Hello all,
Can we talk about the “values of a society”?
Is society an abstract concept (in this case, an ensemble of individuals living together in a given territory) or a real entity, i.e. a thing in itself?
If “society” is only an abstract concept, can it has “values” in itself?
Even if “society” is a real “thing” and has “values”, can it impose its “values” upon the individuals living in its territory?[i]
Thanks for sharing your thoughts with me![/i]
A society is an abstract idea that manifests itself phenomenally.
Values are abstractions - so it is not problematic that they can be assigned to societies.
Well, if you’re using values like I think you are, then yes. If you want the benefits of the society, you have to follow the society’s rules.
Thanks Faust for your sharp answer, that makes sense to me.
But, in some practical situations, it appears that it may become problematic.
For example, in the province of Quebec, there are discussions now about a proposed “Quebec identity Act” (- Bill 195). I am not going into details, but in the preamble of the Bill, it is said that “this bill stipulates that, in the interpretation and application of fundamental human rights and freedoms, due regard should be paid to the historical heritage of the Québec nation and to its fundamental values”.
Those fundamental values are being defined elswhere in the bill as: “1) the importance of ensuring the predominance of the French language, 2) protecting and promoting Québec culture, 3) guaranteeing equality between women and men, and 4) preserving the secularity of public institutions”.
The identity of the Province and the "Society is therefore defined by this set of “values”. For me all this is logically, and almost, morally wrong.
Well, firstly, you are talking politics now, with the attendant rhetoric.
Here’s a “problematic” value for ya - All men are created equal.
In any event, that values are deemed (decided upon as) fundamental does not mean that they are metaphysically grounded. In any political arrangement, they are subject to human decisions. Even if that is only one human.
The point is that these values do no arise from a vacuum. People, some people, chose them. I think it would be more problematic to try to create a society without fundamantal tenets, stated or otherwise. Thesadays, we write them down. Mebbe in the past, they were simply co-opted from extant custom. But all political ideas have a history - all politics does, at this point. I’m not sure how any of this is logically corrupt. Can you elaborate?
Thx for your reply,
In my understanding, only self-conscious reflexive entities (this meaning a “human being”) can have “values”. As Society is only a grouping of individuals living together, a mathematical ensemble, it cannot think by itself. If we say that a Society has “values”, then we are doing something like “anthropomorphism”, which I don’t think is very much logical.
Furthermore, as I see it, only an authoritarian political structure (or Society) could impose its so-called “values” upon its people. "Values’, in this case, being more a disguise for “Rules”. We are then moving away from an Open Society.
So, we have, on one hand, something like “fundamental/philosophical values” and, on the other hand, “engineering values”, which are the one used in the real world.
You’re taking this too literally. Individuals can share beer, and they can share values. What usually happens is that the values become collectivised, which means that compromises, or some type of modifications, take place. That process is called politics.
Values are just a bit more fundamental than rules, but the line is blurry enough that it’s not worth arguing in the present case. So, they are rules. So what?
Philosophical values should be used in the real world. Where else would they be used? I cannot see how that would be a bad thing. usually, though, we can see the difference between priciples and rules. But it’s easier to see when you get down to cases.
“Authoritarian” is a loaded word. Yeah, someone has authority. Given, taken, usurped - or maybe just democratically decided upon.
I would like to have an actual social contract, to remove any ambiguity.