I think people are creating a society with differing end goals and values that are actually counter productive and incompatible.
There is obviously a compromise, however I do not think these fundamental ideological differences are taken seriously. — Andrew4Handel

But are these surmountable through increased communication and increased knowledge? Surely a person who is moving towards enlightenment moves away from such misconstrued incompatibilities? And doesn't everyone desire the good, fundamentally, as Socrates thought?

But are these surmountable through increased communication and increased knowledge? — Pantagruel

I think the incompatibles are created by the unknown. That is partly why I am an agnostic.

A society I imagine can be created on saying I am not sure.

But the situation we have is people with clearly stated beliefs and goals that they appear to think are final. May be more people are agnostic than I realise. (I am referring to a general agnosticism about facts not gods.)

Maybe the problem is people have to assert facts to create a society until those ideas are overturned? I feel that religion created complex societies through useful mythology.

I suppose it depends on what motivates knowledge seeking and society building. Science can find out things but to what end we apparently cannot derive goals or teleology from science. People might resort away from science for personal meaning and morality.

I want to emphasise the dead body in a car point.

We would not cooperate with other people or someone else if we really believed there and goal was detrimental and counter our beliefs.

We would only cooperate under the illusion we shared values and goals.

I suppose that the situation we have is that we regularly have to fight back against ideologies we don't believe in if we can. And judging by the internet we do have many ideological battles raging.

I suppose it depends on what motivates knowledge seeking and society building. Science can find out things but to what end we apparently cannot derive goals or teleology from science. People might resort away from science for personal meaning and morality. — Andrew4Handel

I think some of the newest forms of science tend by their very nature to guide humanity in an advantageous direction. Systems theory bolsters the awareness that humanity has to comprehend itself as one element in the governing ecosystem that is planet earth. Historically, man conceived himself the "master and possessor" of nature, a misconception that the emergence of science only reinforced. This sense that man is an ultimate authority lends itself to a multitude of conflicting worldviews. Recognizing that all of these worldviews can, must, and in reality do coexist within a unified system can only contribute to their reconciliation.

To me the issue of whether you believe in an after life makes a big difference. — Andrew4Handel

To what? That's the central issue. People with different world-views may still be able to agree on a short-term goal. Whether the other person thinks you'll go to heaven or not, you may still both understand the need to get the hay in or a roof on the house before it rains.

There are proximate beliefs: I need food, and ultimate beliefs: I need salvation. The latter need not impede co-operation on the former.

The dead body question is not one of beliefs, but of duplicity. If the car owner who had (we don't actually know this from the example as given) had, in fact murdered someone and is concealing the crime, he obviously doesn't believe that he had a right to do. If it were a question of his belief, he wouldn't keep it a secret; he could simply ask someone who shares his belief to to help him move the body to wherever it's supposed to be.
The bystander doesn't know anything about the driver's belief when he offers to help: he simply sees a vehicle blocking the road. The driver doesn't know whether the bystander approves of the murder (nor do we; not even the identity of the victim). So, their short-term goals coincide: get the car moving. To that end, they can put off any discussion of world-views or ideology.

believe in an after life — Andrew4Handel

Speaking for myself, I've met Christians, Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists and now, after 5 minutes of deep thought, I believe in reincarnation. A rather dicey situation if you don't know how it works; I'm going to delve more into Buddhist reincarnation theories to get some helpful hints & tips (don't wanna end up in the wrong body if you catch me drift). From what I could gather it's about karma (good deeds $\to$ good birth; bad deeds $\to$ bad birth). However, it might not be that simple. :grimace: :chin: :smile: Wish me luck mes amies, wish me luck! Oh, good luck ta you all too. Hope we can all meet again sometime under better circumstances. :death: :flower:

I do not think atheists and religious people have compatible worldviews and end goals. I am an agnostic and my views are incompatible with both groups. To me the issue of whether you believe in an after life makes a big difference. Also whether or not you believe in free will or materialism. Or are capitalist or communist. — Andrew4Handel

This is not true in my experience. Whatever their politics, religion, philosophy, or other characteristic, humans always have more in common than in opposition. Just about everyone wants security for our families, the ability to make important decisions about our own lives, good education and medical care. I get along well with people who appear very different from me on the surface. There are people of good will everywhere.

This is not true in my experience. Whatever their politics, religion, philosophy, or other characteristic, humans always have more in common than in opposition. — T Clark

:100:

. . . and now, after 5 minutes of deep thought, I believe in reincarnation. — Agent Smith

That's the spirit, AS!

