Total Posts:25|Showing Posts:1-25
Jump to topic:

Can society be harmed?

Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/13/2015 4:45:55 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
I'm on a tablet so this may be a little unpolished or poorly formated.

I would argue that society cannot be harmed. It merely is, and as such it changes based on the people within. By it cannot be "harmed" or "healed.". Merely changed.

Society is defined as "the aggregate of people living together in a more or less ordered community." As the people change, the aggregate changes and so society changes. Since we all have differing opinions, some may think the change is "harmful" while others may think it is needed (see the recent changes of gay marriage).

Wen people say, "_____________ is harming society" what they are actually meaning is "_____________ is pushing society further away from my ideal view of what society should be."
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
PetersSmith
Posts: 5,846
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/13/2015 5:08:09 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 10/13/2015 4:45:55 AM, Ore_Ele wrote:
I'm on a tablet so this may be a little unpolished or poorly formated.

I would argue that society cannot be harmed. It merely is, and as such it changes based on the people within. By it cannot be "harmed" or "healed.". Merely changed.

Society is defined as "the aggregate of people living together in a more or less ordered community." As the people change, the aggregate changes and so society changes. Since we all have differing opinions, some may think the change is "harmful" while others may think it is needed (see the recent changes of gay marriage).

Wen people say, "_____________ is harming society" what they are actually meaning is "_____________ is pushing society further away from my ideal view of what society should be."

Well, if you define society in the terms of something like Rousseau's General Will, then yes, something can harm that. I mean, his government and the General Will is a compromise, and attempt to "redeem" oneself, so technically people can both harm and help the General Will, which makes up society.
Empress of DDO (also Poll and Forum "Maintenance" Moderator)

"The two most important days in your life is the day you were born, and the day you find out why."
~Mark Twain

"Wow"
-Doge

"Don't believe everything you read on the internet just because there's a picture with a quote next to it."
~Abraham Lincoln

Guide to the Polls Section: http://www.debate.org...
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/13/2015 5:43:45 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 10/13/2015 5:08:09 AM, PetersSmith wrote:
At 10/13/2015 4:45:55 AM, Ore_Ele wrote:
I'm on a tablet so this may be a little unpolished or poorly formated.

I would argue that society cannot be harmed. It merely is, and as such it changes based on the people within. By it cannot be "harmed" or "healed.". Merely changed.

Society is defined as "the aggregate of people living together in a more or less ordered community." As the people change, the aggregate changes and so society changes. Since we all have differing opinions, some may think the change is "harmful" while others may think it is needed (see the recent changes of gay marriage).

Wen people say, "_____________ is harming society" what they are actually meaning is "_____________ is pushing society further away from my ideal view of what society should be."

Well, if you define society in the terms of something like Rousseau's General Will, then yes, something can harm that. I mean, his government and the General Will is a compromise, and attempt to "redeem" oneself, so technically people can both harm and help the General Will, which makes up society.

I'm not sure how you equate general will as being society. It could be said to be the will of society, but it isn't soceity itself.

Just to expand, if I wasn't clear, I'm referring to the macro level, rather than the micro level.

The thing is, there isn't one single general will. There are many undercurrents within the will, where as society changes, different undercurrents rise to the surface and previous ones fade away. And in different corners within our society there are subcultures with their own societies. These all change and grow and resend.

Some people with a particular view on what society should be or what they "will" it to be, and when society doesn't go in that direction, they claim society is being hurt. Heck, when California originally tried to ban gay marriage, it was the will of the majority, yet those in the minority claimed that the bill was harmful to society, then when the courts overturned it, an entirely different group claimed that society was being harmed.

What you see is that different people claim "harm" based entirely upon what their view of what the ideal society would be.
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
PetersSmith
Posts: 5,846
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/13/2015 6:27:48 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 10/13/2015 5:43:45 AM, Ore_Ele wrote:
At 10/13/2015 5:08:09 AM, PetersSmith wrote:
At 10/13/2015 4:45:55 AM, Ore_Ele wrote:
I'm on a tablet so this may be a little unpolished or poorly formated.

I would argue that society cannot be harmed. It merely is, and as such it changes based on the people within. By it cannot be "harmed" or "healed.". Merely changed.

