• 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
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.

Yeah, looking at it again, I think I misread it. My bad.
 
There are not "best" rules. "Best" is subjective, and societies change. Their needs, wants, and desires change and "the rules" must change accordingly. Aside from that, people are different and are going to want and need different rules according to *their* desires and needs.

So, there can never be any objective 'best rules'.
 
Best rules? Very simple.

INDIVIDUAL LIBERTY

Hold onto your rights, and respect the rights of others.
 
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:

Yes. The value of many individual imperatives to survive is greater than the value of one single imperative to survive.

The needs of the many....
 
Yes. The value of many individual imperatives to survive is greater than the value of one single imperative to survive.

The needs of the many....

Often the survival of many requires a failure to survive of many.
 
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.

Natural mortality = dieing of old age. Not war. Not crime. Not drug abuse. Not suicide.

Yes I'm ok with large numbers of people dieing of old age every day. If it's their time then it's their time.
 
There is no such thing as the "best set of rules". Best for who? All known societies has been known to have inherent differences of interests. What is in the interest of one group or class is mutually exclusive to the interests of another.

Furthermore the best way to solve problems change over time in accordance with the historical, social and technological development of a society. Thus, even if we were somehow able to find one common set of interests for the entire society the way to suit these interests the best would change with time and new rules would be preferrable.
 
There is no such thing as the "best set of rules". Best for who? All known societies has been known to have inherent differences of interests. What is in the interest of one group or class is mutually exclusive to the interests of another.

Furthermore the best way to solve problems change over time in accordance with the historical, social and technological development of a society. Thus, even if we were somehow able to find one common set of interests for the entire society the way to suit these interests the best would change with time and new rules would be preferrable.

It's not about making everyone happy, it's about ensuring the wellbeing of the society as a whole. What a person thinks is in their best interest is often far from beneficial, ie the now-illegal practice of Suttee in India.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sati_(practice)
 
Back
Top Bottom