The author of the quote in question was from a time when there were just over a billion people in the world. Point being, due to the nature of finite resources, the quote may have lost some relevance over time. In short, we have a social contract that the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few, and so, by sticking to this social construct, we ensure few are left behind. Compared to before said social construct was in place. Long story short even so, people would rather work together than work alone even if both paths produced identical fruits (which they don't).

"The only paradise is Paradise Lost."
- Marcel Proust

"[be aware of the possibility] ... the utopia you seek is actually a dystopia of the worst kind."
- Unknown

but unless you’re willing to somehow assert that it is right/wrong to be hypocritical, this doesn’t say anything interesting. You’ve successfully separated most actions into two groups, but aren’t able to say which group is good/bad. — Pinprick

I'm not willing. My point was if you would volunteer yourself to be strapped to a chair or otherwise in a controlled society and I do various things to you, you and anyone in such a position will quickly find out what's "good" and "bad".

While views on morality can be as diverse as the day is long, I hold that most views can be classified as either hypocritical or non-hypocritical 95% of the time.

Would you like someone to steal, injure, or otherwise destroy something of yours? Probably not. Now if you believe it would be OK to do so to an innocent other simply because they're from another place or hold a different system of beliefs, that's a hypocritical view of morality.

There are exceptions. Maybe you're a masochist or feel guilty for belongings you do have and don't mind being injured or robbed from. Seemingly it would appear I'm stating if that was the case you can do so without your view of morality being hypocritical.

We all have an inherent sense of pain and in a way right or wrong. What makes us happy, what makes us sad or angry. Most of the time. Save for psychopaths or sociopaths and other unique minds of that nature.

The story you bring up is interesting because even under a normal mindset and after applying empathy (ie. "what if I were that person?") many questions arise and circumstances and factors that may or may not have been mentioned in the story or exist in most peoples understanding of it. Example, what if you're thinking as the rich person. Maybe you struggled your whole life and been through hell to get it after applying yourself literally every waking moment and yourself planned to give it to the poor only using your knowledge to ensure they actually develop themselves and hold on to their money. Maybe the poor people in that story are poor because the were the worst of criminals responsible for inconceivable amounts of bloodshed and human misery. Maybe they're just drug addicts. Maybe Robin Hood was just looking for a tax write off. Or to be "that hero", which as you can see, we still talk about to this day. Maybe they were poor because they were misguided and if you just drop them money and leave without teaching them how to manage it properly, said monies will just get spent on drugs, hookers, or one-off experiences leaving them worse off than before. Or someone will just rob them. Maybe it just went to fund ISIS. Nobody knows. There's 1,000 questions to be asked even with some attempted "standard" of morality based on something reliably observable and intrinsic to us all.

I would [...] I will — TheQuestioner

Sounds pretty solid to me. :grin:

Most of each person's important choices and decisions are influenced by the drive to procreate sustain themselves, and to protect their offspring individual ideas of what the pinnacle of their combined or overall works, pains, and pleasures will (or should) amount to or ultimately leave behind. — TheQuestioner

FIFY?

Is there always a choice between being happy and being sad ? — healing-anger

Perhaps. Many schools of thought. Ignorance is bliss. Life is what you make of it. What doesn't kill you makes you stronger. Jesus saves lol. Take your pick really.

So how then China or India have far less prisoners than the US? — ssu

I've heard a few less than flattering stories that offer plenty explanation. Do I know if they're true? Nope. Not one to spread propaganda. Though it doesn't take much imagination bearing in mind commonly available knowledge.

Essentially people "know better". Take that as you please. All nations/peoples actively work to maintain their own cultures, customs, and norms. Some joke around that American culture is really just a lack of one. Not everyones a melting pot, basically. Less to disagree with/rebel against.

Hence Americans can be in amazement of other prison systems — ssu

Not really.

Norway population - 5 million (150k sq. mi.)

USA population - 350 million (3.8m sq. mi.)

That's 70x more in population with only 25x more space.

If I added 70 people to your household overnight do you think things would run as smoothly as they do now? How do you think things would be? The US hasn't had 5 million since before the 1800s. (or to be fair if i randomly added 2-3 people to your house based on the proportions)

domestic terrorist — ssu

Difference between a "domestic terrorist" and "foreign combatant" = raising your hand and saying whatever to a 10 second pledge (that really means nothing to pretty much any religion [the world is temporal and without everlasting meaning or consequence]). So. Yeah.

