Ethical Philosophy Selector

[KichigaiNeko]

[quote='Hopppppppp' pid='66497' dateline='1272156161']
It is my place to decide for myself the truths of this world.

'my place'? Why indeed is it your place? Perhaps it is the society's place? The King's place? Your wife's place? God's place?[/quote]

It is up to the individual .....there IS nothing else. Society doesn't get it right. Society is a tribal construct to keep you safe. Thinking is NOT an option.

What is this 'my place'... and why is it any more your 'place' than the 'place' of society's, a leader's, a 'significant other's, or a God's?

It is not my place to decide yours or anyone's other than my own.

Or is it? Why is it not as much your place as it is mine?

Because YOU are not privy to ALL the facts surrounding the life of EVERY individual. Hence it is up to them as to the decisions and paths they take to live their lives.

We live in a society that dictates our standard of living but what place do they really hold in deciding what works best for us all.

A rather strong place... considering that a society is built up of a large number of individuals. Is that not more important than the single individual you are?

Ah yes...dictatorship by consensus Keeping the TRIBE safe and each individual in the place that is made for it.

There are a number of different ways to see the world... "the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few, or the self"... "the needs of the important few outweigh the the needs of the worthless many, or the selfish self"... "the needs of the self outweigh the needs of those who aren't you". These are three very common (and very distinct ways to view the world. Which are you?

Majority Rule with Minority Rights is a flawed system.

Not so. It is a very efficient system... if nothing else.

It is a VERY flawed system but hey! It is the only one we have atm.

Just as much the social contract theory that governs our very society today.

See above.

Again it is a social / Tribal system that is designed to keep every individual in the place society has dictated for it. crippling thought ans imagination terrified that someone just might come up with a better idea or just go off and live very well WITHOUT society only to come back and tell others that it is possible. This is why religion is so prevalent within 'primitive' cultures...humans are still held firm by the short and curlies of their superstitions.

When you implement the spoils system into a government and punish those of a lesser standard is it okay.

Sure. Why not?

WHY??

Our government uses these very things to implement a trickle down system that feeds poor who in turn feed the wealthy.

Which government? Why not equalize the poorest poor and the richest rich if you are concerned that people will starve?]/quote]

Communism will never work mainly because of human nature. All governments use the above system. it's not right nor is it wrong...it IS the system that is currently in play.

[quote='Saerules' pid='66500' dateline='1272160707']

But why can we not do for ourselves instead of having someone else to provide for us.

Because of a thing called specialization. Are you really qualified to amputate a leg? Are you more qualified than the leg doctor, who has devoted his life to the study of the leg? As you are not... tell me then: would you rather amputate the leg yourself... or let him do it?
There is a second part to this as well. It is called management... it means you will have a specific job (or jobs) to complete so that others can focus on different things... this is very similar to an assembly line, but it encompasses the entire economy. Together, properly managed specialization's among the population will result in 1: more efficiency, 2: more familiarity with jobs (and hence by experience people get can 'better' over time at their job), 3: a social stratification as the more important or difficult jobs are considered worthy of more respect and payment than 'lesser' jobs.

All too true BUT it would seem that this system is breaking down. The qualified have essentially risen to the levels of their ineptitude and so much time and money is wasted supporting these so called "qualified persons" with their degrees in specialisation, much to the detriment of their peers in the same fields of specialisation.

When we lose the ability to provide for ourselves we lose our voice in this government and they decide everything for us.

We do not. I think your senators (Assuming you are an 'indirect democracy' or 'republic' in some form) are perfect evidence for this in and of themselves. Further, we can make our voices 'heard' perfectly well when we're starving and homeless... ever tried holding up a sign, or writing an email on a public computer at your local library (or the like)?

I doubt very much that that is the case. America does not have a great track record of the people being heard. Neither does any other democracy. But for the most pat it is a system that bumbles along without causing too much in the way of devastation.

We must still possess some ability to do for ourselves or we will lose out on what we desire most: Freedom.

Why would we lose this? Many city dwellers do not in fact have this ability of the moment... are you suggesting that they aren't "free"?

Are you suggesting that many city dwellers are cognizant of the fact that milk does NOT come in plastic packaging from the corner store??

And then... why is this "freedom" so important to you? We are not "free" to rape, pillage, and murder our way through the land.

Well of course not...been there done that got the constitution to prove it. Your point??

This is a restriction on our freedom. Is that such a bad thing, I wonder?

Just what 'Freedom' are we talking about?? The childish notion of conquest?? Or the Right to determine ones' own life / Life style/ Life path/ Life end as the individual sees fit??

The assumption the Selfishness, Freedom, Sovereignty, and self Determination ARE BAD stems from the fact that it would threaten the tribe and the tribal power base.

I fail to see what is so wrong or threatening if someone chooses to die, to abort and unwanted foetus or plan. Why should the current system of government be held sacrosanct?? Yes it is pragmatic. But that doesn't mean that it cannot be changed but how are you going to get a change for the better without people 'free' to think the unthinkable?? Mao was one, Hitler was another, 'The Founding Fathers' (Masons I understand) were others.

sorry this reply has gone on for too long....banannas back attcha girl!!