Society is defined as "the aggregate of people living together in a more or less ordered community." As the people change, the aggregate changes and so society changes. Since we all have differing opinions, some may think the change is "harmful" while others may think it is needed (see the recent changes of gay marriage).

Wen people say, "_____________ is harming society" what they are actually meaning is "_____________ is pushing society further away from my ideal view of what society should be."

Well, if you define society in the terms of something like Rousseau's General Will, then yes, something can harm that. I mean, his government and the General Will is a compromise, and attempt to "redeem" oneself, so technically people can both harm and help the General Will, which makes up society.

I'm not sure how you equate general will as being society. It could be said to be the will of society, but it isn't soceity itself.

Just to expand, if I wasn't clear, I'm referring to the macro level, rather than the micro level.

The thing is, there isn't one single general will. There are many undercurrents within the will, where as society changes, different undercurrents rise to the surface and previous ones fade away. And in different corners within our society there are subcultures with their own societies. These all change and grow and resend.

Some people with a particular view on what society should be or what they "will" it to be, and when society doesn't go in that direction, they claim society is being hurt. Heck, when California originally tried to ban gay marriage, it was the will of the majority, yet those in the minority claimed that the bill was harmful to society, then when the courts overturned it, an entirely different group claimed that society was being harmed.

What you see is that different people claim "harm" based entirely upon what their view of what the ideal society would be.

Then wouldn't "harm" and "healing" be based on what is established in the society, or what the society ought to be? I mean, this could both be thinking on a universal or individual spectrum, where the society is "set", constructed by the people who formed it (whether it be out of fear or common good). Thus, anything that "harms" society would be anything that goes against the original goal of what society was supposed to achieve. For example, for Hobbe's Leviathan, anything that deviated away from what the Leviathan was supposed to do or questioned what the Leviathan does, is harming society. For a universal spectrum, we can go with Plato and say that anyone who cannot be saved/are unable to stop pursing passion and replace it with wisdom are harming society and preventing it from what it ought to be (City of Speeches ruled by the Philosopher-King). I may be confusing society with government, but whatever.
Empress of DDO (also Poll and Forum "Maintenance" Moderator)

"The two most important days in your life is the day you were born, and the day you find out why."
~Mark Twain

"Wow"
-Doge

"Don't believe everything you read on the internet just because there's a picture with a quote next to it."
~Abraham Lincoln

Guide to the Polls Section: http://www.debate.org...
SM2
Posts: 546
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/13/2015 7:22:52 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 10/13/2015 4:45:55 AM, Ore_Ele wrote:
Wen people say, "_____________ is harming society" what they are actually meaning is "_____________ is pushing society further away from my ideal view of what society should be."

It's a figure of speech.
Yonko
Posts: 227
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/13/2015 8:08:58 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 10/13/2015 4:45:55 AM, Ore_Ele wrote:
I'm on a tablet so this may be a little unpolished or poorly formated.

I would argue that society cannot be harmed. It merely is, and as such it changes based on the people within. By it cannot be "harmed" or "healed.". Merely changed.

Society is defined as "the aggregate of people living together in a more or less ordered community." As the people change, the aggregate changes and so society changes. Since we all have differing opinions, some may think the change is "harmful" while others may think it is needed (see the recent changes of gay marriage).

Wen people say, "_____________ is harming society" what they are actually meaning is "_____________ is pushing society further away from my ideal view of what society should be."

I'm unsure if we're talking about the same thing here, but I think society can be "harmed" in the utilitarian sense of the word. We universally consider suffering to be "harmful", and happiness to be "beneficial". Thus, if something increases aggregate suffering without compensating for it via an equivalent increase in aggregate happiness, then it can be said to have objectively "harmed" society.
Skepsikyma
Posts: 8,280
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/13/2015 3:28:43 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 10/13/2015 4:45:55 AM, Ore_Ele wrote:
I'm on a tablet so this may be a little unpolished or poorly formated.

I would argue that society cannot be harmed. It merely is, and as such it changes based on the people within. By it cannot be "harmed" or "healed.". Merely changed.

Society is defined as "the aggregate of people living together in a more or less ordered community." As the people change, the aggregate changes and so society changes. Since we all have differing opinions, some may think the change is "harmful" while others may think it is needed (see the recent changes of gay marriage).

