good or evil: the same for everyone?

[darkrobe]

This is interesting reading. Heard about this way back in highschool (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lawrence_Kohlberg%27s_stages_of_moral_development)

[Belthus]

The first question to be answered is, "What is a good society?"

Why society? Why assume society is an inherent good? Why not answer whether one ought to create/join/participate in a society prior to answering what makes a society good? Perhaps societies are morally neutral but the actions of the members are morally relevant for other reasons.

The the very minimum we should justify the claim that longer lived societies are prima facie better.

Humans are inherently social. We live in societies. We always have lived in societies, and apparently so did our ancestor species and so do most primate species. You may imagine life outside society. A tiny percentage have actually lived such a life. But for all of humanity to live isolated lives without society would be a radical change that sounds more like science fiction than anything connected with the world we live in. For those of us concerned with humans as they really are today, the starting point is that humans live in societies.

[Belthus]

The the very minimum we should justify the claim that longer lived societies are prima facie better.

I don't say that longer-lived societies are necessarily better. Bad societies can make life worse than being on one's own. It's possible for a despotic society like ancient Egypt to outlast ancient Athens with its democracy. Some factors are not under our control. It's also possible for a village on the slope of an active volcano to outlast a village in a safer spot, but looking forward, it's better to recognize the danger of the volcano and live somewhere else if possible.

Let's say that some apocalyptic catastrophe killed all humans except 1000. Would life be better if the 1000 organized into one or more societies? Maybe, maybe not. Society can make things worse. But in general, based on our experience and our human nature, we would tend to bet that allying ourselves in society would give us a better chance at good lives than going it alone.

[OldTrees]

The first question to be answered is, "What is a good society?"

Why society? Why assume society is an inherent good? Why not answer whether one ought to create/join/participate in a society prior to answering what makes a society good? Perhaps societies are morally neutral but the actions of the members are morally relevant for other reasons.

The the very minimum we should justify the claim that longer lived societies are prima facie better.

Humans are inherently social. We live in societies. We always have lived in societies, and apparently so did our ancestor species and so do most primate species. You may imagine life outside society. A tiny percentage have actually lived such a life. But for all of humanity to live isolated lives without society would be a radical change that sounds more like science fiction than anything connected with the world we live in. For those of us concerned with humans as they really are today, the starting point is that humans live in societies.

So we assume society is an inherent good because we usually live in one? The fact we do live in societies does not imply that we ought to live in societies nor the stronger claim that what is moral is based on the good society. I think we should address what is moral prior to discussing if and when society can be good.

The the very minimum we should justify the claim that longer lived societies are prima facie better.

I don't say that longer-lived societies are necessarily better. Bad societies can make life worse than being on one's own. It's possible for a despotic society like ancient Egypt to outlast ancient Athens with its democracy. Some factors are not under our control. It's also possible for a village on the slope of an active volcano to outlast a village in a safer spot, but looking forward, it's better to recognize the danger of the volcano and live somewhere else if possible.

Let's say that some apocalyptic catastrophe killed all humans except 1000. Would life be better if the 1000 organized into one or more societies? Maybe, maybe not. Society can make things worse. But in general, based on our experience and our human nature, we would tend to bet that allying ourselves in society would give us a better chance at good lives than going it alone.

Prima facie means on the first look. You did assert that "At a minimum, a good society is one that avoids its own destruction". This implies that a society is not good in relation to how it fails to avoid destruction. Thus on the first look longer lived societies are better in the absence of other morally relevant details. This assertion needs justification.

[Belthus]

So we assume society is an inherent good because we usually live in one?

Society is part of what we are. Being social is part of being human. To live apart from society is a deprivation. Given that humans have always lived in society and probably always will, the point is to make society as beneficial as possible to its members.

If you have doubts about the benefits of society, divest yourself of as much as possible that was made in or by society. No clothes, no books, no computer, no house, etc. If you have learned something from another human being, that piece of knowledge is out of bounds in this exercise. You may not speak any language or read it. Only what you know from direct experience or instinctively can be legitimately used. Try this for a day or even a few hours, and then report back to us.

Another issue is that if you are alone, what moral issues do you face? Don't most moral obligations involve how we act toward others?

Prima facie means on the first look. You did assert that "At a minimum, a good society is one that avoids its own destruction". This implies that a society is not good in relation to how it fails to avoid destruction. Thus on the first look longer lived societies are better in the absence of other morally relevant details. This assertion needs justification.

I said "at a minimum." So a society successfully surviving its challenges is necessary but not sufficient for it to be a good society. I have provided another criterion, the humanist maxim to fulfill one's potential. A good society allows/enables its members to move toward fulfilling their human potential, according to their individual talents, desires, etc.

Also, to clarify, I don't want to put too much emphasis on the outcome of survival. Survival is influenced by many factors, some in our control and others out of our control. What is important is that what a society can control is responsive to those challenges it faces (internal conflict, external conflict, and environmental threats). All else equal, a good society will outlast a bad society because a good society recognizes the challenges it faces and acts to overcome them.

I haven't described the rules themselves, which is the main way we deal with the content of morality. What I have tried to do is to give a glimpse of a process by which rules are created and then work or fail to work.

[OldTrees]

So we assume society is an inherent good because we usually live in one?

Society is part of what we are. Being social is part of being human. To live apart from society is a deprivation. Given that humans have always lived in society and probably always will, the point is to make society as beneficial as possible to its members.

