First, responding to the post at hand...I'm not absolutely sure I'm getting it completely, so please bear with me if I am misunderstanding or misinterpreting any of the points...
"Society is Based on morality.
Morality rests on consensus and requires the use of power to remove those who will not accept that consensus.
The continued existence of a shared morality rests on the forebearance of every single individual within a society from claiming the entire fruits of his or her labor."
Okay so far...but this really illustrates two things: Society is a fluent thing that is constantly changing, with sub-societies and overlapping societies, and the society that one belongs to may change as one's views change over time, or even depending on what issue is being discussed.
"A society's ability to achieve consensus is inversely proportional to the size and complexity of society, to the degree of technological advancement, and to the speed of internal communications."
I agree with the size and complexity of society being a bar to the achievement of consensus, but what is the reasoning behind the other two things? Seems to me that speed of internal communications would help a society achieve consensus, since communication is the backbone of real consensus...unless "consensus" means "rules handed down by authority that everyone agrees to follow, despite their personal feelings."
"The more complex a society's framework, the shorter the existence of that incarnation of a society."
Right...the more complex society gets (the more the things that consensus needs to be reached on multiply), the more fluid it will necessarily be.
"Power cannot be maintained and effectively exercised without a moral structure accepted and practiced by all because power attracts the corruptible and because corruption destroys consensus.
Certain individuals are born incapable of forebearance; so are certain cultures.
Thus, continuation of society rests on; the willingness of each individual to accept the shared values of the society; the willingness and ability of those in power to remove those who do not support the morality of the society; and the willingness of all to limit the complexity of society to the scope of the consensus required."
The terms under which society is defined here, it definitely sounds like an unimportant things to me...in the descriptive sense, it seems to mean "who you agree with on a certain issue", and in a procriptive sense, it seems to be saying "the people must conform, or society is doomed." Since I believe society is a fluid thing, I think non-consenters are necessary for the progress of society...there was a pretty wide consensus among a certain society that slavery was okay, and in that case it was only non-consensus that allowed society to get beyond that stage. Is the author arguing something here, or simply describing the hallmarks of "static society"?
"Mutual individual respect and self-respect must be maintained, since the greater the mutual respect between individuals and the respect for the role of each individual within society, the more stable the society.
Because society is based on trust, trust cannot be withheld on unfounded suspicion.
Threats are a form of mistrust; so are unprovoked violence,use of physical force, and manipulation of another. Failure to be untrustworthy requires removal from society."
So far, so good...although the author should perhaps include a provision for re-entry into society at a later date...
"Attempts to redefine principles into written rules of conduct reflect mistrust and are doomed to failure."
Hee hee...I like this one alot...it might be added that such attepts necessarily lead to loopholes that may be exploited by untrustworthy persons (look at the American legal system...).
"Direct statements of individual desires are not forms of mistrust, but no individual or group of individuals is bound or required to fulfill another's desire.
Society may agree upon mutual restrictive and/or coercive measures, but only so long as such measures have commensurate impacts upon those who develop and impose such measures."
Right, this is something that I actually planned to bring up in the "When is Violence Justified" thread...authority is only legitimate as far as it is subject to its own rules.
And now, moving on...
This doesn't actually seem to address what individuals should be doing in order to advance society. Should they never try to change society because as a non-consenter they are necessarily working toward its ruin, or is it that they actually form a new society with like-minded people, and can work to expand that society? My original post asking what your "solution" was was based directly on the fact that it seemed you were attacking people for trying to make changes for the better, based on the logic that trying to make "little fixes" like that doesn't fix the big problem. There are many instances, though, where a "starting small" "divide and conquer" approach is the only way to solve a problem, especially as large and complex a problem as many people percieve in our Western societies. It wasn't meant to be a personal attack (though maybe the "Dr. Wanduring" thing was going a bit far...)
But, as it is, the question still remains...if working on the "little" problems in society is useless because the root of the problem still remains, how do we get at that root, and fix society with a more top-down approach? While Modesitt's stuff above is good, and definitely worth discussion, it doesn't seem to actually give any advice to real people on how they should act in order to make the world a better place.
Free Forum Hosting
Important Announcement
Prev Message
