Philosophy Discussion Forums

Alec Smart wrote:

LuckyR wrote: I think a big problem would be the overabundance of chiefs and the lack of any indians.

I think you would find that the role of chief would already have been (self) allocated.

So in which philosophy forum cathedral are you going to crown yourself?

Jklint wrote: cathedral

Unless by the time we went on this "galactic space cruise" we had evolved into a different sort of species than we are today I think Greta's Lord of the Flies scenario is the most likely. Unless of course I were in charge with dictatorial authority to enforce universal benevolence. In which case it would be a pretty cool set up.

Enforced benelovence, sounds great, how does it work?

If you fail to act for the good of the many then you are imprisoned or killed. Natural selection then results in more selfless people who will be inclined to support your suffering or execution should you behave selfishly. I understand that the name for this kind of governance is "China"

Greta wrote:If you fail to act for the good of the many then you are imprisoned or killed. Natural selection then results in more selfless people who will be inclined to support your suffering or execution should you behave selfishly. I understand that the name for this kind of governance is "China"

Curious application of the word benevolence...

LuckyR wrote:Enforced benelovence, sounds great, how does it work?

It was said tongue in cheek, Lucky, just to make the point that you will never get absolute agreement on how we should live and, much worse, people have a tendency to divide into opposing groups on the issue. The best we can hope for is an agreement to live under what is democratically decided is the desire of the majority.

LuckyR wrote:Curious application of the word benevolence...

That's just hardline utilitarianism, isn't it? The few suffer for the betterment of the many, which always returns us to the trolley problem. While my previous post was a play on the apparent paradox, when we think of the trolley problem it could be said that you pulled the lever out of benevolence.

Repeating from the OP (which was the feeble intention of the thread)

Elder wrote:Now imagine: we gather together in a big circle and try to figure out what to do next, how to organize ourselves.

Any suggestion?

I loved the four-wheel drive bicycle idea. Very practical.

Not its use to reinvent our insane asylum of course.

Can you imagine standing there, in that circle? Would you have any suggestions?

Would you initiate a discussion on organization, decision-making, use of available resources, sharing the results of community-produced accomplishments?

I can't imagine that you would just stand there, letting others decide for you, without at least making some suggestions?

'Philosophers' ought to have some ideas!

Would you have a suggestion?

LuckyR wrote:

Greta wrote:If you fail to act for the good of the many then you are imprisoned or killed. Natural selection then results in more selfless people who will be inclined to support your suffering or execution should you behave selfishly. I understand that the name for this kind of governance is "China"

Curious application of the word benevolence...

It looks like more of a non application of the word benevolence, to me. I can't find it, you'll have to give me a clue to it's whereabouts.

[…]

Alec Smart wrote:

LuckyR wrote: I think a big problem would be the overabundance of chiefs and the lack of any Indians.

I think you would find that the role of chief would already have been (self) allocated.

But how long could such a role be sustained, in the face of a) persistent derision and disobedience b) physical violence?

We'd probably all sit about talking about the philosophical ramifications of our plight while slowly dying of dehydration

Or more realistically we'd be killed by the natural fauna as we would have no idea what was safe to consume and by the time we had figured such basics out most of us may well be dead. Or we'd be consumed by the planets predators before we even started trying the vegetation.

But if we survived that initially then i reckon we'd do best to follow the commune/ hunter gatherer society norms.

Johnb wrote:But if we survived that initially then i reckon we'd do best to follow the commune/ hunter gatherer society norms.

For me it would depend on how big the big violent guy was, I'm getting old I'm not even as quick as I was.

Depending on how many of us there were I might suggest we split up. I've read in several places that much more than 120 humans are incapable of sustaining a societal group for long so best to divide before the arguments start.

Mark1955 wrote:I've read in several places that much more than 120 humans are incapable of sustaining a societal group for long so best to divide before the arguments start.

I reckon I could get a group of much less than 120 arguing to the point of societal breakdown in no time at all. I haven't got many talents but I'm pretty good at that sort of thing.

Elder:

Now imagine: we gather together in a big circle and try to figure out what to do next, how to organize ourselves. I imagine that the personalities and temperaments of the particular individuals would be a primary factor.

It seems likely that while some might think that gathering in a big circle trying to figure out what to do next makes sense, others will go out to secure food and shelter. Some might go out alone and others in small groups. Some might be concerned with what they need to do for themselves and others with what they can do for the group. It may be that separate groups form with varying degrees of cooperation within and between them.

No doubt some will think that organization should be the top priority and this might well lead to endless attempts to organize, including the organization of organizations. And no doubt this will be perpetuated by various social ideologies and personal agendas.

My suggestion would be to identify members who possess the practical skills necessary for survival and allow them to take the lead in determining how to meet those needs. Most issues should be addressed on an ad hoc basis, allowing for long term solutions to develop over time.

When I was a freshman in college many years ago I took a sociology course on utopianism taught by a popular ideological professor. His students were very excited about creating the ideal community free of all individual constraints where everyone worked together for the common good. When I expressed my doubts, pointing out that it seemed unrealistic that people who did not even bother to flush the toilet in the dorm bathrooms would now act with social responsibility and concern for others, some of these students who professed tolerance and loving understanding were ready to lynch me. After class a couple of them, having realized their hypocrisy, apologized for the way they reacted, but for the rest of the semester the class continued to build a dream world they wanted to live, without being aware of just how unsuited they were for such a world.

We might imagine a big circle of rational beings creating a social order, but the first mistake is assuming that we are such rational beings who are capable of creating and living in such a world. The best we can do is structure an order with checks and balances on the tyranny we would so readily impose on ourselves and others.