Topic: The purpose of life and the goal of a perfect society - page 6. (Read 6847 times)

Fixed
lolok
First off, eliminating empathy entirely is probably not possible.
Second, torture doesn't always bring people happiness.
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.

So your argument is that if we eliminate empathy, torture is good?

These statements do not compute.

Also, if society is aiming for the most people, the most happy, then I contend that allowing them all to guide their own lives (yes, and even choose leaders for themselves) would result in the most happiness for all.

Also true. In a world of absolutes where neither party had any empathy for the other, the more perfect society is the one in which the proletariat are happy, simply because there are more of them. A thousand happy workers with no empathy for the unhappy Monseigneur constitutes more total happiness than a happy Monseigneur and a thousand unhappy workers. The Monseigneur's happiness is not worth more than that of a single worker.

I contest that. Universal empathy may lead to a society with universal happiness, but society does not aim for universal happiness, because universal happiness is likely impossible. Rather, when faced with multiple scenarios in which various people may be at various levels of happiness, a society should aim for the one which makes the most people most happy. If torturing the Monseigneur makes the whole crowd happy for the rest of their life, then I volunteer to be that man.
Again, empathy is not universal. I have more empathy for family and friends than some random guy, and more for aforementioned random guy than for the random guy who makes a fortune by forcing child labor on cheap shoes. In fact, empathy is largely malleable; the audience tends to empathize with the protagonist of a story even when the protagonist is a criminal. Conversely, the audience scorns he who is portrayed in a negative light. The audience sometimes even cheers for the torturing of an oppressive dictator, etc.

So assuming I live in a cardboard box, I probably couldn't give two shits about Bill Gates' 20 billion extorted loss if that loss gets me an apartment and some Cabernet Sauvignon.

Oh boy, France is quite the hot topic society wise

Well, this is true, But then, it was reciprocal.

Your proposed perfect society up there stipulates universal empathy.
"2. Empathy means that when others are happy, I am happy. This drives donations to charities, consoling people, and not knifing people for their pocket change which I can spend on donuts."
Reconcile that with forcing people to be unhappy to pay for your happiness.

The proletariat in Revolutionary France had very little empathy for the aristocracy.

What about empathy? Would not those people who are being forced be unhappy, causing those who are not being forced to feel bad for them? "Feeling bad for" is not happiness.

Sounds like early 20th century france. It would end up with the "artists" somehow getting away with drinking absinthe all day as they ride bikes around and shoot guns at the dirt and such. The vineries will not put up with that.

Makes the sum of happiness the greatest. Most people most happy.lolok

Sorry nimda, but you're wrong. The aim of a surrealist state is to increase the numbers of situations in which whales are painted green, giraffes are given false vampire fangs and drawers, and pianos melt when played. Best total happiness would come a close second place, though.

Makes who happiest? Those being forced? I think not.

Uh-oh. What if involuntary organization makes them the happiest?

As long as it's voluntary, I don't care how they organize their society. Like you said, whatever makes them happy.

My main point is that if socialism is the best way to make Bulgarians happy, then they should be socialist. It wouldn't make me happy, though. So I live in 'MURICA!!111

I approve of this message.

Let me list the factors of the society that would give me the most happiness (unabashedly cribbed from the Shire Society Declaration):

1. As a human, my purpose in life is the pursuit of happiness. I attempt to make the decisions which will result in the most happiness for myself.
2. Empathy means that when others are happy, I am happy. This drives donations to charities, consoling people, and not knifing people for their pocket change which I can spend on donuts.
3. The goal of any society, whether communist, capitalist, anarchist, statist, or surrealist, should be to promote the best total happiness.
4. If it is possible to torture one man or woman in such a way that everyone else in the society is very happy, this should be done. However, it is not possible due to empathy. The members of the society would empathize with, or "feel bad for" the person being tortured; "feeling bad for" is not happiness.
5. If it is possible to torture me in such a way that everyone else in the society is very happy, then I volunteer. Ironically, however, I would be happy with myself for doing such a noble deed and making so many other people happy. Thus, I would feel physical pain, but I might still be happy. The torture would "fail" due to empathy.
6. So there. The meaning of life, and the reason that there is no "one true method" of society, be it AnCap or StatSoc -- the one which makes people the most happy should be used. Here in 'murica, maybe AnCap would make people happiest; maybe not.
7. Please pass another joint