M8, agree, or disagree. That is all. It's fine to cite the broken window fallacy, but WWII pulled us out of the Great Depression. Furthermore, the main argument seems to be "The money spent on the war effort, for example, is money that cannot be spent on food, clothing, health care, consumer electronics or other areas." Funny how we managed to CREATE jobs with WWII then, huh?
WWII was a net positive for America.
Topic: The purpose of life and the goal of a perfect society - page 5. (Read 6847 times)
M8, I'm saying that the Great Depression ended mostly because of WWII. Agree or disagree?
From the article you evidently neglected to read:
Quote
The argument can be made that war is a benefactor, since historically it often has focused the use of resources and triggered advances in technology and other areas while reducing unemployment. The increased production and employment associated with war often leads some to claim that "war is good for the economy." However, this belief is often given as an example of the broken window fallacy. The money spent on the war effort, for example, is money that cannot be spent on food, clothing, health care, consumer electronics or other areas. The stimulus felt in one sector of the economy comes at a direct—but hidden—cost to other sectors.
M8, I'm saying that the Great Depression ended mostly because of WWII. Agree or disagree?
Hey man, when did we pull out of the Great Depression?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Broken_window_fallacy
Hey man, when did we pull out of the Great Depression?
Either way, this is getting too deep. Let's take the analogy into the other direction: if we find other societies (e.g. aliens), is peace the best solution?
Most likely. However, war might contribute to overall happiness of our society in some way (see f.ex. the great depression).
That's a highly toxic position, nimda.
Yes, peace is universally the best solution (unless they disagree on that, in which case, defense from their aggression is) to meeting an alien civilization. If two individuals operate best when cooperating, so too would two societies.
not, the analogy does apply. Brain cells are without rational self-interest, but as all living things, they "want" to continue living. killing the other cells would be a detriment to that, so cells that have a tendency to do that naturally don't reproduce.
Cells killing themselves and other cells is an important part of biology. Mutated cells without this function often present at cancers.
I'm not relating this back to the original argument. Just sayin'.
Except brain cells don't do that. Cell death is to prevent "over population", ie cancer, in cells that experience cell division.
Most likely. However, war might contribute to overall happiness of our society in some way (see f.ex. the great depression).
Hmm... I think I'm being confusing. There's a difference between the individual and the society.
Not as such. Society is just a collection of individuals, and "society's" actions are just those of a group of individuals. So if each individual in that society seeks his or her own happiness without causing detriment to others' happiness, "society" seeks the most happiness for all.
But, each brain cell does seek it's own satisfaction. It acts in it's own self interest and doesn't aggress against other cells. They're all happy and the brain is happy as a result of the cell's happiness. Start using centralised force against brain cells and I think you'll find the brain is allot less happy.
Apply the same principal to humans and society.
In case you were wondering, I was joking.
Joke or not, the analogy does apply. Brain cells are without rational self-interest, but as all living things, they "want" to continue living. killing the other cells would be a detriment to that, so cells that have a tendency to do that naturally don't reproduce.
I guess (from my limited chemical knowledge) that they are. But then wouldn't the universe become progressively more nonreactive? Maybe I should pay attention when I'm supposed to learn about entropy, because that sounds similar.
Either way, this is getting too deep. Let's take the analogy into the other direction: if we find other societies (e.g. aliens), is peace the best solution?
not, the analogy does apply. Brain cells are without rational self-interest, but as all living things, they "want" to continue living. killing the other cells would be a detriment to that, so cells that have a tendency to do that naturally don't reproduce.
Cells killing themselves and other cells is an important part of biology. Mutated cells without this function often present at cancers.
I'm not relating this back to the original argument. Just sayin'.
Hmm... I think I'm being confusing. There's a difference between the individual and the society.
Not as such. Society is just a collection of individuals, and "society's" actions are just those of a group of individuals. So if each individual in that society seeks his or her own happiness without causing detriment to others' happiness, "society" seeks the most happiness for all.
