next generation as schooling, education. We spend a vast amount of money on this
vital task of educating (which is transmitting knowledge we deem important to the next generation)
and we allocate 12 years of mandatory education for this task of education.
(now some may say education is brainwashing, you say tomato, I say tomado, same difference.

Now within this task of education (brainwashing) we teach such things as gender roles, sexuality,
traditional roles, what is our place in universe. Items not easily quantified such as math, science,
and history. So given society is about the transmission of information needed for the next generation to
survive, what would be the value of transmitting such things as gender roles? If you are born a man,
you have specific task and roles you must play, regardless of your feelings about such a matter.
So what is the purpose or function of teaching such roles? I suggest that because of the changing
nature of society, teaching such things actually harms both the individual and the society at large.
One of the things evolution teaches us is the species that survives is the species that can adapt,
change to changing conditions of the environment. If we are to survive, we must teach
individuals how to adapt to changing conditions in the environment. Teaching children set ideas
damage both individuals and society. Set idea’s such as a man is a man who must do and act in a certain
way regardless of what the environment is telling us. We must change as necessary to adapt to the changing
environment and sometimes that change involve gender roles.
Set ideas that harm individuals and society are idea’s like, there is a god, man’s nature is unchangeable,
religion is healthy and necessary, when a crime is committed punishment is always necessary, for example.

Idea’s that don’t harm individuals and society are idea’s like, people nature is changeable (not set in stone)
our role in society is flexible and changeable, the universe is not determined, we can become who we want
to be and who we are. The basic idea is to become more adaptable and able to change as our environment
changes. We must be able to change thus any set idea’s such as morality must be adaptable and changeable.
Thus acts once deemed as to be immoral are moral or immoral depending on the situation. Morality is
adaptable, situational ethics now becomes the norm for society. Depending on the situation, does an
action becomes moral or immoral. Context is everything, not a set piece, of break the law, go to jail.
our actions are judged based on the situation and context, not on any set of unwavering applications of
the law. This new adaptation requires a new thinking about crime and punishment and actually,
everything else.

Kropotkin

[Eric_The_Pipe]

@Peter Kropotkin

Society. A rather big subject to cover and often so big as to be scary.
but let us break it down a bit. First, government is part of society, not
society being a part of government. That is important.
Secondly, Society is so big, I just don’t see as conspiracy theorist see,
a group of people running things, calling the shots and the rest of us dancing
to their tunes. Now can you get a group having undue influence? yes, I believe
groups can have undue influence in society, but more like trying to nudge it
one direction or another. I believe society can have movement and directions,
society can become more conservative or more liberal or more warlike or more passive.
Society has many different moving parts, many different directions people want to move it to,
sometime those many different directions become one but quite often the currents go many
different ways.

Now the role of society, the basic function of society is the transmission of
knowledge from one generation to the next. The knowledge transmitted is the
collective knowledge deemed necessary by society to allow society to go on.
so for example, we want the next generation (our children) to be religious,
so we pass along, transmit, the knowledge of religion and god to the next generation.
We have our institutions such as government and the military to protect us while we
engage in this transmitting of information to the next generation.
We have as the main (but not the only means) of transmitting information vital
to the next generation as schooling, education. We spend a vast amount of money on this
vital task of educating (which is transmitting knowledge we deem important to the next generation)
and we allocate 12 years of mandatory education for this task of education.
(now some may say education is brainwashing, you say tomato, I say tomado, same difference.

Now within this task of education (brainwashing) we teach such things as gender roles, sexuality,
traditional roles, what is our place in universe. Items not easily quantified such as math, science,
and history. So given society is about the transmission of information needed for the next generation to
survive, what would be the value of transmitting such things as gender roles? If you are born a man,
you have specific task and roles you must play, regardless of your feelings about such a matter.
So what is the purpose or function of teaching such roles? I suggest that because of the changing
nature of society, teaching such things actually harms both the individual and the society at large.
One of the things evolution teaches us is the species that survives is the species that can adapt,
change to changing conditions of the environment. If we are to survive, we must teach
individuals how to adapt to changing conditions in the environment. Teaching children set ideas
damage both individuals and society. Set idea’s such as a man is a man who must do and act in a certain
way regardless of what the environment is telling us. We must change as necessary to adapt to the changing
environment and sometimes that change involve gender roles.
Set ideas that harm individuals and society are idea’s like, there is a god, man’s nature is unchangeable,
religion is healthy and necessary, when a crime is committed punishment is always necessary, for example.

Idea’s that don’t harm individuals and society are idea’s like, people nature is changeable (not set in stone)
our role in society is flexible and changeable, the universe is not determined, we can become who we want
to be and who we are. The basic idea is to become more adaptable and able to change as our environment
changes. We must be able to change thus any set idea’s such as morality must be adaptable and changeable.
Thus acts once deemed as to be immoral are moral or immoral depending on the situation. Morality is
adaptable, situational ethics now becomes the norm for society. Depending on the situation, does an
action becomes moral or immoral. Context is everything, not a set piece, of break the law, go to jail.
our actions are judged based on the situation and context, not on any set of unwavering applications of
the law. This new adaptation requires a new thinking about crime and punishment and actually,
everything else.