This thread simply says people disagree on things and agree on things. Not sure where any of this is going.

The dead body question is not one of beliefs, but of duplicity — Vera Mont

I can speak from personal experience here. I grew up in a fundamentalist Plymouth Brethren Christian household.
They did street preaching on the weekends and sent tracts around peoples houses which in essence said if you don't convert to our form of Christianity you are going to burn in hell for eternity.

Yet fundamentalist hell believing Christians work along side other people to help keep society a float. My Dad worked in the UK's NHS.

People don't realise or appreciate the depths of feeling behind peoples beliefs or the incompatibility. It is not that they are being deceived it is that they are busy superficially helping complete common goals.

(This response replies to everyone here)

We help other people because we assume we have something in common with them but I am questioning that assumption.

This is not true in my experience. Whatever their politics, religion, philosophy, or other characteristic, humans always have more in common than in opposition. Just about everyone wants security for our families, the ability to make important decisions about our own lives, good education and medical care. I get along well with people who appear very different from me on the surface. There are people of good will everywhere. — T Clark

I am an antinatalist and there are increasingly large numbers of us now. We think it is unethical to have children and don't seek to perpetuate humans. That is a radical stance. And most antinatalists are not half hearted about it.

I think it is easy to get along with people in to days society because we live in a time of relative security. We are not living in Ukraine. Our beliefs are not being tested. It is superficial.

Atheists are far more likely to push for assisted suicide and abortion than religious people. If religious people don't backdown than you have a serious conflict.

I think if people don't think the afterlife or lack doesn't matter then they are being complacent.

So, their short-term goals coincide: get the car moving. To that end, they can put off any discussion of world-views or ideology — Vera Mont

I don't think it is a case of short term goals. People are helping things that go against their own stated aims and values.

I think it takes a lot of energy to actually enact and defend your beliefs. Society and prosperity allows us to be more complacent then ever before.

My examples is pointing out the absurdity of helping someone achieve a goal at odds with your own, people don't take seriously enough conflicts in values and aims.

I would be out on the street protesting every day about something if I had the energy. It is only tiredness and apathy holding me back.

I have always found it absurd that my parents and others believe Billions of people are going to hell but are very nonchalant about it. It is one of the many reasons I left Christianity and reject religion.

It is an absurdly macabre and malicious belief and If I believed it I would everything in my power to try and prevent people from going to hell and not creating more children to expose to hell (my parents had six).

But clearly people are complacent and half hearted about their own beliefs.

I am an antinatalist and there are increasingly large numbers of us now. We think it is unethical to have children and don't seek to perpetuate humans. That is a radical stance. And most antinatalists are not half hearted about it. — Andrew4Handel

So I guess you're saying that you in particular are not willing or able to work and live with people who have strong differences in opinion from you. And so you come here to whine about all the conflict in our society. It's hard to feel sympathetic.

Atheists are far more likely to push for assisted suicide and abortion than religious people. If religious people don't backdown than you have a serious conflict. — Andrew4Handel

All they have to back down from is a determination to control other people. I've known a great many Christians who do not believe they have a right to tell everyone else how to live, and it may be that some day, more of them can persuaded to tend their own garden. In fact, the evangelical sects in the US were considerably more tolerant of other people's beliefs and practices, too, until they were radically politicized, starting in the 1970's, by the Republican party - in what would be a particularly egregious form of exploitation, were it not symbiotic.

I don't think it is a case of short term goals. People are helping things that go against their own stated aims and values. — Andrew4Handel

Those are two different cases. Getting the car to move is a very short term practical goal that does not call any deeply held values into question (or the contents of trunk or glove compartment. I wouldn't ask, "I'll help if you prove you're not carrying drugs, firearms, underage girls, dead bodies, untaxed cigarettes or an open beer bottle. Would you?). It's the same with haying and roofing and lots of other practical tasks that are faster done if people co-operate. There may be some philosophical debate over which books should be available at the public library, but there is no argument over what happens to books when they're rained on.

