But I do not find the truism of this just affirmed maxim to then indicate that one should not hold good intentions to begin with. — javra

Agreed. I think in reality humanity is always going to overstep to some degree. It is necessary to make mistakes in order to learn from them. Judging the potential fallout from possible mistakes is mostly guesswork.

Is the morality of humans as a whole only something that can either get worse or remain the same for all time yet to come or, else, can it improve relative to its present day and past manifestations?

If this doesn’t help, we might well be dealing with disagreements regarding any number of underlying metaphysical issues, such as with the metaphysical issue of whether morality is relative or not. In other words, if the good is something we make up as we go or else is something universal to all sentience. And I’ll back away from any such discussion for the time being. — javra

I am a moral sceptic. I can pretend to believe this or that for the sake of an argument but in this case it is pretty hard to respond more without getting bogged down.

I am convinced we can move beyond the current 'moral' paradigm. What that would mean to anyone else if I could explain better I am unsure.

It tends to keep the homicide stats down. — Vera Mont

Guess what ... I disagree :D

If there is anyone you have listen too who has not said something you disagree with then you simply have not listened enough. The same principle goes the other way too in terms of agreement.

Why people care about 'agreeing' like it is something to be valued I have no idea. I would rather just try and understand opposing views and be happy with that.

Within our lifetime I find it exceedingly doubtful, if not laughable. Still, I agree with this conclusion. It would by entailment need to be purposefully enforced by everyone (or at least the vast majority) from which the society is constituted. — javra

I was thinking more along the lines of it just happening because it happens, not because anyone actively intended it. The kind of paradigm shift I am talking about is something like some imagining a society like today back in 1800 and aiming for it. It is inconceivable for this to happen.

I wasn't addressing parents' reprimanding their children or the like but to all various forms of child abuse. — javra

My point was more or less that what some called child abuse others call learning. The world is strange full of people with strange ideas. Overprotection is abuse of some kind. I see you are talking about more blatant examples here though alongside rape and murder, so fair enough.

But, again, who would deny that a world devoid of rape and murder is not sheer utopia from today's vantage? — javra

Me. And I did. Given that the term has a specific meaning fixing one ill in society at the expense of ignoring others seems reprehensible. I guess others would disagree because people grade different problems in society at different levels.

And to repeat. I am all for people pursuing their ideal self, it is just when anyone points at some utopian ideal as being the answer I cannot see any good coming from it. Undoubtedly I am sure all sane individuals like the sound of John Lenon's Imagine and perhaps in some far flung future such an existence will be possible, but to AIM for that kind of thing now seems utterly insane and logistically incomprehensible.

I have stated elsewhere that humanity could perhaps make some leap forward perhaps even with in our life times. I think it would be initially messy though - talking about the possibility of the singularity.

Inside I am John Lenon's Imagine, but outwardly I know it is better to stem liberal views because they can often cause way more harm than we intuitively expect.

I have attempted to steelman the "aiming for utopia is good" but it seems to end in a situation where humanity becomes something like H.G. Well's Eloi.

But the question: Do you believe it is possible for future generations of humans to become more moral by comparison to the morality of humans today? — javra

Have I in anyway managed to cover this question to your satisfaction? I doubt I have! Feel free to reform it in some way as I cannot possibly begin to answer it without writing a few thousand words.

Shame. I have not actually seen much offered tbh. If that is all you have I guess that is all you have.

bye :)

I am talking to you and have no intention of looking at those.

But the question: Do you believe it is possible for future generations of humans to become more moral by comparison to the morality of humans today? — javra

The assumption is believing this would be a good thing and that belief in morals existing/matters is important for a utopian society. Let's assume these two things as a given.

Even with this there is a question of how we can possibly measure morality let alone dictate what degree of morality is optimal. There is probably way too much in here to unpack so maybe asking another question would be more useful? If not answer it yourself and I can respond to that once I have a better idea of what exactly you are thinking.

The economic and political specificity of the hows aside, I take it that this would in part require that people become better parents of their own volition, thereby resulting in future generations of people that have less childhood psychological trauma, that have less defense mechanisms as adults for the traumas they / we experienced as children, and that thereby grow up having more scruples. (Though only part of the story, I do deem this step requisite to any actualization of the aim just specified.) — javra

A perfect example of how doing something that seems good, like protecting children from trauma, actually results in something bad. Making mistakes and having 'traumas' as children is a good thing. Children need to learn how to deal with difficult situations rather than be protected from them. The assumption that such parenting would lead to more 'morality' in society could just as easily do the exact opposite.

