One classic dichotomy is whether society or the individual is the more powerful force. Jordan Peterson has argued that the individuals immorality is what accumulates to make society immoral and hence it is not just the immorality of a few corrupt leaders making a corrupt or toxic society.

I think that society can negatively affect and influence the individual but I think this is only the case for a minority of society affected by the conduct of the majority. I find it hard to believe that a majority of society could not cause political change. even if the majority doesn't support a position I think a substantial number of people have to support it for it to gain traction.

Another case of false powerlessness I believe comes from parents. I think having a child is partially endorsing the society and world you are bringing them into. I think parenting is a position where you can create a good environment for the child before creating her. Or you can refrain from having children if you cannot improve circumstances.

One classic dichotomy is whether society or the individual is the more powerful force. — Andrew4Handel

Society is. Many are more powerful than one. The moral imperative, because this is so, is for society only to over-rule individuals when it must....

One classic dichotomy is whether society or the individual is the more powerful force. Jordan Peterson has argued that the individuals immorality is what accumulates to make society immoral and hence it is not just the immorality of a few corrupt leaders making a corrupt or toxic society.

I think that society can negatively affect and influence the individual but I think this is only the case for a minority of society affected by the conduct of the majority. — Andrew4Handel

I think one problem is that people adapt too easily to things that are immoral and wrong in the society. When they happen on a societal level, suddenly things are tolerated as the "new normal". Just think the case of a civil war: the so-called reasonable people cannot fathom that people who before lived together in somewhat harmony or at leasthad the appearance of some social cohesion start killing each other. It is as if people suddenly went totally insane. Well, from one perspective that indeed is the case. But the vast majority just take it as reality and accuse those objecting the madness of being naive, living in an "Ivory Tower" and not grasping reality.

I think one problem is that people adapt too easily to things that are immoral and wrong in the society. — ssu

I suppose my suggestion would be then, that people are adapting to things by asserting power in some way.
By power I don't mean dominance though.

But rather that by using some powers they possess to go in a certain direction rather than being helplessly sucked along. But I think it is almost subconscious and they are in denial of what is happening. I suppose by power here I mean influence or withholding influence.

What also interests me is concerning what is power in this sense? How does one get power? Who is in control. Is anyone control?

I liked the horror film The cube where a mechanical torture apparatus terrorizes people but they couldn't trace any one person responsible because it was bureaucracy our of control. In a sense bureaucracy can be away of relinquishing power. Also you might say that there is good power and bad power.

I am not saying real powerlessness doesn't exist however.

Society is. Many are more powerful than one. The moral imperative, because this is so, is for society only to over-rule individuals when it must.. — Pattern-chaser

I think the power of society is a collective power of individuals combining their wills. Should this ever be the case or should societies be run on reason alone?

I am not advocating an elitist run society but a society where some form of reason dominates debate and policy. Obviously sometime or lots of times politicians foster or pander to irrationality.

But consider medicine. Most people will allow a heart surgeon to be an expert and to control the patients treatment because they recognize his or her expertise and would not claim their own expertise here unless they were a crank. Outside of medicine and the natural science their is evidence in the social sciences that could inform social policy but it is undermined by political bias.

Maybe it is just a continuous natural struggle but I hope there is more to life than that.

I think the power of society is a collective power of individuals combining their wills. Should this ever be the case or should societies be run on reason alone? — Andrew4Handel

I think a society is a collection of humans, so I expect it to run as though it was comprised of humans, not Vulcans. :wink: I don't think it's useful to wonder how societies should run, if our wonderings yearn for reason and logic, which are (in general) foreign to human beings. Yes, OK, we are capable of reasonable and rational thoughts and behaviours ... once in a while. But we can't and don't keep it up.

I am not advocating an elitist run society but a society where some form of reason dominates debate and policy. — Andrew4Handel

Then your society would not be composed of human beings, but some other life-form?

Feigning insanity is another power move.

Maybe I am paranoid but i can see power play in so many interactions. I do think we can aim towards reason. But ignorance and unreason can be good tactical moves.

I think we can become more reasonable by assessing or exposing power relations. To some extent this happens in therapy.

