Actual Class Discussion

[TheEarl]

Well, you know, we can take it a step further. Why not just build a super smart computer, with artificial inteligence, and then input into it all of the world's problems and then ask it the solution for everything. That's not a bad idea, computers are never wrong! I bet we'll be out of debt and in paradise in a matter of months.

42.

The Earl

 

[oggbashan]

The answer to the conundrum about politicians is to nominate candidates who are good at whatever they do and hate 'the system' as it is. To draft people who have made their own way in the world and can't stand the hypocrisy of the political circus.

Finding such people is nearly impossible unless you look for those who have survived in positions where a mistake has significant consequences - e.g. ER doctors, firemen, front line troops.

Og

Again not original - Tom Clancy suggested it.

 

[Joe Wordsworth]

Originally posted by poohlive
Isn't that how Captain America's arch nemesis started out? As a genius recruited at a very young age, and then trained and programmed, growing up to be perfectly evil. Red Devil or something like that.

And, another society that rounded up all the "special" people and took them to "special" classes, so they could learn the right ways.... didn't the Nazi's do that to the jews?? It's a bit of a stretch, but considering what you're proposing, it's not that far.

Quite far, I'm propsoing Plato's Republic. Not Nazism. The correlation between the two is extremely shakey. And, actually, I'm not really proposing that its desireable... only that it appears to be able to yield the most efficient/effective government--at what cost, though? Personally, as stated, I prefer our flawed version... but that I have that preference doesn't mean I can turn a blind eye to the possibilities, no matter how distasteful.

Well, you know, we can take it a step further. Why not just build a super smart computer, with artificial inteligence, and then input into it all of the world's problems and then ask it the solution for everything. That's not a bad idea, computers are never wrong! I bet we'll be out of debt and in paradise in a matter of months.

I haven't much confidence that its possible to have self-aware computers, beyond that though strictly speaking the "supercomputer" might yield something like an objective norm... if it did, it would be worth having built.

 

[BlackShanglan]

Entirely possible, failure is. However, social norm would be an objective thing would it not? A norm about society, a metaphysical rule? Being in direct observation of society isn't necessarily needed (as I said, they were educated about political systems and allowed to generate their own model of perfection) and knowledge of motives and cultural history doesn't seem to be needed either. Rather, those seem like confounding variables to a universal social norm (independant of motivation, intention, culture, and history... not dependant on any of those things, thus more universally applicable).

I see two possibilities diverging in your definition of "social norm," so I'll 1) ask which you mean and 2) suggest a reponse for either.

One possibility is that a social norm is an actual, enacted system of behavior. Of course, that behavior can only be enacted with buy-in from the participants - that is, you've got to have most of society following the "norm," or it becomes meaningless to call it a "norm." This is where I predict failure with the "developed in isolation" theory. Humans are historically unlikely to change their behavior on any broad and substantial scale in accordance with a theory. It's hard enough to get them to really change anything when you tell them that an omnipotent being will smote them with lightning if they don't; I don't see much chance of success for "here, these guys think this is a good idea, so let's all do it." I would also argue that an enacted system must by its nature be subjective and specific to the participants and be capable to change to suit evolving circumstances. It strikes me as highly unlikely that the same social organization most appropriate to, say, a tribal stone age hunter-gatherer society in the arctic would also be the best system for a globally communicating space-faring society that relies on, for the sake of fun, giant algae tanks for their food source. As different needs, means of communication, sources of sustenance, and ability to tolerate levels of deviance from community goals evolve, the system will need to evolve with them.

Now the other possibility for "norm," which seems to me the way you might be headed, is a general rule for how societies ought best to run, one that in theory will be universally applicable and derivable because rooted in empirical reality. I have a few objections to this concept:

1) I query how a concept such as "best," which carries with it inevitable social construction, can be determined objectively in the first place. When these geniuses sit down to think how society should "best" be run, what will their criteria be, and how will they escape the inevitable subjectivity of selecting any one set? While one may measure empirically various effects of different social norms, I don't see that it's possible empirically to determine which variables are the "most important" or key to the "best" functioning of society. These are value judgements and inherently relative.