You're suggestion that the ease of fixing something with modern technology means restitution is infeasible suggests that you think that such restitution "isn't punishment enough". — Pfhorrest

Not at all. I'm saying if I'm broke and useless (as most violent criminals are) what use do I have. None whatsoever. All I could hope for is given time to think about what I've done and perhaps even the tools and resources to do so, again in a confined penal setting. Ok. Say I'm as I said and I steal some guys $5,000 Rolex and in the process shoot someone close to you who tries to defend you, killing them. I'm broke. You can't fine me. I mean, maybe some system or insurance will pay you back, maybe. But then what? You can't bring the person back to life. What good am I if I were to be some sort of servant to you? Aside from the thought of killing you every waking moment or whenever I could get away with it I'd probably just do an all around s***t job. So then what? I'm a useless, talentless criminal. Barely worth the weight I can lift/labor I can provide. Which, was my point, can be replaced by a machine with (at least) 50x efficiency and literally zero risk/cost minus a few cents (ok maybe slightly more today) an hour. Back to the original argument, assuming I'm an a**hole who couldn't care less if you or anyone other than me lives or dies, I don't care about pain. A 5 minute or even day long flogging or beating just makes me angrier and even more of a prick. I'll just take my lickings and learn to be more careful next time I rob, injure, or otherwise wrong someone. Which would probably be someone close to you at that point. Because I don't have time to actually think about what I've done, know how it hurts people (which granted a beating can emulate), and most importantly realize, wow, all this time that's been taken from my life, maybe whatever I stole or whoever I hurt or killed is missing that also. Just something to think about.

Or maybe Russia would rent us a couple of gulags in Siberia. — Bitter Crank

I dunno man, there's something strategic about freezing cold. Not only with generational knowledge can you learn to not only adapt but be comfortable, think about how the universe works. Heat powers everything. If you're alive, you're warm ie. produce heat. You can create heat, powerful, even painful, blistering heat with just two twigs. You can't "create" cold. Without modern chemicals rather their application (Freon, air conditioning, etc). Everyones talking about global warming, who knows, maybe those areas will remain the last habitable zones.

then those could then create a sub-sub banishment zone until they had finally separated out the worst person of all time. — Hanover

How or why would felons doing so separate the good from bad let alone the worst person of all time lol. If anything it would be the opposite.

just retribution — Pfhorrest

I didn't mean that, I meant in tandem with again a utopian idea of prison where the person has time, opportunity, and resources to reform, while realizing "oh I f***ed up", which often expands into two schools of thought: A.) let me not do that again or B.) let me not get caught so easily which both- usually involve some sort of discouragement of egregious (if not just blatant) behavior that is destructive to others.

No machine can bring a person back to life or restore peace of mind and faith in a given justice system. I'm speaking about "restitution" to avoid incarceration from a useless, broke criminal- it can't be done. The entire lifetimes of 50 of them can be replaced by a machine, hundreds, thousands even. All of them can actually. You can't "make someone pay you back" and have justice if they don't have anything to begin with, which is why some steal and/or murder (even not by original intent), often because of laziness or inability to do anything useful. And people who don't care about one another enough to steal or harm another obviously don't view pain or suffering as a deterrent. These are hardened criminals, some at least, I wouldn't even call them human, who would kill you, your mother, and who knows perhaps even theirs for a 50 dollar bill.

So we're back to my point as to why people who commit crimes have to be in jail. If they don't have anything worth anything to take, and they're effectively useless per modern innovation, what else can you do but lock them up? The answer is nothing. Nothing constitutional and that's just how it is.

but I think many criminals would prefer it — tim wood

Pain is part of life. It's something we all experience. To someone who views another person as low enough to steal from or injure, has more than likely already been through a significant amount of displeasure as is- ie. you're right. And that's the problem. People (most people and usually) have things because they worked for them. That took time. If you're broke and rob someone of a nice watch or something you're not taking "pleasure" from them per se, you're taking something much more valuable. Their time. Something they (again usually) worked hard for. You can't replace that with a five minute beating or "flogging" because that's what separates the criminal from the law-abider, the "good" person from the "bad" person- an ingrained and inherent lack of concern for pain and suffering, be it toward them or toward another. Naturally, pain hurts. So if a criminal would have the option to be in pain or not be, obviously they'd choose the latter. Anyone would. Selfish or not. But incarceration not only punishes the perpetrator but was supposed to (and I agree most of the time it does not) rehabilitate the person and/or give them time to "change their ways". Again, just watch prison survival videos. Someone decent enough, perhaps not perfect but with some sense of decency, goes in for getting a little too drunk and mistakenly (sometimes not even remembering) hurting someone again by accident- and leaves as a hardened criminal with almost no if any compassion or humanity left. If it weren't for that, as some people are really bad, not only does incarceration punish/rehabilitate it removes people who are a cancer to society from said society. It was supposed to rehabilitate, at least give them every chance and opportunity to, where they come out reformed, and not worse out then when they went it. It doesn't. A huge moral and financial hellhole.

