The Immorality of Collective Authority

Discuss morality and ethics in this message board.
Featured Article: Philosophical Analysis of Abortion, The Right to Life, and Murder

Re: The Immorality of Collective Authority

Post Number:#16  Postby -1- » August 12th, 2017, 8:54 pm

Synthesis wrote:The collective [as tempting as it might be], always ends badly. It would be like trying to have several significant others.


I believe you are too narrow-minded. Having a whole bunch of significant others is not always a bad thing.

- You never have to do dishes
- you have several conversation partners about Plato, Kant, Socrates and Spinoza
- you always have someone to bum a cig from
- you never run out of getting unsolicited advice
- you are the envy of the neighbourhood (no matter what commandment they break with it)

Similarly, collective survives. It is the best thing that has happened to mankind yet. It only transforms from one kind into another -- it never ends, and it most certainly never ends badly.
"You can always live without a lover, but you can't love without a liver."
User avatar
-1-
 
Posts: 712 (View: All / In topic)

Joined: December 1st, 2016, 2:23 am

Re: The Immorality of Collective Authority



Become a member for less ads

Already a member? Login
 

Re: The Immorality of Collective Authority

Post Number:#17  Postby Greta » August 12th, 2017, 10:26 pm

-1- wrote:Similarly, collective survives. It is the best thing that has happened to mankind yet. It only transforms from one kind into another -- it never ends, and it most certainly never ends badly.


Natural selection seems to favour large eusocial colonies over other configurations based on experience with ants and humans so far. Each dominates its domain.

So does bacteria. While not sophisticated enough to be eusocial as such, sheer weight of numbers imposes "roles" on individuals in the colony. So you have the ones on the outside fringes, which function as a "protection layer" from outside threats, and also as explorers. Then organisms in the middle of the colony are highly active because they are subject to intense competition pressures. Somewhere inbetween lie the comfortable suburbs, protected by the fringe dwellers but without being caught in the "inner city's" competitive melee. (Note that the same model effectively applies to the habitability of the Milky Way - our solar system lies in the quiet "suburbs").

So big groups join together to make something new again. The colonies that survive best are the ones that utilise or control its anarchic elements. So, highly conformist, cohered groups seem to be selected which, in intelligent critters like humans, results in tension between the group and the individual. Individuals suffer loss of freedom in a colony but gain security in exchange - always the tradeoff of freedom v security, which features in public policy debates everywhere where opinions are allowed.

However, more control and order do not necessarily mean more efficacy, despite what arch conservatives may tell you; nothing is more under control than a rock. So, while chaotic elements in society cannot be allowed to erode and destroy necessary order, they must not be eliminated either, rather utilised and controlled as per above.

Well, something like that :)
User avatar
Greta
Site Admin
 
Posts: 5290 (View: All / In topic)

Joined: December 16th, 2013, 9:05 pm

Re: The Immorality of Collective Authority

Post Number:#18  Postby Alias » August 13th, 2017, 1:17 am

The ants will inherit the earth.
Very possibly before we're through with it.

-- Updated August 13th, 2017, 12:18 am to add the following --

Because they're both more efficient and more adaptable than we are.
Democracy in Truth! Equal votes for fact and fantasy!
Alias
 
Posts: 1971 (View: All / In topic)

Joined: November 26th, 2011, 8:10 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Terry Pratchett

Re: The Immorality of Collective Authority

Post Number:#19  Postby Spectrum » August 13th, 2017, 1:40 am

Synthesis wrote:Collective authority, commonly referred to as, "a group," is/has been the source of nearly all dis-content in society. The reason for this is fairly straight-forward. If you can agree that compassion is that quality that makes us truly human [in the best sense of the word], then this manifestation can only arise in the individual, and never in the group. The group is simply a mechanism to collect power to be used over individuals, and little else.

I find the above sort of views very lacking, shallow and narrow.
As usual the views are always confined to what has happened in the past and the present and it is assumed such thing will repeat into the future.

If we look into the evolution of groups throughout human history, there is a progressive trend which we should exploit and strive towards the ideal of a perfect collective group.
There are many pros and cons with the concept of groups/teams and the collective.
Since human history, humanity has evolved with smaller groups in terms of small tribes in jungles to the United Nations [UN] and the establishment of various international groups to exploit synergy.

Given the current situation and state of the average human's psychology, there are pros but the cons are also very distinct with the strong exploiting the weaker groups. This however should not stop us from abandoning the concept of groups, i.e. collective group of humanity because by reason, ultimately the pros of groups will outweigh its own cons and also the pros of individualism.

