I think there is a natural feedback mechanism - if you perform an action that is against the greater good but seemingly in your own personal interest, your community chastises you - meaning the action against the greater good also turns out to be an action against your own personal interests. So your personal interests and your communities interests are aligned in a well functioning community.

So I would subscribe to the belief that individual rights should be such that their exercisement should not impact the greater good.

Hmm. I think the greater good is drowning you in a pickle barrel. You "good" with that?

What if you have no pickle barrel with which to drown me with?

I would probably agree with that statement more or less.

As an example, private industry and things can still exist, but not to a point to where it harms a majority of people, like a monopoly, or debatably what is going on today.

Yes I'm not claiming we live in a 'well functioning society', merely that such is possible if all people were right thinking people.

Capitalism seems to me a mechanism to make people think they are working for themselves when they are actually working for the community. Unfortunately the lone predator mind set that capitalism fosters can be counter productive to the greater good - capitalism is not a perfect system in this regard.

Individual rights. Groups are always composed of individuals. Without individual rights there is no greater good.

If individual rights are not part of the greater good, then there's a degree of primitivity that the society needs to overcome.

You've replied to the absurd part, now try the serious part.

Hmm. I think the greater good is drowning you in a pickle barrel. You "good" with that? — tim wood

That statement was all about drowning me in a pickle barrel, but sure I'll answer what I think you were implying.

Yes, I would be fine with sacrificing some personal wealth to help the greater populous. The fact of the matter is that personal issues are outweighed by those of a million personal issues. As a species, the domination of all other species could be considered an end goal, with the ever-evolving nature of species. With a focus on the greater good, our species can prevail more than with few or some rich individuals and a substantial poor base.

Yes, I would be fine with sacrificing some personal wealth to help the greater populous. — shaq

But how do you get a say? "Some" personal wealth? The greater good requires it all. To that, how do you argue?

For me, personally, my beliefs are of a greater good, although I would, again, like to see what you think :smile: — shaq

Well Big Aristotle, I tend to agree. However, I think @tim wood has a point in that your answer suggests the greater good ALWAYS takes priority...which would be problematic. Another similar problem would be related to who decides the "greater good"? Is there any chance we all agree?

Mr. Wood, I hope you set me straight if I misconstrued your position :grimace:

Behave as selfish as you can get without unnecessarily offending others has always been my motto and this has always served me well.

However, I think tim wood has a point in that your answer suggests the greater good ALWAYS takes priority...which would be problematic — ZhouBoTong

We are the dominant species on the planet and we are social / communal animals, not lone predators. So the selfishness approach has lost the evolutionary war - the mechanism of evolution should ensure that the most efficient societal model wins and our winning model is based on the hybrid approach of 'co-opertition' - even the selfish elements of human behaviour contribute to the furtherment greater good through the mechanism of competition. Capitalism, a product of social evolution, is an expression of this hybrid model - individuals behave in a selfish manner yet still end up contributing to the greater good.

Being too selfish is harmful.
Being too altruistic is harmful.
Goldilocks knows best.

Capitalism, a product of social evolution, is an expression of this hybrid model - individuals behave in a selfish manner yet still end up contributing to the greater good. — Devans99

I think the first world has hit saturation on capitalism's contributions to the greater good. Africa can probably still add to its greater good with capitalism (I am not sure which poor areas they will exploit to get the full gains of capitalism), but there hasn't been much "greater good" improvement in the US for 20 years or so (socially, there has been some improvement, but economically - bupkis).

Capitalism, a product of social evolution, is an expression of this hybrid model - individuals behave in a selfish manner yet still end up contributing to the greater good. — Devans99

While trashing the environment. That greater good has had to pay the price for our indulgences.

(Social) Evolution is an ongoing process. It is to be hoped that it will come up with a better model than capitalism in due course. Particularly a model with a more natural wealth distribution is required. The marginal utility of disposable wealth is a strong argument that what we have today is not yet optimal.

Behave as selfish as you can get without unnecessarily offending others has always been my motto and this has always served me well. — ovdtogt

Being too selfish is harmful.
Being too altruistic is harmful.
Goldilocks knows best. — ovdtogt

I agree with the sentiment. I worry that we (or many people) will disagree on what exactly is "unnecessarily offending", "too selfish", or "too altruistic", but overall I hear you (and I am fairly certain you have good support in philosophy - Aristotle and the Buddha were into that golden middle stuff - I think).

"unnecessarily offending", "too selfish", or "too altruistic", — ZhouBoTong

In such matters I just refer to it being a personal choice. How hot does Goldilocks want her porridge?

It is to be hoped that it will come up with a better model than capitalism in due cause. — Devans99

Can we just analyze capitalism for strengths and weaknesses and try to regulate away the weaknesses?