If it is metaphysically possible for people to of their volition become better parents (say, maybe, in part due to changed societal constraints), then it is possible for next generations to become more moral. And were this to persist we would attain a society wherein people no longer rape or murder other people. And this, to me, would be a utopian society. One whose very notion and possibility many nowadays will scoff at. — javra

So we are playing out a hypothetical where the utopian society is where there is no sex crimes or homicides, but what about items like poor people starving, discrimination by religion/race/sex etc.,? Or are you basically framing this as a more progressively moral society will extinguish all of these inequalities to the point where we all see each other as being equal? If so, this is 'leveling the playing field' and I think it would fall apart fairly quickly in larger populations for reasons I have outlined.

Forgive me if I missed the point here. Maybe I am on the wrong track. Have a feeling I am?

In short, should this ideal of humans no longer raping and murdering other humans – which is quite utopian – be denounced and shunned by everyone the world over? This on grounds that some of the possible means toward such an end can only result in dystopias? — javra

I see was on the wrong track :) but, if such an ideal comes at the cost of increased discrimination then is it utopian? Can utopia be a utopia if there is no equality in some areas? Certainly having no murder or rape sounds pretty damn good to me, BUT to blindly pursue this ideal would - obviously - overshadow other societal dilemmas such as resource discrepancies (including education, wealth, property, skillsets, access to materials, access to means of production, etc.,.).

In short, what you are proposing is a ideal but does not look anything like a utopian ideal as it is looking at societal problems as being ONE problem and in pursuing with the same vigor as a utopian ideal would leave other pressing matters floundering in its wake.

Pursuing the idea of adopting a optimization where murder and rape is reduced does not overshadow other possible lines of optimization. The ideal pursuit in one area ignore the others in a utopian framework unless everyone agrees that said ideal is the best ideal to pursue - in which case everyone will suffer its consequences equally and have no one to blame but themselves ... then again, I am sure some would still manage to point the finger as in times of strain any little differences in society are generally attacked/blamed.

If something we would refer to today as a utopian ideal was to come into existence in our lifetime, via some unknown paradigm shift, I absolutely do not believe anyone would purposely have instigated it. Some will always claim to have predicted this or that, but that is human nature. If things go our way we claim authorship, yet if things go against what we say we are even more quick to distance ourselves from immediate participation (the neuroscientific evidence for this is pretty conclusive)*.

* I am talking about an experiment where two participants had to press a button for correct answer, but one person had their finger on top of the others. The results showed that when the answer was wrong they were not likely claim authorship (when there was), yet when it was right they were likely to claim authorship (when there was none). Cannot find the paper atm.

What's causing the growing strain in your scenario? Differences among persons, disparity of resource distribution, ideologies or goading by demagogues with their own agenda? — Vera Mont

All of them and more we have not even considered or expect.

Yup. "some better world" is too vague for my taste. Better than what? Better for whom? Better in what ways? — Vera Mont

Well, what are you offering in the utopian ideal? Better for whom and how? Same problem only exponentially more problematic especially if it cannot actually be reached. What could happen is we hit an optimal for the time but people still push onwards towards some utopian ideal and essentially make things worse rather than better by doing so.

arguing about the present situation helps your position how?
— I like sushi
It wouldn't, had I done so. — Vera Mont

Maybe your anecdotal evidence was not meant to represent the current state of affairs in Toronto then. Unimportant. Which only begs the question of why you brought it up.

Yup. That has to be one of the first problems needs solving - assuming there is time to solve problems before the whole house of cards collapses. Is it a conflict between two individuals, or between two equal sized groups of persons? Or between a very few people and an enormous number? I wonder how that would play out, hand-to-hand, without a mercenary army on one side. — Vera Mont

And this is achieved by aiming for a utopian ideal. How? I think it would be far safer and prudent to act with caution than to announce some ideal goal. It is pie in the sky thinking that leads to more severe upheavals.

our reference to me bringing up genocide and such, or some other means of leveling the playing field, was in regards to feasible pathways to a utopian ideal.
— I like sushi
There is nothing feasible about means that would destroy the ends they aim for. — Vera Mont

Pol Pot, Hitler, Mao. You may argue that they were not trying to create an ideal society, but I believe what they said they aimed to do.

If am being generous then tell me how any idealist can stop people from taking their plan on for themselves and running away with it. Lenin, via Marx, justified his actions because the outcome was the main focus. The violence was deemed necessary.