"The sleep of reason produces monsters"

I do think we can aim towards reason. — Andrew4Handel

Indeed. But why would/should we? People say these things on philosophy forums, but they don't seem to notice how uncommon reason is in our real-world lives. Yes, there is some reason present for some of the time. But maybe that's as much as we can manage or stomach?

Empirical evidence suggests that we do not - and will never - behave in a consistently reasonable manner. To do so is not characteristic of our human species. You observe that we could aim towards reason, apparently without pausing to wonder whether we could achieve that aim, whether we would want to achieve that aim, and whether we would still be human if we did. :chin:

I try and be as reasonable as possible. I would be happy for you to highlight something I do you think is beyond reason.

Empirical evidence may show that people behave irrationally but that is not the same as saying they can't be rational and are intrinsically rational.

I think you are engaging in power relations with me here in this argument to cast aspersions on how rational people can be to resign yourself to a position. I am a fan of The Freudian subconscious and I believe that people have ulterior disguised but discoverable motives for behavior. To me becoming more rational is to expose this.

Unfortunately it might mean exposing dark irrational forces and destructive desires. But there is not reason to succumb to them. But based on my own experience I think it is quite possible to live in a sate of reason, questioning and skepticism. I think the more reasoning or reasonable you become the more frightening everything else becomes and the more irrational it seems. It is like ignorance is bliss.

I try and be as reasonable as possible. I would be happy for you to highlight something I do you think is beyond reason. — Andrew4Handel

No, I don't think I will. I haven't observed you doing anything unreasonable. I have offered empirical data: humans behave rationally, but we also behave irrationally too, often. I have not offered the reasons why I think this is so, so there is nothing for you to question unless you don't think that humans do behave irrationally. [ I don't believe you could justify such a stance. ]

I think you are engaging in power relations with me here in this argument to cast aspersions on how rational people can be to resign yourself to a position. — Andrew4Handel

I am not casting aspersions, I'm offering an empirical observation, nothing more than that. You stated that

I do think we can aim towards reason. — Andrew4Handel

and I replied

Indeed. But why would/should we? People say these things on philosophy forums, but they don't seem to notice how uncommon reason is in our real-world lives. Yes, there is some reason present for some of the time. But maybe that's as much as we can manage or stomach? — Pattern-chaser

So: why do you think we should "aim towards reason"?

I see a lot of anger in people, I'm referring to unjustified anger as opposed to the hot temporary type, been there myself. Unjustified and simmering below the surface, anger with the world in general. How can reason predominate with anger clouding our judgement?

Reading about Patty Hearst gave me a thought.

How many people are suffering from Stockholm Syndrome where they end up misidentifying with an oppressive system (including the parent child one).

So: why do you think we should "aim towards reason"? — Pattern-chaser

My main point is that people should acknowledge power dynamics because I value the truth and I don't agree with letting dynamics go unexamined.

i don't think a tendency for some irrationality is an excuse for aiming for no rationality and If you were to advocate I would see that as a power move for some personal reason you may have.

There are obvious reasons for aiming towards reason any way just for basic survival.

But another concern I have is unfairness. Power tactics are often unfair and therefore abusive.

So for example in my first example of the quiet argument I think it is wrong to let someone win an argument based on presentation and emotion rather than content.

I'm not fond of "power relation" talk, because both (a) "power" almost never seems well-defined in power relation talk, and (b) the analysis of the complex and varied ways in which humans interact always seems rather shallow and cherry-picked in power relation talk.

'm not fond of "power relation" talk — Terrapin Station

You do put Foucault as one of your favorite philosophers though. I don't think power relation analysis needs to be ill-defined or entail banal analysis.

I think it is inevitable, that relationships between individuals and between individuals and society etc will involve a balance of power and ways of maintaining power, giving up some power or gaining power. This includes things like the feminist and gay rights movements.

I believe people are uncomfortable about exposing power interactions and analyzing relationships. For example 50+ years ago in Britain someone was attacked for insulting the Queen but that attitude has died away. But there are always stages when challenging norms gets a negative reaction.