Wen people say, "_____________ is harming society" what they are actually meaning is "_____________ is pushing society further away from my ideal view of what society should be."

I would argue that certain attributes make a society more or less stable, and so certain changes aren't desirable because destabilization can lead to a society, ultimately, being dissolved or absorbed by another.

No-fault divorce is, I think, a pretty big example of something which has been incredibly destabilizing. I see the gay marriage debate as ragingly hypocritical because people are, as you pointed out, just being pissy about society leaving their ideal instead of having the guts to criticize the actual heart of the issue.
"The Collectivist experiment is thoroughly suited (in appearance at least) to the Capitalist society which it proposes to replace. It works with the existing machinery of Capitalism, talks and thinks in the existing terms of Capitalism, appeals to just those appetites which Capitalism has aroused, and ridicules as fantastic and unheard-of just those things in society the memory of which Capitalism has killed among men wherever the blight of it has spread."
- Hilaire Belloc -
Skepsikyma
Posts: 8,280
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/13/2015 3:30:28 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 10/13/2015 8:08:58 AM, Yonko wrote:
At 10/13/2015 4:45:55 AM, Ore_Ele wrote:
I'm on a tablet so this may be a little unpolished or poorly formated.

I would argue that society cannot be harmed. It merely is, and as such it changes based on the people within. By it cannot be "harmed" or "healed.". Merely changed.

Society is defined as "the aggregate of people living together in a more or less ordered community." As the people change, the aggregate changes and so society changes. Since we all have differing opinions, some may think the change is "harmful" while others may think it is needed (see the recent changes of gay marriage).

Wen people say, "_____________ is harming society" what they are actually meaning is "_____________ is pushing society further away from my ideal view of what society should be."

We universally consider suffering to be "harmful", and happiness to be "beneficial".

I don't. Suffering is not only necessary for growth, it is an unavoidable part of life.
"The Collectivist experiment is thoroughly suited (in appearance at least) to the Capitalist society which it proposes to replace. It works with the existing machinery of Capitalism, talks and thinks in the existing terms of Capitalism, appeals to just those appetites which Capitalism has aroused, and ridicules as fantastic and unheard-of just those things in society the memory of which Capitalism has killed among men wherever the blight of it has spread."
- Hilaire Belloc -
1harderthanyouthink
Posts: 13,102
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/13/2015 3:38:26 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
I would generally echo what Skep said.
"It's awfully considerate of you to think of me here,
And I'm much obliged to you for making it clear - that I'm not here."

-Syd Barrett

DDO Risk King
Yonko
Posts: 227
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/13/2015 4:49:32 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 10/13/2015 3:30:28 PM, Skepsikyma wrote:
At 10/13/2015 8:08:58 AM, Yonko wrote:
At 10/13/2015 4:45:55 AM, Ore_Ele wrote:
I'm on a tablet so this may be a little unpolished or poorly formated.

I would argue that society cannot be harmed. It merely is, and as such it changes based on the people within. By it cannot be "harmed" or "healed.". Merely changed.

Society is defined as "the aggregate of people living together in a more or less ordered community." As the people change, the aggregate changes and so society changes. Since we all have differing opinions, some may think the change is "harmful" while others may think it is needed (see the recent changes of gay marriage).

Wen people say, "_____________ is harming society" what they are actually meaning is "_____________ is pushing society further away from my ideal view of what society should be."

We universally consider suffering to be "harmful", and happiness to be "beneficial".

I don't. Suffering is not only necessary for growth, it is an unavoidable part of life.

Suffering which leads to growth = long-term net positive utility
Vox_Veritas
Posts: 7,074
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/13/2015 6:38:30 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 10/13/2015 4:45:55 AM, Ore_Ele wrote:
I'm on a tablet so this may be a little unpolished or poorly formated.

I would argue that society cannot be harmed. It merely is, and as such it changes based on the people within. By it cannot be "harmed" or "healed.". Merely changed.

Society is defined as "the aggregate of people living together in a more or less ordered community." As the people change, the aggregate changes and so society changes. Since we all have differing opinions, some may think the change is "harmful" while others may think it is needed (see the recent changes of gay marriage).

Wen people say, "_____________ is harming society" what they are actually meaning is "_____________ is pushing society further away from my ideal view of what society should be."