2) Any universal rule divorced from "confounding variables" will be confounded by them immediately upon implementation. That is, while I concede the lure of the idea of a "pure" system uncontaminated by human imbecility, I would argue that it can exist only as a pure, abstract concept incapable of enaction. We already have quite a number of those. Marxism, Christianity, Spencerian Anarchy, and various other systems all propose beautiful images of the ways in which humans ideally would interact. They have failed to transform human society because they have failed to transform humans - which is implicitly necessary in any system that chooses to ignore human history and behavior by evolving itself in a vacuum. To assume that the mass of humans will behave in a specific way because reason dictates it is to ignore the wealth of evidence provided by historical record. Elements such as motivation, intention, culture, and history certainly are confounding in their variety and incompatibility. They are also impossible to ignore in implementation, as they have far too great an effect on human behavior to be set lightly aside.

3) A "universal" system presumes an inherent "universal" human nautre. A relatively short period of time, say, training dogs will convince most people that universal motivations or natures are largely a myth. What works for one individual will not necessarily work for another, even without the drastic differences in environmental behavior shaping that undoubtedly will occur. In fact, I would argue that this is one of the great dangers inherent in attempting universal theoretical systems. It inevitably occurs to someone that people would be much easier to manage and guide if they were all more like each other, and the logical step then becomes finding a way to make that a reality.

A social norm about the best society would be static.

Only if you've solved that whole "static, objective definition of 'best'" issue (above). I think you'd have to manage that first. But beyond that, I will throw this out: is "best" a goal or a process? If we define "best" as the achievement of certain goals, then the norms of social behavior and structure may still vary considerably as differing circumstances make differing processes more or less effective in achieving those goals. If we define "best" as a process, then we seem to be moving far into subjectivity.

Past that, though, even if we are not static in our conventions... that doesn't mean we cannot adopt static systems. Sort of like "that I've changed my mind a hundred times doesn't mean I won't find something I won't change my mind about". As such, "cannots" aren't reasonable. "Unlikely", I may give you... but "cannot" is to say "impossible", and not much we've talked about seems to be strictly that.

I shall certainly grant you that sliver of ground between "has never historically occurred" and "will never occur." I agree that one cannot (hah!) say what cannot happen in the future, only what has not happened in the past.

That said, I see a serious problem ahead for anyone attempting to marry a static system with a non-static world. My objections to this are practical as well as theoretical. Humans are alive. The nature of life is change. Technology, economy, ecosystems, weather, food sources, aesthetic tastes, education, geography itself - all of these things are in a constant state of flux. Where lies the rationale in assuming that a static universal constant will somehow best govern their interaction? That it would be simple and pleasant for humans to have these issues settled "for once and for all" makes it no more likely. The dream of the one ideal society is, to me, at heart a protest against the complexity of the world. It's frustrating and difficult to continue adjusting, changing, inventing, and revising in order to suit circumstances. It is also, in my opinion, both inevitable and ultimately desirable.

Shanglan

 

[Joe Wordsworth]

Originally posted by BlackShanglan
1) I query how a concept such as "best," which carries with it inevitable social construction, can be determined objectively in the first place. When these geniuses sit down to think how society should "best" be run, what will their criteria be, and how will they escape the inevitable subjectivity of selecting any one set? While one may measure empirically various effects of different social norms, I don't see that it's possible empirically to determine which variables are the "most important" or key to the "best" functioning of society. These are value judgements and inherently relative.

That's a very important part, yeah. "Best" can be a value judgement--only explainable (relavantly) in two real ways, either (a) we accept that the metaphysic of the universe has a "best" value in regards to the item or (b) it simply doesn't. If it doesn't, then the isolated geniuses could not know it to be best (can't epistemologically know something that isn't existant), they could theorize but the theory would only be different, not better or best (then, the quality of their theory would fall to other qualifiers empirically). If it does, we'd still have to show it is possible to know that "metaphysical best" before saying that they can know it.

