The Instigator
Katebp
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
Theunkown
Con (against)
Winning
6 Points

Human society can never be successfully constructed.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 1 vote the winner is...
Theunkown
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 10/6/2014 Category: Society
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 493 times Debate No: 62704
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (2)
Votes (1)

 

Katebp

Pro

There will never be a society that could be considered totally successful, human nature simply won't allow us to live peacefully alongside each other. If someone could design human society from scratch, would you keep morality and ethics and social constructs? wouldn't it be better just to take away all that, if you did society couldn't really be bad since it's only our morality that classifies these things as bad. wouldn't science and technology advance more without ethics? and the introduction of political ideologies such as communism, if human nature didn't allow greed and corruption wouldn't these constructs make the world a better place? So, could society be considered successful is ethics and morality didn't exist since success would be based on productivity. Or without ethics would society cease to be a society? However, since human nature exist society can never be successfully constructed.

Just general expansion on ideas, i'm curious as to peoples ideas and exploring the theoretical idea of being able to construct the perfect society. this is my first 'debate' so i'm not really sure how this works i just wanted to discuss this with people.
Theunkown

Con

The words 'Perfect' and 'Successful' mean different things to different people. To a fundamentalist relgious person, 'Perfect society' would be a Theocracy. However, that would be considered a terrible society to certain people (pro seculars). The reverse is also true.

Similarly, dictatorships are 'perfect' for those in power, whilst it is unacceptable for the vast majority.

What I am trying to say is that it is impossible to accomodate all of our needs and desires, that is undebatable, we are 7 billion after all. However, some societies and systems will be considered perfect by a particular group or individual.

Even peace can be viewed as being imperfect. Many military combatants miss war after they return home, believe it or not.[1] So we cannot and should not associate peace with perfect (peace=/=perfect, atleast to some people).

Ethics and morals are different things to different people. For many (not all) Muslims, the Sharia is the most ethically fair and just law system, whilst others view it as barbaric.

if human nature didn't allow greed and corruption wouldn't these constructs make the world a better place-Pro
But those in power would not find it a better place since, well, they lose their power.

To conclude, 'perfect' societies are possible but they cannot be 'perfect' to everyone. But societies can be considered 'perfect' to a group or individual. We must also bear in mind that a peaceful and corruption free society does not necessarily mean a unilateral acceptance of perfectness.


Source:
[1]http://thelead.blogs.cnn.com...

Debate Round No. 1
Katebp

Pro

Katebp forfeited this round.
Theunkown

Con

Unfortunate that my opponent Forfeited, I extend previous arguments.
Debate Round No. 2
Katebp

Pro

Katebp forfeited this round.
Theunkown

Con

I hate it when people forfeit.
Debate Round No. 3
Katebp

Pro

Katebp forfeited this round.
Theunkown

Con

All points to con
Debate Round No. 4
2 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Posted by Magister 2 years ago
Magister
"However, since human nature exist society can never be successfully constructed."

This stands in today's society when it can be argued that much of human decision making is based on human instincts or more subtle or sophisticated primal reactions.
However this statement discounts the application of logic and rational thinking in the way humans make decisions. Although you could argue that effectiveness of this depends on the information available to a person or what we define to be logically incorrect or how we decide what is justifiable or unjustifiable (e.g. who or how many it affects and how it affects them). I think motion away from simply making decisions based on human nature and trying to approach problems similarly to the way a mathematician would try to prove or disprove some axiom would decrease the irrationality existent in society caused by natural human behaviour. Secondly empathy/sympathy is another thing that is discounted (probably because it is hard to find in current society). One could argue that most of the actions that prevent humans from living peacefully together are caused by lack of the two above.

I guess the main point of this is that I disagree with your statement because to me it suggests you think that the only thing controlling human decision making is our innate nature and that it will always be the only thing that does.
Posted by Magister 2 years ago
Magister
It would be impossible to totally remove morals and ethics because these are just terms used for collective opinions on things. And with humanity we have the capacity to form these collective opinions over time. So I think it is highly unlikely one would be able to completely morals and ethics because over time they would re-appear in a different manifestation. Also how is it that society as an entity would evolve "from scratch" without any collective opinion? How can humans live peacefully together if there is no common idea of a way of behaving?
"science and technology advance more without ethics?"
It would be hard for S&T to develop without some society like infrastructure because major advances require cooperation between people.
"success would be based on productivity"
Secondly what do you define productivity in and measure it as ?
"human nature simply won't allow us to live peacefully alongside each other."
Yes people can disagree but a retaliation does not necessarily have to follow. Of course this would depend upon the rational thinking skills of the members of such a society.
"the introduction of political ideologies such as communism"
Although communism would in theory ensure peace and equality amongst the masses, it has done so in practice by suppressing human nature, treating humans like parts in a great machine. Communism does not reward merit either.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by lannan13 2 years ago
lannan13
KatebpTheunkownTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Reasons for voting decision: Forfeiture.