The problem with the poor performance of the collective group of humanity is due to the very contrasting deviation from the average of psychometric competences between individuals. If the average IQ of humanity is 100, we could have 20% with IQ of 60 and below.

Say, why our current group-collective is performing so poorly is represented by the following averages of all 7+ billion human beings;

    Average of all humans;
    Intelligence Quotient [IQ] = 100
    Emotional Intelligence [EQ] = 100
    Spiritual intelligence [SQ] = 100
    Wisdom Quotient [WQ] =100
    Moral Quotient [MQ] =100
    Team/group skills [TQ] =100
    Other skills/quotient = 100

It is possible [we need to strive for it] to increase all the above average quotients of all humans gradually by 20%, [by 50 years] 50%, 100% [by 100 years] then 200% and > in the future. If we can achieve the above increase for all the quotients then we will have a very high performance humanity collective and the high Moral Quotient and Wisdom Quotient of the individual will ensure there is perpetual peace and continuous improvement.

Point is when every individual's quotient is increased, e.g. moral quotient, each individual will not feel the society's moral laws are imposed on them but rather it is they themselves and individuals [within a team] are the one that establish the laws for themselves.

Therefore we should strive for towards the ideal perfect collective group and not condemn the concept of groups [as in OP] and do nothing to improve the current situation for the future.
Not-a-theist. Religion is a critical necessity for humanity now, but not the FUTURE.
Spectrum
 
Posts: 4268 (View: All / In topic)

Joined: December 21st, 2010, 1:25 am
Favorite Philosopher: Eclectic -Various

Re: The Immorality of Collective Authority

Post Number:#20  Postby Ranvier » August 13th, 2017, 1:46 am

Synthesis, I'm in consensus that we need to change from the current methodology. However, we haven't evolved yet to an extent that would make what you suggest even remotely possible. Most people are oblivious of others or simply don't care. You can very well observe this in a pedestrian traffic, where majority of people can't anticipate the next three seconds of events outside of their immediate space. If one stands still on a crowded street just to observe others, one may conclude that most of the time people are confused and clueless, running on autopilot. Not much visible logic at all.
User avatar
Ranvier
 
Posts: 538 (View: All / In topic)

Joined: February 12th, 2017, 1:47 pm
Location: USA

Re: The Immorality of Collective Authority

Post Number:#21  Postby Synthesis » August 13th, 2017, 12:23 pm

Alias wrote:
Synthesis wrote:I am a-political so 'right and left' doesn't mean a great deal to me.

Going back to the center means restoring balance. The individual needs to reassert Himself.

The collective [as tempting as it might be], always ends badly. It would be like trying to have several significant others.

That sounds more like a libertarian than a centrist, or a-political.
Not sure what's being balanced.
Not sure what this individual is going to do all by Himself, or what will happen to the functions currently performed by various government agencies.

Apologize for misunderstanding your original intent.

I consider myself a philosophical anarchist, but this is not a very practical position. I do believe in balance in all things, and that Nature will provide such where man cannot.

History appears to suggest that all groups are eventually co-opted by individuals that have specific personal agendas that are generally not so wonderful for the majority. It is quite easy to see this in contemporary society. This has gotten to the point where these groups amassed the power to [essentially] purchase the government and regulatory agencies thus catalyzing the feedback mechanism which hastens the destruction of any system, e.g., the banking system in the U.S. which changed a great number rules/regulations in finance [in the 90's] causing a plethora of negative consequences.

The legal system having become increasing complex over the past decades has made it increasing more difficult for any individual to participate in the economy. But this is what corporations do [increasing complexity moves you further and further from the truth] to eliminate competition thereby manipulating markets and prices. A world dominated by enormous institutions only insures misery for the vast majority and immense wealth and power for the few.

The individual is responsible for all the good that takes place on this planet. Again, only the individual is capable of compassion. 99.999...% of all groups are run by sociopaths only interested in feathering their own nests.
Synthesis
 
Posts: 171 (View: All / In topic)

Joined: July 15th, 2017, 12:54 pm

Re: The Immorality of Collective Authority

Post Number:#22  Postby Alias » August 13th, 2017, 12:38 pm

Okay.

