• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

The best rules for society

Do we know the best rules?

  • Total voters
    28
Jerry said:
Thus we know that 2 of "The best rules for society" are 'don't murder' and 'don't steal'; and if we know these rules then we also know that it's not as subjective to the society as others originally argued.
Click to expand...

Precisely, people tend to over complicate things to a wayward extreme.
 
Jerry said:
"Best" = that which most enables and empowers healthy biological imperatives and social structures.
Click to expand...

That's what these guys are saying....

"That is not even in our constitution. Some of these rights are not good for our culture."

Gay couple sentenced to maximum 14 years in Malawi - Africa - msnbc.com

If some people had it their way, the US wouldn't be much different than some third world ****hole's "best rules for society."

The only thing that's constant is change.
 
Korimyr the Rat said:
You can't define murder without its opposite, justifiable homicide, and and you can't define theft without defining property. Both of these concepts are wholly subjective across cultures.
Click to expand...

Each sub-culture will design definitions which benefit that sub-culture's unique circumstances. That does not negate the universal nicety to establish those definitions, however, which proves the point.

This is exactly like how languages can very dramatically, but the existence of extremely different languages does not negate Human's need for a language, nore does it change what language is used for.
 
Last edited:
I'm a libertarian, so I'm fully familiar with the best rules for society.
 
reefedjib said:
My apologies, you were talking about the universal rules of society under God. Same difference as the conception of God in Hinduism is different than the conception of God under Judaism and Christianity and Islam. I agree they are the same God but the rules are different.
Click to expand...

I don't think any religion has it quite right...some more than others, but non is perfect. I'm Christian for purely subjective, pragmatic reasons, not because I believe my flavor of Christianity is perfect and flawless.

In fact the many imperfections of Christianity help me identify with it more, as I am also imperfect.
 
The rules are simple, and universal.

You can pick your own nose.

You can pick your friend's nose only if he lets you.

You can't wipe your fingers on the theater seat.

If you don't want to pick your friend's nose, you don't have to.

If you believe someone else should be picking your friend's nose, you have the freedom to pay them to do the job. You don't have the freedom to take money from someone else to get the job done.

You can't punch someone in the nose unless he tries to hit you first.

It's all about the noses.
 
Laws are evolving, based on continuing trial and error. Some conservatives would prefer if they weren't, but stagnating is never a good thing.
 
Mell said:
Laws are evolving, based on continuing trial and error. Some conservatives would prefer if they weren't, but stagnating is never a good thing.
Click to expand...
Nor is change for the sake of chamge.
 
Tucker Case said:
You have to define precisely what a "healthy" biological imperative is,
Click to expand...

Survival.

Tucker Case said:
as well as what "healthy" social structures
Click to expand...

A "healthy" social structure is one which most enables and empowers survival.

Tucker Case said:
No single set of rules can exist which achieves "healthy" for everyone because everyone's idea of which imperatives and structures are healthy is different.
Click to expand...

The general rule is the basic framework which can be customized to suit specific cultures.

In an attempt to add variety to my analogies: Any paint-ball fan will tell you that the "best" markers are those which are the most customizable and adaptable. Tipman has a reputation of being a marker which "most enables" a person's play style.

There's no denying that every team member needs a marker even while each specific marker my very greatly from person to person. A team without markers will not win.

Tucker Case said:
An objective "best" set of rules could only be achieved if there could exist a single set of rules that could most achieve those needs universally.
Click to expand...

Sure. We'll have a control pair of teams with identical equipment. Then we'll have 3 other similarly situated teams, except:
  • team 1 will have equipment identical to the control team;
  • team 2 will have have leeway to customize their gear as much as they desire without limit;
  • and team 3 will have no gear of any kind, not even a cup.

Each team will compete 3 times as offense, 3 times as defense, randomly determining who goes first.

I'll put my money on team 2.

Tucker Case said:
But because of the differences in what is considered healthy and what is needed, no single set can exist. Only multiple sets of optimal rules for a group and/or individual.
Click to expand...

