The March Philosophy Book of the Month is Final Notice by Van Fleisher. Discuss Final Notice now.

The April Philosophy Book of the Month is The Unbound Soul by Richard L. Haight. Discuss The Unbound Soul Now

The May Philosophy Book of the Month is Misreading Judas by Robert Wahler.

Is Social Order Important?

Discuss morality and ethics in this message board.
Featured Article: Philosophical Analysis of Abortion, The Right to Life, and Murder
Belindi
Moderator
Posts: 1942
Joined: September 11th, 2016, 2:11 pm

Re: Is Social Order Important?

Post by Belindi » March 15th, 2019, 6:37 pm

Alias wrote:
What lifestyle, and what value-system, has already been adopted by the persons/communities most likely to make it through the next half century?
I'm afraid that liberal systems are least likely to survive any severe deprivations. A feudal community with a strong military class is the most likely to survive. I think that GEMorton is probably right about the numerical strength of the community because any community benefits from a diverse skill base. Primogeniture will not be a strong choice, and elites would be elected by a committee of elite elders, however the elders and others would respect and value merit in individuals from the serf or slave class and would privilege those individuals for the good of the society.

Alias
Posts: 2653
Joined: November 26th, 2011, 8:10 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Terry Pratchett

Re: Is Social Order Important?

Post by Alias » March 15th, 2019, 7:33 pm

Belindi wrote:
March 15th, 2019, 6:37 pm
[What lifestyle, and what value-system, has already been adopted by the persons/communities most likely to make it through the next half century?]

I'm afraid that liberal systems are least likely to survive any severe deprivations. A feudal community with a strong military class is the most likely to survive.
Why? Soldiers are expensive all the time, but useful only in case of external attack. What you need is people willing to work, and also able to fight if necessary. This is what we need to borrow from Native tribal organization of communities.
I think that GEMorton is probably right about the numerical strength of the community because any community benefits from a diverse skill base.
That depends on how many the energy-source and food production can support. A lot of skills that are valued by urban industrial society will be obsolete: what you need is physically fit, practical, multi-faceted individuals.
Primogeniture will not be a strong choice, and elites would be elected by a committee of elite elders, however the elders and others would respect and value merit in individuals from the serf or slave class
I don't see how birth-order is a factor. There are very few communities in the world today where that matters. So, after the break-down of present large organizations, and the structure of wealth and power as we have known it, it's unlikely to be a consideration in any new ones. What eventually evolves, we don't know.
I'll tell you one thing, though: If you start with classes, especially serf and slave classes, you're doomed from the get-go. All that's going to cause is internal conflict. (See history of United States)

The communities that will survive are
- georgraphically lucky: far enough north not to burn up, far enough inland not to be engulfed; on high, fertile ground with fresh water source, not in the path or hurricanes, tornadoes or mudslides; most of the infrastructure remains intact; most of the population remains uninjured.
- have a stable population that's been in situ for a decade or more; not many transients
- were previously prosperous enough to have a decent school, hospital, fire-department; tradesmen and professionals, high level of education
- reasonably prepared: have started installing alternate energies, retrofitting, hydroponics and forest farming, etc.
- responsive: have a culture of co-operation and communication; openness to innovation and change
- energetic, optimistic and cheerful

Belindi
Moderator
Posts: 1942
Joined: September 11th, 2016, 2:11 pm

Re: Is Social Order Important?

Post by Belindi » March 16th, 2019, 4:22 am

Alias, there has always been an elite class in all human societies. Elite classes have appeared from among the strong in conflict, greed, and oppression. What we would want is not what we will get after the apocalypse.

Your lucky community on high fertile ground, and so on will be attacked by less fortunate and desperate communities and this is why soldiers will be worth paying for if at all possible.The richer community might employ mercenaries from the less able communities. Women will again be valued for fertility and if there are not enough fertile women they will be captured from weaker communities. As I said, what we would like is not what we will get.

Our kindly morality emerged from the Axial Age and just managed to survive despite the politicalisation of the religions who for historical reasons were charged with carrying the message.Axial Age morality needed and needs a certain degree of affluence to survive. The more there is poverty and deprivation the more its socialist and universalist message is pie in the sky; Marx thought it was possible and then communism deteriorated into Stalinism.

No, our best hope is not for little Utopias after the apocalypse, but the just- in- time arising of leaders or inspirers like Greta Thunberg before it happens.

Alias
Posts: 2653
Joined: November 26th, 2011, 8:10 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Terry Pratchett

Re: Is Social Order Important?

Post by Alias » March 16th, 2019, 10:34 am

Belindi wrote:
March 16th, 2019, 4:22 am
Alias, there has always been an elite class in all human societies.
In written history, in the dominant cultures. You don't hear about the thousands of egalitarian bands and tribes these empires exterminated, assimilated or enslaved.
What we would want is not what we will get after the apocalypse.
In that case, what's the point of making all the effort to preserve a human society?
Just as well i won't be here.

