Prove Stefu your ideal society would result to greatest good for greatest number

[Tom201]

But the top 10 % would be then unhappy.

Thats part of the plan. Cose the unhappiness of those bastards will make the lower 90% even more happy

[Kassiopeia]

You do understand that, having a computer and living in Amsterdam and all, you would probably be yourself in the 10 percent losing their fortune to the rest of the world?

[Ari Rahikkala]

It's förbjuden, not forbjuden.

Thank you.

* this message brought to you by the Finnish council of the improvement of usage of random Swedish words in normal speech *

[Kassiopeia]

Well, you do understand that Sweden is a language that in no circumstance is to be used correctly? And that the council you represent threatens all things Finnish?

[Tom201]

Hrhmm, maybe I should rethink the plan, and cancel the revolution for now

[Ari Rahikkala]

But... using innocent random Swedish terms such as "nej" or "ja" or "svenskapåjkar" isn't against Finnish! It's a part of the very nature of the Finnish language!

[Kassiopeia]

Yes, maybe you should.

[Kassiopeia]

No it isn't! It's devilspawn and should be rooted out before it's too late!

[Ari Rahikkala]

"cancel the revolution"

How oxymoronic...

[Triped]

This all depends on what you mean by good.

Brave New World described a society in which nobody wants and everybody (except a couple dissidents, obviously) are happy with what they are.

So I would argue that a Brave New World-esque society is the best for the most people possible.

[MrFun]

Originally posted by David Floyd
See, I'm not interested in what the greatest good is, I'm interested in what is right and moral.

Now, I think laissez faire does bring the greatest good for the greatest number, but more importantly, it is right and moral. There's a distinction.

I'm still trying to follow you around on Apolyton.


What is right and moral --- OBVIOUSLY that entails a government that is actively responsible for the well-being and the equality of its citizens.

But of course, I admire Abraham Lincoln and Franklin D. Roosevelt --- those whom you consider to be villains.

But seriously --- I do not have a complete construction of my own hypothetical society yet, so I cannot elaborate much further.

But one thing that I believe is required out of an ideal society, is that the federal or national government is actively responsible for the well-being of its citizens or their equality without harmful violations of civil rights or citizenship rights.

[Lorizael]

You can't have a perfect society that's only good for most of the people. It has to be all inclusive. Because what if that poor dude who starves to death happens to be the next Einstein?

[JohnT]

Well, for starters, my perfect society would be ruled by Stefu. That's pretty much all I got right about now...

Do I win?

[Stefu]

Hey BD, I think that partial application of your Finn-torture is in order. I have two threadjackers here that would love to be experimented upon.

Put then in the fantasy world without them noticing it (chemical stuff in their food to make them asleep, then put them in the machine, ie). Then there wouldn't have any trouble due to protests.

You are still going against their wishes.

We already have lots of way to die without pain. Why don't we suicide immediately ourselves ?

Well, for starters, we want to live. I certainly do. Part of it comes from evolution, part comes from not knowing what's after death. What if it's eternal pain and misery? Wouldn't want to take the chances.

Never, rather be dead meat than dead mind.

At what part does your mind die? You'd still have a mind, except it'd focus on living in machine-provided fantasy world.

Practical example : two people want to kill me. I don't want to. I have to fight and I kill them, or I don't and they kill me. If we're mathematics, then it's better for them to kill me (one dead) than for me to kill them (two deads). Though, morally, it's unacceptable.

That just proves that utilitarianism isn't mathematics. From utilitarian perspective, since proper social order has to be kept to ensure happiness and attacking people and killing them isn't part of it, it's all right for people to defend themselves, as knowledge of people defending themselves might discourage potential attackers from attacking. Also, these attackers might then go on to kill or harm other people.

Besides, utilitarian might try to, for example, incapacitate the attackers. The attackers are going for a kill.

You can't have a perfect society that's only good for most of the people. It has to be all inclusive. Because what if that poor dude who starves to death happens to be the next Einstein?

Huh? Of course the utilitarian society would strive to provide this guy food.

[Az]

How can you talk about "greater good" if you don't already have a moral code that make the difference between the good and the bad ?

by good , I think Stefu means ? to have as many people as possible, as happy as possible , for the longest period of time.
morals ( of one kind or the other) are only laws we humans invented so we'd be friendly to each other. people that didn't have any common morals tended to die off, while killing and fighting each other , while people with common morals tended to work together and prosper. there, evolution at work