2) Any universal rule divorced from "confounding variables" will be confounded by them immediately upon implementation. That is, while I concede the lure of the idea of a "pure" system uncontaminated by human imbecility, I would argue that it can exist only as a pure, abstract concept incapable of enaction. We already have quite a number of those. Marxism, Christianity, Spencerian Anarchy, and various other systems all propose beautiful images of the ways in which humans ideally would interact. They have failed to transform human society because they have failed to transform humans - which is implicitly necessary in any system that chooses to ignore human history and behavior by evolving itself in a vacuum. To assume that the mass of humans will behave in a specific way because reason dictates it is to ignore the wealth of evidence provided by historical record. Elements such as motivation, intention, culture, and history certainly are confounding in their variety and incompatibility. They are also impossible to ignore in implementation, as they have far too great an effect on human behavior to be set lightly aside.

I would contend here, though, that while it is possible the system could only be accessible analytically (with no way to move that into pragmatic application), it is also possible that it could be accessible. That numbers of other systems haven't worked in application doesn't preclude another one from working--rather, pending how its approached... the flawed ones have failed, and unless all systems are an infinite regress of flawed systems (hard to prove), a non-flawed system may be found.

3) A "universal" system presumes an inherent "universal" human nautre. A relatively short period of time, say, training dogs will convince most people that universal motivations or natures are largely a myth. What works for one individual will not necessarily work for another, even without the drastic differences in environmental behavior shaping that undoubtedly will occur. In fact, I would argue that this is one of the great dangers inherent in attempting universal theoretical systems. It inevitably occurs to someone that people would be much easier to manage and guide if they were all more like each other, and the logical step then becomes finding a way to make that a reality.

I think if we're to talk about "human nature" in a meaningful sense, we're talking about it being universal. Otherwise, we're talking only about "that person's nature" or "those people's nature" (which, essentially, are also universal when we categorize them). What works for one doesn't necessarily work for another, but it is possible that something works for both... all three... all dozen... all million... all everyone. I think the problem with universal theoretical systems is a matter of essence. It requires that the subjects share something. Anything. A trait, inherant and across the board. From there, a universal theoretical system based on that trait or traits can be derived... entirely rational.

 

[BlackShanglan]

I think if we're to talk about "human nature" in a meaningful sense, we're talking about it being universal. Otherwise, we're talking only about "that person's nature" or "those people's nature" (which, essentially, are also universal when we categorize them). What works for one doesn't necessarily work for another, but it is possible that something works for both... all three... all dozen... all million... all everyone. I think the problem with universal theoretical systems is a matter of essence. It requires that the subjects share something. Anything. A trait, inherant and across the board. From there, a universal theoretical system based on that trait or traits can be derived... entirely rational.

I think we actually agree here in that there is no meaningful way to talk about "human nature" without making assumptions of universality. However, I think I go the opposite direction with that assumption. Rather than the "must be universal so that we can talk about it rationally" road, I go the "is not universal, therefore cannot talk rationally about it" path. This is, of course, closely related to my other arguments against a single universal social solution generated in isolation from existing systems. I don't believe that humans are sufficiently coherent, rational, predictable, or controllable in their actions and reactions to be guided by a single unchanging system, however derived.

While I am thinking about it ...

(a) we accept that the metaphysic of the universe has a "best" value in regards to the item

I'll push this a step further. I will argue that while concepts like "most" or "fewest" have empirical, metaphysical reality, "best" does not. It is inherently value-driven in indicating a preference for one state of circumstances over another. Such judgements, I will posit, can only ever be relative and subjective in nature.


Shanglan

 

[cantdog]

I think the model for the best government is to take the brightest and best young minds, take them away from their families and possessions and put them to work as the leaders of state after years of formal education in the matter. No paycheck. Only duty.

I also think that the best model we have is the one we've got here in the US. Raising awareness of what makes a quality candidate is the only real chore.

Gawd. You have to trust us. We're the experts.

Where is the feedback loop to consult the governed? The "experts" we use now just pat us on the head in a patronizing way, tell one another we're uninformed, and work out ways to suppress our feedback or get around our wishes, usually by propaganda and subterfuge.

The features of the system which are the most like this model are precisely the largest factors in the attenuation of democracy in our republic. Experts do not respect the opinions or advice of the gentiles. The feedback of the people is designed in to these systems because they are the ones who have to live with the results of the decisions taken.

I have to vehemently disagree, Joe, and recommend a book to you by a Canadian philosopher. Voltaire's Bastards is the title. John Ralston Saul, the author. I am entirely serious.

