Philosophy topic

[rosel1]

Seeing how there hasn't been any new topics lately, I decided to create one. Here's a question for you to think about. If you have the power to give World Peace to the hundreds of thousands of people, but tens of thousands of people must be sacrificed in the process for it to work, would you do it? Do post your reasons for whatever decision you make.

If the tens of thousands of people are those who create the sort of situations leading to war, then without a doubt, they are not "innocent".  Those, who through greed, and personal ambition, set up situations leading to war, by which they profit, again, are not "innocent".

If ridding the world of social "parasites" and evil demigogues and dictators, would bring about world peace, certainly, that would be acceptable.  If I had been around during World War II, and had access to Adolph Hitler, I would consider it a noble goal to take him out, rid the world of his evil, and end the war.  It's really that simple.

However, killing thousands of "innocent" people to bring about world peace just doesn't make sense to me, since their killing would be "war" and therefore, against world peace and justice.

[Blackthorne519]

If I had been around during World War II, and had access to Adolph Hitler, I would consider it a noble goal to take him out, rid the world of his evil, and end the war.  It's really that simple.

Like I said, perception of evil depends on the vantage point.  Hitler and his coherts believed they were doing good.


Bt

[Erpy]

I personally don't believe Hitler being taken out would have prevented much. Others would have appeared in his place to take advantage of the situation Germany found itself in during those times.

[Vildern]

The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few, or the one.

That does not support your statement. The sacrificial of one to save (many) others does not mean by any way that the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few (or the one). The needs of many never should outweigh the needs of the few (or the one), otherwise you eliminate the freedom of the individual and the essence of being one, and by doing so sucking the life out of the democratic ideology.

The needs of one are not outweight-able. They are always to be treated with the highest regard.

[Thepal]

If ridding the world of social "parasites" and evil demigogues and dictators, would bring about world peace, certainly, that would be acceptable.  If I had been around during World War II, and had access to Adolph Hitler, I would consider it a noble goal to take him out, rid the world of his evil, and end the war.  It's really that simple.

But you don't know what could happen. Things could turn out worse. Like in Red Alert. Hitler is killed, and Russia ends up being more powerful. Not that that is necessarily a bad thing. I'll have to look further into the whole Russian communism thing some day since from what I know a lot of it makes more sense than capitalism

[Blackthorne519]

The needs of one are not outweight-able. They are always to be treated with the highest regard.

The one should always be selfless.  It's worrying about "what do I get?" that makes this world a horrid place to live in.   Many cultures are based soley upon this concept, which is why many will never progess.


Bt

[GamerGal]

The one should always be selfless.  It's worrying about "what do I get?" that makes this world a horrid place to live in.   Many cultures are based soley upon this concept, which is why many will never progess.

BT, You make an excellent point!  It's because so many preface everything they do with the thought, "what's in it for me", that the world is in the shape it's in.

If a person is truly altruistic, his motivation is, "How will my actions affect the common good?  Is this the best course of action?"

Unfortunately, too few think this way! and not enough use the power of the ballot to change things!  

We do not demand honesty from our leadership.  We do not use the rights we have to impeach those who violate the law!  We reelect those who abuse the public trust.  We have Senators and Congressmen who have been in office for decades, and are in the back pockets of huge corporations, and feel they owe nothing to their real constituents -- the people!

As long as we're satisfied with this, we will continue to suffer the sort of "leadership" we have!  

[Thepal]

*enjoys the fact the americans are arguing against capitalism*

[rosel1]

I personally don't believe Hitler being taken out would have prevented much.

When Hitler took himself out, the war ended soon after.  

History says otherwise...whenever a tyrant is removed life improves.

[Thepal]

Did it improve? After Hitler died we went straight into a stand-off which could have wiped out all humankind.

[Blackthorne519]

Did it improve? After Hitler died we went straight into a stand-off which could have wiped out all humankind.

Yes the atomic bombings on Japan occured after Hitler's suicide.

And, the removal of Hitler earlier in the war would have prompted one of his lackeys, still confident at that time, to step up to the plate.  Herrman or Goering would have continued on in his idiom, if he was incapacitated early.

No, I believe everything happens for a reason, even the evil in the world.
What is light without shade?  One does not exist without the other, and in human nature, sadly, it takes great amounts of darkness to bring the light in focus again.

If a person is truly altruistic, his motivation is, "How will my actions affect the common good?  Is this the best course of action?"