"The collective has suffered an overall detriment to its well-being by action X."
Society is harmed. Poof.
Call me Vox, the Resident Contrarian of debate.org.

The DDO Blog:
https://debatedotorg.wordpress.com...

#drinkthecoffeenotthekoolaid
Greyparrot
Posts: 14,288
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/13/2015 6:43:49 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 10/13/2015 3:38:26 PM, 1harderthanyouthink wrote:
I would generally echo what Skep said.

I would generally echo what HTYT said.
Yassine
Posts: 2,617
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/13/2015 11:26:39 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 10/13/2015 4:45:55 AM, Ore_Ele wrote:
I'm on a tablet so this may be a little unpolished or poorly formated.

I would argue that society cannot be harmed. It merely is, and as such it changes based on the people within. By it cannot be "harmed" or "healed.". Merely changed.

Society is defined as "the aggregate of people living together in a more or less ordered community." As the people change, the aggregate changes and so society changes. Since we all have differing opinions, some may think the change is "harmful" while others may think it is needed (see the recent changes of gay marriage).

Wen people say, "_____________ is harming society" what they are actually meaning is "_____________ is pushing society further away from my ideal view of what society should be."

- This is relatively close to how we actually view things. I never quite understood the "objective" tendencies of Western Thought! It messes with my head.
Current Debates:

Islam is not a religion of peace vs. @ Lutonator:
* http://www.debate.org...
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/14/2015 2:13:23 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 10/13/2015 3:28:43 PM, Skepsikyma wrote:
At 10/13/2015 4:45:55 AM, Ore_Ele wrote:
I'm on a tablet so this may be a little unpolished or poorly formated.

I would argue that society cannot be harmed. It merely is, and as such it changes based on the people within. By it cannot be "harmed" or "healed.". Merely changed.

Society is defined as "the aggregate of people living together in a more or less ordered community." As the people change, the aggregate changes and so society changes. Since we all have differing opinions, some may think the change is "harmful" while others may think it is needed (see the recent changes of gay marriage).

Wen people say, "_____________ is harming society" what they are actually meaning is "_____________ is pushing society further away from my ideal view of what society should be."

I would argue that certain attributes make a society more or less stable, and so certain changes aren't desirable because destabilization can lead to a society, ultimately, being dissolved or absorbed by another.

No-fault divorce is, I think, a pretty big example of something which has been incredibly destabilizing. I see the gay marriage debate as ragingly hypocritical because people are, as you pointed out, just being pissy about society leaving their ideal instead of having the guts to criticize the actual heart of the issue.

What is stability is society and why is that a good thing? You ask blacks in 1960 if they wanted slow stable change or quick radical change, the would argue that the unstable radical change was "beneficial" to society.
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
Khaos_Mage
Posts: 23,214
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/14/2015 2:32:31 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 10/13/2015 4:45:55 AM, Ore_Ele wrote:
I'm on a tablet so this may be a little unpolished or poorly formated.

I would argue that society cannot be harmed. It merely is, and as such it changes based on the people within. By it cannot be "harmed" or "healed.". Merely changed.

Society is defined as "the aggregate of people living together in a more or less ordered community." As the people change, the aggregate changes and so society changes. Since we all have differing opinions, some may think the change is "harmful" while others may think it is needed (see the recent changes of gay marriage).

Wen people say, "_____________ is harming society" what they are actually meaning is "_____________ is pushing society further away from my ideal view of what society should be."

Can a person be harmed, or are they just changed?
If the change is great enough to cause noticeable difference due to said change, I'd say the person, or society, is harmed or helped. I'd assume me dropping some atomic bombs on a society and wiping them out would harm said society, as it would cease to exist. In the same vein, so to can a change that "hurts" society in the long run also harm society (for example, eating your children).
My work here is, finally, done.
Skepsikyma
Posts: 8,280
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/14/2015 2:52:17 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 10/14/2015 2:13:23 AM, Ore_Ele wrote:
At 10/13/2015 3:28:43 PM, Skepsikyma wrote:
At 10/13/2015 4:45:55 AM, Ore_Ele wrote:
I'm on a tablet so this may be a little unpolished or poorly formated.

I would argue that society cannot be harmed. It merely is, and as such it changes based on the people within. By it cannot be "harmed" or "healed.". Merely changed.

