In your opinion, what is the highest value a society should strive towards?

[wasteofo2]

What do you think the most important value for a society to strive towards is, and why? Furthermore, how should an ideal society strive towards this goal?

I'm putting up a poll, but I'm going to definitely end up leaving out some good options.

Right now I'm thinking Liberty would be the highest goal, but my mind will probabally change a few times before this thread dies.

 

[Skyhunter]

I chose enlightenment, since most other higher values are a byproduct of enlightenment.

 

[X-43D]

As much freedom and equality as possible.

 

[Smurf]

Yeah I'm going to go with Skyhunter. Everything else on that list, except utilitarianism and supremacy, is a byproduct of enlightenment.

And I don't want Utilitarianism and supremacy anyways, so that works.

 

[Gokul43201]

Waste : unless you provide definitions for each of those terms, different people might posibly interpret them differently. Does "equality" refer to 'equal status' (financial, etc.) or 'equal opportunity' ? And "security" is...'security against what?'

 

[wasteofo2]

Waste : unless you provide definitions for each of those terms, different people might posibly interpret them differently. Does "equality" refer to 'equal status' (financial, etc.) or 'equal opportunity' ? And "security" is...'security against what?'

That was kind of the point. People define them however they will, and under their own definitions talk about why they chose their particular value. You can't come up with any definition for those things that everyone will agree to, so let people use them as comes most naturally to them, and elaborate upon what exactly their definition constitutes, and why it's the best one out there.

I'll get into my thing on Liberty a bit later, but it's nearly 3:00, and that's quite a bit too late (or early) to get into anything in detail and make any sense.

 

[loseyourname]

I chose 'enlightenment.' Not that I think the others aren't lofty goals, but intellectual achievement is most important to me personally. I don't care about being equal with people. Prosperity is nice, but I've lived in what is considered 'poverty' for the US most of my life and I've really never found it that bad. Security, peace, and protection of life are certainly good things, but I don't think they're 'higher' ideals - they're more of the fundamentals you need just to have a society in the first place. I've always been big on liberty, but I also don't think it's quite as 'high' an ideal as intellectual achievement. Realistically, prosperity is pretty much what the average society aims for, but I personally feel that, as long as you're healthy and have adequate food and shelter, there's not much need for a whole lot else. Thankfully, there are no wrong answers here.

 

[Polly]

I agreed with Skewhunter and Losername! What does that say about me!

 

[pattylou]

Enlightenment sounds way too new-agey. I might have voted for education, but enlightenment sounded like attaining nirvana or something, so I skipped it.

Equality, I think, ensures a lot of the other concerns. But it's way to early for me to be articulate about it.

It would be interesting if all the people who choose equality aren't white males. So far, of the nine who have chosen enlightenment, the ones I know are white males.

But then, I think I'm the first female to vote.

Wow, this is really incoherent. LOL. Sorry about that.

 

[alexandra]

While I agree with what previous posters have written about enlightenment and this (or rather, knowledge and understanding) is what I personally value the most, I voted for equality because without this I do not think the search for enlightenment/knowledge is possible. By 'equality' I mean equal opportunity - in a *real* sense of equal: no unfair advantages due to the accident of being born into wealth.

If I could have voted for two values, I would also have voted for liberty. But I guess by my definition of equality, liberty is implied.

 

[Anttech]

Peace.. Everything else follows.

Enlightment is nice, but I think peace is more nobel, once the world and Mankind is at peace with its self, common enlightment will prevail..

 

[Skyhunter]

Peace.. Everything else follows.

Enlightment is nice, but I think peace is more nobel, once the world and Mankind is at peace with its self, common enlightment will prevail..

Good point. Hard to seek enlightenment in the middle of a war. Not impossible though.

Krishna, Buddha and Mahavira were warriors or of the warrior caste.

Knowledge + wisdom + humility = enlightenment IMO.

 

[Zlex]

I would have to vote for liberty.
When the questions, "Why are we here?" and "What should we do now?" are raised in any instance of a society holding power, which all mobs do by their nature, it is one thing when those questions are raised in the context of the local example of a society and its rightful sphere of influence, and it is another thing when those questions are raised in the context of a non-existing monolithic Society. Are the people free to disagree? To disassociate? To the degree they are, the danger is non-existing; as here, on this polite board.

Asking such questions allows society to advance. The implication is meant to be a good one, that life for all the atoms sometimes improves as the result of collective actions. Yet, that is only sometimes true, not automatically true, based simply on the asking of the questions.

I think it can be argued that societies are allowed to advance and do advance in an environment in which the atoms collectively agree to defend each other from the overwhelming power of every other, America being an example of that concept. Even in its imperfect 3/4 start American limited constitutional republican democracy is all about limiting the power of the mob, and is cornerstoned on an individual bill of rights.