Unfortunately, too few think this way! and not enough use the power of the ballot to change things!

Sadly, it is not only American culture that thinks this way, but many cultures globaly.  I would venture to say that it is a human trait we suffer from.  

And sadly, the power of the ballot has weakned as the numbers of people rise - taking the power blindly without education.  Uneducated voters are a dangerous thing, but we have to give them the same right as everyone.  Unfortuantely, as well, many do not wish to be antagonized with such things as education.  A part of me truly believes that ignorance is bliss, and I wish that I was less acutely aware of the human condition at times.   Basically I'm saying I wish I was dumber than I am.  Though some may argue that you can't get much lower than me.

We do not demand honesty from our leadership.  We do not use the rights we have to impeach those who violate the law!

No, we wish for lies to sooth nerves and to obstruct truths?  Why?  Because people are a dumb, paniac-prone herd animal.  The power of those governing is based partly on the predication that they keep the herd placated.  AND being that most are not altruistic in their intentions, as we have so duly pointed out, it leaves the herd to run for the most simple solution: lies.

We reelect those who abuse the public trust.  We have Senators and Congressmen who have been in office for decades, and are in the back pockets of huge corporations, and feel they owe nothing to their real constituents -- the people!

 Sadly, in capitalism, people are on the backburner when it comes to money. The production of capital, and amassing of wealth, sadly is what takes precident.  Not that I subscribe to my former "hippie" ideals of a utopian society, however, I feel that there is a balance that could be achieved.  If all humans were sterilzed at birth, and new children were grown in labs.  This, however, negates religion which is a whole other can of worms.

As long as we're satisfied with this, we will continue to suffer the sort of "leadership" we have!  

People get complacent in their comfortable ways.  Every empire falls, and custom falls to the way side.  The ability to change and adapt is of the utmost importance.  But, however, muse this statement, as it's one of my personal favorites.

"The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable one persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore all progress depends on the unreasonable man." - George Bernard Shaw

Progress is a dangerous thing.  People get hurt, killed maimed - forever changed - and so does the world.  The price of progress is life - and the spoils, ironically, are life as well.


Bt

[Vildern]

The one should always be selfless.  It's worrying about "what do I get?" that makes this world a horrid place to live in.   Many cultures are based soley upon this concept, which is why many will never progess.

As a matter of fact, I believe it's vice-versa. Cultures advance when the one asks himself how he can fulfill his potential. Cultures advance by the great thoughts of “ones”, by the great creations of “ones”, only when one can fulfill his potential.

In communism, for instance, the market could never progress rapidly, since to get progress in communism, you will always demand that everybody (the many) advance at the same pace, and so it will always be slow, and in the long term – you'll get economical decadence.

If one always looks how he can help others, and never how he can fulfill his potential, he will never advance, his thoughts will not develop, and so, he could never benefit society (in other words, help others) as well as he could have.

One can aid society best, only when one can fulfill his potential (when society encourages one to find the answers to his needs). Otherwise, it's a waste of talent, brains, abilities, etc.

In others words, you get maximum effort, by first fulfilling your potential. And so, answering the needs of the one, ultimately, is a key to answer the needs of the many.

The one should always be selfless

Seeking to fulfill your potential and be the best you can is not being slefish, it's merely being human.

[Thepal]

The one should always be selfless.  It's worrying about "what do I get?" that makes this world a horrid place to live in.   Many cultures are based soley upon this concept, which is why many will never progess.

As a matter of fact, I believe it's vice-versa. Cultures advance when the one asks himself how he can fulfill his potential. Cultures advance by the great thoughts of “ones”, by the great creations of “ones”, only when one can fulfill his potential.

In communism, for instance, the market could never progress rapidly, since to get progress in communism, you will always demand that everybody (the many) advance at the same pace, and so it will always be slow, and in the long term – you'll get economical decadence.

If one always looks how he can help others, and never how he can fulfill his potential, he will never advance, his thoughts will not develop, and so, he could never benefit society (in other words, help others) as well as he could have.

One can aid society best, only when one can fulfill his potential (when society encourages one to find the answers to his needs). Otherwise, it's a waste of talent, brains, abilities, etc.

In others words, you get maximum effort, by first fulfilling your potential. And so, answering the needs of the one, ultimately, is a key to answer the needs of the many.