My point about being broke, is that if someone steals and/or kills (rather, doesn't mind doing so to steal) they often have little to no money or talent. It's a crime of "necessity" be it by their own laziness or ineptitude or not. Perhaps they just spend whatever they stole on drugs/fun times/intangible goods. You can't "restitute" that today seeing as all they'd be good for is physical labor and you have machines that can do the work of 50 men at 2 cents an hour for current without any chance of hostility/subversion/laziness/purposely not working. So. That doesn't work.

drug-related crimes — The Questioning Bookworm

Sure, until some kid gets too high (I mean REALLY high and overlooks a traffic light or sign and ends up making a seemingly minor yet incredibly consequential driving or operating error resulting in injury to property or persons. Or even, quite literally smokes his whole life away. Wasted potential. Or someone takes a little too much coke and has a heart attack -- or thinks he is lol. Ambulances are expensive. Or takes too much mushrooms or LSD and thinks the lady next to him is a shape-shifting creature and punches her in the mouth. Or screams and runs, disturbing the peace at least.

non-violent robberies — The Questioning Bookworm

So just because a person isn't shot to death it's "non-violent" -- no the trauma can last a lifetime. Total withdrawal from society, PTSD, flashbacks, etc.

Etc, etc..

Edit: No I get the idea of a non-violent robbery, breaking and entering into an unoccupied residence (which is still pretty freaky) or even just swiping something when the person isn't looking. Fact is, people do these things and get away with it. If there weren't any punishment or penalty for it if caught, why would people especially a young and possibly misguided youth be discouraged from doing so? It's a chain reaction, snowball effect.

Fyodor Dostoevsky once said: "The degree of a civilization in a society can be judged by entering its prisons." — The Questioning Bookworm

I don't disagree. What you're neglecting to keep in mind is some countries are not "free and open", as in.. some people don't make it to prison. And no, there is no social media and people pulling out phones to document it.

You can't just throw away the dream job and try and turn it into some ridiculous situation outside of any and all reality. I mean, really? What? Seriously? If they were dressed in work attire I fear the image you'd have to post to convey it- I'm sure it would be illegal in most countries and frankly rally PETA. By these standards.

I would rather dialogue with Christians though. — Gregory

You believe there is one "truth, way, and (the) life", and no one may reach God without these things, correct? As long as your savior is savior for the message and fulfillment of prophecy and not just owing to being a powerful, ethnically familiar figure- I'm sure we seek the same things at the end of the day.

I invert the roles of divinity and humanity (ego) and because of logical reasons put humanity on top of its ground (God) and say humanity can even transcend the goodness of divinity. — Gregory

Sort of like the Son defeating or otherwise assuming the role of the Father? Not so. See the story of Chronos. Or as some speak of him, having different names. Save for one. So the silly story goes, his lady friend/female consort replaced his child with "a rock" .. you'd think even a normal human would be able to differentiate the two. Must have been a pretty good replica. Which opens up the possibility of how some tell of how god(s) are not "allowed" to directly interfere with the (permitted and permissible) lives and actions of mortals (by their own pleas it's said- I mean just think about it. The human mind is I don't want to say fragile, just, when several things go wrong many have tantrums so- imagine something actually unexplained..) and so introduces the idea of (a) Medusae.

Imagine. People, perhaps some related to you, used to actually believe such tales. Heh, makes for great lore though that's for sure.

On what basis do you assume that the future state of entropy is a "return" to the past state and, therefore, that "activity" itself is not fundamental and needs to be "spurred"? — 180 Proof

Big bang theory, for one. First there was nothing, then there was something. "Heat death of the universe", etc. You'd be competing with a lot of brilliant minds to oppose that. Aside from that most if not literally every single thing in existence. Generators and engines need to be activated to produce power. Boulders need to be rolled or otherwise be uphill (potential energy) to turn into kinetic (active) energy. Without extreme heat steam turns back into water and without some form of heat energy it turns back into ice. Not fun to think about but apparently that would appear to be how it is.

So, entropy, in a way. The slow and inevitable process of what is in motion returning to a state of inactivity. Yet, what spurred the activity in the first place is just not even in the picture? Do you think that really makes sense to anyone?

Some seek new lands to share a gift they've been given, others do so to take what gifts were given. This is the only true divide between men and what actually defines nations. Though, they won't tell you that. #Atheism - because, why not right?