How?
Democracy in Truth! Equal votes for fact and fantasy!
Alias
 
Posts: 1971 (View: All / In topic)

Joined: November 26th, 2011, 8:10 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Terry Pratchett

Re: The Immorality of Collective Authority

Post Number:#23  Postby Ranvier » August 13th, 2017, 12:40 pm

Synthesis
It would be unreasonable to argue against anything that you mentioned. Given what Spectrum and I said, how would you proceed?
User avatar
Ranvier
 
Posts: 538 (View: All / In topic)

Joined: February 12th, 2017, 1:47 pm
Location: USA

Re: The Immorality of Collective Authority

Post Number:#24  Postby Synthesis » August 13th, 2017, 12:42 pm

Greta wrote:
So big groups join together to make something new again. The colonies that survive best are the ones that utilise or control its anarchic elements. So, highly conformist, cohered groups seem to be selected which, in intelligent critters like humans, results in tension between the group and the individual. Individuals suffer loss of freedom in a colony but gain security in exchange - always the tradeoff of freedom v security, which features in public policy debates everywhere where opinions are allowed.

However, more control and order do not necessarily mean more efficacy, despite what arch conservatives may tell you; nothing is more under control than a rock. So, while chaotic elements in society cannot be allowed to erode and destroy necessary order, they must not be eliminated either, rather utilised and controlled as per above.

Greta, so you were the one paying attention is Sociology 202! :)

If you look out the window and assume that the majority of the world has been like it is today, I believe this would be an erroneous view. Americans in the year 2017 [I assume most of us chatting are such] are very weak in almost every measure. If you believe that it is security that people seek in collective society, then you may be correct, but at what cost? This is the difficulty we face today.

The ruling elite have amassed so much wealth and power that they are willing to do everything to keep their golden goose a-laying no matter how dys-functional the system becomes. Playing upon this dys-function, they can really begin to exploit the fear that is always prevalent in weak individuals [people who can do zero for themselves]. This is what we face today, a society of adult children, incredibly ripe to latch onto any douche-bag willing to promise them a life of non-responsibility.

And as far as chaos is concerned, that would probably be defined by most of our countrymen and women as Costco running out of the 128 pack of Cheetos or the electricity going out for more then 5 minutes!

-- Updated August 13th, 2017, 12:46 pm to add the following --

Ranvier wrote:Synthesis
It would be unreasonable to argue against anything that you mentioned. Given what Spectrum and I said, how would you proceed?

The answers are ALWAYS eminently simply.

What problem would you like to solve?

-- Updated August 13th, 2017, 12:54 pm to add the following --

Spectrum wrote:
Synthesis wrote:Collective authority, commonly referred to as, "a group," is/has been the source of nearly all dis-content in society. The reason for this is fairly straight-forward. If you can agree that compassion is that quality that makes us truly human [in the best sense of the word], then this manifestation can only arise in the individual, and never in the group. The group is simply a mechanism to collect power to be used over individuals, and little else.

I find the above sort of views very lacking, shallow and narrow.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------

Therefore we should strive for towards the ideal perfect collective group and not condemn the concept of groups [as in OP] and do nothing to improve the current situation for the future.

Lacking, shallow, AND narrow. That's quite an achievement, don't you think? :)

Spectrum, don't be so hard on me. It's only a friendly conversation [and its only words, after all].

Can you point out a group in history [that had significant power] that actually did anything useful for the majority of people?
Synthesis
 
Posts: 171 (View: All / In topic)

Joined: July 15th, 2017, 12:54 pm

Re: The Immorality of Collective Authority

Post Number:#25  Postby Ranvier » August 13th, 2017, 1:25 pm

Synthesis
What problem would you like to solve?

Many but to start... everyday on my way to work I observe large numbers of homeless in front of the local church in line for food. I've seen homeless all my life but never to such an extant as today, which includes women and the age of homeless now extends to early productive years (20's - 30's). On the subway, even ten years ago, it was a "treat" to listen to a homeless person in creative appeal to compassion of strangers in hopes to collect change. Today, I feel like I'm in a third world country with beggars everywhere I go, asking for food.

I've committed a significant amount of contemplation on this subject myself, without much success in generating a plausible scenario that would satisfy the needs of every individual.

-- Updated August 13th, 2017, 1:40 pm to add the following --

Yesterday, I was stopped by a group of activists from Amnesty International petitioning to stop the "mass incarceration" of individuals for petty crimes. My reply was that that's one way to deal with the homeless problem.

-- Updated August 13th, 2017, 1:49 pm to add the following --

I have only so much to give, so I offer an advise to homeless I spoke with, to head down to Georgia or Florida before "winter" comes.