It's just that, we atoms are atoms of imperfect naked sweaty apes, and the urge to access the irresistable power of the mob/we is often too much to resist. Imagine all the good 'we' could do, if only 'we' could harness the power of the entire mob, and direct it?

We do that, even in the context of an American experiment; the War in Iraq is an example, and there are atoms in some indirect sense 'supporting' that War that do not with every fibre of their being wish to support that War at all. Yet, this is an inevitability, as on every course of action or inaction, it is not possible to simultaneously both act and to not act. Under such circumstances, it is best to permit a fracturing of 'society' into societies that support the action, and societies that do not, and do the best we can to not trounce on each other.

 

[loseyourname]

It would be interesting if all the people who choose equality aren't white males. So far, of the nine who have chosen enlightenment, the ones I know are white males.

What exactly constitutes a 'white' male? I'm largely Cherokee and Hispanic.

 

[pattylou]

I figured you were of European descent, based on your picture. Sorry.

I wasn't really awake when I wrote that anyway, I meant to stay focused on the type of people that pick "equality" but I somehow drifted to the majority of people who picked another category ("enlightenment").

IOW, it would be interesting to see if the people that pick "equality" tend to be from groups that are dicriminated against. Period.

 

[Anttech]

It would be interesting if all the people who choose equality aren't white males.

I figured you were of European descent, based on your picture. Sorry.

What is a "white" male of European descent anyway?

Anglo saxon?
Germanic?
Latin?
Eastern?
Asia Minor?
Balkan?
Nordic?
Agean?

[edit] And arent Hispanics not also (in most cases) European decent, and hence "White" ref: spainish/portugese conquests of S.America[/edit]

 

[ron damon]

Progress. Beauty. Duty.

 

[Smasherman]

I chose enlightenment, as I've stated before. I can think of no higher ideal to strive for (though I suppose achieving enlightenment would make such an ideal apparent).

Many of those options could be brought about under a totally controlled populace. (just so you know)

 

[loseyourname]

I figured you were of European descent, based on your picture. Sorry.

You think that's me? That's Ian Curtis.

I wasn't really awake when I wrote that anyway, I meant to stay focused on the type of people that pick "equality" but I somehow drifted to the majority of people who picked another category ("enlightenment").
IOW, it would be interesting to see if the people that pick "equality" tend to be from groups that are dicriminated against. Period.

It's funny, but I honestly hadn't even considered that kind of equality. I was thinking more along the lines of economic equality. Since I've been fairly poor my whole life and it's never been a very big deal, economic equality has never seemed all that important to me. It might be nice to have money, but I'm a lot happier than many people who do.

I see your point, although I would still argue that equality is more of a fundamental thing to strive for than a high ideal. Once everybody is treated and viewed equally, there's still a heck of a lot more that a society can do to better itself.

 

[pattylou]

What is a "white" male of European descent anyway?

Anglo saxon?
Germanic?
Latin?
Eastern?
Asia Minor?
Balkan?
Nordic?
Agean?

[edit] And arent Hispanics not also (in most cases) European decent, and hence "White" ref: spainish/portugese conquests of S.America[/edit]

Well, there is no "race" and as a geneticist I'd even be hard pressed to draw strict lines for "species" or even "life/nonlife."

Still, as a generalisation, we can usually agree that Alexandra and myself are not white males. There are other groups such as ________________ (fill in the blank) that would also have more experience with being discriminated against than "white males."

If it is experience with a sort of mistreatment that raises one's valuing of the ideal, then it stands to reason that minorities may be more likely to value equality, just as those who have been subject to mortal peril may value preservation of life, those who live in a violent society may value peace, and so on.

It is also possible that the reverse would hold. That is, perhaps having faced mortal peril (for example) will give people an acceptance of the impermanence of life, and cause them to value something besides preservation of life, more. Etc.

I hope more people take the poll.

 

[pattylou]

Of the 19 people who have taken the poll, I am aware of only two that are women. The others that I know, are men. and some I don't know a gender.

Both of us women voted for equality, and no men have, as yet.

It's interesting to me.

 

[Smurf]

Stop trying to make yourself out to be the victim, you know the entire basis for much of my philosophy is equality. And I'm a white male. Blond and blue eyed too, wooOoo!

 

[James R]

I chose "equality", by which I mean primarily equality of opportunity.

 

[Smurf]

There you go, a male of unknown ethnicity (statistics show he's probably white).

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

I chose liberty.

