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.
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.
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.
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.
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...
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Again, is this a social rule or an instinct?