The objective goodness of some societies.

[Ben_JS]

@Flannel Jesus

[…]

How’s being a parent? Stressful?

If you’re really trying to communicate - might as well say where the complications/misunderstandings are.

---

I second James’ contributions.

[Chester]

@Flannel Jesus

@Chester

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

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.

You need not be a “super-genius” to realise that society brings clear benefit to humanity. You need not be a “super-genius” to realise that some societies bring greater benefit than others.

Put it this way, what advantage is there to a man living without the benefit of any societal developments?

I may not be a “super-genius” but I think I scored a higher IQ score than you a while ago…lol.

[Chester]

@fuse

@Chester

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.

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?

@Chester

In the western world (for example) the benefits of society massively outweigh its personal costs.

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

In Britain the vast majority of people have all they need in terms of food, shelter, education, transportation and entertainment. Those that don’t represent a minority that have often created their own situation. That’s not to say that things are perfect here , there’s room for a great deal of improvement…but society makes things far better than they would be without it.

It’s saying a great deal, it means that morals that support advanced societies (in a sustainable way) are objectively good.

[Chester]

@James S Saint

@Chester

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.

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

For society to devalue human life is foolish, humans that underestimate society are fools.

[James_S_Saint]

The Nazi’s proposed a society.
I don’t hear anyone praising it for all of its benefits (other than Winston Churchill).

It isn’t merely “a society” that counts.
It has to be a very specific KIND of society.
One that has yet to be formed, actually.

[Chester]

@James S Saint

The Nazi’s proposed a society.
I don’t hear anyone praising it for all of its benefits (other than Winston Churchill).

It isn’t merely “a society” that counts.
It has to be a very specific KIND of society.
One that has yet to be formed, actually.

We all know that some societies are better than others. Key to this is the reciprocation of respect between society and its members.

[Flannel_Jesus]

@Chester

@Flannel Jesus

@Chester

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

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.

You need not be a “super-genius” to realise that society brings clear benefit to humanity. You need not be a “super-genius” to realise that some societies bring greater benefit than others.

Put it this way, what advantage is there to a man living without the benefit of any societal developments?

I may not be a “super-genius” but I think I scored a higher IQ score than you a while ago…lol.

You took a fake online IQ test you dope. I didn’t even take the test. You sure do have a lot of your ego tied into that your score. The more you talk about it, the less intelligent you appear.

Anyway, I’m not arguing that society isn’t beneficial to most people.
I’m saying that that’s not a proof of objective morality.

[James_S_Saint]

@Chester

@James S Saint

The Nazi’s proposed a society.
I don’t hear anyone praising it for all of its benefits (other than Winston Churchill).

It isn’t merely “a society” that counts.
It has to be a very specific KIND of society.
One that has yet to be formed, actually.

We all know that some societies are better than others. Key to this is the reciprocation of respect between society and its members.

The “Key” is ensuring that the right agreement between the people and the government is well known and immutably enforced. Every other society is an abuse.