If you have doubts about the benefits of society, divest yourself of as much as possible that was made in or by society. No clothes, no books, no computer, no house, etc. If you have learned something from another human being, that piece of knowledge is out of bounds in this exercise. You may not speak any language or read it. Only what you know from direct experience or instinctively can be legitimately used. Try this for a day or even a few hours, and then report back to us.

I do not doubt society is valuable. However I doubt it is valuable as a end in itself. Rather I find its value stem from its impact on well being or right action. A first question must stem from an end in itself not merely a means. Hence the first question may be about well being or right action but not society.

Another issue is that if you are alone, what moral issues do you face? Don't most moral obligations involve how we act toward others?

Are moral issues required for morally permissible action? No.
Most moral systems believe it is possible to morally wrong oneself. [Maximize suffering, irrational behavior, vicious nature]
Once again it seems there are questions prior to judging the merits and demerits of societies.

Prima facie means on the first look. You did assert that "At a minimum, a good society is one that avoids its own destruction". This implies that a society is not good in relation to how it fails to avoid destruction. Thus on the first look longer lived societies are better in the absence of other morally relevant details. This assertion needs justification.

I said "at a minimum." So a society successfully surviving its challenges is necessary but not sufficient for it to be a good society. I have provided another criterion, the humanist maxim to fulfill one's potential. A good society allows/enables its members to move toward fulfilling their human potential, according to their individual talents, desires, etc.
-snip-

Again, I was not saying you claimed is was a sufficient condition. I was saying that you needed to justify your assertion that it was a necessary condition.

[Belthus]

Again, I was not saying you claimed is was a sufficient condition. I was saying that you needed to justify your assertion that it was a necessary condition.

If a society provides net benefits to its members, but its existence is short, then its value cannot be high. Value is a function of quality X quantity, so if the quantity (time in existence) is low, the product is low. To use an analogy of land area, you cannot have a large field if one of the dimensions (width or length) is very small.

There is also the issue of self-negating actions. A society that acts in self-destructive ways is, all else equal, worse than a society that acts in self-preserving ways. We can think of exceptions, but self-destruction in general is not good. A society that ignores or exacerbates problems that lead to severe internal conflict, which then destroys that society, is a failure. A society that ignores or exacerbates problems that lead to conflict with other societies, which then destroys that society, is a failure. A society that ignores or exacerbates problems that lead to a poor fit with the physical environment (e.g., poor soil management causing a precipitous drop in food production), which then destroys that society, is a failure.

[OldTrees]

Again, I was not saying you claimed is was a sufficient condition. I was saying that you needed to justify your assertion that it was a necessary condition.

If a society provides net benefits to its members, but its existence is short, then its value cannot be high. Value is a function of quality X quantity, so if the quantity (time in existence) is low, the product is low. To use an analogy of land area, you cannot have a large field if one of the dimensions (width or length) is very small.

There is also the issue of self-negating actions. A society that acts in self-destructive ways is, all else equal, worse than a society that acts in self-preserving ways. We can think of exceptions, but self-destruction in general is not good. A society that ignores or exacerbates problems that lead to severe internal conflict, which then destroys that society, is a failure. A society that ignores or exacerbates problems that lead to conflict with other societies, which then destroys that society, is a failure. A society that ignores or exacerbates problems that lead to a poor fit with the physical environment (e.g., poor soil management causing a precipitous drop in food production), which then destroys that society, is a failure.

1)The first paragraph is mistaken. X*small can exceed Y*Z.
1x100 > 9x9

2)We might want to consider the inevitable societal variety of multiple self-destructive societies compared to the relatively static long lived society. I would include this detail when measuring self destructive vs self preserving. Notably it clouds what would have otherwise been fairly black and white*.

*Given certain premises of yours that I do not think investigating would be too useful.

1) Well being is a moral good.
2) Society tends to promote well being. (Implying acting contrary to our social nature would tend to harm our well being)
3) Short existence -> low magnitude effect. (Challenged in this post)
or 3) "A society that acts in self-destructive ways is, all else equal, worse than a society that acts in self-preserving ways." (Matches intuitions but also challenged)

[nerd1]

as for it being impringted in our genes: maybe. we may have evolved to believe killing people in inherently bad because the more people believe its bad, the less people actually kill people, and the higher chance you have of surviving because there are less people out to kill you.

[darkrobe]

eh. only partially. more likely we evolved to have a tendancy not to want to kill people in our "group". aka our family or tribal unit. Such actions would have lowered group synergy (to say the least). But I dont think we as a species have evolved out of believing it is okay to kill the "other" or people not from our group.

You can look at monkey's like chimpanzees. chimpanzes will behave quite altruistically when it comes to inter group dynamics. But will often be indifferent or violent towards members of unrelated chimpanzee groups.

Probably describes why the first step in war is to villain-ize the enemy, to make them an "other", so that the general public believes it is okay to kill them.

On the flip side, very altruistic people, or people that are nice or kind to everyone, probably are partly so because they can easily identify with others. They see another person and recognize them as a fellow "human", "animal", "life-form", whatever, that they can still consider to be part of their group.

[OldTrees]

Agreed. The US and Them mentality is a root cause of many of our shared moral judgements. (Though it has  no relation to moral truth)
Dehumanization and Empathy alter which category we put others in. (Try to be more empathic)

[tyranim]

i have come VERY close to deciding to write a f***ing book on this topic. SERIOUSLY! this topic is just WAY too deep for ANYONE to ignore. hitler believed he was doing good, while the rest of the world believed he was evil. IMHO, morality is perception. i feel killing everyone on earth is good, while almost everyone else will think its evil (being serious too). humanity is a cancer that only special genocide can cure. (not types of humans, but humans in general)