 

[Joe Wordsworth]

Originally posted by BlackShanglan
I think we actually agree here in that there is no meaningful way to talk about "human nature" without making assumptions of universality. However, I think I go the opposite direction with that assumption. Rather than the "must be universal so that we can talk about it rationally" road, I go the "is not universal, therefore cannot talk rationally about it" path. This is, of course, closely related to my other arguments against a single universal social solution generated in isolation from existing systems. I don't believe that humans are sufficiently coherent, rational, predictable, or controllable in their actions and reactions to be guided by a single unchanging system, however derived.

Its a matter of directions, yeah. Personally, things like behavioral psychology help me believe that humans can be predictable and conrtollable... and, marry that to logically possible metaphysics, a single static system--if derivable--may be able to enact that.

I'll push this a step further. I will argue that while concepts like "most" or "fewest" have empirical, metaphysical reality, "best" does not. It is inherently value-driven in indicating a preference for one state of circumstances over another. Such judgements, I will posit, can only ever be relative and subjective in nature.

That something value-driven, even inherantly, doesn't mean it cannot be metaphysically universal, though. If the value is a norm, and real, then proximity to that value would determine "best"-ness. If there is a Platonic "perfect circle" in the universe, then circles are judgeable as "better" and participating fully in the circle would be "best" (the best circle being the one that participates the most in the form). As such, if there is a "social system" metaphysic, then closeness to that would determine the value of "better" and "best".

 

[Weird Harold]

Originally posted by Joe Wordsworth
I think the model for the best government is to take the brightest and best young minds, take them away from their families and possessions and put them to work as the leaders of state after years of formal education in the matter. No paycheck. Only duty.

Joe, the main flaw I see in this concept is than virtully every human society, system of government, and moral value system is totally irrational when viewed from outside.

Taking a group of geniouses and isolating them from ALL societies and moral structures would indded produce logical and efficient guidelines. The problem is that logical and efficient are often synonymous with cruel and intolerant.

Your idea is far from unique, BTW. It has been explored in many variations by science fiction writers -- some with some very scholarly credentials to back their idea of how it would work out.

 

[Joe Wordsworth]

Originally posted by Weird Harold
Joe, the main flaw I see in this concept is than virtully every human society, system of government, and moral value system is totally irrational when viewed from outside.

That's not really a flaw in the concept, as given. The concept as given accepts the irrationally of the society, utilizing its outside perspective, and chooses to invent a better one.

Taking a group of geniouses and isolating them from ALL societies and moral structures would indded produce logical and efficient guidelines. The problem is that logical and efficient are often synonymous with cruel and intolerant.

"Often synonymous" is a pretty loose and unqualified assertion, though. It isn't "synonymous" in the least, strictly speaking, and though at times the one leads to another doesn't really present a problem to the thought-experiment. I could as easily say "it is often that logical and efficient are synonymous with reasonable and tolerant". Sort of a wonky thing.

Your idea is far from unique, BTW. It has been explored in many variations by science fiction writers -- some with some very scholarly credentials to back their idea of how it would work out.

Oh, it's not really my idea.... Plato, The Republic. That's how the Republic, basically, worked. I know nothing about science fiction writers, I think it likely that they borrowed it from him as I did.

 

[BlackShanglan]

That something value-driven, even inherantly, doesn't mean it cannot be metaphysically universal, though. If the value is a norm, and real, then proximity to that value would determine "best"-ness. If there is a Platonic "perfect circle" in the universe, then circles are judgeable as "better" and participating fully in the circle would be "best" (the best circle being the one that participates the most in the form). As such, if there is a "social system" metaphysic, then closeness to that would determine the value of "better" and "best".

Your example, however, returns to empiricism. Something can be the "best" circle in terms of most accurately fuliflling the definition of circle in measurable circumstances. However, this sense of "best" is in many ways quite different to "best social system." With circles, we have a universally recognized and empirically verifiable measurement - roundness - by which to measure achievement. With social systems, we have no universally recognized standard of success, and in fact have many competing and even mutally exclusive theories of what constitutes "best." Which takes us back - not to be tedious - to that same issue we were at before: how do you define "best"? You can have a "best" circle in the sense of "best fulfills definition of circle as thing which is round." But in order to have a "best" social system, you have to go one of two ways. Either it has to be "best fulfills the broad general definition of 'way of organizing humans socially,'" in which case nearly any social system will do, or it's "best at achieving goals XYZ," in which care you've introduced purely arbitrary and personal goals.