Yes, and that's pretty much the point. Up front, I said that a utopian vision depends on eliminating wealth disparity, uneven distribution of resources and ideological indoctrination. You seem to assume these things are inevitable and unavoidable. I believe they will crumble with the current world order. — Vera Mont

So something akin to the communist view of a utopian society? If not elaborate.

Yes, I think disparity is inevitable wherever there is diversity. If there are differences there will be disparities. It is not merely that I THINK this I cannot possible see a situation where it is false. I can say that it may be more or less pronounced, but when it comes to larger populations I see no obvious way of coping with this problem (Dunbar Number playing out as it will). Of course, we can fantasize about some sci-fi future where we are all hooked up to some computer and able to expand our social capacities and empathy more ... but that is just sci-fi and sounds more like a dystopian society than a utopian one as it would - as all utopian ideals tend to - point towards reducing individualism.

As I've said several times already: You can't get there from here, except with many, many baby steps (some of them backward). Nationalism and religion have to go. Politics has to change dramatically. Tradition is okay, in the form of parades and festivals, as long as it doesn't try dictate decisions for the future. — Vera Mont

And as I have said many times baby steps towards an ideal are relative leaps and bounds compared to considered incremental steps that are not working towards some ideal fantasy.

How do national and religion have to go? Why? You cannot throw a bombshell like that without some kind of follow up unless you have realised you have lost the argument.

How is aiming for a utopian ideal not a 'tradition that dictates decisions for the future'? I you starting to see the contradictory nature of utopian ideals yet?

The reason is the utopian ideal springs from equality and true equality can only be achieved if everyone is basically the same - which we are not.
— I like sushi
Rubbish! — Vera Mont

What is rubbish. That we differ or that true equality can only be achieved if we are all the same? I was stating the extreme end in terms of TRUE here. Clearly if everyone is the same we all have the same ideas, wants and needs and therefore one or two simple rules would satisfy everyone as much as it would not satisfy everyone. How could any society be more equal if everyone agreed on everything?

Can you relate to that? — Athena

I pursue the growth of my ignorance. So, yes.

I didn't drag genocide into this discussion. — Vera Mont

You brought it up on that particular point and I have no idea why.

I mentioned that to achieve utopia could involve something along those lines or some other means of levelling the playing field. Instances of these kinds of actions were obvious enough in the 20th century. We had communism pursuing economic equality and nationalist attitudes pairing up with genetic ideals on the other side of the spectrum.

There would be all kinds of local disharmonies. So what? Any functioning society can institute a mechanism whereby people can resolve their arguments and restore harmony to the community. It's certainly not an existential problem. — Vera Mont

Because there is today. Remember what the argument is about please. I am stating that aiming for a utopian ideal is wrong and you are saying it is right.

Aiming for a utopian ideal would involve having a target to aim for, not merely the incremental pursuit of some better world. There is no current utopian state (I think we can agree on that at least?) so arguing about the present situation helps your position how? Everything I am saying to you is in regards to opposing the pursuit of a utopian ideal because I strongly believe I am justified in saying that it necessarily will lead to everything I have been saying for the reasons I have given.

I have not seen much of what I have said addressed yet. Like below ...

Diversity does necessarily involve conflictions.
— I like sushi
Then why is every society on Earth not tearing itself apart over the existence of all those fat and thin, dark and fair, tall and short, clever and dull, brisk and relaxed men, women and others, some of whom like jazz while some prefer rock, some of whom eat rice while some like potatoes? — Vera Mont

Evasion and then silly examples of something that has nothing to do with the point I am making. Maybe read with some generosity perhaps rather than dismissive and lampooning scorn?

I said this:

Diversity does necessarily involve conflictions. That is what differences are. They are different due to some degree of confliction. The greater the differences the more likely the possibility for conflict. — I like sushi

We can see currently that rich and poor and differences in status or cultures does cause confliction. you can se this literally anywhere on the planet. When there is a problem with resources or large cultural disparities - basically conflicts of interest - then things can turn nasty fairly quickly. This is not new news to anyone. Understand?

That you are attempting to make out that I am saying something like people who are different cannot live together in peace is frankly idiotic. What I am saying is that as population grow and conflicts of interest appear then there is growing social strain - this should be apparent enough from what I have previously written surely?

And yet consider us so short-sighted and intolerant that we can't live in a society with people who are unlike us, or share resources among occupations. — Vera Mont

Bludgeoning your way through what I have said and then putting words in my mouth is not really going to help this discussion progress. Drop the empty rhetoric and make a point please. I am not interested in some combative debate where one of us pumps the air with our fists at the end taking delight is 'winning an argument' rather than exploring ideas.

