Your Ideal Society (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion



Message

fucktoyprincess -> Your Ideal Society (3/10/2012 7:08:25 AM)

Rawls, the political theorist, posited the notion of original position. For Rawls societal justice could only be achieved by parties starting from the original position. This is a thought experiment in which the parties select principles that will determine the basic structure of the society they will live in. This choice is made from behind a veil of ignorance, which would deprive participants of information about their particular characteristics: his or her ethnicity, social status, gender and, crucially, their conception of The Good. This forces participants to select principles impartially and rationally.

If you were one of hundred people selected to participate in the structure of a new society, and based on the original position framed above, had no idea as to your ethnicity, social status, gender or religion (and I would include sexual orientation, level of education, ability/disability, wealth) what sorts of rules and systems would you have in your society?

My father used to love playing this game with me when I was young. And what is very interesting is that when you take the original position, and imagine yourself an amorphous unformed blob, you are able to come up with liberal principles for framing a society pretty quickly.

Whenever I encounter any policy from any politician, I always evaluate it through this lens of original position. It ALWAYS leads me to the correct answer. Any political policy that only makes sense if I have to define the amorphous blob is obviously biased. This perspective allows me to evaluate anything - not from the perspective of a political party, but from the perspective of humankind. For me, personally, original position has been a powerful tool for helping me think through a lot of political and cultural conflict. Equality, liberty and justice are very difficult to achieve unless you create rules based on original position. I feel this inquiry is always important because society is constantly in flux and the liberal-conservative tensions are always there, but what are the guiding principles? How do we keep the rules and the playing field fair?

I'm curious as to whether others have thoughts on either original position, or what type of society you would create from this position. Does the society you would create from original position match your current political views?



Exidor -> RE: Your Ideal Society (3/10/2012 7:50:11 AM)

So, basically, using only ignorance as a tool, you strive for some Good that you don't know either? How would you know your Good if you found it? How can you select principles if you don't know what they are or what you want to do with them?



fucktoyprincess -> RE: Your Ideal Society (3/10/2012 8:03:25 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Exidor

So, basically, using only ignorance as a tool, you strive for some Good that you don't know either? How would you know your Good if you found it? How can you select principles if you don't know what they are or what you want to do with them?



You miss the point. Assume you don't know how you would be when you came into the world (i.e., rich or poor, white or black, male or female, gay or straight etc.) What kind of society would you construct? You don't need to know, for example, if you would be rich or poor, in order to determine how society ought to be structured. The point is that you don't need to know where you would be situated in order to come up with rules that would work for everyone. So for example, just using wealth as an example, if you didn't know how much money you would have when you were born, I would assume you would want equal access to things like education. That one would support the concept of social mobility (i.e, just because you are born poor doesn't mean you should remain poor). That you would support the idea that being rich should not grant greater protection from the law. It is an interesting intellectual exercise in trying to put yourself in other people's shoes.

I think it is telling that you think you can only define the "Good" if you know whether you are rich or poor. What difference would it make. The "Good" should exist independent of things like class, gender, race, ethnicity, sexual orientation, etc. Why do you think you can't define it without having a sense of where you would fall in society??



DaddySatyr -> RE: Your Ideal Society (3/10/2012 8:10:47 AM)

How can one divorce themself from those life experiences?

I can't imagine: "If I hadn't been born partially white I would ... " because I was born partially white and I have almost a half a century of experiences, having been born this way.

How do you reach "zero"?



Peace and comfort,



Michael



fucktoyprincess -> RE: Your Ideal Society (3/10/2012 8:16:34 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: DaddySatyr

How can one divorce themself from those life experiences?

I can't imagine: "If I hadn't been born partially white I would ... " because I was born partially white and I have almost a half a century of experiences, having been born this way.

How do you reach "zero"?



Peace and comfort,



Michael


I think the inability to put oneself in other people's shoes leads to very bad policies.

One HAS to be able to view the situation from all sides - otherwise you create rules and policies that are inherently biased.

This is an intellectual exercise. If one has difficulty with it, it is saying something about you. Surely you are not telling me that you are incapable of an unbiased view, even as an intellectual exercise. [&:]



DaddySatyr -> RE: Your Ideal Society (3/10/2012 8:35:43 AM)

I am incapable of imagining myself as something other than what I am. I'm fairly grounded in reality. Your initial statement was not about "putting yourself in someone else's shoes" it was about "imagine yourself as an un-formed blob"

Now, could I try to be as fair as possible and as objective as possible? Certainly. However, to ask someone to negate their entire life experience is kind of ... well ... silly and I'm not trying to be insulting. If someone could completely obliterate their entire life experience, wouldn't it suggest amnesia or some form of repression or other mental illness?