A whole new system would be great, but what do we do in the meantime? Does progressive taxation count as a "natural" model of wealth redistribution? It worked in America in the 1940s and 1950s. I doubt that is what you mean, but all I can think of when it comes to natural is survival of the fittest where the winners take what they want (I would point out that capitalism is UNnatural because it largely took away the violent option of winning the game - yes, that is a good thing, but NOT natural - without police and a strong government, capitalism would not exist).

I might be off topic, but I guess the OP would know that an individual vs greater good argument would end up including capitalism?

In such matters I just refer to personal choice. How hot does Goldilocks want her porridge? — ovdtogt

But won't some things offend Goldilocks that do not offend me? For the greater good we might decide that no porridge can be over 100 degrees Fahrenheit...but Goldilocks likes it hot.

I just can't help but argue sometimes :grimace: I know we largely agree here. What I am saying would only really matter if we went to create an actual constitution based on this stuff.

Does progressive taxation count as a "natural" model of wealth redistribution? It worked in America in the 1940s and 1950s. I doubt that is what you mean, but all I can think of when it comes to natural is survival of the fittest where the winners take what they want — ZhouBoTong

I think evolution is about survival of the fittest species rather than the fittest individual. So we have socially evolved such that we are superior to other species specifically by moderating the 'winners take what they want' element - we recognise that each individual in society is a contributor and we must therefore take care of the weaker members of society. At the same time though, our system recognises and rewards the success of individuals.

I am a believer in progressive taxation but it has to be imposed globally else it just leads to economic refugees. That would require some form of world government... which we are quite a way from achieving.

For the greater good we might decide that no porridge can be over 100 degrees Fahrenheit...but Goldilocks likes it hot. — ZhouBoTong

Yes it is a huge frustration of having to conform to society. Often you have to abide by common rules that you totally disagree with. This has turned me into a grumpy old man who feels most comfortable staying indoors and chatting on forums. I feel like Goldilocks forced to eat cold porridge.

The problem with the "greater good" is that to serve the greater good is as likely to mean saving people as it is to mean killing them, as likely as it means to give people liberty as it is to take it away, as likely as it means to tell the truth as it is to tell lies.

I feel as likely to agree to fight for one person's "greater good" as I am to fight to stop someone else's. I cannot imagine one can be wise and knowledgable of history while also thinking that the 'greater good" should trump individual rights. It's what people who complain about democracy and capitalism don't understand, they don't understand why these things and liberty are so valuable. You cannot trust your government, you cannot trust the people who claim to have your best interests at heart, the ideologues who claim to speak for you. No promise that requires the sacrifice of individual rights can be trusted. Rights really just serve to curtail the evil nature of power, where rights are limited, power becomes corrupt.

Of course, I talk about modern rights protecting liberty in the West, nothing like "the right to own a slave" or some shit.

Every ocean is comprised of many droplets of water.

In other words, if the droplets of water aren't valued as much as the ocean itself, if they ocean is being treasured more, for example, then the droplets would decay, thus the ocean would decay.

However if you treasure each droplet individually, as much as the ocean, in a positive manner (it's not black and white), then the ocean itself, along everything that it is made of, will evolve and progress.

Every ocean is comprised of many droplets of water. — Seagully

You can't have a society without social animals.

I think evolution is about survival of the fittest species rather than the fittest individual. — Devans99

Hmmm. I would think it is both...and neither...depending on context.

So we have socially evolved such that we are superior to other species — Devans99

Evolution wise, it would be difficult to measure "superior" species. Wouldn't organisms that can survive high radiation environments, or the vacuum of space, be at least in some way "superior" to humans? Also, framing evolution as a competition between species is problematic...most species rely on many other species to survive.

we recognise that each individual in society is a contributor and we must therefore take care of the weaker members of society. — Devans99

Isn't this exactly the opposite of evolution as it TYPICALLY exists in nature? The lions pick off the weaker members of the heard leaving the strong to pass on their genes? Human society has transformed "survival of the fittest" within our species to just "who wants to breed?" Nearly every human will have the opportunity to pass on their genes...heck nowadays, even someone born without the tools for reproduction could possibly even have genetic material removed from themselves and passed to the next generation. I am NOT suggesting we should change this moral regulation of our "evolution". But we have to recognize that our morality may interfere with other aspects of our "fitness".

we recognise that each individual in society is a contributor and we must therefore take care of the weaker members of society. — Devans99

I am a believer in progressive taxation but it has to be imposed globally else it just leads to economic refugees. That would require some form of world government... which we are quite a way from achieving. — Devans99

Now I am confused...how are the "weaker members of society" being taken care of if not by the government? Surely, charity has not shown anywhere near the capacity to accomplish this...so without progressive taxation how do we fund government? Or are you just saying everyone should pay the same 50-60%?