It is not necessarily in someones interest to expose to themselves the power dynamics they are involved in.

Personally I would like more power but without having to trample over people to get it.

Yeah, as I noted it's not that I think the idea is inherently flawed, it's that most power relation talk, in practice, has severe problems (because it's almost never well-defined, it's typically ridiculously shallow/oversimplistic, cherry-picked, it often falls back on colloquial stereotypes, etc.)

Jordan Peterson has argued that the individuals immorality is what accumulates to make society immoral and hence it is not just the immorality of a few corrupt leaders making a corrupt or toxic society. — Andrew4Handel

I cast my vote for this.

As example, I drive a particular 4 mile stretch of road a lot. It's scenic highway on the border between city and country. The speed limit is 40mph, clearly posted.

I set my cruise control on 40mph, which makes me the slowest car on the road. Every time I see a car appear way behind me I know that within a few minutes it will be on my back bumper. Almost every time I drive this road (a 7 minute drive) I have to pull over to let some impatient tailgater go around. If I don't they stay 3 feet behind me. Sometimes they blink their lights or honk their honk to admonish me for my rudeness of obeying the law.

And yes, I've checked my speedometer, as they often have one of those speed recording signs up which uses radar to track and report your speed.

Politicians don't lead the society, they reflect the society. We feed them bullshit (give me more services and lower my taxes etc) and they mirror the bullshit back to us. We are the problem, the politicians are just a symptom.

Why don't you just drive with the flow of traffic?

Why don't you just drive with the flow of traffic? — Terrapin Station

It's illegal. I'm happy going the speed limit. I trust highway engineers to know more about traffic safety than I do.

I was responding to this....

Jordan Peterson has argued that the individuals immorality is what accumulates to make society immoral — Andrew4Handel

... using a real world example. The example illustrates that the group consensus doesn't really believe in rule of law all that much.

It's illegal. — Jake

If no one is pulled over for driving over the speed limit in that area, then it's effectively not illegal. And in fact, all of the poilce that I know, and this includes Highway Patrol, would say that (a) it's generally safer to ride with the flow of traffic, (b) unless it's a problematic area, they generally enforce traffic flow, not speed limits, and (c) because of (b), there are areas where they're more likely to pull someone over for driving too slow and impeding the flow of traffic, even if the flow of traffic in that area is over the speed limit.

So it would just matter whether tickets are normally given out in that area. If they are, then gradually people will be slowing down because enough regulars get tickets that they're not going to risk it any longer. If they aren't, you're effectively being a jerk and causing problems, or at least increasing risk, by not going with the flow of traffic.

If no one is pulled over for driving over the speed limit in that area, then it's effectively not illegal. — Terrapin Station

They get pulled over and ticketed all the time. But everybody assumes it won't be them, so the speeding continues.

In your scheme, where everyone is supposed to do whatever they see somebody else doing....

What's the point of posting speed limits?

What's the point in having traffic regulations?

What's the point in having traffic engineers?

What's the point in having traffic police?

Why even have the law at all?

So it would just matter whether tickets are normally given out in that area. — Terrapin Station

No, that does not matter one little bit. The police don't make the law, they just enforce it as best they can within limited budgets. The law on this particular road is clearly and repeatedly stated, 40mph is the maximum speed allowed. Period.

Rationalizing bullshit as invented by each supposedly clever little person who comes along doesn't have anything at all to do with it. If everybody can make up their own law, we have no law at all.

If they aren't, you're effectively being a jerk and causing problems, or at least increasing risk, by not going with the flow of traffic. — Terrapin Station

Hey, you could shove this pathetic rationalization up your ass if you'd like, I won't complain.

In your scheme, — Jake

Not my scheme. It's a fact confirmed by many police I know. It's not something broadly generalized and unspecific, it's about speed limits, and as I pointed out, even at that it's conditional.

If people are pulled over there "all the time" it wouldn't be the norm to speed there unless it's an area full of really wealthy folks or something (and a jurisdiction that doesn't give points on licenses with certain tickets)

It's a fact confirmed by many police I know. — Terrapin Station

Then the police you know should be fired. It's not their job to make the law. It's their job to enforce the law as it currently exists to the best of their ability, whatever their opinion of that law might be.