Shanglan

 

[poohlive]

No, Joe, don't get me wrong. You are entitled to your opinion, and I do agree, that taking a bunch of super kids and isolating them so that they can determine the best kind fo government is one way to solve everything.

I was thinking about it last night, deciding what would be best for everyone, in order for a society to grow and stop having all the problems that it has today, and how someone from the outside, super smart would handle it... and it just scared me.

This is just an example, by no way what a group of geniuses might come up with. Rather, this is what I think geniuses would come up with.

Well, one of the problems, major, is all the murders. We have somewhere close to a thousand murders a year in the U.S. while Canada and Australia have less than 100 put together. So, what would they do first? Outlaw guns.

But, we have the right to bear arms, in the 2nd amendment. Well, that'll have to go. Throw it out. Ban guns, seems logical, we have no need for them anymore. The police will be perfect and flawless now, (thanks to these geniuses) no more need to hunt, you have a grocery store, no more need for safety or protection, we're watching you, and we're protecting you.

Well, this won't go over very well with militia people, or NRA southern belt God lovers. So, they'll of course protest and start riots, and use guns anyway, trying to get support.

Well, we can't have that. That's civil unrest, we're trying to create a eutopia here. But, they're allowed to do so under the 1st amendment, freedom of speech. Well, that'll have to go. Bye bye!! We can't have people who don't agree with our perfect society, keep your unpending thoughts to yourself. Everyone needs to be in agreement.

Of course, now that basic freedoms are being taken away, the people will fear that their voice isn't being heard anymore, and start using illegal guns and other things to do more daring protests. Kill innocent people, blow up government buildings, try to get the attention of someone to all this injustice.

Well, if the police capture these people, they can't tell where they got the guns, or the bombs, or where the underground militia's are... cause they are protected under the 5th amendment, not to say anything incriminating against themselves. Ha ha ha, so naive. That little amendment will have to go as well.

So on, and so forth. But, you're right, it could be the exact opposite. These people could just come up, make a few little adjustments, and everything would turn out fine. I would rather do an experiment where we actually do take a couple of geniuses, raise them, and ask their advice on the current system. Instead of trusting them blindly, see what they can input, and then pick and choose accordingly. That way, we still have our interests at heart.

I don't know if human nature has anything to do with it, maybe. But, human kind has always valued freedom. And, living in a society with other humans, that freedom becomes limited. I just don't want to see the day that it becomes so limited we are no longer able to call ourselves free.

 

[Joe Wordsworth]

Originally posted by BlackShanglan
Your example, however, returns to empiricism. Something can be the "best" circle in terms of most accurately fuliflling the definition of circle in measurable circumstances. However, this sense of "best" is in many ways quite different to "best social system." With circles, we have a universally recognized and empirically verifiable measurement - roundness - by which to measure achievement.

Well... kinda. Empirical doesn't have to play a part. We have analytically verifiable criterion for "circles" that aren't based on empricism--mathematics, essentially analysis. Similarly, there might be an analytically perfect social system.

With social systems, we have no universally recognized standard of success, and in fact have many competing and even mutally exclusive theories of what constitutes "best."

I haven't been contending that we have a universally recognized standard... only that it is possible for one to exist. In such a case as that, it might be knowable... in the case that it is, secluded genuises could come up with it... and so on.

Which takes us back - not to be tedious - to that same issue we were at before: how do you define "best"? You can have a "best" circle in the sense of "best fulfills definition of circle as thing which is round." But in order to have a "best" social system, you have to go one of two ways. Either it has to be "best fulfills the broad general definition of 'way of organizing humans socially,'" in which case nearly any social system will do, or it's "best at achieving goals XYZ," in which care you've introduced purely arbitrary and personal goals.

If there is an analytically perfect social system (which is strictly possible), then "best" would correspond to that system which is in most congruence with it. As it would be analytically perfect (metaphysically true, a Platonic form, universally existant, objective norm, whatever term you like), its goals wouldn't be arbitrary (in rational perfection, there aren't arbitrary components) and not "any social system would do" as another system, by diverging from perfection, would be less perfect.