GE Morton
Posts: 577
Joined: February 1st, 2017, 1:06 am

Re: Is Social Order Important?

Post by GE Morton » March 16th, 2019, 11:46 am

Alias wrote:
March 16th, 2019, 10:34 am

You don't hear about the thousands of egalitarian bands and tribes these empires exterminated, assimilated or enslaved.
Then how did you hear about them?

No human societies, or any other primate communities, have ever been egalitarian, because not all individuals are equal, in size, strength, intelligence, talents, health, motivations, ambition, for in any other factor relevant to thriving and fecundity.

Alias
Posts: 2653
Joined: November 26th, 2011, 8:10 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Terry Pratchett

Re: Is Social Order Important?

Post by Alias » March 16th, 2019, 1:30 pm

GE Morton wrote:
March 16th, 2019, 11:46 am
Then how did you hear about them?
Survivors talk. Anthropologists dig up middens. A few primitives even got away into the 20th century.
No human societies, or any other primate communities, have ever been egalitarian
How did you hear about that?
because not all individuals are equal, in size, strength, intelligence, talents, health, motivations, ambition, for in any other factor relevant to thriving and fecundity.
Egalitarian is a term of social organization, wherein a group is divided into layers of privilege, but have approximately equal say in the operations of the collective. It is not a description of individuals. It does not mean that an individual can't attain more status than another, but that the status is earned, rather than inherited.
Nor does it mean similarity, as right-wingers invariable pretend, because communal life isn't about competition, as people closer to some arbitrary finish-line in some artificial competition invariably pretend. Old people lose vigour but gain experience; children are a liability but full of potential; small stature is an advantage in some situations while bulk is an advantage in others; a woman with few children may have more time to devote to her craft; a man who doesn't paddle well may still be good at building canoes. Ambition? To what? Survival is a pretty good motivator. A group thrives when all its members contribute the best of their capability - happily and willingly.
Coercion is inefficient and the bloodshed in which it always ends is costly. This much we have learned from history. Or should have but didn't.
That is why we are where we are how we are. Too crazy to live.

Alias
Posts: 2653
Joined: November 26th, 2011, 8:10 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Terry Pratchett

Re: Is Social Order Important?

Post by Alias » March 16th, 2019, 1:33 pm

Another egregious mistake!
wherein a group is not divided into layers of privilege
Obviously an inferior specimen, me.

GE Morton
Posts: 577
Joined: February 1st, 2017, 1:06 am

Re: Is Social Order Important?

Post by GE Morton » March 16th, 2019, 2:29 pm

Alias wrote:
March 16th, 2019, 1:30 pm
No human societies, or any other primate communities, have ever been egalitarian
How did you hear about that?
By observation of any existing society, civilized or primitive. You can't, BTW, determine the degree of equality in extinct societies by examining their middens.
Egalitarian is a term of social organization, wherein a group is [not] divided into layers of privilege, but have approximately equal say in the operations of the collective.
As I said, there is and never has been such a society --- for the reason you yourself give below:
It does not mean that an individual can't attain more status than another, but that the status is earned, rather than inherited.
Persons with more status inevitably have "more say" in any group than those with lower status. Every group will self-organize into leaders and followers, gurus and sycophants, queen bees and worker bees.

And the fact that an advantage is earned makes no difference to contemporary lefty egalitarians. They advocate material equality, and dismiss earned status and "privileges" as due to "exploitation" or natural advantages, which they deem "unfair" (e.g., Rawls).
Nor does it mean similarity, as right-wingers invariable pretend, because communal life isn't about competition, as people closer to some arbitrary finish-line in some artificial competition invariably pretend. Old people lose vigour but gain experience; children are a liability but full of potential; small stature is an advantage in some situations while bulk is an advantage in others; a woman with few children may have more time to devote to her craft; a man who doesn't paddle well may still be good at building canoes.
That is true of communal life. But modern societies are not communes, and their members are not committed to any "good of the whole" (because there isn't one).
A group thrives when all its members contribute the best of their capability - happily and willingly.
A group thrives when most of its members thrive. Most members thrive when they are maximally free to pursue their individual welfare while not reducing anyone else's.
Coercion is inefficient and the bloodshed in which it always ends is costly.
Yet coercion is ardently advocated by the Left, and gleefully practiced when it holds power.

Alias
Posts: 2653
Joined: November 26th, 2011, 8:10 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Terry Pratchett

Re: Is Social Order Important?