The basic rule "you need a paint gun" exists even when you are allowed to customize without limit. You bring a stock Spider fresh out of the box. Someone else brings a pair of police training paint pistols and a bandoleer of paint grenades. Another builds a mini-gun.

Tucker Case said:
Since there is no single one greater than all the others, no best can exist.
Click to expand...

Well I don't know...Korimyr the Rat built a trebuchet and that's one fat paint filled balloon he's loading onto it...he might put us all to shame here in a minute...

Tucker Case said:
Since the thing that defines which one is optimal for a particular group is their view of which imperatives and structures are preferred, it is subjective.
Click to expand...

No, not their view, ie; their opinion...but what actually works in the real world when applied.

Polygamy doesn't work well in Capitalist societies and Monogamy doesn't work well in nomadic hunter/gatherer societies, but both have the rule that marriage is needed and marriage serves the same purpose just as the paint-ball guns all serve the same purpose.

Tucker Case said:
Actually, all I need to do is prove that there cannot be a single set of rules that would achieve your definition. That excludes any and all possibility of their being an objective "best".
Click to expand...

My point is actually fairly Darwinian: Like organisms, the most successful (ie; "best") rules are the ones which can adapt to the environment better than the others.

Tucker Case said:
You need to prove that there can exist a single set of rules that would achieve your stated definition of "best" universally for their to exist an objective best.
Click to expand...

The rules are not rigid. They bend with the wind.

Another example: Every society needs a ritual to mark the end of life. Having a clean brake from an intimate bond with the support of others serves our mental health and our ability to function within that society.

We don't need every human on the planet to observe a funeral in exactly the same way for this to be true. We don't need everyone on the planet to wear the same thing. We don't all need to burn the body. We don't all need to sing. We don't all need to pray. The rule "people need to mark the end of life" is flexible.
 
Mell said:
Laws are evolving, based on continuing trial and error. Some conservatives would prefer if they weren't, but stagnating is never a good thing.
Click to expand...

Conservatives are only against what has already been tried which failed. We're completely open to new things which are either unproven or have a winning track record.
 
Jerry said:
I don't think any religion has it quite right...some more than others, but non is perfect. I'm Christian for purely subjective, pragmatic reasons, not because I believe my flavor of Christianity is perfect and flawless.

In fact the many imperfections of Christianity help me identify with it more, as I am also imperfect.
Click to expand...

Well, you just blew your chance at becoming Libertarian. :rofl
 
Jerry said:
There is only one society: the society under God.
Click to expand...

Whose God? The Pope? The Puritans? The Taliban? The Mormons?

Jerry said:
Everyone is a part of it, every saint and sinner, every angel and demon, and the rules are already available to all. Whether any particular individual is still trying to figure that out is subjective to the individual.
Click to expand...

I suspect you just posted this as an inflammatory way to get a reaction, rather than as a serious attempt at discussion. But in any case we're talking about the best rules for SOCIETY, not the best rules for an individual or the best rules for your god.
 
Kandahar said:
Whose God? The Pope? The Puritans? The Taliban? The Mormons?
Click to expand...

God is the God of all these groups, yes.

Kandahar said:
I suspect you just posted this as an inflammatory way to get a reaction, rather than as a serious attempt at discussion. But in any case we're talking about the best rules for SOCIETY, not the best rules for an individual or the best rules for your god.
Click to expand...

Right, and as a people of this planet, we are a society. Our various nations compose sub-cultures within that global society.
 
Jerry said:
God is the God of all these groups, yes.



Right, and as a people of this planet, we are a society. Our various nations compose sub-cultures within that global society.
Click to expand...

So then you think that there is some optimal set of rules that works for every single culture on the planet?
 
Jerry said:
Survival.
Click to expand...

The only true biological imperative is that at some point everyone fails to survive.

You've created an impossible standard to achieve.


A "healthy" social structure is one which most enables and empowers survival.
Click to expand...