I disagree. Cultures advance when everyone tries to fulfill their potential serving the community. That is why communism would make cultures advance faster. Think about it. At the moment there are hundreds of groups around the world trying to cure cancer. Imagine the progress if they just worked together for the common good. Instead they try to race each other for fame and fortune as much as to cure the sick. Even if the actual scientists are doing it for noble goals, the people funding it generally consider it a business. Working together is communism. Working for yourself is capitalism. Communism doesn't say "Everyone should perform at the same standard". It says "People should try to make life better for everyone". Communism increases the potential potential by having people work together.

[GamerGal]

As a matter of fact, I believe it's vice-versa. Cultures advance when the one asks himself how he can fulfill his potential. Cultures advance by the great thoughts of “ones”, by the great creations of “ones”, only when one can fulfill his potential.

That is only a "half-truth", for if the culture is Truly to advance, the "one" does not advance at the expense and on the backs of others.

For example, France had a glorious culture, with some of the most beautiful art, architecture, etc., but the various Louis' XIII, XIV, etc., built those wonderful palaces while their subjects were dying of starvation and disease.  Same with every other monarchy on the planet.

While the Revolutions and upheavals in the various countries produced bloodshed, they also (eventually) produced a more just and equitable society!

The Magna Carta, Declaration of Independence, etc., were produced for the good of many, by a handful of men ... who were thinking of others!

In communism, for instance, the market could never progress rapidly, since to get progress in communism, you will always demand that everybody (the many) advance at the same pace, and so it will always be slow, and in the long term – you'll get economical decadence.

Those in power under Communism, never intended everyone to progress at the same pace.  Being the very imperfect humans that they were, they FIRST sought to improve their own lot in life, and line their own pockets with wealth ... again, obtained on the backs of those they professed to be working for.  They were not altruistic by any means.

Gandhi, on the other hand, set his own needs aside; lived very modestly, and worked to improve the lives of all Indians, not just Hindus. It cost him his life, but he brought about the end of the British Empire, and set up Indepence for the Indian people, without resorting to violence!

If one always looks how he can help others, and never how he can fulfill his potential, he will never advance, his thoughts will not develop, and so, he could never benefit society (in other words, help others) as well as he could have.

One can benefit society by fulfilling his fullest potential with the intention of helping many.  Self development does not have to be selfish - nor does it have to be done by trampling over everyone to "get to the top"!

One can aid society best, only when one can fulfill his potential (when society encourages one to find the answers to his needs). Otherwise, it's a waste of talent, brains, abilities, etc.

Unfortunately, the way society is set up in many places all over the world, talent, brains, and abilities are not enough for the poor to advance.  Their societies do not encourage one to "find answers", but rather, to "stay where they belong" ... it took the Civil Rights movement in the USA, and things like the "United Negro College Fund", to allow talented Black Americans to advance.

In India, the "Untouchables" continue to be kept "in their place", risking their lives if they so much as look at, or speak to, someone in a higher caste!  They are not even treated like human beings, regardless of intellligence, talent,  etc.  They never have the opportunity to reach anything, let alone their potential.

In a culture with such a caste system, there is no advancement, except for those fortunate enough to be "high born"!

In most Muslim nations, being born female sets one up for a life of oppression and poverty.  Education, if available, is limited, and set up to prepare the girls for lives as wives and mothers!  Forget potential there!

In others words, you get maximum effort, by first fulfilling your potential. And so, answering the needs of the one, ultimately, is a key to answer the needs of the many.

Again, this does not have to be a "selfish" pursuit ... to be the best one can be, for the good of mankind, is always a much better alternative, than "looking out for number one"!  

Because if you're dealing with someone who thinks he/she is number one, and is willing and able to do everything possible to keep you number two, ten, one-thousand, etc., then the baser "animal instincts" kick in, and you have the sort of world we live in!  

[Vildern]

That is why communism would make cultures advance faster.

There is not one example in history to support that. It shows the opposite. The Russian culture and economy were at a very low stage during communism.

That is why communism would make cultures advance faster.

Fact: during the age of communism there was not one notable Russian writer. Communism failed everywhere in the world. Even the “Kibutsim” in Israel, the most successful communalist organizations the world has ever seen, go bankruptcy. Communism can never work for men. It's too remote from the human spirit. I'll give it as a saying I once heard:


“If anarchy brings the absolute freedom, what brings the absolute equality? Communism.” Both are beautiful concepts, but not for men. Not because humans are most selfish, but because no living being is entirely selfless (by case of majority, surely some are).      