But, each brain cell does seek it's own satisfaction. It acts in it's own self interest and doesn't aggress against other cells. They're all happy and the brain is happy as a result of the cell's happiness. Start using centralised force against brain cells and I think you'll find the brain is allot less happy.
Apply the same principal to humans and society.
In case you were wondering, I was joking.
Joke or not, the analogy does apply. Brain cells are without rational self-interest, but as all living things, they "want" to continue living. killing the other cells would be a detriment to that, so cells that have a tendency to do that naturally don't reproduce.
Hmm... I think I'm being confusing. There's a difference between the individual and the society.
Not as such. Society is just a collection of individuals, and "society's" actions are just those of a group of individuals. So if each individual in that society seeks his or her own happiness without causing detriment to others' happiness, "society" seeks the most happiness for all.
But, each brain cell does seek it's own satisfaction. It acts in it's own self interest and doesn't aggress against other cells. They're all happy and the brain is happy as a result of the cell's happiness. Start using centralised force against brain cells and I think you'll find the brain is allot less happy.
Apply the same principal to humans and society.
In case you were wondering, I was joking.
Hmm... I think I'm being confusing. There's a difference between the individual and the society.
Not as such. Society is just a collection of individuals, and "society's" actions are just those of a group of individuals. So if each individual in that society seeks his or her own happiness without causing detriment to others' happiness, "society" seeks the most happiness for all.
But, each brain cell does seek it's own satisfaction. It acts in it's own self interest and doesn't aggress against other cells. They're all happy and the brain is happy as a result of the cell's happiness. Start using centralised force against brain cells and I think you'll find the brain is allot less happy.
Apply the same principal to humans and society.
Hmm... I think I'm being confusing. There's a difference between the individual and the society.
Not as such. Society is just a collection of individuals, and "society's" actions are just those of a group of individuals. So if each individual in that society seeks his or her own happiness without causing detriment to others' happiness, "society" seeks the most happiness for all.
Well, tell you what: When the cells in my body ask my brain to free them, I promise to comply.
Hmm... I think I'm being confusing. There's a difference between the individual and the society.
Not as such. Society is just a collection of individuals, and "society's" actions are just those of a group of individuals. So if each individual in that society seeks his or her own happiness without causing detriment to others' happiness, "society" seeks the most happiness for all.
Hmm... I think I'm being confusing. There's a difference between the individual and the society.
Not as such. Society is just a collection of individuals, and "society's" actions are just those of a group of individuals. So if each individual in that society seeks his or her own happiness without causing detriment to others' happiness, "society" seeks the most happiness for all.
Hmm... I think I'm being confusing. There's a difference between the individual and the society. The meaning of life is happiness; individuals seek it. I personally will seek the path of life which leads to my being the most happy. The goal of a perfect society is also most happiness; thus, the socioeconomic systems which make people the happiest are the ones which should be chosen. Denmark and Norway are doing a goddamn fine job of it.
Iff I have no empathy for you, and the other guy also has no empathy for you, and we have no empathy for your family, and we would have more happiness than your family, friends, and associates would have sadness, yes. Obviously, the people who have empathy for you would be sad, and that would likely "overcompensate" for the happiness of me and one other.
Then why do all this complicated math? Why not simply focus on increasing your own, and possibly others' happiness, so long as doing so does not reduce anyone's happiness? If all anyone adds to the equation is positives, then the sum is always positive.
Iff I have no empathy for you, and the other guy also has no empathy for you, and we have no empathy for your family, and we would have more happiness than your family, friends, and associates would have sadness, yes. Obviously, the people who have empathy for you would be sad, and that would likely "overcompensate" for the happiness of me and one other.
However, if torturing me for the rest of my life would make you and one other person happy for the rest of your lives, then I volunteer.
The question is, if torturing me would bring you and one other person happiness for the rest of your lives, would you "volunteer" me?
Jump to: