Society with Morals and Values

[synchronous]

Morals and values appear to be most important for Americans based on the recent US elections. I've traveled and lived in different countries, and I've observed that despite the fact that two countries can have a similar religious and philosophical background, they demonstrate societal tolerances in attitude and behaviour that differ. I've witnessed in one country where nudity is hardly an issue at all and adults walk around naked at public beaches in front of young children - no questions asked. Construction workers pop open beers during breaks, you can stop by the local cantine at 7am for a quick alcoholic drink before catching the subway to go to work. None of this would be tolerated in my home country. Yet, this particular country has a huge Christian base and its cities report some of the lowest crime rates.

In your view, what would be the elements that make a society with good morals and values?

[MacGuffin]

Where is this magical land? I just got my passport!

[synchronous]

This magical land is one of the most civil ones I've experienced. You'd drool over the billboards ;)

[Johnny]

In your view, what would be the elements that make a society with good morals and values?

Only one element comes to mind to me - total sedation. :lol:

[Almaviva]

We'd better tightly control (or something) what the Joneses stick up their posteriors... for the kids of course.

[MacGuffin]

This magical land is one of the most civil ones I've experienced. You'd drool over the billboards ;)

Quit teasing!

It's "Tejas" isn't it! I know it is!

[Claverhouse]

No, it's Scotland !



Claverhouse :ph34r:

[Boneca]

In your view, what would be the elements that make a society with good morals and values?
Well, what are "good" morals and values then? What seems good and right to one person may seem totally from hell to another.

But in general I think that intolerance (I assume this is your issue with the "bad" countries) stems mostly from fear of the unknown. In countries where the segregetion is evident, be it between races, religions or social classes, I think there are more tendencies towards violence and hate crimes.

And hey, what country are you talking about? I'm curious!

[synchronous]

But in general I think that intolerance (I assume this is your issue with the "bad" countries) stems mostly from fear of the unknown. In countries where the segregetion is evident, be it between races, religions or social classes, I think there are more tendencies towards violence and hate crimes.

And hey, what country are you talking about? I'm curious!

I believe I stated in my opening remarks that these were my observations. I was not placing judgement on any country, so, don't be assuming I have issues. I've been to enough countries to know differences exist. I'm not just sitting at home reading about them in National Geographic.

My question is a philosophical one, with terms like 'good', 'values' and 'morals' to be questioned.

The country's capital is rated by the UN as one of the top ten cities in the world.

[Boneca]

But in general I think that intolerance (I assume this is your issue with the "bad" countries) stems mostly from fear of the unknown. In countries where the segregetion is evident, be it between races, religions or social classes, I think there are more tendencies towards violence and hate crimes.


I believe I stated in my opening remarks that these were my observations. I was not placing judgement on any country, so, don't be assuming I have issues. I've been to enough countries to know differences exist. I'm not just sitting at home reading about them in National Geographic.

My question is a philosophical one, with terms like 'good', 'values' and 'morals' to be questioned.

The country's capital is rated by the UN as one of the top ten cities in the world.
I did not accuse you of judging certain countries (my wording "bad countries", was indeed bad :) ), but what you did not specify was whether you thought allowing nudity and alcohol was in accordance with good morals and values or not.
I made the assumption, probably biased on my own view, that tolerance was the most important part of your definition of a "society with good morals and values" - maybe I was wrong in that.

However, I still stand by my own opinion that tolerance is built on knowledge and understanding, and that segregation therefore is detrimental to a society.

And I'm still curious about the country. Is it a European one?

[Sackanaka]

Sidetracked hypothetical story: I once proposed a plan to rule the world, and it involved grouping people of different types onto different continents, ruled by people of the same-type leaders. These leaders would all secretly pay homage to me of course, and I suppose representatives of all other types just to make sure I get stuff done. These type-based countries would be self governed for the most part and the citizens must be allowed to transfer over to different continents (with restrictions of course, but I can't think of how to do that at the moment).
I realize this would probably cause massive breakdown of society as we know it, but I think it would be funny* to see people of different types struggle to work with each other, only to realize that there's no one else to compensate for their faults. I'd hope the experience would teach the world to realize their own faults as well as working to improve/compensate for them, for the sole sake of survival.
--- You're not talking about Italy or France, are you?

*funny = :devil:

[synchronous]

This magical land is one of the most civil ones I've experienced. You'd drool over the billboards ;)

Quit teasing!

It's "Tejas" isn't it! I know it is!

Tejas! :o ;)

[synchronous]

Sidetracked hypothetical story: I once proposed a plan to rule the world, and it involved grouping people of different types onto different continents, ruled by people of the same-type leaders. These leaders would all secretly pay homage to me of course, and I suppose representatives of all other types just to make sure I get stuff done. These type-based countries would be self governed for the most part and the citizens must be allowed to transfer over to different continents (with restrictions of course, but I can't think of how to do that at the moment).
I realize this would probably cause massive breakdown of society as we know it, but I think it would be funny* to see people of different types struggle to work with each other, only to realize that there's no one else to compensate for their faults. I'd hope the experience would teach the world to realize their own faults as well as working to improve/compensate for them, for the sole sake of survival.
--- You're not talking about Italy or France, are you?

*funny = :devil:

I don't know. I've been thinking along the lines that were are all part of one big experiment, masterminded by Pinky and The Brain. The Brain, at the helm ruling the world with his trusty sidekick, Pinky, seeking revenge on behalf of all dead lab mice (and rats). We were once all separated by type living happily in our cages understanding one another, then came the dreadful moment when all types were mixed and forced to run on an excercise wheel. Some of us don't mind running in one spot, some want out, others are trying to move the wheel in another direction. Some are stepping on other's toes, some jokeying for more space, others being squished by the sheer force and lack of space. Round and round we go, seemingly making progress, yet still finding ourselves in the same spot. Now the Brain is usually unsuccessful in his endeavors, but, I think he has the upper hand in this experiment, and he's laughing down at us....

[Sackanaka]

Now the Brain is usually unsuccessful in his endeavors, but, I think he has the upper hand in this experiment, and he's laughing down at us....

No harm intended to all Brain fans but I always thought that

The Brain is a doodoo head :angry: .

[Arioch]

Morals and values appear to be most important for Americans based on the recent US elections. I've traveled and lived in different countries, and I've observed that despite the fact that two countries can have a similar religious and philosophical background, they demonstrate societal tolerances in attitude and behaviour that differ. I've witnessed in one country where nudity is hardly an issue at all and adults walk around naked at public beaches in front of young children - no questions asked. Construction workers pop open beers during breaks, you can stop by the local cantine at 7am for a quick alcoholic drink before catching the subway to go to work. None of this would be tolerated in my home country. Yet, this particular country has a huge Christian base and its cities report some of the lowest crime rates.

In your view, what would be the elements that make a society with good morals and values?

Is it Holland?

I think that this philosophical country should have religion, tolerence, a scientific community that lies outside of politics and should not be controled by the religious right. The rulers should be both educated but also ethical.

[synchronous]

The country is Austria, and Vienna has been on the UN's short list of top cities for several years. This country, particularly its capital, is a haven for artists, musicians, architects - intellectuals of all types. Much of Europe is fascinating and in many ways much more liberal.

Of course, no country is perfect and some might argue the morality of public nudity, for example, whether this issue contributes to the deterioration of a society with good morals and values. I wonder is it possible for all to agree on common elements to use as a denominator in the equation of a society with good morals and values? Is it fair to impose or expect such a standard, and define morals and values in absolute terms? Some more rambling thoughts..

[INTrPosr]

Morals and values appear to be most important for Americans based on the recent US elections.

I continue to hear that as an indicator, however, I have yet to see proof that this was a determining factor. Yes, the question of gay marriage was on eleven state ballots, which overwhelmingly passed/failed (however you want to look at it), but there was no indication that morals was conducive to the outcome.

I am unsure of other states, but people went to the polls in droves, due to Oklahoma voting on the lottery and gambling in Oklahoma, not because of the gay marriage question.

[Werdna]

I like Vienna, it's a beautiful city. Been there every summer for the last three years.

Tolerance is a necessity.
Let the majority decide what is 'moral', that's democratic. But the government should not outlaw groups that have been designated immoral by the majority, rather they should be restricted, and be allowed to voice their opinion to make people understand and tolerate them.
In many countries there are beaches where it's ok to walk around nude. People who are offended by this can simply avoid them. I don't think public nudity is immoral, however, it could be damaging to people who have been taught all their lives that it is immoral. Therefore it should still be avoided in most societies.

Weatherwax morality... I wish more people would think this way.
"It's not as simple as that. It's not a black and white issue. There are so many shades of gray."
Granny: "Nope."
"Pardon?"
"There's no grays, only white that's got grubby. [...] And sin, young man, is when you treat people as things. Including yourself. That's what sin is."
"It's a lot more complicated than that---"
"No. It ain't. When people say things are a lot more complicated than that, they means they're getting worried that they won't like the truth. People as things, that's where it starts."
"Oh. I'm sure there are worse crimes---"
"But they starts with thinking about people as things..."

[Almaviva]

Tolerance is a necessity.
Let the majority decide what is 'moral', that's democratic. But the government should not outlaw groups that have been designated immoral by the majority, rather they should be restricted, and be allowed to voice their opinion to make people understand and tolerate them.
In many countries there are beaches where it's ok to walk around nude. People who are offended by this can simply avoid them. I don't think public nudity is immoral, however, it could be damaging to people who have been taught all their lives that it is immoral. Therefore it should still be avoided in most societies.


I think all this is a bit silly. Something should never be restricted by government because it is "immoral". Things should be restricted by the government because there is a good reason to do so.

Wham, suddenly I'm not subject to weird views of what I should and shouldn't do, and these things only apply if there is a good case that what I'm restricted from doing is causing harm.

Is there good reason to prohibit public nudity? Maybe. You can make a case that goes beyond "my religious beliefs say this therefore it's wrong."

Is there a case that having a beach somewhere easily avoided where people can go naked does harm to people who don't want to go? I doubt it.

I think allowing the majority to dictate things I can't do, when there is no actual reason that can be demonstrated, is idiotic.

[Claverhouse]

There is a very good reason for banning public nudity or semi-nudity ( eg: shorts etc. ), in that unfortunately the rest of us don't want to see these particular bodies alive or dead.



Claverhouse :ph34r:

[Hypnos]

The UN rankings

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/2149799.stm

are suitable if you like to like live a sedate life of comfort, and that is all you care about.

I want to see an index of the best countries for ambitious, talented individuals who want to have a choice in how much risk they shoulder on the behalf of themselves or others.

I think the US is still the top dog here, esp. now that Hong Kong is under Chinese control.

[Werdna]

I think all this is a bit silly. Something should never be restricted by government because it is "immoral". Things should be restricted by the government because there is a good reason to do so.

That too. But in a democracy, the people should be the ones to decide what is moral or not. A lot of people would consider "morality" a good reason, you have to accept that.



Is there good reason to prohibit public nudity? Maybe. You can make a case that goes beyond "my religious beliefs say this therefore it's wrong."

Such as?



Is there a case that having a beach somewhere easily avoided where people can go naked does harm to people who don't want to go? I doubt it.

Didn't say it did. I think you're misunderstanding me...



I think allowing the majority to dictate things I can't do, when there is no actual reason that can be demonstrated, is idiotic.
Yes it is. People are idiots. Being an INTP, you should know this. It would be much nicer if we could have a enlightened government that actually had all the right answers and could decide these kinds of things. We don't, we never have, and I don't see any country on earth getting it in there near future. Democracy is the best thing yet, as far as I know. Ok, there have been a few nice enlightened dictators/monarchs but they only live so long...

[SheepDog]

I think all this is a bit silly. Something should never be restricted by government because it is "immoral". Things should be restricted by the government because there is a good reason to do so.

That too. But in a democracy, the people should be the ones to decide what is moral or not.

Individuals should decide for themselves. The majority shouldn't decide for everybody.

[Werdna]

I think all this is a bit silly. Something should never be restricted by government because it is "immoral". Things should be restricted by the government because there is a good reason to do so.

That too. But in a democracy, the people should be the ones to decide what is moral or not.

Individuals should decide for themselves. The majority shouldn't decide for everybody.

Ideally, yes. I was speaking realistically. A lot of people aren't smart enough to decide for themselves what is damaging to other people and what isn't. That is why we have laws.
In the US, different states can have different laws on such issues, and if you feel you are being oppressed by the majority, you can hopefully move to another state. Democracy works better on a smaller scale like that. Which is why I think it would be sad if Bush banned gay marriages, it would be better if it could be decided on a state-to-state basis.

[Hypnos]

Ideally, yes. I was speaking realistically. A lot of people aren't smart enough to decide for themselves what is damaging to other people and what isn't. That is why we have laws.
If we localize costs of stupid behavior to the perpetrators, the problem is self-correcting -- either they rectify their behavior or die off.

For example, the rationale for motorcycle helmet laws is that brain injuries increase the costs to everyone. Well, why is everyone paying for the medical care of these idiots -- they should pay their own way, and if motorcycling w/o a helmet increases their health insurance rates or affects their coverage, so be it (I'm a motorcyclist myself).

[Claverhouse]

I think all this is a bit silly. Something should never be restricted by government because it is "immoral". Things should be restricted by the government because there is a good reason to do so.

That too. But in a democracy, the people should be the ones to decide what is moral or not.

Individuals should decide for themselves. The majority shouldn't decide for everybody.


Watch out ! Anyone who expresses any doubt about Democracy being the ideal gets everyone in the world pointing and gargling at them as in Invasion Of The Body Snatchers.



Claverhouse :ph34r:

[SheepDog]

Ideally, yes. I was speaking realistically. A lot of people aren't smart enough to decide for themselves what is damaging to other people and what isn't. That is why we have laws.
Laws to protect individuals from harming others is a far cry from laws enforcing morals.


In the US, different states can have different laws on such issues, and if you feel you are being oppressed by the majority, you can hopefully move to another state. Democracy works better on a smaller scale like that. Which is why I think it would be sad if Bush banned gay marriages, it would be better if it could be decided on a state-to-state basis.
If you don't like it, then leave? I don't think you've thought that one through. The system the US has gets called a democracy often enough, but it really isn't one. Further, it was founded on the idea that monorities shouldn't be oppressed by the majority (among many other ideas). Many of the founders were oppresed where the came from and didn't want a repeat of that.

I don't think you could be more wrong in suggesting that the majority should be allowed to not only oppress individuals, but also drive them from their homes. I will never accept that argument.

[Werdna]

Laws to protect individuals from harming others is a far cry from laws enforcing morals.
I don't see it that way. Aren't most laws based on morals? People can believe something is harmful to society BECAUSE it is immoral (public nudity, homosexuality)...
Yes, ideally, this should be completely ignored. But realistically you can't.


If you don't like it, then leave? I don't think you've thought that one through. The system the US has gets called a democracy often enough, but it really isn't one. Further, it was founded on the idea that monorities shouldn't be oppressed by the majority (among many other ideas). Many of the founders were oppresed where the came from and didn't want a repeat of that.

I don't think you could be more wrong in suggesting that the majority should be allowed to not only oppress individuals, but also drive them from their homes. I will never accept that argument.

I have thought it through, I'm just having some difficulty putting it into words so other people will understand it...
But if you feel strongly that you should be able to do something, and most people around you feel strongly against it, who is to decide who's right? The (local) majority. What's the alternative, you bash eachothers heads in? So if you feel you can't live with that, there are other places with majorities who feel like you do. I didn't say anyone should get driven from their homes, geez, your putting too much emotion into this. Come up with some good alternatives instead...
I don't think it should be that way. I think everybody should just tolerate and respect everybody else and allow them to live anyway they like. But they don't, usually... so the government should make laws based on what the majority perceives as moral.



If we localize costs of stupid behavior to the perpetrators, the problem is self-correcting -- either they rectify their behavior or die off.

For example, the rationale for motorcycle helmet laws is that brain injuries increase the costs to everyone. Well, why is everyone paying for the medical care of these idiots -- they should pay their own way, and if motorcycling w/o a helmet increases their health insurance rates or affects their coverage, so be it (I'm a motorcyclist myself).
Yes, I like that idea. I heard insurance companies put little boxes into cars and the people who drive them pay by how carefully they drive. Gives people a little incentive...

[Claverhouse]

monorities

For one brief shining minute I read this as moronities.


Many of the founders were oppresed where the came from and didn't want a repeat of that.

None of the Founding Fathers had ever been meaningfully oppressed in their rich pampered lives.*

Sam Adams, Ben Franklin, George Washington, Patrick Henry, the wretched refuse of of the earth ?



Claverhouse :ph34r:


[ * I'm not saying it wouldn't have done them the world of good ].

[Werdna]

Watch out ! Anyone who expresses any doubt about Democracy being the ideal gets everyone in the world pointing and gargling at them as in Invasion Of The Body Snatchers.
Maybe not everyone in the world, but certainly me. :D

Naeh, I never said it was ideal. Mentioned in some other thread that my ideal society would have to involve telepathy. People would understand eachothers thoughts and emotions without the need for annoying words. And with understanding comes peace and love and all that other crap we're so desperately lacking. :wub:
But I do believe democracy, in it's various forms, is the next best thing. Though like a true INTP I would love to be proven wrong...

[Spartan26]

I think in the case of the last election, moral values was defined by the issues of same-sex marriage and abortion (includes stem cell research). Issues easily addressed in ballot initiatives, as in 'no' this or 'no' that. Issues the Christian Right could rally against through dollars or candidates or measures. Because there's not a defined Christian Left, issues such as war (pre-emptive) and poverty are left at the grass roots level. These are also more difficult to define and address, such as 'no' more poor. How do you do that?

Morality laws are harder to set on a nation-wide basis. Even without regard to political leaning, it would be socially acceptible for a Christian living in Kentucky to make a trip to Churchill Downs for the Derby or any w/e for that matter. It is also fair to say that a Christian living in Los Angeles could go to Las Vegas for the w/e to relax. But, if a Christian living in LA were to say she spent the afternoon at the race track or a Christian in Kentucky said he took the red eye to Vegas, if word got out, :o pastors from their respective congregations would be gearing up a series of sermons on degradation in the church.

I know fashion can fall under this as well. Some places in LA ban baggy jeans, either because gang members wear baggy jeans or kids want to replicate that lifestyle. In the south, there are decency laws against low-rise jeans. We don't want our daughters being hos or acting like them. Well, parents in LA aren't going to spend $120 on some denin that's hardly there and then be told little Sally can't wear 'em to school. Baggy jeans in rural areas are more commonly referred to as handmedowns.

This may be a fundamental flaw with morality laws is that they tend to treat symptoms and not the cause or root. Then your liberties are restricted and you get angry because you're a respectful person who shouldn't be treated like a 'gosh-darn six year old!' But sometimes I think people fail to realize that their behavior or people's behavior in general can have an affect on people not directly connected to them.

[Claverhouse]

Naeh, I never said it was ideal. Mentioned in some other thread that my ideal society would have to involve telepathy. People would understand each others thoughts and emotions without the need for annoying words.

Umm, just what the growing lad ( and girl ) wants: the ability for all one's loved ones to instantly read exactly what's in one's mind.


And with understanding comes peace and love and all that other crap we're so desperately lacking. :wub:

No, with understanding comes open warfare.



Claverhouse :ph34r:

[Almaviva]

That too. But in a democracy, the people should be the ones to decide what is moral or not. A lot of people would consider "morality" a good reason, you have to accept that.


People can decide they don't like something, but that if it doesn't harm them, then can leave well enough alone, and in return, they can do the harmless things that other people don't like.

I think everyone should think like that. I'm biased, because I don't see any other way of thinking that makes any sense.

Clearly, many people want to be told how to behave, and want to have strong feelings based on what they are told, instead of reasoning it out for themselves.

So I'm talking about the way I think things should be, not the way things are. Realistically, I think democracy does work pretty well. Part of democracy is debating the merits of things, which we're doing here.

Saying "we need to accept it's moral and that we shouldn't do it because the majority agrees on what morality is" is circular. In my opinion, if you can't base it on anything but public opinion, it shouldn't be legislated.





Is there good reason to prohibit public nudity? Maybe. You can make a case that goes beyond "my religious beliefs say this therefore it's wrong."

Such as?

Well, if it were up to me, I'd permit public nudity, so I'm not the one to make a strong case! But you could make the argument that allowing people to show sexual signals in public like erections isn't going to be a positive influence on society. Who really knows, though;)




Is there a case that having a beach somewhere easily avoided where people can go naked does harm to people who don't want to go? I doubt it.


Yes it is. People are idiots. Being an INTP, you should know this. It would be much nicer if we could have a enlightened government that actually had all the right answers and could decide these kinds of things. We don't, we never have, and I don't see any country on earth getting it in there near future. Democracy is the best thing yet, as far as I know. Ok, there have been a few nice enlightened dictators/monarchs but they only live so long...

There's plenty of room for discussing what should be allowed or not, independently of what the majority thinks. Majority opinion, of course, changes over time as well.

I actually think I don't have a resonsibility to obey the law if it's very clear that I'm not doing anyone any harm by doing so.

The idea that some things hurt other people just because they think they are immoral sounds really weak to me.

So yeah, I guess I would limit democracy a bit, to make sure people have the right to "the pursuit of happiness" unless it can shown to be harmful (as opposed to people not liking it.)

This is something like what the US constistution attempts to do (I'm Canadian.) The people in the US are very limited in what they can do and influence democratically, and this is a good thing.

[Almaviva]

This may be a fundamental flaw with morality laws is that they tend to treat symptoms and not the cause or root. Then your liberties are restricted and you get angry because you're a respectful person who shouldn't be treated like a 'gosh-darn six year old!' But sometimes I think people fail to realize that their behavior or people's behavior in general can have an affect on people not directly connected to them.

Well yes. So let's make laws on the basis of whether the behaviours they discourage have a negative effect on people?

[Hypnos]

I don't think it should be that way. I think everybody should just tolerate and respect everybody else and allow them to live anyway they like. But they don't, usually... so the government should make laws based on what the majority perceives as moral.
So, your ideal is laissez-faire but you are conceding to democracy, out of purely practical considerations? What are these considerations?


Yes, I like that idea. I heard insurance companies put little boxes into cars and the people who drive them pay by how carefully they drive. Gives people a little incentive...
Yes. But political correctness/gov't intrusion gets in the way of proper incentivization: mandated company-sponsored group health plans discourage individualized incentives for healthy behavior, people manage their money poorly because they feel they can rely on social security, etc. etc.

[Spartan26]

But political correctness/gov't intrusion gets in the way of proper incentivization: mandated company-sponsored group health plans discourage individualized incentives for healthy behavior, people manage their money poorly because they feel they can rely on social security, etc. etc. Wait, how did PC get lumped in here???

First I think a lot of incentives are illusions. Lower interest rates on higher priced items, bonuses for repeat business, they're designed to make the consumer feel good about paying more.


mandated company-sponsored group health plans discourage individualized incentives for healthy behavior
:rofl: Can you give an example of this based in reality??? What are you saying, people would actually be sitting around the dinner table saying, "Uh, forget the milk, honey. Now that I've got this mandated company-sponsored group health plan I'm gonna be drinking shots of Jack Daniels with my Atkins friendly chicken breast. In fact, forget the salad. I don't wanna see nothing green on my plate I can't pack into my bong after desert."

Do you honestly think there's one person at Philip Morris who's working on a marketing strategy to pass nationwide madated company-sponsored group health plans because it'd be good for business? Love to see that meeting. "Ya know, we've gone after kids and women and minorities, I say we now target the otherwise responsible adult. There's just this huge, untapped market of people who'd otherwise smoke but were afraid of an increase on their monthly premium. We'll call the new cigs 'Washington Fats.' The slogan will be, "Go on, light up, your first by-pass surgery's on Uncle Sam."

Have a stroke on the company dime. 45,500,000 Americans without health insurance. I'll accept an argument that corporate America can't afford it but not one that'd suggest the percentage of overweight people in this country would balloon if they got free dental.



According to American Consumer Credit Counseling, the total U.S. credit card debt in the first quarter of 2002 was approximately $60 billion. The average credit card interest rate is around 18.9%.
Approximately half of all credit card holders pay only their minimum monthly requirements. There are a total of 1.2 billion credit and retail cards in North America. The average American household is solicited seven times a year by credit card companies.

The Motley Fool's Credit Center features several more mind-blowing statistics:

Total consumer credit: $1.7 trillion.
Credit card debt carried by the average American: $8,562.
Total finance charges Americans paid in 2001: $50 billion.
Percent of U.S. households deemed credit worthy by the lending industry: 78%.
Number of credit card holders who declared bankruptcy last year: 1.3 million.
Did you know that paying off your credit card balance each monthly may actually start costing you? GE Rewards MasterCard holders who pay off their entire balance in a timely manner are actually penalized $25 per year. As this Yahoo! Finance article explains, a full 75% of credit card company revenues come from finance charges and responsibility is not profitable.


I pulled this off some yahoo site doing a general google search on credit card debt. I don't think people are morons with their money because they believe social security or any other govt service/agency will bail them out. An overwhelming number of Americans have absolutely zero sense of delayed gratification. Coupled with being foolishly optimistic or never thinking, "That could happen to me." :ph34r: = financial peril. When you're talking foreclosures, bankruptcies, they're people not accustom to or expecting dependency on social security/govt programs etc.

Not even to assess blame of why people got in over their heads (greed/layoff/who knows), it's not like our government gives them a better example.

ps - Just having a little fun earlier, Hypnos :cheers: not trying to hate.

[Hypnos]

Hey Spartan26,

* Stupid financing plans and poor use of credit is how disciplined people like me make money in a perimutual game. I've performed pretty well investing, by identifying mutual funds that share this discipline and screw the daytraders out of their money (otherwise we'd all be stuck with index funds). ;>

* Mandated health plans most certainly contribute to wasteful behavior. People think they're playing with other people's money when pushing for prescriptions for Viagra and other patented drugs, becoming morbidly obese and failing to eat/sleep/exercise healthfully, when in fact it comes out of their wages (and, unfairly, the wages of those of us who aren't so cavalier). Without consumer cost accountability, doctors also absolve themselves, residing behind a cloak of Hippocratic purity (and low malpractice insurance rates).

Nationalized healthcare is not the solution, either: politics, esp. labor politics, and bureaucratic turf battles supersede competition and efficiency.

I wish I could find the link for a _great_ article on this issue I read a few months ago ... the solution they proposed was to make it a legal duty for every individual to have private hospital insurance, then let individuals deal with the maintenance aspects as they see fit, also privately.


EDIT: Here's the link --

Mandatory Health Insurance Now!
It will save private medicine -- and spur medical innovation.

http://www.reason.com/0411/fe.rb.mandatory.shtml

[Werdna]

People can decide they don't like something, but that if it doesn't harm them, then can leave well enough alone, and in return, they can do the harmless things that other people don't like.
There's no reason to make something illegal if it obviously isn't harming anyone, no. But it isn't always that obvious whether something is harmful to others or not. Maybe it's only indirectly harmful or only in certain circumstances to certain people, is it then worth the risk to have it legal? I say, let the majority answer that question. As Boneca pointed out, too many people aren't smart or compassionate enough to decide that on their own


I think everyone should think like that. I'm biased, because I don't see any other way of thinking that makes any sense.
The world would probably be better off for it. Can't say I have as much faith in my own thinking.


Saying "we need to accept it's moral and that we shouldn't do it because the majority agrees on what morality is" is circular.
Just because something is illegal doesn't mean you have to think it's immoral, it just means the majority decided it was. The most moral choice a government can make is accept the decision of the majority (in my opinion). That doesn't mean that law=morality for everyone.


In my opinion, if you can't base it on anything but public opinion, it shouldn't be legislated.
Hmm. No, it shouldn't. But that's idealist thinking again... people usually don't find it too difficult to make up some 'logical reason' to justify their prejudices. And how does one know if it's just an opinion, prejudice or genuine concern?



Well, if it were up to me, I'd permit public nudity, so I'm not the one to make a strong case! But you could make the argument that allowing people to show sexual signals in public like erections isn't going to be a positive influence on society. Who really knows, though;)

Why did I question you on that? Of course, you're right. Me stupid.


I actually think I don't have a resonsibility to obey the law if it's very clear that I'm not doing anyone any harm by doing so.

The idea that some things hurt other people just because they think they are immoral sounds really weak to me.
Maybe not ONLY because they believe such things are immoral, but, as you said, who really knows... see last quote. Regardless, a lot of people will make the case that public erections or whatever is harmful to society. And the most moral choice the government can make, IMO, is to make it illegal if people want it to be illegal.
This is more about a governments morality than personal morality I suppose. If nobody knows about it, the government doesn't care, and it's not illegal :)


So yeah, I guess I would limit democracy a bit, to make sure people have the right to "the pursuit of happiness" unless it can shown to be harmful (as opposed to people not liking it.)

This is something like what the US constistution attempts to do (I'm Canadian.) The people in the US are very limited in what they can do and influence democratically, and this is a good thing.
Yes, but like I said before, how do you decide whether something like public nudity is 'harmful to society'? For some people walking around nude is their way of pursuing happiness (though I'm not one of them). And still it is illegal (in the US). Once again, I think the most moral choice the government can make is to accept the wishes of the majority, as long as there is no definite answer...

[Werdna]

Naeh, I never said it was ideal. Mentioned in some other thread that my ideal society would have to involve telepathy. People would understand each others thoughts and emotions without the need for annoying words.

Umm, just what the growing lad ( and girl ) wants: the ability for all one's loved ones to instantly read exactly what's in one's mind.


If you grow up in a society where that is common I doubt it would be an issue.




And with understanding comes peace and love and all that other crap we're so desperately lacking. :wub:

No, with understanding comes open warfare.


I think people would realise they have a lot more in common than they think. Or, *sigh*, maybe not.
Then you will at least know exactly what you're dying for. Though that may not be such a good thing either if you don't have any power over it...

[Boneca]

I actually think I don't have a resonsibility to obey the law if it's very clear that I'm not doing anyone any harm by doing so.

The idea that some things hurt other people just because they think they are immoral sounds really weak to me.

So yeah, I guess I would limit democracy a bit, to make sure people have the right to "the pursuit of happiness" unless it can shown to be harmful (as opposed to people not liking it.)

I'm sorry, but I don't think this is a good way of reasoning. I understand the way you think, but I would not like to live in a society where people follow the laws only as they see fit. The reason: people are idiots.
It is quite possible that you are intelligent enough to be able to discern what is harmful to others and what is not, but I'm afraid not all people have that ability. And unfortunately, it is often the most stupid people who think they are the smartest, and therefore think they can excuse their actions.

The society where everybody is responsible enough to make sure their actions don't hurt others without the intervention of government sounds great, but it is an utopia. It will never work as long as there are even a few people who are either too stupid to understand when their behaviour is harmful or too egoistic to care.
I would rather succumb to a few non-sensical laws than live in an anarchy where idiots are free to act as they wish.

[Almaviva]

I actually think I don't have a resonsibility to obey the law if it's very clear that I'm not doing anyone any harm by doing so.

The idea that some things hurt other people just because they think they are immoral sounds really weak to me.

So yeah, I guess I would limit democracy a bit, to make sure people have the right to "the pursuit of happiness" unless it can shown to be harmful (as opposed to people not liking it.)

I'm sorry, but I don't think this is a good way of reasoning. I understand the way you think, but I would not like to live in a society where people follow the laws only as they see fit. The reason: people are idiots.
It is quite possible that you are intelligent enough to be able to discern what is harmful to others and what is not, but I'm afraid not all people have that ability. And unfortunately, it is often the most stupid people who think they are the smartest, and therefore think they can excuse their actions.

The society where everybody is responsible enough to make sure their actions don't hurt others without the intervention of government sounds great, but it is an utopia. It will never work as long as there are even a few people who are either too stupid to understand when their behaviour is harmful or too egoistic to care.
I would rather succumb to a few non-sensical laws than live in an anarchy where idiots are free to act as they wish.

People do follow laws only as they see fit, obviously. We're not actually going to make it impossible to drink a lot of alcohol and drive a car, but what we are going to do is impose penalties and especially make someone responsible for their actions.

The reponsibility part is what makes this work. If, say, I decide that laws against smoking pot are silly, and do it anyway, and drive a motor vehicle and kill someone, then I am responsible, and rightly so.

If I decide that having oral sex with my wife in a state where there's a law that prohibits it, nobody has to be the wiser.

[Almaviva]

There's no reason to make something illegal if it obviously isn't harming anyone, no. But it isn't always that obvious whether something is harmful to others or not. Maybe it's only indirectly harmful or only in certain circumstances to certain people, is it then worth the risk to have it legal? I say, let the majority answer that question. As Boneca pointed out, too many people aren't smart or compassionate enough to decide that on their own


I say, studying the actual effects is a better way to decide. This is closer to the way the U.S. works anyway. People don't democratically decide which drugs go to market, say. They do get a chance to be involved in the political process which decides which group has the power to make these decicisions.

Similarly, people don't democratically decide things like speed limits. A system that would let people do this for traffic laws, say, by referendum, wouldn't work very well.




Saying "we need to accept it's moral and that we shouldn't do it because the majority agrees on what morality is" is circular.
Just because something is illegal doesn't mean you have to think it's immoral, it just means the majority decided it was. The most moral choice a government can make is accept the decision of the majority (in my opinion). That doesn't mean that law=morality for everyone.


So would you be in favour of the public getting to vote in referendums on many more individual issues?

Would you take it as far as I've taken it above? Should the public be allowed to vote on which drugs should be available to the public and traffic laws? Should the public be allowed to vote on whether an individual person convicted of a crime in court gets the death penalty?

I think too much democracy like this is a recipe for disaster.




In my opinion, if you can't base it on anything but public opinion, it shouldn't be legislated.
Hmm. No, it shouldn't. But that's idealist thinking again... people usually don't find it too difficult to make up some 'logical reason' to justify their prejudices. And how does one know if it's just an opinion, prejudice or genuine concern?


We have the methods of science. They work well, especially for optimizing the way things work.



Maybe not ONLY because they believe such things are immoral, but, as you said, who really knows... see last quote. Regardless, a lot of people will make the case that public erections or whatever is harmful to society. And the most moral choice the government can make, IMO, is to make it illegal if people want it to be illegal.


Again this is where I disagree. The most *effective* choice, in my opinion, is always to base decisions like this on whether they have positive or negative impact. Conflict of interest is always a problem, so we clearly need a lot of democratic involvement in who gets to make decisions like this. But this is what we already do.

For instance, women are allowed to go topless in Ontario. In practical terms, they almost never do anyway. Is there any point to arresting women for being topless? Say, can we find any reason why children are harmed by seeing a woman breast-feeding? If the answer to all this is "no", then I'm strongly in favour of a government that just lets it be, and the people who don't like it, majority or not, need to just tolerate, unless they can show that it is indeed harmful.



Yes, but like I said before, how do you decide whether something like public nudity is 'harmful to society'? For some people walking around nude is their way of pursuing happiness (though I'm not one of them). And still it is illegal (in the US). Once again, I think the most moral choice the government can make is to accept the wishes of the majority, as long as there is no definite answer...

Again, I'm in favour of making people tolerate, as long as there is no definite answer.

The price in freedom to the minority who want to do harmless things, in my opinion, far exceeds the price of the moral shock caused to the majority.

[Boneca]

People do follow laws only as they see fit, obviously. We're not actually going to make it impossible to drink a lot of alcohol and drive a car, but what we are going to do is impose penalties and especially make someone responsible for their actions.

The reponsibility part is what makes this work. If, say, I decide that laws against smoking pot are silly, and do it anyway, and drive a motor vehicle and kill someone, then I am responsible, and rightly so.

If I decide that having oral sex with my wife in a state where there's a law that prohibits it, nobody has to be the wiser.
Gah, I give up. You Americans simply have too many weird laws! :rofl:

I just don't like hearing people say "I don't need to follow the law", for the above reason. It might give easily influenced people the wrong impression. Kind of like, I would normally walk against red if there are no cars, but if a child is standing next to me, I would still wait for green to be a good example.
And I do sound like a boring, law-abiding SJ now, don't I?

[booyalab]

http://www.azzit.de/humor/30.html

http://jokes.glowport.com/strlaw.html

http://www.weirdsexlaws.com/byLocation.php?State=MN

[booyalab]

In my state, it's illegal to walk across borders of any of the surrounding states with a duck on your head.

[Boneca]

http://www.azzit.de/humor/30.html

http://jokes.glowport.com/strlaw.html
"In Quitman, it is illegal for a chicken to cross a road."

That's the answer! The chicken crossed the road because it wanted to go to jail! :rofl:

[booyalab]

http://www.azzit.de/humor/30.html

http://jokes.glowport.com/strlaw.html
"In Quitman, it is illegal for a chicken to cross a road."

That's the answer! The chicken crossed the road because it wanted to go to jail! :rofl:

It would probably live longer...

[Claverhouse]

In my state, it's illegal to walk across borders of any of the surrounding states with a duck on your head.

And quite right too !



Claverhouse :ph34r:

[booyalab]

Imagine the chaos that would result from everyone walking across my state border with a duck on their head....and no consideration for anyone else!

[Hypnos]

The society where everybody is responsible enough to make sure their actions don't hurt others without the intervention of government sounds great, but it is an utopia. It will never work as long as there are even a few people who are either too stupid to understand when their behaviour is harmful or too egoistic to care.
I would rather succumb to a few non-sensical laws than live in an anarchy where idiots are free to act as they wish.
I'd be okay with a gov't that _only_ does this -- protecting the majority from demonstrable harm by the small minority of sociopaths.

[Claverhouse]

The society where everybody is responsible enough to make sure their actions don't hurt others without the intervention of government sounds great, but it is an utopia. It will never work as long as there are even a few people who are either too stupid to understand when their behaviour is harmful or too egoistic to care.
I would rather succumb to a few non-sensical laws than live in an anarchy where idiots are free to act as they wish.
I'd be okay with a gov't that _only_ does this -- protecting the majority from demonstrable harm by the small minority of sociopaths.

[ Sourly ]

What about protecting the minority from the large majority of sociopaths ?


Claverhouse :ph34r:

[Werdna]

Similarly, people don't democratically decide things like speed limits. A system that would let people do this for traffic laws, say, by referendum, wouldn't work very well.
No, i wouldn't stretch it that far. I'm not that much of an idiot. But that isn't much of a moral issue either (and that's what this was about, a moral government). Traffic laws are more of a necessity, and i think the majority would agree with this. The alternative is so obviously harmful to society.
However, I know for example Norway has many roads where you can drive legally at any speed, and that works too. Don't know how common that is in the world, we don't have it in Sweden.


So would you be in favour of the public getting to vote in referendums on many more individual issues?
Would you take it as far as I've taken it above? Should the public be allowed to vote on which drugs should be available to the public and traffic laws? Should the public be allowed to vote on whether an individual person convicted of a crime in court gets the death penalty?
I think too much democracy like this is a recipe for disaster.
No, for the reason I already stated, I would not take it that far. With some things it is pretty obvious what the law has to say (hard drugs and traffic laws). And of course individual criminal cases should not be voted on. Never said that. Everyone has to be equal to the law, otherwise the legal system wouldn't work.


We have the methods of science. They work well, especially for optimizing the way things work.
How can you decide through science what somebody is thinking? As far as I know this is impossible.


Again this is where I disagree. The most *effective* choice, in my opinion, is always to base decisions like this on whether they have positive or negative impact. Conflict of interest is always a problem, so we clearly need a lot of democratic involvement in who gets to make decisions like this. But this is what we already do.
Well, when there is a clear positive or negative impact it isn't much of a moral issue. The government has to maintain a stable society, I suppose that's the point I'm trying to make. Democracies are stable because most people agree with the law. The government should therefore follow the wishes of the majority, then the government is moral. Hard drugs and such would be the exception, legalizing them would be immoral for the government, as it would not lead to a stable society regardless of what the majority thinks.
I was mostly considering the cases where it isn't so black-and-white, and where the effects may be harmful either way. You seem to believe in science as an answer to everything and that people should accept science as truth. I think they should too, but far from everyone will if they feel strongly about something. And there are issues where science can give very different answers.


For instance, women are allowed to go topless in Ontario. In practical terms, they almost never do anyway. Is there any point to arresting women for being topless? Say, can we find any reason why children are harmed by seeing a woman breast-feeding? If the answer to all this is "no", then I'm strongly in favour of a government that just lets it be, and the people who don't like it, majority or not, need to just tolerate, unless they can show that it is indeed harmful.
I'd say "no". But those who don't like it, assuming they exist, would say "yes" and find reasons for saying so. Even if it seems unreasonable to us to make breastfeeding in public illegal, a lot of people wont see it that way. If they are in majority and feel strongly about it, the governments moral choice should be to follow their wishes.
Actually arresting a woman breastfeeding would of course be a bit extreme...


The price in freedom to the minority who want to do harmless things, in my opinion, far exceeds the price of the moral shock caused to the majority.
Out of moral shock or not, people may decide these things are not as harmless as you say they are. Then what should the government do? People can also decide to do things that don't turn out as harmless as they thought it would, or it may harm people indirectly in a way they didn't realise. Just like truth, a lot of people can't handle freedom. This is where we differ and always will, I believe.
The government should let the majority decide how much freedom they need, and where to draw the line. It's the most moral choice they can make.

[Werdna]

The entire Encyclopedia Britannica is banned in Texas because it contains a formula for making beer at home.
A recently passed anticrime law requires criminals to give their victims 24 hours notice, either orally or in writing, and to explain the nature of the crime to be committed.
In Mesquite, it is illegal for children to have unusual haircuts.
:rofl: I just knew Texas would have the dumbest ones

[Werdna]

The reponsibility part is what makes this work. If, say, I decide that laws against smoking pot are silly, and do it anyway, and drive a motor vehicle and kill someone, then I am responsible, and rightly so.

Laws also work because people get put in jail if they don't follow them. Not all people are that big on "responsibility".
Sure. So you think it is okay to smoke pot, as long as you take responsibility for the consequences. But a lot of people would not consider the consequences as carefully as that, so dismissing the laws as silly is not very responsible. People may start believing that that is all they are.

[Hypnos]

I'd be okay with a gov't that _only_ does this -- protecting the majority from demonstrable harm by the small minority of sociopaths.

[ Sourly ]

What about protecting the minority from the large majority of sociopaths ?

*Shrug* You win heart and minds, or you make the costs of oppressing you higher by economic means or violent guerrila activity.

Here, by "oppression," I mean acts of violence, fraud or unequal protection under the law, not merely affronting you.

[Claverhouse]

I was actually thinking of the people who like soap operas & sports just a little too much. And believe in advertising; whether of the governmental or commercial variety.

They oppress me by their very being.

:D

Claverhouse :ph34r:

[Hypnos]

I was actually thinking of the people who like soap operas & sports just a little too much. And believe in advertising; whether of the governmental or commercial variety.

They oppress me by their very being.

:D

I sympathize, but you should just spend more time at home/in the library/at school/among peers.

Freedom is a bitch!

[jimkopelli]

I was actually thinking of the people who like soap operas & sports just a little too much. And believe in advertising; whether of the governmental or commercial variety.

They oppress me by their very being.

:D

Claverhouse :ph34r:
Very much so. Pox on them. They're responsible for the continued existance of reality TV.

How does it go... rules are there so you think before you break them.
Like jaywalking, for instance. Don't be stupid and cross if you might get hit, but if the light is against you and there are no cars, then go.

[HeyBooU]

I'm seeing a pattern of people can't be trusted with these decisions of morality so the majority of people should tell the government what laws are moral and "right".

My problem is that I'm having a problem understanding the acceptance of being ruled by these people who are so stupid that they cannot even make logical decisions.

[Boneca]

I'm seeing a pattern of people can't be trusted with these decisions of morality so the majority of people should tell the government what laws are moral and "right".

My problem is that I'm having a problem understanding the acceptance of being ruled by these people who are so stupid that they cannot even make logical decisions.
Well, there are problems with every society, democracies included. We have to make an assumption that the majority of the people are smart enough to decide what's good for them or not, but this is of course not always the case.
But you'd have to consider the alternative. An "enlightened" rule would maybe be ideal, but this situation could be horribly abused. That's why dictatorships are not very popular.
Democracy is a compromise between protecting the smart people from being hurt by idiots and protecting the idiots from being usurped by the smart people.

[Dengarm]

We need another Emperor Norton I, Emperor of the United States and Protector of Mexico. He was a truely great leader, even if he was christian.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emperor_Norton

[Werdna]

Well, there are problems with every society, democracies included. We have to make an assumption that the majority of the people are smart enough to decide what's good for them or not, but this is of course not always the case.
But you'd have to consider the alternative. An "enlightened" rule would maybe be ideal, but this situation could be horribly abused. That's why dictatorships are not very popular.
Democracy is a compromise between protecting the smart people from being hurt by idiots and protecting the idiots from being usurped by the smart people.

Hmm. You are so much better at putting this into words than I am...

[Star Cannon]

/Quote
Originally Posted by Boneca
Democracy is a compromise between protecting the smart people from being hurt by idiots and protecting the idiots from being usurped by the smart people.
/Quote

That is excellent.

Maybe humans must learn: the right way to education their progeny; and a more effective way to chose leaders that does not reflect the political demogoguery of current politics.

In short, in order to better choose out leaders, we must change society itself. We must either tear down politics and start choosing people by the way they think, come to conclusions, temperament, and other important qualities in a leader. We must also choose from a wider base: every town, to every major city, to every state capital, to the four halves of the country, to seven people chosen to lead.

To choose by observation of qualities and elimination of qualities will ensure that Grade-A nut-cracks like Bush and Kerry don't go and hack away at each other at every election.

Star Cannon

[Bad Christian]

Of course, INTPs make pretty bad leaders. They're paralyzed by all the different possibilities, and not task-oriented.

I suspect INTJs would make the best world leaders, with INTPs around to advise them a bit.

I wonder what Bill Clinton's personality type was...