Communism doesn't say “Everyone should perform at the same standard

– Right, it does not. It says: everyone should perform the best he can, and in return he'll receive what everybody else does. The bold part of the sentence above is why communism leads to a decadent society, getting the same as everybody else, regardless of your actions (unless you are the head of state, etc...). I can be the greatest scientist in the world ever, but if the country cannot afford cars for every worker – even I will never get a car. Would you agree to live in such society for long?

Gamergal -

I agree, and what you said does not conradict what I said, in fact, it goes fine with it. The examples I gave were to support the following:

Just as a handful of people cannot exploit the majoirty for their benefit (like kings), so cannot the majority disregard the needs of the few, by saying: "We will not support you, we will disregard your needs, simply because you are but a few."


--- I've edited some paragraphs above, take note of it.

[Keenermart]

Well here's my two cents...

My opinion is that you're all just barely missing the point...  I don't think it matters what a man (or woman) does with their life.  Whether they spend it on themselves, whether they spend it on others... doesn't matter.  What matters is whether or not they find meaning in what they do with the life they get.

Barring religion and talk about an afterlife or reincarnation (not that I don't believe in anything like that, it's just that it complicates the argument about our lives here)... We only get one trip around.  No second chances, and like I heard in a song, "You don't get your money back."

That being said, each person has the sole responsibility of making their life something meaningful.  Vildern might see his place in life as looking out just for number one, and ignoring everyone else, while Bt sees his place as being a completely selfless martyr for the entire society (I'm not misunderstanding your statements, I'm exagerrating for arguments' sake).  However, if each finds his way of life meaningful, then neither is really wrong.

So, it does boil down to the self, like Vildern said... but a self in relation to everyone else.  While we're not in this world alone, and we are surrounded by billions of others, ultimately, our own happiness takes precedence over every one else's.  (Take note that money, power, and "advance"-ment, as someone said, all do not equal happiness.)

Of course I would want a good life for my children, and my children's children, and the children of my close friends and those I care about...  but once I'm gone, that's it for me.  So it's my resposibility to make my life meaningful to me while I have the chance.

When I'm lying on my deathbed (assuming I go that way), I'm not going to be looking back thinking about how I helped society... I'm going to be looking back thinking about whether or not I enjoyed myself and enjoyed my time with those that I care about.  But!  If Bt, while on his deathbed, looks back wondering how he helped society rather than whether or not he enjoyed himself, who am I to tell him he's wrong for doing so?

[Blackthorne519]

If Bt, while on his deathbed, looks back wondering how he helped society rather than whether or not he enjoyed himself, who am I to tell him he's wrong for doing so?

See, I have looked back on my life from my death-bed, and I saw a throng of people come to see me, wish me well and pray for my recovery.   The hospital staff said that hadn't seen such a large crowd of people like that.   I think I helped society, and enjoyed myself - I obviously did something right to have that many people there for me.

In being selfless, by giving of yourself, you will ultimately get more than you could ever grub with all your greed.


Bt

[Thepal]

There is not one example in history to support that. It shows the opposite. The Russian culture and economy were at a very low stage during communism.

Russia isn't exactly a wonderful example. Firstly, they were in a war which ate away at any funds they had. Secondly, they were in a war with a rich, powerful country which was only trying to become richer and more powerful. Thirdly, power almost always corrupts, and those in power became capitalists. Fourthly, communism is based on peace, capitalism is based on conflict. So capitalism won.

Fact: during the age of communism there was not one notable Russian writer. Communism failed everywhere in the world. Even the “Kibutsim” in Israel, the most successful communalist organizations the world has ever seen, go bankruptcy. Communism can never work for men. It's too remote from the human spirit. I'll give it as a saying I once heard:

“If anarchy brings the absolute freedom, what brings the absolute equality? Communism.” Both are beautiful concepts, but not for men. Not because humans are most selfish, but because no living being is entirely selfless (by case of majority, surely some are).

True. Communism will never work because humans are bastards (unless it was heavily policed). But, if we did have world peace, that would imply communism, and that was what this topic was initially about. World Peace wouldn't just mean not killing each other. It'd mean not fighting in any form over any thing. Which means not competing for a better job to get better money. Which means not trying to outdo other people to afford a better car. It would mean everyone working together for the common good. It would mean sharing everything.