Peace and comfort,



Michael



Moonhead -> RE: Your Ideal Society (3/10/2012 9:17:06 AM)

One without fuckwits who still think that trickle down theory works and Ayn Rand wasn't talking out of her objectivist arse fucking up the economy, mostly.



Owner59 -> RE: Your Ideal Society (3/10/2012 9:52:50 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Moonhead

One without fuckwits who still think that trickle down theory works and Ayn Rand wasn't talking out of her objectivist arse fucking up the economy, mostly.

That..... would be a good place to start.



Moonhead -> RE: Your Ideal Society (3/10/2012 9:56:02 AM)

Yep. You gotta start somewhere, after all.



fucktoyprincess -> RE: Your Ideal Society (3/10/2012 10:05:22 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: DaddySatyr

I am incapable of imagining myself as something other than what I am. I'm fairly grounded in reality. Your initial statement was not about "putting yourself in someone else's shoes" it was about "imagine yourself as an un-formed blob"

Now, could I try to be as fair as possible and as objective as possible? Certainly. However, to ask someone to negate their entire life experience is kind of ... well ... silly and I'm not trying to be insulting. If someone could completely obliterate their entire life experience, wouldn't it suggest amnesia or some form of repression or other mental illness?



Peace and comfort,



Michael


If you're unwilling to entertain the intellectual exercise for what it is, then fine. But I think you are entirely missing the point.

The only way to be fair and objective - is to, in fact, negate your own life experience. Because there is nothing objective about one's own life experience.

I don't think any one particular human being's personal experience is all that helpful actually - it is understand the range of personal experiences that is helpful. And that is where the concept of original position comes in. In other words, if you don't yet know what gender, race etc. you are, it forces you to take ALL possible perspectives into account and not assume that one person's personal experience is any more important than any other's.

Again it is an intellectual exercise. I suggest that instead of arguing with it as an approach, that you actually try it and see what principles it leads you to. I think you would find it insightful.



fucktoyprincess -> RE: Your Ideal Society (3/10/2012 10:09:00 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Moonhead

One without fuckwits who still think that trickle down theory works and Ayn Rand wasn't talking out of her objectivist arse fucking up the economy, mostly.


Well, the point is that any society will have its share of fuckwits. So how do we structure one, given that we know such people will exist.

(And as a separate point, because I know you did not say this, genocide is NOT the answer. Again, using the concept of original position, it is quite easy to see how genocide is not something any society should allow. If you didn't know if you would be you in this society, or a fuckwit, well what rule would you fashion? Obviously genocide of the fuckwits would not be the answer. So then what is?)



Moonhead -> RE: Your Ideal Society (3/10/2012 10:27:00 AM)

I thought my point was fairly simple: you don't let the fuckwits run the economy as is the current model in this stage of late capitalism.
I said nothing about eugenic purges of fuckwits, not least because I suspect that fuckwittery has a lot more to do with nurture than nature. There may be a selfish gene, but I doubt that there's a fuckwit gene.



Zonie63 -> RE: Your Ideal Society (3/10/2012 12:58:17 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: fucktoyprincess

I feel this inquiry is always important because society is constantly in flux and the liberal-conservative tensions are always there, but what are the guiding principles? How do we keep the rules and the playing field fair?

I'm curious as to whether others have thoughts on either original position, or what type of society you would create from this position. Does the society you would create from original position match your current political views?



Interesting topic. I think a lot of it would depend upon what the purpose of such a society might be and what external circumstances might be present, whether out in the wilderness, subject to hostile attack from other societies, or whatever the case may be.

I would imagine that I could probably outline my ideal society on paper, even assuming that I might end up on the bottom of such a society. We might outline a set of rules which might be nominally "fair" in written form, but I think the only way for the playing field to be made fair is if the "referees" were totally impartial, honest, ethical, consistent, and actually paying attention to what's going on.