-- Updated August 13th, 2017, 3:46 pm to add the following --

I find philosophy to be a lovely means of wasting leisure time in hubris showcasing one's intellect but not actual concern for the truth. There are currently 127 posts on "transgender topic", while millions of people in America are homeless and starving...
User avatar
Ranvier
 
Posts: 538 (View: All / In topic)

Joined: February 12th, 2017, 1:47 pm
Location: USA

Re: The Immorality of Collective Authority

Post Number:#26  Postby Synthesis » August 13th, 2017, 4:43 pm

Ranvier wrote:Synthesis
What problem would you like to solve?

Many but to start... everyday on my way to work I observe large numbers of homeless in front of the local church in line for food. I've seen homeless all my life but never to such an extant as today, which includes women and the age of homeless now extends to early productive years (20's - 30's). On the subway, even ten years ago, it was a "treat" to listen to a homeless person in creative appeal to compassion of strangers in hopes to collect change. Today, I feel like I'm in a third world country with beggars everywhere I go, asking for food.

I also live in area replete with homeless people. It is truly a national tragedy.

You have to examine why homelessness exists. Since the primary purpose of housing in the United States is the reproduction of the banking system's capital [mortgages], there are going to be people who are left out of the system [unfortunately, more and more]. I believe that the majority of Americans would agree that the priority of housing should be housing and not the banking system's capital, so you would need to change this paradigm.

In order to accomplish such, you are going to have to separate many of the elite from their free lunches and this is where the problem lies. THIS is where nearly ALL the problems lie.

We live in a society where the vast majority of the elite are making enormous fortunes off of the dys-functional state of this economy. So, if you want to fix most of the problems that plague this country, figure out a way to pull the money-teat away from the elite. Over and above that, there will always be a fringe who are going to be completely dys-functional no matter what. That's just the way it is.
Synthesis
 
Posts: 171 (View: All / In topic)

Joined: July 15th, 2017, 12:54 pm

Re: The Immorality of Collective Authority

Post Number:#27  Postby -1- » August 13th, 2017, 5:01 pm

Synthesis wrote:Can you point out a group in history [that had significant power] that actually did anything useful for the majority of people?

Synthesis, what am I, chopped liver? You answered everyone personally, but me.

Here's another chance.

You asked the above question of spectrum, but please, allow me to answer it:

------------------

It is impossible to NOT point out every group in history because they actually did all kinds of useful things for the majority of the people.

You see, Synthesis, we have always had groups. You simply ignored my point to that, and I believe you did because it was a punch on the nose of your logic. :-) You had claimed that every group ends badly -- I retorted that groups don't end, they simply transform into each other.

There has never been any time in history or in prehistoric humanity when humans would work, live, multiply, survive outside of groups.

Groups are a great strength to people and humanity. Your question, as per the quote, begs a false assumption. Indeed, groups have been beneficial to most members of every society or group.

I therefore turn the question over to you, in this form: Can you point any specific stretch of time in history over a significant area of land, when people lived and existed NOT in a group, a large number of people, and they were powerful and their arrangement was good for every member in that conglomeration of people (conglomeration, not a group, as per your definition).

Please answer that meaning- and truthfully, and we'll cease and desist the bringing down of your view.
"You can always live without a lover, but you can't love without a liver."
User avatar
-1-
 
Posts: 712 (View: All / In topic)

Joined: December 1st, 2016, 2:23 am

Re: The Immorality of Collective Authority

Post Number:#28  Postby Synthesis » August 13th, 2017, 7:21 pm

-1- wrote:
Synthesis wrote:Can you point out a group in history [that had significant power] that actually did anything useful for the majority of people?

Synthesis, what am I, chopped liver? You answered everyone personally, but me.

Here's another chance.

You asked the above question of spectrum, but please, allow me to answer it:

------------------

It is impossible to NOT point out every group in history because they actually did all kinds of useful things for the majority of the people.

You see, Synthesis, we have always had groups. You simply ignored my point to that, and I believe you did because it was a punch on the nose of your logic. :-) You had claimed that every group ends badly -- I retorted that groups don't end, they simply transform into each other.

There has never been any time in history or in prehistoric humanity when humans would work, live, multiply, survive outside of groups.

Groups are a great strength to people and humanity. Your question, as per the quote, begs a false assumption. Indeed, groups have been beneficial to most members of every society or group.

I therefore turn the question over to you, in this form: Can you point any specific stretch of time in history over a significant area of land, when people lived and existed NOT in a group, a large number of people, and they were powerful and their arrangement was good for every member in that conglomeration of people (conglomeration, not a group, as per your definition).

Please answer that meaning- and truthfully, and we'll cease and desist the bringing down of your view.