It hasn't been my point that we've got any of this... only that these are possible things. Which is useful in its own way.

 

[BlackShanglan]

I haven't been contending that we have a universally recognized standard... only that it is possible for one to exist. In such a case as that, it might be knowable... in the case that it is, secluded genuises could come up with it... and so on.

I disagree. This is not, to me, a question of whether some social systems might be more desirable to some people than others; rather, my point is that our existing definition of "social system" is not capable of maintaining comparative values in any meaningful objective sense. Essentially, I disgree that it is possible for a "best" to exist for some sorts of definitions. As an example, one might argue that various representations of the color red were "better" or "worse" representations of red in that they adhered or failed to adhere to its specifications. However, arguing that one color was better than another would be meaningless. Either you'd be arguing for a completely relative aesthetic preference, or you'd be arguing that one was better than another at *being* a color, when in fact all colors are equally good at having the quality of being a color.

This is my point with the social systems. In measuring or identifying "best," we'd either be measuring whether it's good at *being* a social system, in which it would simply either be one or not, and not tell us anything about desirability, or we'd have to impose relative values to say which social systems are better. Basically, it would be like trying to find a universally recognized standard for the best color. It's not a meaningful question in connection to the idea of "color" - nor, I would argue, of "social system." You can only give it meaning by making it non-universal - i.e., "what's the best color to make a fire engine highly visible?"

If there is an analytically perfect social system (which is strictly possible)

I disagree that it is possible. I think that within the definition we have, we can only say that something is perfect at *being* a social system - i.e., it fulfills the criteria for being described as some kind of social system. We can't have an analytically perfect type or style of social system without defining the criteria for perfection; these criteria would have to be based on the presumed desirability of various outcomes; desirablity of outcomes is always a matter of personal or relative opinion.

As it would be analytically perfect (metaphysically true, a Platonic form, universally existant, objective norm, whatever term you like), its goals wouldn't be arbitrary (in rational perfection, there aren't arbitrary components) and not "any social system would do" as another system, by diverging from perfection, would be less perfect.

You posit the assumption that there can exist a Platonic ideal of a social system and appearing to be working that backward to the theory that if the ideal form exists, then it must be possible to come up with an ideal definition of "social system" that allows that ideal form to exist. This seems, to me, to be making an unwarranted assumption in the favor of the existance of the ideal form. If it did exist, undoubtedly all that follows would be true. But why make the assumption that it does exist, when attempting to define its parameters runs so consistantly afoul of its own definition and the concept of objective values?

It hasn't been my point that we've got any of this... only that these are possible things. Which is useful in its own way. [/B]

Absolutely. The only things really worth arguing about are the great unprovables.

(And might I observe that, contrary to your recent post, it does seem to be possible to engage in argumentation without rancor? At least I hope I'm not the only one enjoying myself.)

Shanglan

 

[Joe Wordsworth]

Alright... so, to summarize (and then go from there) and clarify, here's my position:

Givens: I'll be using "objective norm" for what has been referenced as "analytically perfect", "Platonic form", "universally existant", etc. Simpify the language a little bit--where objective means mind independant and part of the makeup of the universe (like gravity or basic mathematics, for arguments sake), and norm means an authoritative standard (basically).

I'll also be using "excelling beyond all others" for best

So, onto the position:

1)) It is possible that objective norms exist (nothing about the definition is a contradiction or is logically impossible).
2)) It is possible that an objective norm for "social system" exists.
..........a) If the universe can be said to have objective norms in it,
..........b) And norms can include anything that can be standardized,
..........c) And a social system can be considered a standard,
..........d) Then, a social system could be an objective norm.
3)) A thing closer to its corresponding standard is better.
4)) The thing most close to its corresponding standard is best.
C)) A social system can be "best".

 

[sweetnpetite]

They should.

In a very cold, but far more efficient world... our governing would be handled by specialist raised from birth, selected for their genius, and instructed--apart from society and its propogandas--in every system's philosophy and basic notions of justice, value of human life, etc.... and let them decide, as objective geniuses untainted by social conventions or norms, what's best.

It makes a strong argument against simple efficiency. In my opinion, it makes me appreciate the flawed world I have more.