Back to the argument ...

Aiming for utopian ideals does nothing to give us a roadmap to a utopian ideal, because it is a mirage. Your reference to me bringing up genocide and such, or some other means of leveling the playing field, was in regards to feasible pathways to a utopian ideal. The reason is the utopian ideal springs from equality and true equality can only be achieved if everyone is basically the same - which we are not.

The simple example of the carpenter was small illustration of this. I assumed you could extrapolate from that positions and see quickly enough how differences in beliefs, opinions and obligations would confound the problem beyond merely distributing material resources. If material resources could be distributed in a manner everyone was more than satisfied with - endless resources perhaps - there would still be matters of religion, pride in the group, politics, traditions and of course individual abilities.

Why this is all dangerous is because there is no road to the top of this utopian mountain. Anyone can look up and admire the idea, but to pursue it is folly where the road ends. And where the road ends could easily be far worse than anything down in the comfort and security of the valleys. We do not know. Our ignorance is the main point regarding our ability to foresee the future. Any new enterprise carried out reveals unforeseen problems.

Maybe ask yourself this question:

- If the head of state in your country decided to reveal an incremental roadmap towards some vision of utopia would you back them over someone looking to make some improvements to the existing scheme without any idealistic goal?

You know what I would choose and why in part (see this page of posts and the previous page too). I know what you would choose but I do not know why.

This is where we stand at the moment in this discussion as far as I can see. It might help if you repeat what you think I have been saying in your owns words? Then I can point out where you are correct or incorrect.

Anyway, thanks for your time.

Well, if you're not inclined to kill people for being different, why assume everyone else is? Why assume diversity equals conflict?I have lived peaceably among enough people who are different from me and different from one another not to believe that. — Vera Mont

Killing? Conflict does not mean 'killing'. There would be disharmony of a sort.

Diversity does necessarily involve conflictions. That is what differences are. They are different due to some degree of confliction. The greater the differences the more likely the possibility for conflict.

Irrelevant. I am talking generally not about specific personal examples here.

You may be right; humanity may be altogether irredeemable. — Vera Mont

Believe it or not I am optimistic for humanity :)

No. I defined it as a society that satisfies peoples needs and provides opportunity for people to satisfy their own and one another's wants. This should not be such a difficult concept, since all functional societies have a mandate to do this. They just don't do it very well. — Vera Mont

What is a better way then? The problem is people believing they can solve this problem to the kind of degree you may be speaking of?

I say that if we don't have to fight over the necessities, we are better able to choose and create the luxuries. You say the luxuries must come with the package. You demand more than is possible and then argue that it's not possible.
A place where there is nothing left to try and nothing left to desire is not Utopia - it's death.
If you prefer fish and I prefer pasta, we don't need to fight over either. All we need are some very basic laws regarding personal liberty and responsibility. (Not the million contentious laws we have been trying to uphold and knock down in civilized countries.) — Vera Mont

I would say this is an instance of oversimplifying the problem. Hopefully the next response will outline this a little ...

And all these differences grate on you? You want to kill all those 'other' people? Me, I find uniformity rather a bore. — Vera Mont

No? This is not about me. Kill? That is a bizarre interpretation of what I outlined.

Some may find uniformity 'boring' but what if others do not. This would be something that would grate between a group of variety loving people and those who prefer conformity (liberal and conservative principles as an example we see commonly enough in the political world).

The fundamental point being people have different preferences and will wish to live in different ways that conflict with others. One way to deal with this is with uniformity. This would create a common belief and worldview among everyone at the price of everyone being more or less identical in abilities, preferences, wants and needs, etc.,. Maybe there is some room here to argue more for this case but it would be a hard sell.

The very basic laws and liberties are not so very basic when others are looking in at them. What seems reasonable and fair to some may seem obnoxious and repressive to others. This is DUE TO the variety of views different people hold, so adhering to set laws and liberties would be a type of conformity.

It is contradictory to set liberal laws because these laws inhibit freedoms. Of course people can, and do, move the goal posts by stating they are 'protecting liberties' rather than 'enforcing them' but both essentially amount to the same thing.