People are helping things that go against their own stated aims and values, usually because they have not taken the time to think about it,
either to 1. articulate the proper manifestation of their stated values (repeating "thou shalt not kill" is easy; figuring out what circumstances are exceptions to that rule, and why, and how to determine which applies in a given situation is hard. People who have been browbeaten all their lives by 'spiritual' and political leaders find it hard even to try.)
or 2. project the probable effects of going along with something they're asked take part in by someone they have no reason to distrust, especially a leader
or 3. to assess the qualifications and sincerity of the people who set themselves up as leaders.
Some people are just plain gullible. A lot of people are mentally lazy. Even more are intellectually timid - been slapped down so often for so long that they're afraid to question or doubt.

people don't take seriously enough conflicts in values and aims. — Andrew4Handel

But they sure get het up over conflicts in meaningless slogans.

But clearly people are complacent and half hearted about their own beliefs. — Andrew4Handel

Some are complacent, yes. The half-heartedness, though, may be be because a lot of the beliefs are absurd or macabre and they've been given the system of belief (eg. Islam or Capitalism) as a package deal; they're not allowed to accept some parts and reject others --- but yet, a functional mind does exactly that; it can commit to the good but not the bad items in the package. Lots of people's belief is, literally half-hearted.

So I guess you're saying that you in particular are not willing or able to work and live with people who have strong differences in opinion from you. And so you come here to whine about all the conflict in our society. It's hard to feel sympathetic. — T Clark

That is a strawman.

I have given the example of my own family who held extreme beliefs in opposition to society yet worked in society and I found that hypocritical or contradictory.

When I grew up I wasn't allowed to watch television, or listen to the radio, or shop on Sundays etc. But you can't live completely inde[pendent of society.

I am saying you are being complacent by thinking your beliefs are compatible with others.

That is a strawman. — Andrew4Handel

So. Are you willing and able to work and live with people who have strong differences in opinion from you?

I am saying you are being complacent by thinking your beliefs are compatible with others. — Andrew4Handel

I'm 70 years old. I've lived, worked, played, and talked with many people in my life who I had strong differences of opinion with. I have almost always found that we could figure out ways to get along just fine. It so happens that I find your anti-natalist beliefs distasteful. There would be no reason for that to cause conflict between us unless one of us tried to inflict our beliefs on the other.

All they have to back down from is a determination to control other people. — Vera Mont

You are putting the onus on someone else to compromise their beliefs for you it would seem.

Those are two different cases. Getting the car to move is a very short term practical goal that does not call any deeply held values into question. — Vera Mont

The goal of getting a car to move is not simply a shared goal but one that leads to an undesirable outcome. If I opposed abortion I would not want to do anything to assist an abortion like wise if I was pro abortion I wouldn't want to do anything to prevent an abortion happening. I wouldn't drive someone to pro life rally or alternately to an abortion clinic.

The assumption people seem to have then Is that they are not helping other people achieve goals counter to their own interests. But just by forming a society with an education system etc you are helping everyone achieve a variety of goals.

I remember when people didn't use to recycle and now that seems insane but we were complacent back then. I think we can be complacent until serious damage has been done (in that case to the environment).

A lot of people are mentally lazy. Even more are intellectually timid - been slapped down so often for so long that they're afraid to question or doubt — Vera Mont

But my hypothesis is that the majority of people are in denial about the consequences of their beliefs possibly for an easy life. It may be we can never agree and never backdown so have a state of underlying conflict sometimes breaking out into all out conflict.

There would be no reason for that to cause conflict between us unless one of us tried to inflict our beliefs on the other. — T Clark

That's it! There's the MacGuffin! It's not the belief that kills amity (and many, many people) but the drive for dominance. (Which meek, cheek-turning, cloak-sharing Cristians are not supposed to exhibit.)

There would be no reason for that to cause conflict between us unless one of us tried to inflict our beliefs on the other. — T Clark

Well apparently society caters to your worldview so you got lucky.

How would you fair in Theistic Iran or Saudi Arabia or in Communist North Korea?

Some people in The wealthy West still have to fight to get their needs met and voice heard. People who have been their can't afford to be complacent. You have to fight constantly against other peoples prejudices.

I say that as someone with a late diagnosis of autism after decades of struggling and someone now seeking help for ADHD. You get frequently judged for not fitting in. You are supposed to conform for everyone else's sake and society does not have to do anything for you unless you have an advocate or yell loud enough.

I know someone who got an autism diagnosis as an adult.

So they asked their boss for some small changes at work then their boss sabotaged the persons bicycle which could have seriously injured them. The manager got the sack but that has led them not to want to reveal their diagnosis to anyone.

I am the reverse I think you should tell people you are on the spectrum and what your needs are and not sacrifice your needs to fit in or through fear.