Right, it does not. It says: everyone should perform the best he can, and in return he'll receive what everybody else does. The bold part of the sentence above is why communism leads to a decadent society, getting the same as everybody else, regardless of your actions (unless you are the head of state, etc...). I can be the greatest scientist in the world ever, but if the country cannot afford cars for every worker – even I will never get a car. Would you agree to live in such society for long?

Yes. I would love such a society, but I'm one of those selfless people (well... when I'm not evil). Why would I even need a car? Since the resources and workforce would be used for the good of everyone, the public transport system would be perfect. People wouldn't need their own cars. The only reason we don't have that now is because people want cars. They wouldn't be willing to walk the 5 minutes to the bus stop to improve the world for everyone else, or give up their pretty little toy.

Just as a handful of people cannot exploit the majoirty for their benefit (like kings), so cannot the majority disregard the needs of the few, by saying: "We will not support you, we will disregard your needs, simply because you are but a few."

I don't understand the context of that. That is obviously describing communism, since capitalism says those in power can exploit the majority, and the majority can disregard the needs of the few. Since you are arguing against communism, why would you put something down that makes communism seem good and capitalism seem bad?

[Charlemagne]

*sigh* If I hadn't taken a couple of weeks to cozy up with a new game I might have waded into this discussion. As it is, I can't muster the energy to form a suitable thought on these topics. Great discussion though. lol

[Jafar]

.

Dude, I hate to burst your bubble, but you're not funny, and you're not helping the discussion. And that post counts as spam. Can ya knock it off with the cake, please?

[Blackthorne519]

.

Brevity IS the soul of wit.



Bt

[Vildern]

Quote:
Just as a handful of people cannot exploit the majoirty for their benefit (like kings), so cannot the majority disregard the needs of the few, by saying: "We will not support you, we will disregard your needs, simply because you are but a few."


I don't understand the context of that. That is obviously describing communism, since capitalism says those in power can exploit the majority, and the majority can disregard the needs of the few. Since you are arguing against communism, why would you put something down that makes communism seem good and capitalism seem bad?

Wha-what?  :lol Dude, capitalism is one of the many sources of modern evilness, I didn't for a single second support that. That paragraph above was the point, of which I developed all of my other paragraphs, it was against Bt's saying: " The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few" - just because you might be a minority, doesn't mean someone else's needs outweigh yours, just because they are a majority. I was not supporting communism. I'm a socialist, in heart, not communisnt nor capitalist.

The same implies to you, Kneermart, if you thought the same.

And think of it - perhaps you would agree to live in such society, but it will not last. Just see the Kibutsim. Of course, you can heavily enforce communism, but then you take out one's freedom, and that's bad. That's a culture-killer, when you force people to think in a certain way only, it narrows one's thoughts and mind.

[Parhelion]

I've been told to look at the Kibutsim for a good example of what communism could be.  That it worked very well but unfortunately went bankrupt.  Other than that, I don't know anything about them.

I would say that a far worse example than Russian communism was the Khmer Rouge, in Cambodia.  They killed over 20% of their own population in just a few years time.  I see communism as unattainable and thus not useful to even discuss.

To me, the positive definition of communism is a contradiction in terms.  It could never exist.  Without a power structure, someone absolutely will step in and abuse that vacuum.  With a power structure, it isn't the utopian vision of communism anyways.

[Keenermart]

In being selfless, by giving of yourself, you will ultimately get more than you could ever grub with all your greed.

Big huge difference between grubbing greedily, and living for one's own happiness.  Oftentimes, the most inner happiness comes from being good to others... but that's still not altruistic, now is it?  You probably wouldn't do it if you didn't get a good feeling from doing it.  But I wasn't criticizing you anyway... my point was simply that every individual has to find their own meaningful life, and I was using exagerrated versions of your and Vildern's somewhat conflicting opinions as opposite poles.  I didn't mean to say there's not something in the middle, or something completely off that board.

Some people actually find happiness in poring over numbers, hoarding money, stocks, bonds, etc.  That's not for me, or for most in fact, but you've gotta give that guy a little something for doing what makes him happy.

The same implies to you, Kneermart, if you thought the same.

Not at all  :)

[Thepal]

Ok, I've never really looked into Socialism, but I just did a quick search at dictionary.com (my source of information :P I get bored when reading large paragraphs) and it sounds like Communism. What is the difference? Or is it just that people don't think it through enough to realise they would both be the same?