Then I think you should be fighting for a world unified under the same flag. — Daniel

Wise man, who's no longer with us (thank God- don't take that the wrong way) once said: "you can't make everybody happy".

large corporations, as though elected heads represent big money interests over those of the working citizenry. — FrankGSterleJr

This is the problem with society. Like children disobeying their parents because they have some sort of say over their actions and behaviors, completely neglecting the fact said authority were once children themselves and subject to the same level of authority. Yes, in modern Western countries you can work hard and said work, time, and effort counts for something. I don't see why that even needs to be explained or worse "apologized" for. I get the (one and sole) argument some may have that those who have reached the top or "pinnacle" of human success in this world seek to and do "lock down" opportunity for those outside to ever reach said spot, but in a democracy with laws, rules, and order- that gate is more of a hurdle or obstacle that builds character and resilience while increasing one's own talents as opposed to a solid wall or mountain that does the opposite. So they say anyway, eh? :grin:

Meaning is often weighed against observable and measurable (usually repeatable) real-world circumstance. If a bridge is measured to safely support a 5,000 pound weight- that's generally what it is. For obvious reasons.

If you place both bets on one game then your odds of winning are 0.2. If you place one bet on each game then your odds of winning are 0.19. — Michael

I was never any good at math. How does this work out exactly? In my mind, by playing the two games instead of one, someone or something just seems to magically lower the chance by .01 for no rhyme or reason.

Irrespective of one or more unusual and unlikely scenarios described in this thread, the average bloke can afford to toss away say $1 (or so) with the 1/10 chance of netting an additional $9. Why not right? That's how it gets enough to give away such large amounts in the first place. Of course, most lotteries offer far larger prizes.. granted at an extremely smaller chance of winning. And still, the tax or some profits (up to 40% I hear) go toward education and other universally beneficial causes. A win-win either way, no?

Do you agree they are different things? — tim wood

I agree people say things as both that are actually neither. I suppose it does come down to semantics doesn't it? What do you think?

So, not all "facts" are true yet all truths are actual facts? Or no? Or do some facts either by design or not exclude or dismiss larger more relevant truths then one may otherwise benefit from in a greater way?

Example: it's a fact taking something from someone is the quickest way to obtain something. However, a larger truth is that sometimes justice is served and may relinquish said object from you, hence, the truth being it is not the best way. As in, many people believe quicker is better, even if it's not as secure in longevity as other ways, and so, since many people believe quicker is better it can be said it is indeed a "fact" that quicker is better.

It's just another reminder of how bankrupt philosophy really is. — Hippyhead

Political pseudo-philosophy at least. :P

When it comes to anything political, we're all just really playing game of thrones and want to rule the world. Take it from someone who lost it all- just be open with it. Or.. perhaps not, eh? Ha. "All warfare is based on deception". It's an ugly game, with no real winners. Not for long anyway. Eager to return to actual philosophy as well.

The US caused a Russian pipeline to blow up in retaliation for some attempt at infiltration. — frank

Is this Alex Jones talk or do you have a link to this? I can say I'm whoever from wherever acting under whatever, and do something to make people turn against one another, doesn't mean it was so.

I'm pretty sure nobody in the US government cares about real Russians and their political challenges. — frank

Look at it this way, if they don't, somebody else will. So, it makes sense to be considerate. Such as said scenario would be. When you devalue empathy and compassion toward one, you devalue it for all.

Not really no. — Benkei

Well, how so? Leaders are dealers in hope, which of course isn't or doesn't have to be some kind of material gain be it better infrastructure of just more money in your pocket at the end of the week. Unity and faith in one's own life and being to instill a sense of purpose is great- crucial even. But it only goes so far? Would you vote for a leader where you stand to lose something or otherwise cut established gains or would you vote for one who declares the opposite? It's about who can do what's best for the people and unless he or she is going to be a motivational speaker every day, it usually revolves around some sort of benefit or gain. The idea or possibility, at least.

the USA will start unjust wars because money is the predominant influence in its politics — Benkei

Erm, isn't that all politics- anywhere? Lol. It's not funny it's really rather tragic but yeah.

The Iranian regime is a relatively small group of gangsters holding the Iranian people prisoner. — Hippyhead

Eh to be fair many people have either said or thought that about their own governments at one time or another. Why do I have to pay taxes? Why do I have to go to jail for such and such? I've said it before, and though this quote isn't mine: "the utopia some wish for is actually a dystopia of the worst kind".

the Islamic State was then effectively crushed. — Hippyhead

Any such group was always irrelevant if you're concerned about religion and statehood,. The entire ME and yes now even parts of Europe is and has always been an effective "Islamic state", that grows in territory, wealth, and power with each passing day. I'm not one to say if that's good or bad- shoot who knows, maybe they were right and we were wrong. Personally I subscribe to there being a possibility where "no ones wrong", of course not everyone will get behind that and the money and pride sure isn't there. Especially when people from alleged groups or sides do things to one another, forgiveness seems easy in theory- til you're actually on the receiving end of a major grievance. Either way, former Christians (whose ancestors swore their successes/conquests and future ability [or inability] to hold onto them were contingent on their faith in God) are becoming less and less religious and globally aware, becoming more atheist, while others become the opposite. It's just what's happening.

