21 May 12
Originally posted by KazetNagorraI'm not certain exactly what you mean by utilitarian?
Yes, indeed. I don't think many utilitarians look back to the pre-enlightenment era for a well-working moral code. That would be the Natural Law-fetishists.
[b]That is the formulation of America's Constitution, a document limiting government and establishing "negative rights".
The US constitution is compatible with utilitarianism, I would say, though it's certainly not a utilitarian document.[/b]
It was ratified amidst quite a bit of controversy and compromise. The key element was that the founders knew that they could not and should not seek ultimate solutions, but set up mechanisms whereby solutions could be reached in the future.
21 May 12
Originally posted by normbenignhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Utilitarianism
I'm not certain exactly what you mean by utilitarian?
It was ratified amidst quite a bit of controversy and compromise. The key element was that the founders knew that they could not and should not seek ultimate solutions, but set up mechanisms whereby solutions could be reached in the future.
Utilitarianism is an ethical theory holding that the proper course of action is the one that maximizes the overall "happiness". It is thus a form of consequentialism, meaning that the moral worth of an action is determined only by its resulting outcome, and that one can only weigh the morality of an action after knowing all its consequences.
21 May 12
3 edits
Originally posted by whodeyThe difference between progressive social reform and Platonic idealism is the difference between wanting to make the world a better place (which ought, I would have thought, to be the aim of all civilised people) and wanting there to be better people in it (the dangerous aim of zealots and utopians). Plato was dissatisfied with the basic reality of how human beings are. "Progressives" are dissatisfied with features of present social and political organisation which impede human potential.
Indeed. In fact, the Constitution was pretty revolutionary historically if you ask me. What I can't figure out are those who claim it to be outdated, when all of these progressives who claim its outdated seem to be expousing many of the same Platonic principles of statism that is as old as dirt, yet they are the "progressives"?
To use an analogy, imagine you came across a man in the street who is trying to carry a burden which is too heavy for him. The progressive would offer him a wheelbarrow. The Platonist would tell him to grow a third arm.
21 May 12
Originally posted by EladarI'm sure the "socialist" would find that there was someone who had more wheelbarrows than he could reasonably use...
Correction:
The socialist would take one person's wheel barrel and give it to him. The problem comes when there are too many people demanding wheel barrels and not enough people with the wheel barrels to take.
- Joined
- 03 Feb 07
- Moves
- 199223
21 May 12
Originally posted by whodeyThe first "statists" were probably the first clan who interfered on behalf of the smaller guy in a fight over a kill. And probably that first big guy facing government intervention lamented the loss of personal freedom and incentive to perform. He and a buddy or two probably got together and organized the early version of the Cato Institute. They wrote up their platform and haven't changed the language since.
Who are the first historical statists? I think on the top of the list would have to be Plato. In Plato's Republic, he outlines the "perfect" society written about 380 BC. It was a model for a "true and healthy" society. The city provided for only the most basic needs of its citizens. Each individual accepts his or her position within the society for the ...[text shortened]... ms as well as the attempt to try and control their surroundings for the same reason?
21 May 12
2 edits
Originally posted by KunsooFor most of human existence there had been surplus food. Property rights are based on the idea that anyone can get their own stuff so there's no good reason to take other peoples' stuff. Only sadistic jerks would steal when wealth is abundant for everyone.
Of course, the first property rights advocacy came with agriculture and the first possession of surplus food.
21 May 12
Originally posted by AThousandYoungThat is not really true though is it, I mean in the sense that opinions on it differ. Who knows how many times our species might have tetered on the edge of extinction.
For most of human existence there had been surplus food. Property rights are based on the idea that anyone can get their own stuff so there's no good reason to take other peoples' stuff. Only sadistic jerks would steal when wealth is abundant for everyone.
I think kunsoo is referring to surplus food in terms of it being harvested in a social setting whereby one individual can produce enough food to sustain 1.2 inviduals thus freeing up members of the group to specialise in other types of labour, as opposed to existence hunter gathering societies.
Go on then, hit me with a wiki link.
21 May 12
1 edit
Originally posted by kevcvs57I think kunsoo is referring to surplus food in terms of it being harvested in a social setting whereby one individual can produce enough food to sustain 1.2 inviduals thus freeing up members of the group to specialise in other types of labour, as opposed to existence hunter gathering societies.
That is not really true though is it, I mean in the sense that opinions on it differ. Who knows how many times our species might have tetered on the edge of extinction.
I think kunsoo is referring to surplus food in terms of it being harvested in a social setting whereby one individual can produce enough food to sustain 1.2 inviduals thus freeing up memb ...[text shortened]... our, as opposed to existence hunter gathering societies.
Go on then, hit me with a wiki link.
Well that shuts down my objections.
However I do believe that there was surplus food for hunter gatherers. If you study the megafauna of places like Australia and America you'll see they disappeared when humans showed up probably because they made really tasty steaks.
- Joined
- 03 Feb 07
- Moves
- 199223
21 May 12
2 edits
Originally posted by AThousandYoungWell, the only reason individuals would have resorted to agriculture, which is work, would be to address a scarcity. Maybe food was abundant, but not necessarily the most desirable food. Or food involving the production of a food item such as bread, or alcohol (probably first discovered when some grain fermented in a bowl of water during one harvest morning). In any case, government probably took off in serious manner to protect those surpluses.
I think kunsoo is referring to surplus food in terms of it being harvested in a social setting whereby one individual can produce enough food to sustain 1.2 inviduals thus freeing up members of the group to specialise in other types of labour, as opposed to existence hunter gathering societies.
Well that shuts down my objections.
However ...[text shortened]... u'll see they disappeared when humans showed up probably because they made really tasty steaks.
Obviously the ability to forge bronze and the necessity for slavery as production became more complex led to much more elaborate systems to protect the elite.
21 May 12
Originally posted by KunsooMitochondrial Eve - who actually wasn't the first woman or first human but the one we all descended from - lived about 200,000 BCE. Agriculture started somewhere between 10,000 and 4,000 BCE. So for 190,000 years food was abundant. But ~10k years ago it became scarce until agriculture was invented. That is true.
Well, the only reason individuals would have resorted to agriculture, which is work, would be to address a scarcity. Maybe food was abundant, but not necessarily the most desirable food. Or food involving the production of a food item such as bread, or alcohol (probably first discovered when some grain fermented in a bowl of water during one harvest morning). In any case, government probably took off in serious manner to protect those surpluses.
- Joined
- 03 Feb 07
- Moves
- 199223
21 May 12
Originally posted by AThousandYoungIt may not be that simple. I hardly believe that food was abundant during the ice age, which was ending right about 10 thousand years ago. Maybe that's what spurred agriculture.
Mitochondrial Eve - who actually wasn't the first woman or first human but the one we all descended from - lived about 200,000 BCE. Agriculture started somewhere between 10,000 and 4,000 BCE. So for 190,000 years food was abundant. But ~10k years ago it became scarce until agriculture was invented. That is true.
21 May 12
Originally posted by TeinosukeI don't think you understood my point.
I'm sure the "socialist" would find that there was someone who had more wheelbarrows than he could reasonably use...
Sure it works for one, but what happens when you have an entire country of people in need?