"You choose the big ones," Azrael says with a smile, "What about abortion? In one society, it is viewed as barbaric and in the other a requirement for a woman's freedom over her own body.
"In the frame of each society, the viewpoint matters little, as long as the society survives. Any advancement is indeed driven merely by the desire to survive. The desire for universal sufferage, for example, is often such that a society unwilling to change is threatened with extinction - whether that be total destruction in the form of civil war, or such a drastic reconstruction that the society can no longer be identified with the one that went before.
"The only real objective point of reference for judging advancement is survival."
"I cannot help feeling that your view that societies must morally advance in order to survive is countered by the fact that socieities that did not make advances in suchs areas as sufferage, or many other moral freedoms, in fact, continued to exist unimpeded.
"And indeed, these moral issues are often taken as relative. But the importance of that can be overstated. The important thing is, a judgement can be made about how culturally and morally advanced a society is. And it will seek to advance within its definition of 'moral', and I would say that it makes such advances not out of a desire to survive, but out of a desire to better itself, in much the same way that individuals seek first to survive, and then also to develop."
"What is survival, Azrael? Look at the state of the world at the end between 20th and 21st century. There is much complexity and variation that you can hardly even distinquish between individual societies, as the cultural, informational and even political borders were becoming less and less significant."
Originally posted by Ushgarak
"I cannot help feeling that your view that societies must morally advance in order to survive is countered by the fact that socieities that did not make advances in suchs areas as sufferage, or many other moral freedoms, in fact, continued to exist unimpeded."And indeed, these moral issues are often taken as relative. But the importance of that can be overstated. The important thing is, a judgement can be made about how culturally and morally advanced a society is. And it will seek to advance within its definition of 'moral', and I would say that it makes such advances not out of a desire to survive, but out of a desire to better itself, in much the same way that individuals seek first to survive, and then also to develop."
I agree with your basic points here. -Melkor nods again. Though I believe that society too often seeks advancement at the expense of indivdual advancement.
"You say that a society seeks to advance within its own definition of morality, but then it is impossible to compare one society with another. A judgement may indeed be made about how moral another society is, but that is purely a reflection of the judge's own society.
"The morality of a society can always be seen as a reflection of the society's goal of survival. As long as its members are content, there is little risk of there being any internal threats, and it is free to concentrate on the outside world."
"Why does the fact that the judgment is a reflection of the judger's morals make a judgment impossible? I am unsure if that is logically coherent. As I say, you can overstate the problems caused by a relative view.
"I am interested in your idea that moral advances are made only to keep a society happy. I do believe that an idea was once advanced that freedoms were only ever given out to societies as a form of bribe for their co-operation in a crisis such as a war. But I do not believe this view stands to close examination. One major problem is that many moral and social advances were made in spite of the view of the majority, not at the behest of it. If anything, they actively caused social unrest that could have been avoided."
Originally posted by Lord Melkor
I agree with your basic points here. -Melkor nods again. Though I believe that society too often seeks advancement at the expense of indivdual advancement.
"You've said that several times now - what do you mean by it? Do you place individual advancement above social advancement?"
Originally posted by Ushgarak
"Why does the fact that the judgment is a reflection of the judger's morals make a judgment impossible? I am unsure if that is logically coherent. As I say, you can overstate the problems caused by a relative view."I am interested in your idea that moral advances are made only to keep a society happy. I do believe that an idea was once advanced that freedoms were only ever given out to societies as a form of bribe for their co-operation in a crisis such as a war. But I do not believe this view stands to close examination. One major problem is that many moral and social advances were made in spite of the view of the majority, not at the behest of it. If anything, they actively caused social unrest that could have been avoided."
"I agree that often moral 'progress' is made in spite of majority view. However, in these cases I would argue that the minority were much more motivated - they had a greater will - than the majority. If they had been denied, it would likely have caused greater dissatisfaction than making the advance caused for the rest of the society."
Originally posted by Trickster
"You've said that several times now - what do you mean by it? Do you place individual advancement above social advancement?""I agree that often moral 'progress' is made in spite of majority view. However, in these cases I would argue that the minority were much more motivated - they had a greater will - than the majority. If they had been denied, it would likely have caused greater dissatisfaction than making the advance caused for the rest of the society."
"That satrikes me as highly cobjectural and not very fitting with the presented facts of history. Slavery is a good example for this. I doubt you can support a view that says a minority will cause more trouble, when the majority is actively against the presented social advance."
Originally posted by Newjak
"Why must a society advance to become happy. Because we have to feel that for whatever reason what we do now will have impact later. A better place then the one we left.""As to why we must do things even if it causes unrest. We need to feel that we are won't fie with us."
That last point is not one for you, Berserker. It's all about Azrael's view that they only do it to survive; you clearly do not think that.
Well, we had best move on.
"So, what do you believe is laudable about the process of a society developing? What purpose do moral or cultural advancments have? Or even the achievements of a culture, in technology or other forms of progress? Do you think it is rational to rate a sophisticated culture above a primitive one?"
"What purpose does advancement give us. Well like I said it gives us purpose beyond survival. It allows us as a society to take our minds off of the everyday dangers we face."
"As to wether or not you rate a sophisticated culture above a primitive one. I think you can because a more sophisticated one can offer the ability to survive more."