What in the Heavens is whatever you said and do you stand by the concept it is not a byproduct of God? A useful one perhaps but yes.

Nope, never. Manager usually fires those who don't abide by stated policies which include non-harassment. Is this a 2nd or 3rd world country you're describing? If the latter, thank goodness for the miracle of internet! If not, get that complaint form going to the head office.

Are you describing information from co-workers in a setting which you have ( i suppose) little choice to be in or a social media posting which you explicitly subscribed to/viewed? Just curious

The most ridiculous or grotesque person available — Ciceronianus the White

Takes one to know one. Does it not? Vanity is the preferred lens of the true fool, not by birth, as we are all ignorant at such a time, but through life when challenges and lessons, rather the merit and wisdom they bring forth, are traded or dismissed for mere pleasantries of the senses.

Any thoughts? — Tristan L

Why would any thoughts or replies constitute a unique and individual thought or reply from again, a unique and individual... individual? What difference would a rebuttal or refute you post yourself after changing your mind or perspective have from me or another? Or... are there even such things as 'me' and 'another'?

So what is your argument against a basic income? — unenlightened

A person who does something useful or worthwhile or creates something of the like should be rewarded. Most work or have compulsory education because they need to do so in order to live.

Nothing is given for free. If you eat something it's because someone either raised crops or cattle, and had to deal with the hardships/setbacks associated with it. You can't have someone sitting around doing nothing and getting stuff while someone deals with the stresses and hardships associated with producing said stuff and gets the exact same. It doesn't make any sense. You have to be rewarded for your effort or to many people that effort would be in vain, at least it wouldn't be something anyone would want to do. With joy and not out of spite, and if so, without those two, you never know what you're going to get...

UBI sounds like a great idea, in theory, if the world were as it was, groups of peoples with numbers under a few hundred thousand who can explore, cultivate, and lounge around as they please. Unfortunately, we live in a world of 8 billion. Not to be unexpected, the pleasures of fraternizing were too great to be resisted. However, that was back when your community or people would inflict harsh punishment on you for neglecting your offspring. Now, you just offer up for adoption or the State to handle your progeny if you're "unable" or unwilling usually (and that's 90% of most cases). That's what they wanted so that's how it is. So. You work. Simple, really.

You can have an economy with UBI where everyone works if they please (which most won't). Meanwhile, your next door neighbors may actually instill or rather correlate their currency to work and effort. Over time, which one do you think will hold more value? See the Zimbabwean dollar.

We know pleasure feels good instinctively at birth. Good food, becoming pleasantly dizzy, etc. There's nothing really philosophical about that with the exception of "life is about pleasure" which again, is hardly anything that requires any thought as by all definition it doesn't. More of an anti-philosophy really. Sure you could come up with greater ways and means to achieve selfish pleasure but that's hardly philosophy.

so the only real evil is to knowingly tell a lie — Dan Hall

I think I was in 6th grade at a new school, for troubled students. The classrooms are windowless as were the doors, so turning off the light switch was a funny yet understandably dangerous thing people would do on occasion. We were about to go to lunch or something and were lined up more or less by the door. Someone flipped the switch. Once the teacher turned the light back on she demanded to know who was responsible with the ultimatum that we would stand there and miss whatever if nobody fessed up. Selflessly or perhaps in a state of hunger I said "It was me" and was told I would face later punishment for doing so. After that I kind of backed out softly like "I was just saying that to get the line moving". Nevertheless I was not believed the second time. As I walked to the back of the line I eyed each of my peers intensely. Was I 'evil' for doing that?

fae — TheMadFool

Fae?

having even participated in some terrorist activities — TheMadFool

Uh, I know how the victims of any said incident would feel lol. That's the thing about insults and put-me-downs. They either have a basis in reality, some merit, or remind you of an area in your life/attitude you need work on or they don't.

I agree or at least want to agree that much of the suffering experienced in life is preventable or at least able to mitigated but a life with no suffering, angst, or worry is hardly a life at all. There'd be no passion or excitement. I'm sure you mean more of the former sentence than the idea of there being "none whatsoever" as a possibility.