1000 pardons, I did not mean ignore you.

I understand that people seem to prefer groups for all kinds of reasons, but people need to look at the bad as well as the good. Personally, I can do without the so-called good [when it comes to groups], but the bad can not be ignored. It is the cause of nearly every difficulty man faces. Therefore, the first task would be in facing the truth of the matter by acknowledging the problems groups cause. This is never done because it is the same dynamic which creates the tremendous wealth streams that comfort the elite. Do you believe these folks care if the rest has to put up with [fill in the blank]?

This is what I am saying, simply look at what is going on and then attempt to reel in the sociopaths.

As far as your question about people living in groups, etc., I would ask you why it is that the sheeple prefer all kinds of things that they do? I didn't sign up to be part of this asylum, I am not sure about you!
Synthesis
 
Posts: 171 (View: All / In topic)

Joined: July 15th, 2017, 12:54 pm

Re: The Immorality of Collective Authority

Post Number:#29  Postby Ranvier » August 14th, 2017, 3:40 am

Synthesis wrote:We live in a society where the vast majority of the elite are making enormous fortunes off of the dys-functional state of this economy. So, if you want to fix most of the problems that plague this country, figure out a way to pull the money-teat away from the elite. Over and above that, there will always be a fringe who are going to be completely dys-functional no matter what. That's just the way it is.


As I mentioned before, my mind is often preoccupied by such contemplation. I can't envision though anything significant to be done without a conscious group effort to change how the society is shaped. There are several possibilities that could be explored but that is too complex for any one person to predict which course of action would be best option to proceed. Any such implementation would also require a voluntary participation of free individuals but with a common cause that could only gain favor with others through example of success.

As a human being, I also detest observed dehumanization of members of my species as roaming "animals" among the "civilized". It's as if watching divergent lower species on a path to extinction, Neanderthals of the modern age as if were. Only that they're not Neanderthals but humans subjected to prolonged systemic dysfunction that forced them to homelessness in life below human dignity level. Best not said but imagined what deeds such people might had been destined to engage, in crisis for existential survival.
User avatar
Ranvier
 
Posts: 538 (View: All / In topic)

Joined: February 12th, 2017, 1:47 pm
Location: USA

Re: The Immorality of Collective Authority

Post Number:#30  Postby Synthesis » August 14th, 2017, 12:35 pm

Ranvier wrote:
Synthesis wrote:We live in a society where the vast majority of the elite are making enormous fortunes off of the dys-functional state of this economy. So, if you want to fix most of the problems that plague this country, figure out a way to pull the money-teat away from the elite. Over and above that, there will always be a fringe who are going to be completely dys-functional no matter what. That's just the way it is.


As I mentioned before, my mind is often preoccupied by such contemplation. I can't envision though anything significant to be done without a conscious group effort to change how the society is shaped. There are several possibilities that could be explored but that is too complex for any one person to predict which course of action would be best option to proceed. Any such implementation would also require a voluntary participation of free individuals but with a common cause that could only gain favor with others through example of success.

As a human being, I also detest observed dehumanization of members of my species as roaming "animals" among the "civilized". It's as if watching divergent lower species on a path to extinction, Neanderthals of the modern age as if were. Only that they're not Neanderthals but humans subjected to prolonged systemic dysfunction that forced them to homelessness in life below human dignity level. Best not said but imagined what deeds such people might had been destined to engage, in crisis for existential survival.

WAY too much thinking. :) As it has been spoken through the millenia, we can never know why, only what [if we are clear]. If you spend a great deal of your energy trying to figure it out, you will have little left to actually be present and live. Homo sapiens has always been a pretty bizarre species, so I wouldn't look for any changes any time soon.

As there is an equal amount of good and bad in EVERYTHING, try to enjoy the good and use your energy to help the less fortunate. After all, what else can we do?
Synthesis
 
Posts: 171 (View: All / In topic)

Joined: July 15th, 2017, 12:54 pm

PreviousNext

Return to Ethics and Morality

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

Philosophy Trophies

Most Active Members
by posts made in lasts 30 days

Avatar Member Name Recent Posts
Greta 162
Fooloso4 116
Renee 107
Ormond 97
Felix 90

Last updated January 6, 2017, 6:28 pm EST

Most Active Book of the Month Participants
by book of the month posts

Avatar Member Name BOTM Posts
Scott 147
Spectrum 23
Belinda 23
whitetrshsoldier 20
Josefina1110 19
Last updated January 6, 2017, 6:28 pm EST