Post by Alias » March 16th, 2019, 3:27 pm

Okay, you're all doomed.
Those who can induce you to believe absurdities can induce you to commit atrocities. - Voltaire

Alias
Posts: 2653
Joined: November 26th, 2011, 8:10 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Terry Pratchett

Re: Is Social Order Important?

Post by Alias » March 16th, 2019, 3:29 pm

GE Morton wrote:
March 16th, 2019, 2:29 pm
A group thrives when most of its members thrive. Most members thrive when they are maximally free to pursue their individual welfare while not reducing anyone else's.
ie egalitarian
Those who can induce you to believe absurdities can induce you to commit atrocities. - Voltaire

Belindi
Moderator
Posts: 1942
Joined: September 11th, 2016, 2:11 pm

Re: Is Social Order Important?

Post by Belindi » March 16th, 2019, 3:34 pm

An elite individual has ascribed or achieved status. Lefties tend to want status of the elite group members to be achieved so that selection for the elite group is personal merit. I presume that when smallish groups get together for mutual aid the individuals who merit leadership are the most able in the specific circumstances. The most able will obviously not be bullies who happen to have the best weapons so to get all the best stuff for themselves. The most able will be individuals who act in terms of utilitarianism.

Alias
Posts: 2653
Joined: November 26th, 2011, 8:10 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Terry Pratchett

Re: Is Social Order Important?

Post by Alias » March 16th, 2019, 3:37 pm

So, if that can't happen in any human society, past, modern or post-apocalyptic, then no human society can thrive.
And if the remnants take this notion from the present dysfunctional world-order into the very difficult aftermath, that no collective endeavour can ever be effective, then it can't, and they'll all kill one another off.
Hey, more food for the ants! They're the likeliest inheritors, and their social order has worked for 90,000,000 years.

User avatar
Teralek
Posts: 857
Joined: March 16th, 2012, 7:20 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Bertrand Russell
Location: Edinburgh
Contact:

Re: Is Social Order Important?

Post by Teralek » March 19th, 2019, 6:55 pm

Of course some kind of order is important, otherwise we live no different than the other animals in the jungle. And even them live under a order of sorts. The Darwinian order.

Fortunately we humans can choose the order we want to live in, or so we think. To certain extent this is true if we use reason and rationality instead of emotions and instinct.

But I think your question is more in the sense of "what order is the best" for Mankind and Womankind.

Whenever a question involves a qualification such as on this one, of what is best, the first tool I use to answer it is ethics. Ethics are priority above all other consideration. Personally I tend to think as a utilitarian of sorts when I try to answer things that should apply to society as a whole, and have a Kantian approach when I try to solve a personal ethical problem.

The best world order from a utilitarian point of view is one that maximises well-being and minimises suffering for the greatest number of people. Clearly this is the best of times on that regard. There never was such a high percentage of people with such high well-being and suffering has never been so low. That's the cup half full.

However given the world's affluence, productivity and imbalances, clearly we could all live in a much better world only if resources were better allocated. That's the cup half empty.

I don't pretend to know all the answers, but I have some very concrete ideas and modes of engagement on how to improve the world. They basically entail capitalising on our strengths which are the free markets, democracy, freedom and the scientific method but also reforming the ownership of the commons, progressively opening borders, institute a supra national world constitution with legal powers to regulate planetary threats such as global warming, artificially intelligent military robots, nuclear weapons, etc. Promote solidarity in the world and fight the human tendency to tribalism which is perhaps the greatest threat to our long term survival on the planet.
Three passions, simple but overwhelmingly strong, have governed my life: the longing for love, the search for knowledge, and unbearable pity for the suffering of mankind. ~Bertrand Russell

GE Morton
Posts: 577
Joined: February 1st, 2017, 1:06 am

Re: Is Social Order Important?

Post by GE Morton » March 19th, 2019, 11:23 pm

Alias wrote:
March 16th, 2019, 3:29 pm
GE Morton wrote:
March 16th, 2019, 2:29 pm
A group thrives when most of its members thrive. Most members thrive when they are maximally free to pursue their individual welfare while not reducing anyone else's.
ie egalitarian
No. No free society will be materially egalitarian, simply because some people have more of the talents, interests, ambition, and lucky breaks that enable them to create more wealth than others.

Alias
Posts: 2653
Joined: November 26th, 2011, 8:10 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Terry Pratchett

Re: Is Social Order Important?

Post by Alias » March 21st, 2019, 8:38 pm

GE Morton wrote:
March 19th, 2019, 11:23 pm
No. No free society will be materially egalitarian,
Who said materially equal? Egalitarian means that nobody has more rights than anyone else.
But it doesn't matter, because you and Belindi have convinced me that humans are incapable of maintaining any social order wherein nobody is entitled to infringe on other people's freedom. Therefore, they are doomed by their own intransigence to keep repeating the same self-destructive pattern.
Tyasō bha'ē.

Post Reply