In a democratic society, we're all "referees" in a way, and that seems to be where everything seems to go sour. I keep hoping that if people vote smarter on Election Day (including the half of the population that doesn't even bother to vote), we might have the potential of being a much better society. But there are too many foolish voters out there, getting suckered by politicians (both liberal and conservative) who tell them what they want to hear. The truth doesn't really win elections, so that may be just as much the fault of the voters as it is the politicians.






hlen5 -> RE: Your Ideal Society (3/10/2012 1:03:51 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: fucktoyprincess


quote:

ORIGINAL: Exidor

So, basically, using only ignorance as a tool, you strive for some Good that you don't know either? How would you know your Good if you found it? How can you select principles if you don't know what they are or what you want to do with them?



You miss the point. Assume you don't know how you would be when you came into the world (i.e., rich or poor, white or black, male or female, gay or straight etc.) What kind of society would you construct? You don't need to know, for example, if you would be rich or poor, in order to determine how society ought to be structured. The point is that you don't need to know where you would be situated in order to come up with rules that would work for everyone. So for example, just using wealth as an example, if you didn't know how much money you would have when you were born, I would assume you would want equal access to things like education. That one would support the concept of social mobility (i.e, just because you are born poor doesn't mean you should remain poor). That you would support the idea that being rich should not grant greater protection from the law. It is an interesting intellectual exercise in trying to put yourself in other people's shoes.

I think it is telling that you think you can only define the "Good" if you know whether you are rich or poor. What difference would it make. The "Good" should exist independent of things like class, gender, race, ethnicity, sexual orientation, etc. Why do you think you can't define it without having a sense of where you would fall in society??


I'm glad you explained it a little cause I was have trouble with this too. I think I understand what you mean now. Basically in any situation "What is the most fair and beneficial principle for all in any instance"?



MrBukani -> RE: Your Ideal Society (3/11/2012 1:58:18 AM)

I would like as much freedom as possible without hurting someone else.
And equal rights to start with. Education, healthcare and non profit lawyers.
Make it easier for the poor to attain capital, like owning their own house instead of paying rent till death.



kitkat105 -> RE: Your Ideal Society (3/11/2012 3:37:03 AM)

Would love it if every got along, but there's just too many strong personalities in this world to allow it. [;)]



pyroaquatic -> RE: Your Ideal Society (3/11/2012 3:38:58 AM)

Dear fucktoyprincess,

has anyone told you lately that your brain is damn hawt!

With that out of the way...

Given the advances of the internet, technology, and hyperconnectivity that we now have in the world it would make sense that we offer devices that would offer as a node and nexus to those who reach the age of 18 automatically, adding the option of GPS tracking.

Given that people use Vertex, err.... Edge... what is it? Facetome regularly and post their exact coordinates at WILL I cannot see how that would be much of a problem.

They pivotal point being that these 18+ phones are unlocked and only usable with your genetic code.

The second point is the fact that the casing consists of micro-ridged (surface area) photovoltiac cells and internal workings akin to a self-winding watch allows for a wonderfully long battery life and less recharging time.

With the addition of towers in order to keep the Signal strong throughout everywhere...

Users can vote, participate on the internet, call for help at will... and just about anything else that one can do with modern technology.

There difference between the current existing system of top-down governance (which will still exist) and the self-governing system:

The Self-Governance System is comprised of double blind units of 10:1.

10 representing a random cell of proven people that are capable and venerable based off of Merit and the 1 being a random person not of that cell of ten. It is a choice to participate in this 'performance review' which is more or less effective in determining how that 1 person feels in relation to how they stand to what is deemed the average.... biologically, psychologically, financially, socially..... offering tips, advice, and what to do for the next action in their life so the reviewed can feel wholesome.

More or less like a counseling service.

It is also important to note that the rejection of counsel is noted but not recorded by Counsel.

Aside from my ramblings....

A Meritocracy with proven Metrics combined with the fair-use of technology that provides leverage for advancement into the next levels of providing global access to the higher needs like self-actualization, socialization, self-esteem... and the lower basic needs like water, shelter, homeostasis, etc...

providing each person a Gateway to self-transcendence at will.... rather that something that is contrived and forced.

This is actually something I have given a great deal of thought to previously and pertains exactly to what I am striving for by the time my chromosomes can no longer divide and I cease my own unique continuance-expiring into a memetic legacy that did something with his time and telemeres.

Bwah.





fucktoyprincess -> RE: Your Ideal Society (3/11/2012 10:45:30 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Zonie63


quote:

ORIGINAL: fucktoyprincess

I feel this inquiry is always important because society is constantly in flux and the liberal-conservative tensions are always there, but what are the guiding principles? How do we keep the rules and the playing field fair?