If the only basics you mean are in fact the basic means of sustaining life and giving everyone equal opportunities this does not solve the issue either, it only pushes it down the road (which maybe just the way we do things as a species?). To explicate further, I mean there is a problem with deciding on how equality is measured. The difficulty, again, lies in individual differences and preferences. A carpenter has more use of wood than a potter, yet if we are looking at beginning from an equal footing then both would possess equal access to the resources clay and wood. This 'equality' is nonsensical and as services and resources are measured out between peoples the disparities will multiple. The problem will then become exacerbated as the communication and sense of relation thins in larger populations.

In fact, I don't see the logic of variety as an obstacle to social cohesion. — Vera Mont

We are talking about a proposed utopian society. You are advocating for aiming for a utopian society. I am saying it does not work and it is harmful too.

The difference between people's becomes exacerbated because we are limited to social circles of 150 (generally speaking). What one group may do can effect another far away - as we well know - and the distances involved are social more than physical. Meaning, a mile apart is nothing if the cultures and preferences are conflicting. If they live closer then they can come to understand their immediate nieghbours a little, but short term they would grate and longer term new preferences and differences would arise and the whole process would repeat again.

Of course one solution to this problem would be for conflicting societies to live at a greater distance from each other assuming both had limitless resources.

If you cannot see how variety is an obstacle to social cohesion I do not know what to say. I am not saying it is always an obstacle only that it can grow more easily when populations and groups form with different ideas to other members of the population. If there is variety in societies this will happen. If you wish to contain so social cohesion is maintained then this inhibits some liberties of some people giving rise to inequalities within the 'basic laws' of personal liberty and responsibility.

To Steelman the position of a society containing multiple ideas and views, I guess we could take the 150 community into account and then devise a scheme that allowed for a fluid communication between differing groups so as to balance out conflicts. Something like having communities structured in such a manner so as to optimise overlap between communities. The vaster the overall population though the more unwieldly the scheme would become (parallels with the modern world in some ways!) and even if such a scheme could be achieved successfully how long would it last? I ask this because such a monolith of societal networking would effectively reach a point where the integrity of the structure would buckle under the strain of expansions and diversification. With growing equilibrium a greater decrease in integrity would ensue. It may even lead to complete collapse, or possibly human society would actually find another way to hold things together.

I'm not opting for it. The option was never open to me. I'm saying it's theoretically possible. And also that having a destination in mind is useful in choosing one's path; that a clear vision of how society should work is helpful in making incremental improvements. .... — Vera Mont

I know you are not opting for it. I have said that trying to improve things is fair enough, but I am arguing against (strongly opposing) the scheme of aiming for some proposed ideal. I can certainly see the attraction in thinking this AND have thought like this before in the past. Not any longer though. I just see people massively overreaching and potentially making things much worse rather than slightly better more often than not.

I have guarded this by saying I would wholly endorse this mentality for personal individual exploration and shaping ones own future, BUT not as a sensible approach for shaping society as a whole.

The 'clear vision; people may have of some proposed future utopia is too often simplistic and prone to tunnel-vision.

In actuality, we're just hanging on the precipice of extinction by our fingernails. Survival is still possible, but it's not going to be any picnic. — Vera Mont

Actuality? No. Not in the slightest. Well ... in terms of any species on the planet in general, and the entire (pre)history of the human race, we have always been on a 'precipice' of sorts. I can give you that and no more.

Did you look at the book by Nozick btw? It is an interesting read. I have mostly focused on the final chapter regarding 'utopia'. Perhaps if you find the time to browse it we can share thoughts on it and have some kind of common ground to talk on.

Is anything I have been saying made any sense whether you agree or not?

Of course a utopian or optimal society cannot be brought about in our present state of affairs. And maybe too many of us are too crazy to want it. Nevertheless, I believe it to be a theoretical possibility. — Vera Mont

I hope to convince you otherwise in due time. We do seem to have a pretty similar view in many ways, but I do not feel that you appreciate the danger of opting for some utopian scheme rather than just trying to improve the current state.

My thinking is based on premises that include our ignorance of what is better and worse for us alongside the distinctions between individuals rather than a reversion to grouped ideologies set out as universal principles.

Needs, yes. Wants are individual; all the society can or should do is provide the opportunity for people to satisfy their own wants. — Vera Mont

So you define a utopian society as being one that keeps people alive rather than one that also satisfies people's wants? I do not. This in itself part of the problem of utopian ideals. If we all envisage different things they also contradict each other.

I would very strongly argue that individuals are more important than some scheme that meets a minimal means of sustenance - which would also differ from individual to individual.