Society is defined as "the aggregate of people living together in a more or less ordered community." As the people change, the aggregate changes and so society changes. Since we all have differing opinions, some may think the change is "harmful" while others may think it is needed (see the recent changes of gay marriage).

Wen people say, "_____________ is harming society" what they are actually meaning is "_____________ is pushing society further away from my ideal view of what society should be."

I would argue that certain attributes make a society more or less stable, and so certain changes aren't desirable because destabilization can lead to a society, ultimately, being dissolved or absorbed by another.

No-fault divorce is, I think, a pretty big example of something which has been incredibly destabilizing. I see the gay marriage debate as ragingly hypocritical because people are, as you pointed out, just being pissy about society leaving their ideal instead of having the guts to criticize the actual heart of the issue.

What is stability is society and why is that a good thing? You ask blacks in 1960 if they wanted slow stable change or quick radical change, the would argue that the unstable radical change was "beneficial" to society.

Because different societies are necessarily competitive, so anything which weakens your society's competitive edge is undesirable. Instability is the #1 thing to avoid if you want your society to be able to defend its members and territory. No matter how much black people wanted change, they, by and large, wouldn't have wanted it at the cost of the destruction of American society, which is what rampant instability would have lead to. Those who did were considered subversive elements, and were no longer really considered part of society for having so thoroughly betrayed one of its fundamental aims.
"The Collectivist experiment is thoroughly suited (in appearance at least) to the Capitalist society which it proposes to replace. It works with the existing machinery of Capitalism, talks and thinks in the existing terms of Capitalism, appeals to just those appetites which Capitalism has aroused, and ridicules as fantastic and unheard-of just those things in society the memory of which Capitalism has killed among men wherever the blight of it has spread."
- Hilaire Belloc -
Skepsikyma
Posts: 8,280
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/14/2015 2:53:51 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 10/13/2015 4:49:32 PM, Yonko wrote:
At 10/13/2015 3:30:28 PM, Skepsikyma wrote:
At 10/13/2015 8:08:58 AM, Yonko wrote:
At 10/13/2015 4:45:55 AM, Ore_Ele wrote:
I'm on a tablet so this may be a little unpolished or poorly formated.

I would argue that society cannot be harmed. It merely is, and as such it changes based on the people within. By it cannot be "harmed" or "healed.". Merely changed.

Society is defined as "the aggregate of people living together in a more or less ordered community." As the people change, the aggregate changes and so society changes. Since we all have differing opinions, some may think the change is "harmful" while others may think it is needed (see the recent changes of gay marriage).

Wen people say, "_____________ is harming society" what they are actually meaning is "_____________ is pushing society further away from my ideal view of what society should be."

We universally consider suffering to be "harmful", and happiness to be "beneficial".

I don't. Suffering is not only necessary for growth, it is an unavoidable part of life.

Suffering which leads to growth = long-term net positive utility

... that undermines your dichotomy pretty severely, doesn't it?
"The Collectivist experiment is thoroughly suited (in appearance at least) to the Capitalist society which it proposes to replace. It works with the existing machinery of Capitalism, talks and thinks in the existing terms of Capitalism, appeals to just those appetites which Capitalism has aroused, and ridicules as fantastic and unheard-of just those things in society the memory of which Capitalism has killed among men wherever the blight of it has spread."
- Hilaire Belloc -
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/14/2015 3:04:59 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 10/14/2015 2:52:17 AM, Skepsikyma wrote:
At 10/14/2015 2:13:23 AM, Ore_Ele wrote:
At 10/13/2015 3:28:43 PM, Skepsikyma wrote:
At 10/13/2015 4:45:55 AM, Ore_Ele wrote:
I'm on a tablet so this may be a little unpolished or poorly formated.

I would argue that society cannot be harmed. It merely is, and as such it changes based on the people within. By it cannot be "harmed" or "healed.". Merely changed.

Society is defined as "the aggregate of people living together in a more or less ordered community." As the people change, the aggregate changes and so society changes. Since we all have differing opinions, some may think the change is "harmful" while others may think it is needed (see the recent changes of gay marriage).

Wen people say, "_____________ is harming society" what they are actually meaning is "_____________ is pushing society further away from my ideal view of what society should be."