I don't really agree that that would be the 'efficient' thing to do at all. I realize that you are not arguing for it, only that it would be somehow efficient. In fact, I think it would be highly *inefficient* and basicly utterly rediculous, as it is based on a number of rediculous assumptions. (Like for instance, how is anybody raised with no family or society going to understand it or be able to make decisions about justice or the value of human life in the first place?--this is a retorical question, you either agree or disagree but it doesn't need to be answered or explained)

 

[sweetnpetite]

Yeah, that's sort of what I meant.


Thanks for saying that.

I shall disagree. If a secluded group of geniuses was to come up with a social norm for a group of people they've never met, whose motives and cultual history they don't understand, and whose level of intellectual functioning and objectivity is completely different from their own, I would predict instantaneous and total failure should that norm be enacted.

I'll even stick my horsey neck out further and suggest that there is an inherent flaw in the assumptions of this model. Genius pondering human nature in isolation, as a model, suggests to me an underlying assumption that the nature of the ideal social system is static - that there is one right answer. I see this assumption in the implication of the model that the "correct" answer is 1) derivable and 2) best derived under static, detached conditions - in isolation. I will offer the counter suggestion that as humans are almost never static in any of their social or physical systems or technologies, the "ideal" system for organizing them socially cannot exist as a single absolute, and cannot be derived in isolation from the humans themselves. Their very weaknesses and foibles, as well as their cultural diversity and their attachment to existing systems, are what make a regulating social system necessary in the first place; hence, constant exposure to and thorough understanding of those issues is necessary in order to create a useful system for managing them.

Shanglan

 

[Joe Wordsworth]

Ah... I see some of the problem...

When I say "exposed", I mean it in an almost viral sense. One can be informed, and thoroughly so, about a virus without having been exposed to it (that sort of meaning). These secluded geniuses can be informed, and educated, about society without being exposed to it.

Rather, it seems that they need not be exposed to it for any necessitating reason.

 

[sweetnpetite]

You give far to much credence to genious and to formal education.

Just because someone has the highest degree in the land and has a higher IQ than everyone else, doesn't mean that he/she is right or will come up with the right solution. Sometimes to much knowlege can cause you to miss some of the most obvious things.

And not everything is cerebral. I don't think you can figure things like the value of human life with cold logic.

It seems possible (only because it isn't impossible), but very difficult--maybe something left to highly educated, hypothetical geniuses to figure out.

 

[Joe Wordsworth]

Originally posted by sweetnpetite
You give far to much credence to genious and to formal education.

Just because someone has the highest degree in the land and has a higher IQ than everyone else, doesn't mean that he/she is right or will come up with the right solution. Sometimes to much knowlege can cause you to miss some of the most obvious things.

And not everything is cerebral. I don't think you can figure things like the value of human life with cold logic.

I don't think, by acknowleding their possibly being factors, that I give them too much credit. I'm not saying they're the end all be all of anything, only that they may be--that's just logical possibility.

It may be that not everything is cerebral, but it is possible that it is (I think of Locke or Berkeley, in that). Beyond that, though, that some things aren't cerebral doesn't mean that the value of human life isn't knowable via logic--cold, warm, or otherwise.

 

[BlackShanglan]

So, onto the position:

1)) It is possible that objective norms exist (nothing about the definition is a contradiction or is logically impossible).
2)) It is possible that an objective norm for "social system" exists.
..........a) If the universe can be said to have objective norms in it,
..........b) And norms can include anything that can be standardized,
..........c) And a social system can be considered a standard,
..........d) Then, a social system could be an objective norm.
3)) A thing closer to its corresponding standard is better.
4)) The thing most close to its corresponding standard is best.
C)) A social system can be "best". [/B]

Perhaps not surprisingly, my first objection lies with assumption number one (that the ideas of "objective" and "norm" can be assumed for all norms to exist in combination). If "objective" means mind independent and part of the makeup of the universe (and thanks for that definition; it's one of the better ways of defining "objective" that I have run across), then the idea of a "norm" is to my mind in some ways innately opposed to it - as least as you've defined it. No one needs an authoritative standard for gravity - you just go measure the bugger. Factual reality is its own authority and has no need of external authority to support it. If we call a norm an authoritative standard, and we're not saying that "authoritative standard" essentially means "provable physical reality," then the two ideas (norm and objective) don't really work together. One is a matter of objective presence and demonstrable; the other relies on "authority," which indicates opinion or belief, not demonstration.