I think that the highest concern for any society should be to enable all of it's citizens to pursue what they wish. I believe that "liberty" typifies "equal opportunity" with a stress on the "opportunity" part. I don't understand the importence people stress in being "equal". I simply want the freedom and opportunity to be and do what I want and what will make my life meaningful to me irrespective of what I eventually achieve compared to others.

IOW, it would be interesting to see if the people that pick "equality" tend to be from groups that are dicriminated against. Period.

I think all "groups" tend to be discriminated against in one fashion or another depending on location and situation.
I'm a white male and have been descriminated against quite often. Even though in some other places and situations I may not have been discriminated against I have still been passed over for jobs unfairly, accused of wrongs unfairly, called derogitory names, ect. all based on my sex and the colour of my skin.

 

[pattylou]

LOL... Well, I have all sorts of vague, half formed insults to throw around in good fun, using words like 'honky' and 'arian' ...

I feel so victimized here! Though I'll take your responses as an indication that you think there's something to the argument, ie : that it is understandable that women claim they are discriminated against (particularly since we *are.*)

LOL.

James R. : Make my day and tell me that you are black or some other non-white "race." Go on.

 

[Skyhunter]

LOL... Well, I have all sorts of vague, half formed insults to throw around in good fun, using words like 'honky' and 'arian' ...
I feel so victimized here! Though I'll take your responses as an indication that you think there's something to the argument, ie : that it is understandable that women claim they are discriminated against (particularly since we *are.*)
LOL.
James R. : Make my day and tell me that you are black or some other non-white "race." Go on.

I am not white. I am a very light shade of pink.

 

[Archon]

I'm a half-white half-black half-asian half-hispanic transsexual with the head of a lion and the legs of a goat. Also, I was born of a jackal and raised by wolves. My father smelt of elderberries.

I voted for enlightenment.

Edit: Actually white male. Sorry to disappoint you, ladies.

 

[Smurf]

it is understandable that women claim they are discriminated against (particularly since we *are.*)

Tsk tsk, ladies. Begging the question as always I see. (thats not all you beg for, either)

 

[Archon]

Wow. This thread has recently gone down the drain, so to speak.

I voted for enlightenment, and I think it's the only option that really makes sense, not necessarily because all of these other things would follow from enlightenment. Rather, I chose enlightenment because only when we're enlightened (whatever that means) can we understand what is best for us. For all we know (unenlightened as we are), things like liberty are harmful in the long run. Thus, it seems to me that either with enlightenment will come all the other "good" things mentioned above, or different "good" things which we don't yet understand as being good.

I am tired. I shall write my UC essays now. Two days to go until my application is due. Not off topic: I am in fact 1) making an excuse for my likely incoherent rambling above and 2) demonstrating my unenlightenedness, as evidenced by the fact that I have two days to finish my application, and as many essays to write before that is accomplished. Procrastination is not enlightened.

 

[sameandnot]

is not enlightenment that actualization of liberty, equality, security and properity? actually it it none othe these. it is infinitely more! based on my last post, on a "consciousness thread" my poll answer is enlightenment. but what does that mean?? rather, i would say, the self-actualization of being... or better yet, Self-realization! without knowing what the self is, how can we depend on any knowledge that is built upon it. the self is the most immediate object of knowledge and is the trunk of the knowledge tree. face it, if i believed that, and acted as though, i were something that i truly am not, my body of knowledge would be much askewed by that very belief/identification. the idea of the self is the ground upon which all knowledge claims are constructed. the idea of what the world is depends entirely upon what i think that i am.

 

[sameandnot]

not only can we not depend on the consequent body of knowledge, but we can put no faith in the perceptions that we have, as a result of false self-Knowledge! surely this knowledge, is true Knowledge.

 

[Smurf]

Procrastination is not enlightened.

How do you know? You're not enlightened. I'll have you know buddha was quite the procrastinator. Maybe the entire universe revolves around procrastination!

 

[Smasherman]

Since this has fallen to equality, I'm going to touch on One flew over the cuckoo's nest. Outside of the insane asylum, white males oppress females and blacks. Inside of the asylum, a white female and black males oppress the white males.

Understanding that you're being descriminated against is one thing, but don't descriminate against others out of anger/spite/etc.

Sure you're treated unfairly, so am I (depend on who I'm around, of course), but don't become what you hate. Difference between MLK and (early) Malcolm X.


Sidenote that shouldn't be the sidenote: Understanding oneself is a step toward enlightenment

 

[sameandnot]

How do you know? You're not enlightened. I'll have you know buddha was quite the procrastinator. Maybe the entire universe revolves around procrastination!

the buddha is not what you say buddha is. tathagata is not the name or the label, imposed by mind. we are talking about a transcendental nature here. do not attempt to imprison or confine the buddha to you description/perception of the buddha.