The objective goodness of some societies.

Philosophy Forums Philosophy
1

It is clear that some societies objectively benefit all their members. In the western world (for example) the benefits of society massively outweigh its personal costs. Language, plentiful supplies of food, drink , drugs (recreational and medical), shelter, knowledge, transport, variety (in all things),entertainment…etc , benefit all members. A man that lives in society must have greater potential for satisfaction and meaning than someone who does not…fact.

It is therefore pretty fucking obvious that morals that support such a society are good in an objective way.

2

Morals that support society are only good if the morals are themselves good. Society has nothing to do with it.
E.g., morals that support Taliban society?
Some societies are harmful to people. It’s better for people if they aren’t in those societies.
Society has nothing to do with it.

3

Oh wow you just proved objective morality in a 3-sentence post on the internet, something actual professional philosophers have been struggling with and writing tomes about for millenia. You should get a nobel prize!

Or, perhaps it’s less “fucking obvious” than you think.

4

They seriously needed to stamp that one into the original US Constitution.

…and probably would have if they had thought of it.

Today’s socialist paradigm is “What is good for the individual is only what is good for society.”

5

6

Some argue that a significant portion of the benefit to members of those societies come at the expense of members of other societies. Does a society have a responsibility outside itself?

7

ONLY to make peace or harmony with it.
Absolutely NOTHING more than that.

8

So, then, helping other societies is out of the question?

9

If it is not in the interest of supporting harmony with oneself, then it is definitely out of the question.
“Inclusive Self-Harmony” else you ARE the Problem.

10

So one society getting involved to stop genocide in a neighboring society is out of the question, and part of the problem?

11

Did you see the word “some” in my post ? The higher the society (ie, more sophisticated and sustainable) the nearer it has come to defining true moral principles.

You benefit in many ways from the western society around you…you must concede this fact if you are to be taken seriously. That society around you is being undermined by fuckwits and those who are maliciously destructive (nihilists)…I don’t mean ordinary people, I mean the people running the show.

12

What the fuck have “professional philosophers” ever proved?

Nobel prizes go to the undeserving…haven’t you been watching the news over the last couple of years?

I think it’s pretty fucking obvious but some of you cunts like to think that you’re clever…no offence. :smiley:

13

Society is good for the individual provided its core interest is the protection/promotion of the individual provided that doesn’t undermine society.A balancing act.

14

To spread…at least if its people believe in it.

15

Offence taken. This isn’t the forum for trolling, any more will get you a warning.

16

The British empire tried that and look at what that attempt has done to us. This country is on its arse. :smiley:

17

I think most people here are fairly robust…if they ask for an insult…

18

That you think it’s obvious while the rest of the philosophical world is struggling with it means either 1 of 2 things:

  1. you’re a super-genius who can tackle the most difficult problems with merely a moment’s thought.
  2. you’re fundamentally misunderstanding something.

I don’t think you’re a supergenius, for the record.

19

Wait, can we talk about facts? In what society does everyone have plentiful food, drink, medicine, shelter, knowledge, transport, variety (in all things), and entertainment? In what society are no people imprisoned?

The benefits of society as opposed to having no society? If that’s the comparison, that’s not saying much.

20

And the individual is good for society because it can so easily be replaced by something better.