If the police feel a particular speed limit is inappropriate and want to express that opinion through the proper channels, ok, fine. I wouldn't object to that and would be happy to consider their opinion.

Here's an experiment you can use to confirm what I'm discussing for yourself. Get out on the Interstate and set your cruise control at the posted speed limit. Now have your kids in the back seat count how many cars you pass, and how many pass you, a fun game to keep them happy.

The vast majority of other drivers will pass you, because they don't care what the law says, but only with what they think they can get away with.

That's the mindset which forms the foundation of an immoral society. Everything is all about me.

I set my cruise control on 40mph — Jake

Why don't you just drive with the flow of traffic? — Terrapin Station

You are both right.

The posted speed limits are real and are rationally determined. People can and ought to obey the traffic laws. On the other hand, mass-traffic is no longer an individual matter; it's much more like a fluid in a pipe. If the mass of traffic on given highway is moving at 40, 60, or 80 mph, (never mind the posted speed) individual drivers will tend to go with the flow. Bucking the flow by going much faster or much slower causes perturbations in the flow and if it doesn't cause accidents, it raises a lot of blood pressure.

There is also a difference between freeways, which are (supposed to be) engineered for a higher average speed, and 2 lane secondary roads which serve local traffic. Exceeding the speed limit on 2 lane roads (especially curvy, hilly, narrow roads) is much more reckless than traveling over the limit on freeways.

Exceeding the speed limit on urban streets is more dangerous still.

Technology offers methods to detect and identify the license plates of speeding vehicles (or vehicles that disregard stop lights), but these methods have run into successful court challenges in some jurisdictions. Cameras and computers can identify the car owner, but they can't identify the driver (yet, anyway), and there is often a mismatch.

Then the police you know should be fired. It's not their job to make the law. It's their job to enforce the law as it currently exists to the best of their ability, — Jake

True. The problem that highway patrols have is that their policing territories are too large for the number of cars and officers to be able to ticket individual drivers on secondary roads, let alone ticket individuals on freeways. They do ticket, however, and the spectacle of ticketing tends to slow down traffic for a little while.

Declining oil supplies and global warming will resolve the issue over the coming century.

On the other hand, mass-traffic is no longer an individual matter; it's much more like a fluid in a pipe. If the mass of traffic on given highway is moving at 40, 60, or 80 mph, (never mind the posted speed) — Bitter Crank

No, no, no and no my friend. "Never minding" the posted speed is why people who are willing to obey the law have to contend with those who aren't.

In my bombastic blowharding opinion, this topic appears to be a classic case of philosophical overthinking. You guys want to make this complicated, sophisticated. But it's not. The law was determined by a democratic process. The speed limit law is simple, easily understood, clearly stated, and readily available to all drivers.

1) We choose to obey the law, or...
2) We choose to defy it.

That's all there is to it.

No fancy philosophy required. Fancy philosophy gets in the way of clarity in such cases.

The problem that highway patrols have is that their policing territories are too large for the number of cars and officers to be able to ticket individual drivers on secondary roads, let alone ticket individuals on freeways. — Bitter Crank

Yes, true for sure. However, I can solve this if anyone would like to be further outraged. :smile:

The vast majority of other drivers will pass you, because they don't care what the law says, but only with what they think they can get away with. — Jake

I drive with the flow of traffic.

That's the mindset which forms the foundation of an immoral society. Everything is all about me. — Jake

Holy cow. When I encounter people like this online, I'd love to meet them in person, because I just can't imagine how you must come across in person.

When I encounter people like this online, I'd love to meet them in person, because I just can't imagine how you must come across in person. — Terrapin Station

I accept your surrender. Better luck next time.

I'm serious, though.

I'm serious too. You're turning to discussion of me personally because you realize you've lost the argument. No offense taken, no grudges held, and I look forward to more conversation with you on other topics.

I just don't believe that everybody, including the police, should make up their own traffic laws as they go along on a case by case basis, that's all. Nothing too radical really.