Killing one's violent enemies most enables and empowers one's self to survive, but it has the unfortunate side effect of least enabling and empowering the enemy's survival.

The general rule is the basic framework which can be customized to suit specific cultures.
Click to expand...

There are no general rules that can "most" enable or empower survival.

For example, thou shalt not murder can actually decrease one's chance for survival since one cannot commit a preemptive strike upon a potentially deadly enemy.

In an attempt to add variety to my analogies: Any paint-ball fan will tell you that the "best" markers are those which are the most customizable and adaptable. Tipman has a reputation of being a marker which "most enables" a person's play style.

There's no denying that every team member needs a marker even while each specific marker my very greatly from person to person. A team without markers will not win.
Click to expand...

Why do you feel that the markers that increases teh chance of winning are those that are "best"?

What if one's perspective is that losing and winning don't matter, only the amount of personal effort put into the game?

Then wouldn't they consider the one that makes you do the most work the "best"?



Sure. We'll have a control pair of teams with identical equipment. Then we'll have 3 other similarly situated teams, except:
  • team 1 will have equipment identical to the control team;
  • team 2 will have have leeway to customize their gear as much as they desire without limit;
  • and team 3 will have no gear of any kind, not even a cup.

Each team will compete 3 times as offense, 3 times as defense, randomly determining who goes first.

I'll put my money on team 2.
Click to expand...

If one values winning as the most important thing, then you might be correct.

But if one values making a go of it despite insurmountable odds more, they might say that team 3 is the "best" of them all.

The basic rule "you need a paint gun" exists even when you are allowed to customize without limit. You bring a stock Spider fresh out of the box. Someone else brings a pair of police training paint pistols and a bandoleer of paint grenades. Another builds a mini-gun.



Well I don't know...Korimyr the Rat built a trebuchet and that's one fat paint filled balloon he's loading onto it...he might put us all to shame here in a minute...
Click to expand...

If there is a "rule" that one needs a paint gun, then Kori did the best by breaking the rule since a trebuchet is not a gun. Thus, "you need a paint gun" is clearly not the "best" rule by the standards you are employing.



No, not their view, ie; their opinion...but what actually works in the real world when applied.

Polygamy doesn't work well in Capitalist societies and Monogamy doesn't work well in nomadic hunter/gatherer societies, but both have the rule that marriage is needed and marriage serves the same purpose just as the paint-ball guns all serve the same purpose.
Click to expand...

I can't respond to this without knowing the exact definition of marriage you are using.

My point is actually fairly Darwinian: Like organisms, the most successful (ie; "best") rules are the ones which can adapt to the environment better than the others.
Click to expand...

Most effective at achieving a specific, subjective goal does not necessarily mean the same thing as "best".




The rules are not rigid. They bend with the wind.
Click to expand...

Exactly, so there can exist no "best" set of rules.


Another example: Every society needs a ritual to mark the end of life. Having a clean brake from an intimate bond with the support of others serves our mental health and our ability to function within that society.
Click to expand...

Evidence suggests that elephants have death rituals. Yet they do not seem to have what one would call a society or societal rules.

How can we know if this desire for a form of death ritual is a product of a social "rule" or if it is a purely instinctual drive?

We don't need every human on the planet to observe a funeral in exactly the same way for this to be true. We don't need everyone on the planet to wear the same thing. We don't all need to burn the body. We don't all need to sing. We don't all need to pray. The rule "people need to mark the end of life" is flexible.
Click to expand...

Again, is this a social rule or an instinct?
 
Kandahar said:
So then you think that there is some optimal set of rules that works for every single culture on the planet?
Click to expand...

The rules are adaptive just as the human body is adaptive, but yes.
 
Tucker Case said:
The only true biological imperative is that at some point everyone fails to survive.
Click to expand...

Natural mortality keeps the population under control.

Tucker Case said:
For example, thou shalt not murder can actually decrease one's chance for survival since one cannot commit a preemptive strike upon a potentially deadly enemy.
Click to expand...