Why the hell not? Native tribes on various continents managed quite well to remain separate, and yet trade and party and look for marriage partners. — Vera Mont

Because they would not be able to communicate and negotiate well enough leaving many on the fringes of society. Too many will be overlooked (this is commonplace in any nation you look at today). If their are people missing out then it is not really much of a utopian ideal is it.

Why should they? What - aside from cultural indoctrination - are these prominent differences? — Vera Mont

Height, sex, weight, intelligence, personal preferences, tastes, fortitude, vulnerability, sociability, etc.,.

Toronto used to enjoy a thriving Chinatown, a Jewish district and market, the Italian strip, the Ukrainian and Hungarian, Greek and Caribbean, Irish and Portuguese neighbourhoods. Yonge Street got pretty raucous during FIFA playoffs. St. Patrick's day was a lot of fun, and so was Caribana. If there is no scarcity of resources or ethnic dominance to compete for, and nobody inciting one group of people against another, what have they to grate about? Anyone is free to associate with those they find pleasant company and avoid people they don't like — Vera Mont

Is Toronto a blueprint for a utopian society? Not sure what this is meant to be arguing against here. Sure, diverse cultures can coexist together to some degree with mutual respect and consideration.

And yet, cities and nations consist of many million citizens, and don't break out in civil war. Why does everyone need a direct tie to everyone else? How long has the place where you currentIy reside existed? If you can tolerate the presence of strangers there, in spite of whatever inequalities, injustices and annoyances exist there right now, why could you not accept them in a fair and benevolent society?

Of course a utopian or optimal society cannot be brought about in our present state of affairs. And maybe too many of us are too crazy to want it. Nevertheless, I believe it to be a theoretical possibility. — Vera Mont

I stated above why there will be confliction. To repeat, people's wants and needs differ and this causes disharmony. In a smaller community these kind of disagreements can be resolved more readily as people know each other. If another group passes by insisting that their wants and needs outweigh yours then it gets progressively harder to negotiate as the more disparate groups are the more obstacles there are for communication on any reasonable level of understanding.

Utopian societies would not have inequalities, injustices or annoyances. This is what utopia means.

Utopia cannot be brought about under any state of affairs without causing mass harm, genocide, homicide or some means of 'levelling the playing field'. Even then, difference would arise and the whole process would begin again from square one; in clueless ignorance most likely.

What has changed is that nowadays, one needs to know about science in order to be a decent citizen of a civilized society. — Ludwig V

I can generally agree with this. I think there has always been a disparity between those with knowhow and those not, but the information age has caused something of a hiccup I feel.

If you go down that road then everything relates to everything. Colin Renfrew is a pioneer in Cognitive Archaeology, for example.

My point was that an historian is an historian and an archaeologist is an archaeologist. Obviously they are not necessarily mutually exclusive, but they are distinct fields of investigation following different methodologies.

Why would people drag 'happiness' into social organization? — Vera Mont

Satisfying people's wants and needs is part of the utopian ideal.

What is a singular society? — Vera Mont

Utopian. The very principle of a utopian society is one that is furnishing everyone's requirements.

This is one basic assumption about humans on which you and I disagree. All living things have needs in common; all members of a phylum have even more in common; all members of a family have even more in common; all members of a species are more like one another than they are like any other species. — Vera Mont

Yes, but people still differ. the larger the population the prominent differences become as they grate harder on each other. With Dunbar's Number we know that societal ties breakdown over a certain population threshold. Separate communities in a utopian society cannot stably coexist because of this limitation.

Like I mentioned briefly in the video Nozick does speak of a 'existential utopian' framework, but it exists as a holistic whole separated from other different utopian models. The 'existential utopian' position is conducive with multiple existing utopian models but not with them existing as a holistic whole.

Nozick's Anarchy, State and Utopia Pages 317-20 should cover what I am referring to. Subheading "The Framework as Utopian Common Ground"

It is the extreme I am against. If someone believes they have an idea that can alter society 'at large' then they are peddling some form of ideology. I do not care how good the outcome they are hoping for is I just know it will not come to fruition how they expect.

No one is a prophet, they just play at being a prophet. Just because we remember those whose faulty predictions seem to have played out roughly as they said they would, this does not discount the hundreds of others who appeared to have had equally valid arguments but whose forecasts turned out to be completely wrong.

There is no 'Social Science' in anything but name. When people forget this horrific things happen.

I have always thought of it as much more complicated than that. — Ludwig V

It is primarily dedicated to objectively recording the data of sites and artifacts in meticulous detail. The conjure comes later, as with practically every other scientific endeavor.