Because, to me, what you said here is a great way to ensure that there is never a progressive tax (or not for centuries until a global government actually exists...as you admit).

I think evolution is about survival of the fittest species rather than the fittest individual.
— Devans99

Hmmm. I would think it is both...and neither...depending on context. — ZhouBoTong

Random genetic mutations, the mechanism of evolution, take place during reproduction. Beings however have to survive to the point where they breed. So I guess there is an element of both, but I feel over the long term, it is the fittest species that survives - teamwork triumphs over individual efforts.

Evolution wise, it would be difficult to measure "superior" species. Wouldn't organisms that can survive high radiation environments, or the vacuum of space, be at least in some way "superior" to humans? — ZhouBoTong

I believe we are ahead in evolutionary terms of such organisms - not only are we evolving physically like them, in addition, our society and technology is evolving too.

Nearly every human will have the opportunity to pass on their genes... — ZhouBoTong

We are living in a knowledge-based economy. The intelligent should have access to greater financial resources - which are required to facilitate reproduction - so the reproduction of the strongest members of society should still be happening.

I think you are correct however that we are losing something in evolutionary terms through not embracing a mechanism such as eugenics. Here we are handicapped obviously by the dreadful legacy of WW2. Still, with time, I feel the human race is likely to embrace genetic engineering with a resultant great acceleration in our rate of evolutionary progress. This is what I mean about us being the most successful species - we are evolving not only in the original manner of random genetic mutations - our society and technology is evolving too.

Now I am confused...how are the "weaker members of society" being taken care of if not by the government? — ZhouBoTong

I live in a country with a welfare state that does, to a limited degree anyway, care for the weaker members of society.

So I guess there is an element of both, but I feel over the long term, it is the fittest species that survives - teamwork triumphs over individual efforts. — Devans99

Until a meteor hits the part of the planet full of team-working people :grimace: .

I think teamwork should be prioritized as matter of morals (I can't think of a better way to say it - I think it is a worthy thing to strive for). But I think we need to see the results of this "teamwork" over the course of a few million years before I am convinced it is evolutionarily "better" than crocodiles and cockroaches.

Evolution takes place over eons and is drastically affected by massive events. We are still decades (at least) away from being able to avoid the same mass-elimination as the dinosaurs (a few may survive and become the "birds" of the future - but effectively, extinction).

We are living in a knowledge-based economy. The intelligent should have access to greater financial resources - which are required to facilitate reproduction - so the reproduction of the strongest members of society should still be happening. — Devans99

Unfortunately, our intelligence gives us access to statistics that tell us the exact opposite is actually true. The highly educated breed at FAR lower rates than the uneducated. I think this is fairly commonly accepted (it was the basis for the movie Idiocracy - not that that suggests it is right, haha), but definitely let me know if this is the first you are hearing...I am sure I can find the stats.

Only VERY minimal resources are required for reproduction. Even those with severe handicaps can reproduce, let alone the bottom half of the knowledge base. You are right that the strong will always have access to reproduction. Unfortunately, many of these "strong" will choose to not have children. Many more will only have one or two as that is what happens with planning. Meanwhile, the "weak" will continue to spit out litters.

I think you are correct however that we are losing something in evolutionary terms through not embracing a mechanism such as eugenics. Here we are handicapped obviously by the dreadful legacy of WW2. — Devans99

Agreed...unfortunately eugenics had such an ugly history that it may (rightly) take a while before people are willing to give that another go.

I feel the human race is likely to embrace genetic engineering with a resultant great acceleration in our rate of evolutionary progress. — Devans99

Well, that answers my "people can't evolve that fast" objection :smile:. If I have access to genetic engineering, I might actually be interested in reproducing, haha. Unfortunately, people have a strange aversion to genetic engineering (heck, even the movie Gattaca basically said that the unmodified human was somehow superior to the engineered).

This is what I mean about us being the most successful species - we are evolving not only in the original manner of random genetic mutations - our society and technology is evolving too. — Devans99

But our societal evolution somewhat impedes our biological evolution...by allowing ALL genes to be passed on. None are culled. No one type of person regularly fails to reproduce. Freak accidents and choice are the only impediments. Now as you say, targeted genetic engineering would certainly compensate for this trend...for those willing to participate (and assuming we don't accidentally engineer away some key feature that leads to our extinction).

Overall, I agree that our technological and societal evolution APPEAR to outweigh any biological inferiority, but I will need a few million years before I am thoroughly convinced.

Sorry, this got long...I guess that is what happens when I can't decide whether I agree or disagree :smile:

Unfortunately, our intelligence gives us access to statistics that tell us the exact opposite is actually true. — ZhouBoTong

I was not aware of this - I stand corrected. However, I think it is probably a transitory evolutionary phase that we are going through and genetic engineering will pull us out of this phase (of sub-optimal selection during reproduction).