Answers, and questions.
Wow, this feels good. I'm pretty much done with all my homework, and I have a good idea that I get to elucidate on. It's like going back to the good old days of, like, a month ago. Just so you know, I'll keep checking the Thanksgiving post and I encourage you to do so also, so if you come up with a brilliant plan for us, that's the place to put it unless you come up with a better idea. I find that not unlikely. Anyway. About my idea. The honors program was in our colloquium talking about race issues, and some thoughts, none concerning race issues, came into my head. It's weird, but that's how I'm wired.First, people use two meanings of the term, "wouldn't it be better if..." They first speak of things being better if one small thing was changed; if the world was changed a little bit things would be better. (I feel like stepping in with the Tribolet Principle here, but I won't.) The other way is speaking of things as being ideally better; if things were perfect, such is how it would be. Having the two distinctions is not a problem; moving from one to another indiscriminately is. For example, the general consensus in the colloquia was that reducing emphasis on differences between the races was the specific solution for the ills regarding them. On the other hand, I and others I have spoken with believe that, in an ideal world, we would accept our differences and celebrate them, instead. But to move from one to another without thought or warning leads to disagreements and misunderstandings: as you see, the two ideas are nearly complete opposites, so disagreements between people with the best of intentions are not inconceivable.
In a similar way, I believe people fail to make a distinction between behavior that is morally reprehensible and behavior that should be legislated against. In colloquium, we talked about hate speech, and found that while it was almost universally disliked, we could find no real reason to legislate against free speech on account of our dislike. Individually morally wrong behavior is often less dangerous than legislation attempting to deny that behavior, if we are believers of basic freedoms and rights. To make a system work, we have to go through the system according to its premises, even if they lead to ends that we do not like. We should realize that keeping the premises (in this case, free speech) is more important than some behavior we don't advocate.
My points have one similarity. They are both pessimistic in the sense that I don't think that human behavior, as a whole, can be improved. If you read them both through you might infer, correctly, that I think that 'solving' one of societies' problems will only lead to different problems. To some people, that seems rather harsh. I have a good reason for this, and though it's pretty simple, proving that it is true will be pretty difficult, so for the sake of this discussion we'll just take it for granted, and scholars can attack me on it some other time. My reason is the basic similarity of human nature through time: a person today will have the same essential qualities that a person five thousand years ago would have, or a person a hundred years ago.
First, why do I think this? Mostly because the important arguments going on today are trying to answer the same questions people were arguing about throughout history. What is the best way to deal with society? What is the Universe made up of? Why are people the way they are? Why is God the way He is? All of these questions, besides remaining essentially unanswered, deal either with people or their enviroment (theological questions fall between the two).
I was worried for a moment. I thought I was wandering into circular reasoning here, but I'm not. Let me change something. It's not that we don't come up with acceptable answers to these fundamental questions, but that those answers aren't complete.
I was going to go further, but I think I'm going to end here, as I'm not sure on the logic for my next jump. I have to consider it more.
posted by Emmett @ 21:08
12 Comments:
in order for a society to change, the individuals that make up that society must change before, right? There will always be those out on the fringe, but we can minimize their power. I usually avoid the subject as a whole, because the issue is so polarizing. If you advocate personal responsibility, then some call you racist. If you say we need more money going into these areas, the other people will call you a fool for trying to foist personal responsibility on them when they are incapable of it. Ugh. So, I don't see any problem in society ever being completely corrected as long as people have the power to implement their opinions. I don't necessarily agree about your claim that other things will pop up in its place. I think the problem will always be there, but we can reduce it. Then other existing problems take its place in scope. There's a good chance that the solution to one problem will cause other problems, but I believe any government action is seen as a "problem" by someone. You're right about the old problems being the same. When they've been solved like, say, helping farmers to grow more crops so we don't starve, at least one smaller problem takes its place. In this case, it would be disagreement over subsidies and raising taxes to pay for farmers who are letting their land go without crops. I'd rather eat than not pay taxes, though. The real problem exists in individual nature. Either citizens or politicians are looking for the next big "issue" to take the headlines. The atomic bomb dropping over Hiroshima gripped the same front pages of the same newspapers as the 2000-casualty figure for Op Iraqi Freedom. Today's headlines aren't as bad, but they seem more important than yesterday's news. When individuals have the power to break laws or to act irresponsibly, there will always be problems in society. What we have here is a controlled anarchy, with a high-priced sticker labeled "Indirect Democracy."
(I was talking about the race issue in the beginning)
"For the natural man is an enemy to God, and has been from the fall of Adam, and will be, forever and ever, unless he yields to the enticings of the Holy Spirit, and putteth off the natural man and becometh a saint through the atonement of Christ the Lord..." (Mosiah 3:19)
Statistically speaking, how frequently does that happen to an entire society?
I think you're right in that I may have overstated the idea that problems simply 'pop up.' On the other hand, when you say that you would rather eat than pay taxes, you are making a value judgement. That one is rather obvious, but other ones may not be. To what extent would we rather pay taxes and gain government benefits; at what point does paying so many taxes become so harmful? You're right in detecting that these are opinions of individuals, but in the ideal society wouldn't everyone accept their place in it? And if we change one thing, doesn't that rub other people the wrong way? The opinions people hold about society can be accurate reflectors of that society because they are the reflectors of what makes up society.
In a perfect society, farmers wouldn't need assistance in the face of droughts or economic recessions. You can't expect people to accept starvation when a helping hand would be there. On the other hand, if there was no government, in this perfect society someone would lend a helping hand. In the real world, I'm not advocating complete government pampering. I'm still a conservative. But I still expect the government to be concerned with limited national interests, like interstate commerce (economy) and defense. When we rely on government for everything, we become a nation of leeches, and when no one's supplying the blood, we starve after the feast. Also, I agree about perceptions of people making up the perceptions of society. Everything that is seen in society is an observation by an individual or a group within it. The truth is, we can never have a perfect society when people see the bad in society or when there's difficulties that arise. Throw out the thorns and teach the people to always see the best in society, and you'll have your perfect society. Everyone will accept where they are with happiness, and no one will starve or go without clothes or shelter. When you provide the basic needs and when people look for the good instead of the bad, then you will have a society perceived by those who make it up as 'perfect.'
City of Enoch, Paul. Nephites after Christ. Other than that, not much. When Christ reigns, however, He will rule as a benevolent king, and everyone will be happy. Yay!
*boom schikiwiki boom chikaka boom shwalaka boom mise boom boom bom boom*
Statistics, Chris. You were in that class, too. They're called outliers. The lunatic fringe.
Did I not say "Other than that, not much?" Hmmm? Do YOU know the stats? Didn't think so. Bam.
Did you just call the City of Enoch the lunatic fringe?! Owch.
*whistles, looks about*
Do I need to come sit between you?
Be my guest.
Whistle?! LOL--and you know why! LOL
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home