Historians deal with the written word. I was pointing out this clear distinction as whoever posted what they need seemed to think historians were archaeologists. They are not necessarily mutually exclusive, but they operate on completely different levels of investigation and data collection.

Mine are slightly different, and my idea of a good society - one that aspires to incremental improvement in the life of every individual - certainly doesn't include brainwashing. — Vera Mont

That was an example of how everyone would be happy. the simple truth is people are different and as long as they are different utopia is impossible - hence clones or forcing conformity.

In no way shape or form are humans alike enough to inhabit - en masse - a singular society. If they choose to leave then it is clearly not a utopian society. This is why I was a little puzzled by Nozick using the term 'Existential Utopia,' which I take he means as an amalgam eventually resulting in a more or less homogenous society - but this would be just a progressive creeping towards the death of individualism in favour of conformity (albeit cloaked in its approach).

Mine are slightly different, and my idea of a good society - one that aspires to incremental improvement in the life of every individual - certainly doesn't include brainwashing. Nor is there any reason for a good society to operate on a single model. — Vera Mont

I think the general outline of the term Utopia is far more than merely a 'good society'. The push and pull between individualism and state authority is the biggest hurdle for utopian ideals. They all effectively resort to enforcing policies through the general will of the population, which results in (what seems to be) necessary division in any given society.

Note: I have not finished Nozick's chapter on this yet so many he will offer up something interesting.

A historian can go into ground and look for artifacts, his claims are falsifiable. — Johnnie

Archaeologist. That is a science.

@Vera Mont Hopefully this will outline more or less my position: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=72cPmjSOpgo

Pacifism is pacifism. It works sometimes.

The only exception would be in acting in self-defense in a non-violent manner. Pinning someone on the ground before running away would not be 'harmful' other than it harms their intentions.

The first rule of self-defense is certainly not to attack first, it is to run away. Self-defense can also involve disarming and incapacitating your attacker in a non-violent/non-harmful manner.

So self-defense is still possible. If you are saying self-defense requires bodily harm to the attacker then you say this is impermissible, then it is impermissible!

:up:

In Gods We Trust: The Evolutionary Landscape of Religion,

:up: Looks just like the kind of thing I was looking for.

Free Access here: https://archive.org/details/dli.pahar.3709/page/13/mode/2up

That seems a bit much to me. I think confusing similar concepts is enough to explain. ucarr appears very thoughtful to me, and wanting to engage - I tend to see a lack of wanting to engage with pseudo-intellectualism (couple of other threads active rn are dead-on examples). I tend favour incompetence instead of maliciousness or deceptiveness to explain these things :P Perhaps I'm a bit sanguine as to this. — AmadeusD

The two can be mutually exclusive.

Maybe this person is just trying to approach something extremely obscure. Kudos to them then. Whatever is going on here I see nothing in it for me. Maybe on a another topic they can discuss in a more fluid and succinct manner, or maybe not.

Have fun all :)

And this?

with a 'bad' act (eg. violence to suppress violence) to be 'bad in-itself'. This is clearly false equivalence. — I like sushi

You use 'bad' and 'bad in-itself' in two seemingly distinct ways. Or should they both be taken as 'bad in-itself'.

Have you ever taken a test that asks you an essay question? Essay questions are not yes/no questions, nor are they multiple choice questions where you check the correct box. Essay questions ask the person to write an essay pertinent to the issue raised by the question. This is the hardest type of question because you're on your own judgment about what is the best answer. So, yes, there is no simple, bracketed answer indicated by the question, but that's because it wants you to be expansive in the expression of your pertinent thoughts. — ucarr

What question? There is no question in the OP.

You threw a question at me when I asked for clarity. How about you show me how to answer it. That might actually be useful for both us in gaining some degree of mutual understanding.

Is there a bridge linking "what" with "how" in the context I've elaborated here? — ucarr

I am not in an exam (plus my first post addressed the point in the OP and the issues with your "elaboration"). Tell me if there is or isn't AND explain it concisely.

Thank-you for your time and energy because your involvement, something requiring my defense, has empowered me to better understand what I'm trying to communicate within this conversation. — ucarr

We will see I guess.

1. It is morally impermissible to perform an action that is in-itself bad;
2. It is morally impermissible to directly intend something bad—even for the sake of something good;
3. Harming someone is, in-itself, bad. — Bob Ross

Self-Defense can also be classed as a form of staving off harm committed to others. If one does not defend oneself then the perpetrator of the violence will likely be more emboldened to repeat their harm on multiple others.