The other place I'd suggest could use strengthening is the b)-c) leap. You went from things that can be standardized to a thing that is a standard. These are not at all the same thing and should not be used interchangeably. This is the root of my objections earlier. There's an enormous difference between saying that something is ideal according to the standard and saying that the standard is ideal.

Shanglan

 

[Joe Wordsworth]

Originally posted by BlackShanglan
Perhaps not surprisingly, my first objection lies with assumption number one (that the ideas of "objective" and "norm" can be assumed for all norms to exist in combination). If "objective" means mind independent and part of the makeup of the universe (and thanks for that definition; it's one of the better ways of defining "objective" that I have run across), then the idea of a "norm" is to my mind in some ways innately opposed to it - as least as you've defined it. No one needs an authoritative standard for gravity - you just go measure the bugger. Factual reality is its own authority and has no need of external authority to support it. If we call a norm an authoritative standard, and we're not saying that "authoritative standard" essentially means "provable physical reality," then the two ideas (norm and objective) don't really work together. One is a matter of objective presence and demonstrable; the other relies on "authority," which indicates opinion or belief, not demonstration.

Gravity, accepting that its real and all that, is an authoritative standard. Its an objective norm. It is a rule that is in metaphysical authority--a position where it isn't under the arbitration of anything else. That's what I mean to say with "authoritative standard".

The other place I'd suggest could use strengthening is the b)-c) leap. You went from things that can be standardized to a thing that is a standard. These are not at all the same thing and should not be used interchangeably. This is the root of my objections earlier. There's an enormous difference between saying that something is ideal according to the standard and saying that the standard is ideal.

I was typing that while talking to my girl on the phone. b) should read "and norms are standards". Typo on my part, my bad. I was talking about something else entirely while typing.

 

[sweetnpetite]

No, Joe, don't get me wrong. You are entitled to your opinion, and I do agree, that taking a bunch of super kids and isolating them so that they can determine the best kind fo government is one way to solve everything.

I was thinking about it last night, deciding what would be best for everyone, in order for a society to grow and stop having all the problems that it has today, and how someone from the outside, super smart would handle it... and it just scared me.

This is just an example, by no way what a group of geniuses might come up with. Rather, this is what I think geniuses would come up with.

Well, one of the problems, major, is all the murders. We have somewhere close to a thousand murders a year in the U.S. while Canada and Australia have less than 100 put together. So, what would they do first? Outlaw guns.

But, we have the right to bear arms, in the 2nd amendment. Well, that'll have to go. Throw it out. Ban guns, seems logical, we have no need for them anymore. The police will be perfect and flawless now, (thanks to these geniuses) no more need to hunt, you have a grocery store, no more need for safety or protection, we're watching you, and we're protecting you.

Well, this won't go over very well with militia people, or NRA southern belt God lovers. So, they'll of course protest and start riots, and use guns anyway, trying to get support.

Well, we can't have that. That's civil unrest, we're trying to create a eutopia here. But, they're allowed to do so under the 1st amendment, freedom of speech. Well, that'll have to go. Bye bye!! We can't have people who don't agree with our perfect society, keep your unpending thoughts to yourself. Everyone needs to be in agreement.

Welcome to the island paradise of...








Cuba!

 

[sweetnpetite]

Ah... I see some of the problem...

When I say "exposed", I mean it in an almost viral sense. One can be informed, and thoroughly so, about a virus without having been exposed to it (that sort of meaning). These secluded geniuses can be informed, and educated, about society without being exposed to it.

Rather, it seems that they need not be exposed to it for any necessitating reason.

Sorry.

Same problem.

I don't believe that non-social beings can perfect society. You can argue the semantics of it, but as far as I am concerned, it's an oxymoron.

 

[Joe Wordsworth]

Originally posted by sweetnpetite
Sorry.

Same problem.

I don't believe that non-social beings can perfect society. You can argue the semantics of it, but as far as I am concerned, it's an oxymoron.

How are they non-social?