I'm curious as to whether others have thoughts on either original position, or what type of society you would create from this position. Does the society you would create from original position match your current political views?



Interesting topic. I think a lot of it would depend upon what the purpose of such a society might be and what external circumstances might be present, whether out in the wilderness, subject to hostile attack from other societies, or whatever the case may be.

I would imagine that I could probably outline my ideal society on paper, even assuming that I might end up on the bottom of such a society. We might outline a set of rules which might be nominally "fair" in written form, but I think the only way for the playing field to be made fair is if the "referees" were totally impartial, honest, ethical, consistent, and actually paying attention to what's going on.

In a democratic society, we're all "referees" in a way, and that seems to be where everything seems to go sour. I keep hoping that if people vote smarter on Election Day (including the half of the population that doesn't even bother to vote), we might have the potential of being a much better society. But there are too many foolish voters out there, getting suckered by politicians (both liberal and conservative) who tell them what they want to hear. The truth doesn't really win elections, so that may be just as much the fault of the voters as it is the politicians.



I think this is an interesting point. That we are each and everyone of us "referees", and in our democratic country, given that we each have a vote, we should try to make it count.

It is interesting to me how many voters vote against self-interest. Again, part of the above exercise in original position is to get people to think about how things ought to be structured, so that they actually understand when they are voting against self-interest. If rules are fair, in a way, it doesn't matter where you are situated. It is when things become unfair that it starts to matter. And a general matter, I do not see why society should be structured to be inherently unfair. Getting cancer when one is young is unfair, and there is little that we can do as a society to prevent such a thing. But having a society that doesn't assist its poor is simply a society that has been structured incorrectly. That is a type of unfairness that should not exist because we have the capability to structure things differently.



Moonhead -> RE: Your Ideal Society (3/11/2012 10:48:44 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: kitkat105

Would love it if every got along, but there's just too many strong personalities in this world to allow it. [;)]

That's more incivility than strength of personality, though. I've always found this ridiculous notion that only weaklings and sheep are capable of good manners repulsive. It's basically rude cunts trying to exonerate themselves by claiming that such vile behaviour is okay for alpha males...



fucktoyprincess -> RE: Your Ideal Society (3/11/2012 10:49:46 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: hlen5


quote:

ORIGINAL: fucktoyprincess


quote:

ORIGINAL: Exidor

So, basically, using only ignorance as a tool, you strive for some Good that you don't know either? How would you know your Good if you found it? How can you select principles if you don't know what they are or what you want to do with them?



You miss the point. Assume you don't know how you would be when you came into the world (i.e., rich or poor, white or black, male or female, gay or straight etc.) What kind of society would you construct? You don't need to know, for example, if you would be rich or poor, in order to determine how society ought to be structured. The point is that you don't need to know where you would be situated in order to come up with rules that would work for everyone. So for example, just using wealth as an example, if you didn't know how much money you would have when you were born, I would assume you would want equal access to things like education. That one would support the concept of social mobility (i.e, just because you are born poor doesn't mean you should remain poor). That you would support the idea that being rich should not grant greater protection from the law. It is an interesting intellectual exercise in trying to put yourself in other people's shoes.

I think it is telling that you think you can only define the "Good" if you know whether you are rich or poor. What difference would it make. The "Good" should exist independent of things like class, gender, race, ethnicity, sexual orientation, etc. Why do you think you can't define it without having a sense of where you would fall in society??


I'm glad you explained it a little cause I was have trouble with this too. I think I understand what you mean now. Basically in any situation "What is the most fair and beneficial principle for all in any instance"?


Yes, this is one way to approach it. How would I structure a fair society not knowing ahead of time where I would be situated. So many things become quite easy to understand once it is framed this way. Things like gender discrimination in the workplace, racism, assistance to the poor, gay rights - so many things become very obvious once you look at things through the lens of not knowing what you would be ahead of time. For example, if you didn't know whether you would be gay or not - well then, having protections for gay people would be an important thing to include. IF you didn't know if you would be male or female, then having equal access to jobs would be important, as would creating fair work environments. If you asked a man to create a work environment conducive to women, he might not be able to do so. But if you told that same man he was coming back in his next life as a woman, and what work environment would he want - I think he would come much closer to creating a fair situation.



Page: [1] 2   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Collarchat.com © 2024
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy
0.15625