So #2 is a no goer.

And #3 is trying to smuggle in 'bad in-itself' as being equivalent to 'bad'.

I say the above because you seemed to frame rape as being 'bad in-itself' whereas I do not see defending one's self, or others, with a 'bad' act (eg. violence to suppress violence) to be 'bad in-itself'. This is clearly false equivalence.

I can get onboard with stating that some acts are 'morally impermissible' (barring utterly ridiculous hypothetical situations that entail one having to act in a horrendous manner in order to save others). It is certainly not morally impermissible to punch someone in the face, but it is without a damn good reason to do so. The REASON adds weigh to the permissibility of an act.

I'm not sure what this is meant to mean, but there is precisely zero muddle or problems witht eh words in my account. They are straight-forward, easy to understand and delineate, and adequately refer to the two distinct things I am referring to. — AmadeusD

Pseudo-intellectualism is looking like the most probably explanation of this person's writing. I mean look at this needless word salad:

what the differences are between the two titans: science/art, and how those modal differences are mediated by the unifying synchro-mesh of ecology.

I am prone to florid sentences myself sometimes but this is just too much for me to stomach anymore.

A pure consequentialist would disagree. There could be a rather bizarre circumstance when some generally perceived 'bad' act was essential to prevent several million other 'bad' acts on even more vulnerable people.

Or how about someone trying to commit rape then becoming the rape victim? Are these equally 'bad'?

I was suggesting "optimal" not "ideal". By all means strive for betterment. It is the idea that someone believes they know what the best is that irks me.

I know, I know. Sorry for the glib comment :)

I guess you could also argue that #1 is impossible and therefore irrelevant. Meaning there is no instance that is in-itself bad. The 'badness' is only existent within specific contexts.

The Utopian ideal is a high-functioning, happy society on Earth, where people and the environment can thrive. It can only be approached by small incremental improvements, not massacres. — Vera Mont

I do not think it ever pans out like that. Incremental steps toward an impossible ideal are leaps compared to shooting for a better future. The measuring stick for an unreachable goal is infinite.

1. It is morally impermissible to perform an action that is in-itself bad;
2. It is morally impermissible to directly intend something bad—even for the sake of something good;
3. Harming someone is, in-itself, bad. — Bob Ross

So we should stand by and watch someone brutally murder several innocent people because it is 'bad' to harm the murderer. :D

Any Utopian worth their salt knows that ends don't justify means; the means determine the ends. — Vera Mont

The road to hell ...

If Christians tried to behave like Jesus, they would feed one another, not execute them. — Vera Mont

My point is they would fail and know they are failing. Imagine a world of people walking around thinking they are the saviors of humanity. I do actually think they would be more likely to execute one another (albeit by the hands of others maybe) than feed to support each other.

Changing society at large ... Have you already managed to pull off one, single change to society, no matter how small? — Tarskian

I warned against anyone trying to do so and am against anyone trying to do so. I am against Hitlers and Pol Pots who put plans in action for their own personal utopian ideal.

Understand?

Why not aim for the ultimate - even though you may have to settle for whatever you can reach? — Vera Mont

You are less likely to kill people reaching for something that is impossible and less likely to justify their deaths by claiming to be holding to some utopian ideal.

By all means search for whatever inner utopian ideal you wish, but do not assume anyone else wants it nor that they would welcome it - that is the thrust of my point.

That's what you aim for, the standard against which you measure your actual accomplishment. — Vera Mont

Speak for yourself. Keep it to yourself too :) If everyone was walking around trying to be Buddha/Jesus/Mohammad/Whatever, I have strong reasons to believe the world would quickly become a dystopia.

We should realize that arrival at the perfect Utopia is not very probable, but it remains the only truly worthy goal.
— Chet Hawkins
Just so. — Vera Mont

I think it is probably better to aim for a possible optimum than assume an ideal. Once an 'optimum' is reached the situation can then be reassessed.

On the flipside I would disagree with what I said in terms of personal goals but stick firmly to it if attempting to apply to society at large.

After all, "suffering" isn't a "problem to solve" but rather an exigent signal to adapt one's (our) way of life to reality by preventing foreseeable or reducing some imminent disvalue/s. :fire: — 180 Proof

I would even go so far as to argue if one is against suffering one is against life. Suffering is not 'bad'. I imagine a great number of people here 'suffer' when reading philosophical works, or 'suffer' as they struggle to express their ideas.