But that persons case indicates that people who want something to change for them can face extreme hostility.

A peaceful society might be a mentally ill apathetic one where people have given up hope of serious change.

You are putting the onus on someone else to compromise their beliefs for you it would seem. — Andrew4Handel

No. I'm putting the onus on everyone to exercise lawful civic behaviour. In theocracies, you get to chop off the heads or hands of non-conformists under the law. In secular democracies, you don't. People can believe whatever they like; they just can't force others to believe it.

The goal of getting a car to move is not simply a shared goal but one that leads to an undesirable outcome. — Andrew4Handel

You don't know that. If you were determined never to do anything that might have an undesired outcome, you would never do anything.

If I opposed abortion I would not want to do anything to assist an abortion — Andrew4Handel

Nobody asked you assist; just to mind your own business.

If I was pro abortion I wouldn't want to do anything to prevent an abortion happening. — Andrew4Handel

It doesn't just happen; it's performed by one consenting adult on another. Nobody else's business.
The position as stated above fails to consider the single fundamental difference between the two "beliefs". One side believes in everyone's freedom to decide; the other believes it should be empowered to take away the other's freedom.

I wouldn't drive someone to pro life rally or alternately to an abortion clinic. — Andrew4Handel

Fine. All we're asking is that people wouldn't stop beating up people who would.

But just by forming a society with an education system etc you are helping everyone achieve a variety of goals. — Andrew4Handel

Yep. That's what makes a society.

But my hypothesis is that the majority of people are in denial about the consequences of their beliefs possibly for an easy life. — Andrew4Handel

Maybe so. But do the majority of people really have an easy life, or does it just seem that way to someone who doesn't know what they challenges and difficulties are?

But that person case indicates that people who want something to change for them can face extreme hostility.

A peaceful society might be a mentally ill apathetic one where people have given up hope of serious change. — Andrew4Handel

That sounds contradictory to me. And both seem to contradict what you said before about not taking beliefs seriously enough. Now, I can't tell what you're advocating.

So do you believe compromise is always possible and healthy?

That sounds contradictory to me. And both seem to contradict what you said before about not taking beliefs seriously enough. Now, I can't tell what you're advocating. — Vera Mont

I'm not sure what you mean. I was trying to illustrate how compromise can be harmful and can hide societal malaise.

By someone sacrificing their belief that society needs to cater for cognitive differences because taking their belief or values to their conclusion one has to change society.

Communist societies have taken it to the extreme of pathologizing political differences. In the west we seem to have resorted to medicating people on psychiatric medications who can't cope with society.

How would you fair in Theistic Iran or Saudi Arabia or in Communist North Korea? — Andrew4Handel

But I don't. You don't either. Why should we live our lives as if we did?

I say that as someone with a late diagnosis of autism after decades of struggling and someone now seeking help for ADHD. You get frequently judged for not fitting in. You are supposed to conform for everyone else's sake and society does not have to do anything for you unless you have an advocate or yell loud enough. — Andrew4Handel

You seem to have a lot harder life than I have. I don't begrudge you some bitterness and resentment. Just don't expect me to live my life as if I were you.

So do you believe compromise is always possible and healthy? — Andrew4Handel

No, not always. But it takes a great many compromises, large and small, personal and collective, practical and theoretical, to make a society work.
I think the DUSofA will have Civil War II pretty soon, because a large minority of the population refuses to compromise its [incorrectly] perceived privilege.

I was trying to illustrate how compromise can be harmful and can hide societal malaise. — Andrew4Handel

I did not understand the illustration. It sounded as if some asshole refused to compromise his belief that people he regards as his inferiors have no right to consideration. Assholes exist. Social rules are supposed to hold them in check so they can do less damage.

I wasn't at all thinking of my autism diagnosis when I started this thread and it was unrelated to that.

But now I think of it it is probably a situation where someone never feels completely compatible with other people.

Not conforming can be good and useful but never feeling you understand other people isn't good.

But I think now the notion of normality is being questioned and we might all be non neurotypical.

That's the spirit, AS!

This thread simply says people disagree on things and agree on things. Not sure where any of this is going. — jgill

I had an attack of insomnia (no sleep for 24H) - my muddled brain latched onto a specific string of words. :blush:

Feeling fresh today, a little groggy but manageable.

The OP asks a critical set of questions - what are disagreements, why do they occur, and how do we settle them?