For Grind : Reraking Old Coals

uscitizen said:
Yeah but whether the soicety sucks or not , it is still a society ?
Click to expand...
There are two classics of anthropology that I would recommend to anyone here. They're by Colin Turnbull and represent two extremes of social functionality: Forest People and Mountain People. As cultural anthropology, they're badly dated. They do stand out in the history of simple ethnography, however.

Forest People describes a society that works and works very well. Mountain People describes a society that has truly collapsed and a culture in the process of dying. The latter is particularly instructive, I think.

Society really can break down to the point that it no longer exists, in any effective way. What happens to people in that situation is not pretty.
 
"You admit that there's no objective morality, yet you try to pass judgment on the entire human species based on your own preferences."

I would say that extinction would be universally thought as bad. Perhaps it isn't. In that case, all the less reason for me to worry.
 
A dysfunctional society is still a society. It is just in flux.

A society where there is only will and physical capability and no moral agreement isn't a society.

I realise that all terms are arbitrary and subject to mutual agreement, but cohesion and organisation are requirements for pretty much all definitions....
 
AnyOldIron:
What, in your opinion, is the source of morality? How do you think we define morality?

Grind:
I don't believe in (objective) morality. What we see as morality is a large collective determining what is right. I don't think that is right. If you allow for the possability for 51% of the people to rule the 49%, that is no society I want to be a part of.

You don't believe in objective morality, fair enough, neither do I. Do you believe in subjective morality? How do you think subjective morality is created and defined?


Anyoldiron:
Do you believe that there should be no social morality, only individual morality?

Grind:
I happen to like some of the benefits of social morality, but am I ready to force that on others? No. At the very least there has to be a suitable escape for those that do not wish to comply with society's arbitrary standards.

So if there were an option for you to opt out of social morality and return to your natural freedom to do as you will and are physically capable of?

Does it not worry you that if you opt to retake your natural freedoms, you are extremely isolated, and have only your own physical capability for defence?

If you return to only will and physical capability, you lose property rights and you only possess the items you can defend from other's will?

That your right to life is lost, and your life depends on your ability to defend it from the will of others?



AOI:
Do you think it is possible for society to exist without common moral decisions to exist by?
Grind:
I'm not sure, but more importantly, I don't really care.

Why not?


AOI:
Is social cohesion important, or can we exist with each other without it?

Grind:
Maybe we can, maybe we can't. If we can't, oh well, guess we just aren't that great of a specieis.

Not thought of an answer then? Need more time to think?
 
OrnotBitwise said:
Anarchy is to a normal society as diarrhea is to a normal stool. You can say it's the same shit if you like but there's still a fundamental difference: one is healthy and the other is not. And diarrhea kills tens of thousands every year . . . .
Click to expand...

Beautifully illustrated, Ornot....
 
AnyOldIron said:
A dysfunctional society is still a society. It is just in flux.

A society where there is only will and physical capability and no moral agreement isn't a society.

I realise that all terms are arbitrary and subject to mutual agreement, but cohesion and organisation are requirements for pretty much all definitions....
Click to expand...
"Pretty much all" isn't the same thing. Anthropologists will tell you that a dysfunctional society doesn't change the fact that there is a baseline that remains, an unerlying society that may not be apparent instantly, but with careful observation will become apparent.

Some of those within the new society, or within the society within the state of flux, will take time to learn new rules, but they exist regardless.
 
"Pretty much all" isn't the same thing. Anthropologists will tell you that a dysfunctional society doesn't change the fact that there is a baseline that remains, an unerlying society that may not be apparent instantly, but with careful observation will become apparent.

If each individual member of a group acts upon their own will and capabilities alone, and has no moral structure to live by, it isn't society, but a group of individuals.

Society, to be a society, needs at least some moral structure.
 
Once again... Any anthropologist will tell you that even in that state there is an underlying set of rules that may not be instantly obvious but can be determined through observation. Ignoring what I type to pretend that those people suddenly become animals and set upon each other indiscriminately is simply being deliberately obtuse. At least answer as to what I wrote rather than repeat the same thing that my post directly answered.
 
Grind said:
"You admit that there's no objective morality, yet you try to pass judgment on the entire human species based on your own preferences."

I would say that extinction would be universally thought as bad. Perhaps it isn't. In that case, all the less reason for me to worry.
Click to expand...
But you weren't talking about extinction. For the record, what you said, in response to the question "can we get along without social cohesion" was:
Maybe we can, maybe we can't. If we can't, oh well, guess we just aren't that great of a specieis.
Click to expand...
I read that as saying if we can't get along without social cohesion the species doesn't deserve to survive.

I disagree. Culture -- and social cohesion -- is a survival mechanism that has evolved over millions of years. It's actually pretty amazing how well it works, in its seemingly chaotic way, and how flexible it is. Individuals vary tremendously in their degree of aculturation, but that's part of what makes it work. It's like genetic diversity in a sense.

Think of yourself as a recessive alelle, Grind. ;)
 
"I read that as saying if we can't get along without social cohesion the species doesn't deserve to survive."

Well you read that wrong. Whether we deserve it or not is beside the point. It will either work or it wont, if it doesn't then society only has itself to blame.

" Not thought of an answer then? Need more time to think?"

I don't need more time to think, I dont find it to be an important question... I don't care about the answer... sorry.

"Does it not worry you that if you opt to retake your natural freedoms, you are extremely isolated, and have only your own physical capability for defence?"

No, it doesn't worry me. The option should exist.

"Do you believe in subjective morality? How do you think subjective morality is created and defined? "

I know subjective morality exists I just think it's wrong.
 
Grind said:
"Does it not worry you that if you opt to retake your natural freedoms, you are extremely isolated, and have only your own physical capability for defence?"

No, it doesn't worry me. The option should exist.
Click to expand...
Since you don't believe in objecive morality and reject consensual morality, your "should" there has exactly zero (0) weight . . . to anyone other than yourself. ;)
 
Any anthropologist will tell you that even in that state there is an underlying set of rules that may not be instantly obvious but can be determined through observation. Ignoring what I type to pretend that those people suddenly become animals

But we are animals Damo. Only human pretentions deem otherwise.

Humans acting according only to their own will and physical capability obey only those rules.
 
I don't need more time to think, I dont find it to be an important question... I don't care about the answer... sorry.

Well that's disappointing Grind. I thought you were a philosopher, and that all questions were important...
 
AnyOldIron said:
Any anthropologist will tell you that even in that state there is an underlying set of rules that may not be instantly obvious but can be determined through observation. Ignoring what I type to pretend that those people suddenly become animals

But we are animals Damo. Only human pretentions deem otherwise.

Humans acting according only to their own will and physical capability obey only those rules.
Click to expand...
Hence there can be no anthropomorphizing, since all are animals.

Pretending that the natural state of humans are to live without family and to never learn from the adults around them is simply disingenuous. You know better than that. It isn't even the natural state of most animals to live that way.

The natural state of humanity is to learn from the parents, and thus we are all given a morality. It can be more or less than other times in history, but humans will naturally learn some form of morality.
 
The natural state of humanity is to learn from the parents, and thus we are all given a morality. It can be more or less than other times in history, but humans will naturally learn some form of morality.

Humans can exist in a state where a moral agreement exists within a unit and not without.

A classical example is when warfare.

Nations have internal moral agreements that only operate within the nation, but if the nation's will conflicts with another's, and they are physically capable, war occurs.

Same can be said within a family. An agreement that exists within the family (or tribe) can be limited to the family only, and outside that agreement, will and capability only exist.

Natural freedom is simply the right to do as you will, provided you are physically capable, outside of any moral agreement.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top