If it's justified, it's not murder. If it's not justified, it's not a biological imperative.

Tucker Case said:
Why do you feel that the markers that increases teh chance of winning are those that are "best"?
Click to expand...

Those markers most enabled the biological imperative to survive.

Tucker Case said:
What if one's perspective is that losing and winning don't matter, only the amount of personal effort put into the game?
Click to expand...

Put that person in real combat and lets see if their enemy agrees.

Tucker Case said:
Then wouldn't they consider the one that makes you do the most work the "best"?
Click to expand...

In their opinion, perhaps, but opinions have no value. Only results have value.

Tucker Case said:
But if one values making a go of it despite insurmountable odds more, they might say that team 3 is the "best" of them all.
Click to expand...

"Making a go of it" doesn't serve survival. That attitude wouldn't even motivate team 3 to disarm their opponents and use their weapons against them, because to do so survival would have to be the priority.

Tucker Case said:
If there is a "rule" that one needs a paint gun, then Kori did the best by breaking the rule since a trebuchet is not a gun. Thus, "you need a paint gun" is clearly not the "best" rule by the standards you are employing.
Click to expand...

I thought I was careful to use the industry's term "marker". Did I slip?

Tucker Case said:
Most effective at achieving a specific, subjective goal does not necessarily mean the same thing as "best".
Click to expand...

That's exactly what it means.

Tucker Case said:
Exactly, so there can exist no "best" set of rules.
Click to expand...

You're saying that a specialized, rigid rule is better than an adaptive, flexible rule. Do you have an example of that?

Tucker Case said:
Evidence suggests that elephants have death rituals. Yet they do not seem to have what one would call a society or societal rules.
Click to expand...

The entire herd forms a circle around the young when there's danger.

Tucker Case said:
How can we know if this desire for a form of death ritual is a product of a social "rule" or if it is a purely instinctual drive?
Click to expand...

It's not an either/or case. The rule serves the instinctual drive.


Tucker Case said:
Again, is this a social rule or an instinct?
Click to expand...

Again, it's not an either/or case. It's a both/and case.
 
Tucker Case said:
So are you saying that survival is not always what's "best"? :confused:
Click to expand...

The biological imperative is not to live forever.

There's a difference between survival and immortality.
 
Jerry said:
The biological imperative is not to live forever.

There's a difference between survival and immortality.
Click to expand...

Natural mortality just means a natural susceptibility to death.

If susceptibility to death is a positive (as per the keeps the population down comment), then it follows that, at least on occasion, death is a positive.

If death is ever positive, even once, survival cannot always be "best".
 
Natural mortality is merely a biological obstacle on the course to godhood. I would argue that "what's best" is that which drives us along that course. Obviously, not only is there disagreement on that goal, but among those who share it there is disagreement on how it is best accomplished.
 
Tucker Case said:
Natural mortality just means a natural susceptibility to death.

If susceptibility to death is a positive (as per the keeps the population down comment), then it follows that, at least on occasion, death is a positive.

If death is ever positive, even once, survival cannot always be "best".
Click to expand...

"The best rules for society", not "The best rules for individuals".
 
Jerry said:
"The best rules for society", not "The best rules for individuals".
Click to expand...

So when you said "biological imperatives" which according to your clarification meant "survival", were you saying the survival of society, aka the biological imperatives of the society? :confused:
 
Last edited:
Jerry said:
Natural mortality keeps the population under control.
Click to expand...

I find this statement to be especially troubling. As I understand it, it means you are ok with a large number of people dying, whether through lack of resources or violence as long as your ethical standard is maintained.
 
Last edited:
megaprogman said:
I find this statement to be especially troubling. As I understand it, it means you are ok with a large number of people dying, whether through lack of resources or violence as long as your ethical standard is maintained.
Click to expand...

I didn't get that impression at all from what he said.

Jerry can correct me if I've got this wrong, but I got the impression that he was implying that immortality would be a detriment to the long term survival of society due to overpopulation problems.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom