So social duties and obligations only apply to individuals?
I disagree. I believe any willfull entity, whether an individual or aggregate, is still bound by the same social contracts as any individual.
This little slight of hand trick is how you intend to achieve anti-social ends through concensus builiding. Concensus doesn't make right.
The will of society is an abstraction: it is the consensus of opinion among the members of society. Society is not an entity in this sense. It often behaves like one and the metaphor of the social organism is frequently very useful but it isn't literal. Most often isn't literal: I guess there are a few people out there who take it literally. It's a very sparse group however.
If consensus does not make Right then what does? I reject any religious authority out of hand, since your religion and mine are quite different. An objective moral code obviously can't be deduced, and I also don't believe you can arrive at one by even the most clever inductive logic. Not an indisputable one.
To be sure, logic can and should be applied to statements of morality. That's for the individual, however. At the social level, there is an objective standard.
Fortunately for us, collective wisdom is frequently more wise than individual wisdom. Not always, of course, but usually.
Again, through your dishonest manipulation of words, you deny life to infants, at the very same time you say the function of society is to increase life. you're a fraud.
Well, now that's a blatant lie. I've never denied life to any infant. Indeed, I've not discussed infants at all.
Ironically, albeit predictably, it is you who redefines words to suit your dishonest agenda. You deliberately conflate infant and fetus despite the fact that a child is not referred to as an infant until after birth. Or that's what I have to assume. Since your statement on the subject makes little or no literal sense I have to interpolate a bit.
You're also misstating when you claim that I said that the function of society is to increase life. What I actually said was that the function of society is, at the most fundamental level, to improve the survival rate of human animals. "Increase life" is a vague and largely nonsensical construction one might expect from a child. I try to avoid those.
Ok. Not highest good. Purpose of society. the purpose of society is not strictly to increase human biomass.
The purpose of society is to increase the number of humans that survive and breed. It is an evolutionary adaptation. That's what evolutionary adaptations do. It is other things as well, naturally, but this is the central point, and the only function that is not subject to interpretation.
I will. I will stand up to your lies until my dying breath. And don't threaten me, ape-face.
I've never threatened you and never will. You're not worth the bother, frankly. I merely point out that elitists and authoritarians frequently end up hated by the rest of us, precisely because they want to impose a moral code that diverges too far from that imposed by consensus.
No. People are wising up to the destruction your 'morality by concensus' is causing.
Typical con. You lot wail and moan about how morality is eroding away before our eyes then turn right around and claim that consensus actually supports your sick and twisted brand of immorality. Make up your minds, already! Sheesh!
It's a simple fact: moral conservatism -- in the sense of resistance to change -- is always a rear-guard action. It's also always a losing proposition if you insist on stasis.
No. Concensus is concensus, but whether or not the concensus morality strengthens society is measurable. And people can recognize failure.
You constantly claim that it's measurable yet you never once set forth how you plan to measure it.
Yes, people can recognize failure. The Cleaver Family Dream is a failure, for example. It just doesn't work, for a large number of reasons. Strict monogamy, in which marriages cannot be undone even when they become destructive, has failed completely. You've failed to restrict sex to marriage so badly that most people can't even imagine wanting to do so.
The world of 2057 is not going to be either your Utopia or mine, but it's going to resemble mine more closely. Count on it.
The nuclear family will be here for a long time to come; it's simply a good system for child care and human satisfaction. Your plans to centralize these functions will fail. The one of us closest to espousing eugenics is you, ya nazi freak.
That's highly debatable. The nuclear family is a relatively recent innovation and I think it's dying out even now. The number of single parent families grows every year, as do the number of families in which more than two adults participate in raising children. As for satisfaction, well, I think the divorce rate almost speaks for itself.
And finally, no, "concensus" (sic) is actually consensus. Buy a dictionary you lazy degenerate!