I would argue that certain attributes make a society more or less stable, and so certain changes aren't desirable because destabilization can lead to a society, ultimately, being dissolved or absorbed by another.

No-fault divorce is, I think, a pretty big example of something which has been incredibly destabilizing. I see the gay marriage debate as ragingly hypocritical because people are, as you pointed out, just being pissy about society leaving their ideal instead of having the guts to criticize the actual heart of the issue.

What is stability is society and why is that a good thing? You ask blacks in 1960 if they wanted slow stable change or quick radical change, the would argue that the unstable radical change was "beneficial" to society.

Because different societies are necessarily competitive, so anything which weakens your society's competitive edge is undesirable. Instability is the #1 thing to avoid if you want your society to be able to defend its members and territory. No matter how much black people wanted change, they, by and large, wouldn't have wanted it at the cost of the destruction of American society, which is what rampant instability would have lead to. Those who did were considered subversive elements, and were no longer really considered part of society for having so thoroughly betrayed one of its fundamental aims.

How are societies themselves competitive and in what form? For one, you can't have destruction of soceity, merely the rapid change into a different society that is unrecognizable to the original society, but it isn't that you have destroyed society and so have no society. And the only people who would say it was "destroyed" would be those that preferred the old society. Look at total revolutions in the past, such as with the Russian Communists. The "harm" is entirely subjective based on the preferences of who you're talking to.
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
SamStevens
Posts: 3,819
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/14/2015 3:14:21 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 10/14/2015 2:52:17 AM, Skepsikyma wrote:
At 10/14/2015 2:13:23 AM, Ore_Ele wrote:
At 10/13/2015 3:28:43 PM, Skepsikyma wrote:
At 10/13/2015 4:45:55 AM, Ore_Ele wrote:
I'm on a tablet so this may be a little unpolished or poorly formated.

I would argue that society cannot be harmed. It merely is, and as such it changes based on the people within. By it cannot be "harmed" or "healed.". Merely changed.

Society is defined as "the aggregate of people living together in a more or less ordered community." As the people change, the aggregate changes and so society changes. Since we all have differing opinions, some may think the change is "harmful" while others may think it is needed (see the recent changes of gay marriage).

Wen people say, "_____________ is harming society" what they are actually meaning is "_____________ is pushing society further away from my ideal view of what society should be."

I would argue that certain attributes make a society more or less stable, and so certain changes aren't desirable because destabilization can lead to a society, ultimately, being dissolved or absorbed by another.

No-fault divorce is, I think, a pretty big example of something which has been incredibly destabilizing. I see the gay marriage debate as ragingly hypocritical because people are, as you pointed out, just being pissy about society leaving their ideal instead of having the guts to criticize the actual heart of the issue.

What is stability is society and why is that a good thing? You ask blacks in 1960 if they wanted slow stable change or quick radical change, the would argue that the unstable radical change was "beneficial" to society.

Because different societies are necessarily competitive, so anything which weakens your society's competitive edge is undesirable. Instability is the #1 thing to avoid if you want your society to be able to defend its members and territory. No matter how much black people wanted change, they, by and large, wouldn't have wanted it at the cost of the destruction of American society, which is what rampant instability would have lead to.

If black people wanted change at the cost of the destruction of American society, what would be the outcome of such a change? Would the American society dissolve and be absorbed by another, foreign society? Or would it bring change quicker and help free America from intolerance?

Those who did were considered subversive elements, and were no longer really considered part of society for having so thoroughly betrayed one of its fundamental aims.
"This is the true horror of religion. It allows perfectly decent and sane people to believe by the billions, what only lunatics could believe on their own." Sam Harris
Life asked Death "Why do people love me but hate you?"
Death responded: "Because you are a beautiful lie, and I am the painful truth."
Skepsikyma
Posts: 8,280
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/14/2015 3:14:33 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 10/14/2015 3:04:59 AM, Ore_Ele wrote:
At 10/14/2015 2:52:17 AM, Skepsikyma wrote:
At 10/14/2015 2:13:23 AM, Ore_Ele wrote:
At 10/13/2015 3:28:43 PM, Skepsikyma wrote:
At 10/13/2015 4:45:55 AM, Ore_Ele wrote:
I'm on a tablet so this may be a little unpolished or poorly formated.