Kropotkin

Maybe you should tell me what is the reason to teach those roles. Approach it with honesty and good faith, and find a good reason. One you agree with. Then, maybe you’ll convince someone, anyone.

[Uccisore]

Men act like men and women act like women because they are brainwashed. On the other hand, some men become convinced that they are a woman trapped in a man’s body and need to have a Swedish surgeon chop their penis off so their body agrees with their invisible but real gender orientation because…truth and freedom.
Yeah dude, progressive ideology makes total sense.

[AutSider]

Good thing we have people like Uccisore who know how other people feel better than they do

Not saying leftists who claim that “men who act like men and women who act like women are brainwashed” are any better.

[phyllo]

We must be able to change thus any set idea’s such as morality must be adaptable and changeable.
Thus acts once deemed as to be immoral are moral or immoral depending on the situation. Morality is
adaptable, situational ethics now becomes the norm for society. Depending on the situation, does an
action becomes moral or immoral. Context is everything, not a set piece, of break the law, go to jail.
our actions are judged based on the situation and context, not on any set of unwavering applications of
the law. This new adaptation requires a new thinking about crime and punishment and actually,
everything else.

My car won’t start but I’m late for work. There is my neighbor’s car. I will just take it because it’s justified by the situation and context.

Empty library. Cute librarian. She needs some of my loving. So I grope her. Situation, context … perfectly moral.

[turtle]

we are getting taken and screwed by some very powerful money interests…elizabeth warren has some ideas about this

[Eric_The_Pipe]

@turtle

elizabeth warren has some ideas about this

Sadly none of value.

[AutSider]

@phyllo

We must be able to change thus any set idea’s such as morality must be adaptable and changeable.
Thus acts once deemed as to be immoral are moral or immoral depending on the situation. Morality is
adaptable, situational ethics now becomes the norm for society. Depending on the situation, does an
action becomes moral or immoral. Context is everything, not a set piece, of break the law, go to jail.
our actions are judged based on the situation and context, not on any set of unwavering applications of
the law. This new adaptation requires a new thinking about crime and punishment and actually,
everything else.

My car won’t start but I’m late for work. There is my neighbor’s car. I will just take it because it’s justified by the situation and context.

Empty library. Cute librarian. She needs some of my loving. So I grope her. Situation, context … perfectly moral.

I am not sure if you’re joking or not, but I think you know very well that’s a strawman. In order to call something morally good in the general understanding of those words there has to be 1) interaction between living beings and 2) taking into account other people’s well-being and freedom.

Both of your examples lack 2).

[Eric_The_Pipe]

@Atheris

@phyllo

@Peter Kropotkin

We must be able to change thus any set idea’s such as morality must be adaptable and changeable.
Thus acts once deemed as to be immoral are moral or immoral depending on the situation. Morality is
adaptable, situational ethics now becomes the norm for society. Depending on the situation, does an
action becomes moral or immoral. Context is everything, not a set piece, of break the law, go to jail.
our actions are judged based on the situation and context, not on any set of unwavering applications of
the law. This new adaptation requires a new thinking about crime and punishment and actually,
everything else.

My car won’t start but I’m late for work. There is my neighbor’s car. I will just take it because it’s justified by the situation and context.

Empty library. Cute librarian. She needs some of my loving. So I grope her. Situation, context … perfectly moral.

I am not sure if you’re joking or not, but I think you know very well that’s a strawman. In order to call something morally good in the general understanding of those words there has to be 1) interaction between living beings and 2) taking into account other people’s well-being and freedom.

Both of your examples lack 2).

While I agree with your point, they are strawman. Taking into account other people’s well-being and freedom are not simple. And Peter Kropotkin is arguing for a morality that is flexible. The examples are flexible… If nothing else. Your judgement that the examples are not ok would be a failure to have that flexible morality. The beginning post is a strawman to begin with, asking questions, yet promoting that any response that disagrees is wrong.

[phyllo]

I’m not joking and it’s not a strawman.

The purpose of morality is to prevent undesirable actions. This requires a definition of what is right and wrong - which actions are undesirable and why. If every action depends on context and situation, then the useful guidance, that morality provides, is removed. The result is that there is no effective morality.

2. taking into account other people’s well-being and freedom.

If the context and situation is such that well-being and freedom are judged to be irrelevant, then they can be ignored.
There is no reason to be constrained by well-being or freedom.

[Lump]

phyllo is right, he put things into context, where OP tries to shoe horn things into his narrow point of view, where they don’t fit well.