I would argue that society cannot be harmed. It merely is, and as such it changes based on the people within. By it cannot be "harmed" or "healed.". Merely changed.

Society is defined as "the aggregate of people living together in a more or less ordered community." As the people change, the aggregate changes and so society changes. Since we all have differing opinions, some may think the change is "harmful" while others may think it is needed (see the recent changes of gay marriage).

Wen people say, "_____________ is harming society" what they are actually meaning is "_____________ is pushing society further away from my ideal view of what society should be."

I would argue that certain attributes make a society more or less stable, and so certain changes aren't desirable because destabilization can lead to a society, ultimately, being dissolved or absorbed by another.

No-fault divorce is, I think, a pretty big example of something which has been incredibly destabilizing. I see the gay marriage debate as ragingly hypocritical because people are, as you pointed out, just being pissy about society leaving their ideal instead of having the guts to criticize the actual heart of the issue.

What is stability is society and why is that a good thing? You ask blacks in 1960 if they wanted slow stable change or quick radical change, the would argue that the unstable radical change was "beneficial" to society.

Because different societies are necessarily competitive, so anything which weakens your society's competitive edge is undesirable. Instability is the #1 thing to avoid if you want your society to be able to defend its members and territory. No matter how much black people wanted change, they, by and large, wouldn't have wanted it at the cost of the destruction of American society, which is what rampant instability would have lead to. Those who did were considered subversive elements, and were no longer really considered part of society for having so thoroughly betrayed one of its fundamental aims.

How are societies themselves competitive and in what form? For one, you can't have destruction of soceity, merely the rapid change into a different society that is unrecognizable to the original society, but it isn't that you have destroyed society and so have no society.

No, but certain societies are dominant over others. Those societies which are dominant (America right now, England before, Japan in the Near East pre-WWII) enjoy massive benefits, which they pass on to their members. If your society loses its competitive edge then another can eclipse it, stripping its members of privileges and even sovereignty. I rank the transformation from a powerful form capable of maintaining sovereignty and power projection to one which is incapable of doing this as 'destruction', just as the transformation of wood and oxygen into ash, CO2, and energy is typically considered 'destructive', even though no matter/energy is actually lost.

And the only people who would say it was "destroyed" would be those that preferred the old society. Look at total revolutions in the past, such as with the Russian Communists. The "harm" is entirely subjective based on the preferences of who you're talking to.

The benefits to Russian society were obvious. Russia was always playing catch-up to the West, it was always playing a defensive game, and it was always relying on its geographic immensity in the geopolitical game, which necessitated absolute authority in order to suppress fractious movements. The revolution and subsequent transformation into the USSR finally closed that gap.
"The Collectivist experiment is thoroughly suited (in appearance at least) to the Capitalist society which it proposes to replace. It works with the existing machinery of Capitalism, talks and thinks in the existing terms of Capitalism, appeals to just those appetites which Capitalism has aroused, and ridicules as fantastic and unheard-of just those things in society the memory of which Capitalism has killed among men wherever the blight of it has spread."
- Hilaire Belloc -
Skepsikyma
Posts: 8,280
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/14/2015 3:17:31 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 10/14/2015 3:14:21 AM, SamStevens wrote:
At 10/14/2015 2:52:17 AM, Skepsikyma wrote:
If black people wanted change at the cost of the destruction of American society, what would be the outcome of such a change?

The crippling of America's power and extensive hegemony.

Would the American society dissolve and be absorbed by another, foreign society?

It would no longer be the 'dog on top'

Or would it bring change quicker and help free America from intolerance?

No society will ever be free from intolerance. 'Othering' is a fundamental human psychological phenomenon, and actually forms the backbone of any society. When Americans stop reviling blacks, they will start reviling some other group.
"The Collectivist experiment is thoroughly suited (in appearance at least) to the Capitalist society which it proposes to replace. It works with the existing machinery of Capitalism, talks and thinks in the existing terms of Capitalism, appeals to just those appetites which Capitalism has aroused, and ridicules as fantastic and unheard-of just those things in society the memory of which Capitalism has killed among men wherever the blight of it has spread."
- Hilaire Belloc -
Yonko
Posts: 227
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/14/2015 3:19:55 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 10/14/2015 2:53:51 AM, Skepsikyma wrote:
At 10/13/2015 4:49:32 PM, Yonko wrote:
At 10/13/2015 3:30:28 PM, Skepsikyma wrote:
At 10/13/2015 8:08:58 AM, Yonko wrote:

We universally consider suffering to be "harmful", and happiness to be "beneficial".

I don't. Suffering is not only necessary for growth, it is an unavoidable part of life.

Suffering which leads to growth = long-term net positive utility

... that undermines your dichotomy pretty severely, doesn't it?

No? The way utilitarianism works is that negative utility can be outweighed by a greater amount of positive utility...
Skepsikyma
Posts: 8,280
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/14/2015 3:21:41 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 10/14/2015 3:19:55 AM, Yonko wrote:
At 10/14/2015 2:53:51 AM, Skepsikyma wrote:
At 10/13/2015 4:49:32 PM, Yonko wrote:
At 10/13/2015 3:30:28 PM, Skepsikyma wrote:
At 10/13/2015 8:08:58 AM, Yonko wrote:

We universally consider suffering to be "harmful", and happiness to be "beneficial".

I don't. Suffering is not only necessary for growth, it is an unavoidable part of life.

Suffering which leads to growth = long-term net positive utility

... that undermines your dichotomy pretty severely, doesn't it?

No? The way utilitarianism works is that negative utility can be outweighed by a greater amount of positive utility...

But you're defining negative utility as 'suffering', and then saying that negative utility in itself can lead to positive utility. That sabotages the entire paradigm.
"The Collectivist experiment is thoroughly suited (in appearance at least) to the Capitalist society which it proposes to replace. It works with the existing machinery of Capitalism, talks and thinks in the existing terms of Capitalism, appeals to just those appetites which Capitalism has aroused, and ridicules as fantastic and unheard-of just those things in society the memory of which Capitalism has killed among men wherever the blight of it has spread."
- Hilaire Belloc -
Yonko
Posts: 227
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/14/2015 4:39:13 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 10/14/2015 3:21:41 AM, Skepsikyma wrote:
At 10/14/2015 3:19:55 AM, Yonko wrote:
At 10/14/2015 2:53:51 AM, Skepsikyma wrote:
At 10/13/2015 4:49:32 PM, Yonko wrote:
At 10/13/2015 3:30:28 PM, Skepsikyma wrote:
At 10/13/2015 8:08:58 AM, Yonko wrote:

We universally consider suffering to be "harmful", and happiness to be "beneficial".

I don't. Suffering is not only necessary for growth, it is an unavoidable part of life.

Suffering which leads to growth = long-term net positive utility

... that undermines your dichotomy pretty severely, doesn't it?

No? The way utilitarianism works is that negative utility can be outweighed by a greater amount of positive utility...

But you're defining negative utility as 'suffering', and then saying that negative utility in itself can lead to positive utility. That sabotages the entire paradigm.

But the suffering itself isn't what causes growth -- it is caused by how the individual experiencing it reacts to the suffering. In other words, negative utility can potentially be used to indirectly generate positive utility, but it doesn't inherently lead to positive utility (if it did, then theoretically, the ridiculous inverse-utiltiarianism version of Zaradi's suffering kritik would actually hold true).

That said, your comments have given me an interesting idea for a potential argument against utilitarianism...
Illegalcombatant
Posts: 4,008
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/14/2015 10:54:18 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 10/13/2015 4:45:55 AM, Ore_Ele wrote:
I'm on a tablet so this may be a little unpolished or poorly formated.

I would argue that society cannot be harmed. It merely is, and as such it changes based on the people within. By it cannot be "harmed" or "healed.". Merely changed.

Society is defined as "the aggregate of people living together in a more or less ordered community." As the people change, the aggregate changes and so society changes. Since we all have differing opinions, some may think the change is "harmful" while others may think it is needed (see the recent changes of gay marriage).

Wen people say, "_____________ is harming society" what they are actually meaning is "_____________ is pushing society further away from my ideal view of what society should be."

Well that's pretty much morality in a nutshell.

An Ideal, a perception whether X gets you closer or further from that ideal and the labeling of X of being good or conversely evil/harmful/sinful if perceived as further.
"Seems like another attempt to insert God into areas our knowledge has yet to penetrate. You figure God would be bigger than the gaps of our ignorance." Drafterman 19/5/12