NationStates Jolt Archive

Wich would be the perfect civilisation in the following options:

- Laws based on religion & allow for possessions
- Laws based on moral & allow for possessions
- Laws based on both religion & moral & allow for possesions
- Laws based on logic & allow for possessions
- Laws based on logic & disallow for possessions

With possessions i mean both money & property.

- Laws based on religion & allow for possessions
- Laws based on moral & allow for possessions
- Laws based on both religion & moral & allow for possesions
- Laws based on logic & allow for possessions
- Laws based on logic & disallow for possessions

Laws?! We don't need no stinking laws! Seriously, though, I'd go for 'Laws based on logic & allow for possessions', but with a more limited notion of property than that used today.

Kill, bad. Wife, mine. Steal, bad. Rock, mine.

Morals and allow for possessions.

I don't think logic has any way of protecting my property.

you are aware that religion and morals in this situation are meant to be the same, the thing is than everyone needs to be the same religion for it to work

you are aware that religion and morals in this situation are meant to be the same, the thing is than everyone needs to be the same religion for it to work

Nope, morals & religion are *NOT* the same, never were, never will be.

Kill, bad. Wife, mine. Steal, bad. Rock, mine.

Morals and allow for possessions.

I don't think logic has any way of protecting my property.

Hmm... "i bought it therefor it is my possession", sounds logical to me :p

Laws based on logic & allow for possessions. I think this is best because religion tends to become fanatical, people differ on morality, and without private property people lack liberty and privacy. Logic isn't perfect, but it can explain the reasons why laws were enacted in a rational way instead of just because.

Wich would be the perfect civilisation in the following options:

- Laws based on religion & allow for possessions
- Laws based on moral & allow for possessions
- Laws based on both religion & moral & allow for possesions
- Laws based on logic & allow for possessions
- Laws based on logic & disallow for possessions

With possessions i mean both money & property.

Wait, why exactly are religion/morality and logic mutually exclusive?

Meh. None would be perfect as there would always be argumant, as different people would favour different ones.

Hmm... "i bought it therefor it is my possession", sounds logical to me :p

No more so than "I stole it fair and square."

It's simple!:)

Laws based on religion & logic & moral & allow property & disallow money

Religion (catholic) is logical, 'cause it's principles are logical, same for morality, private property sounds logical if it's intended as to have a home and some personal objects, which have a meaning, not collect and surround oneself with tons of useless things, nor to possesse corporations, people, land, artworks, names, facts (in this society it happens...). Money is logically useless.

Everything would be much easier, if I could rule, instead of an imperialist country, you'd have an iron fist over your backs, stinking workers!!!!!

Wait, why exactly are religion/morality and logic mutually exclusive?

Because they are? Religion itself doesn't follow logic, and morals are constructs that evolve & change over time. Logic (and math) doesn't

No more so than "I stole it fair and square."

I don't find that logical at all :rolleyes:

It's simple!:)

Laws based on religion & logic & moral & allow property & disallow money

Religion (catholic) is logical, 'cause it's principles are logical, same for morality, private property sounds logical if it's intended as to have a home and some personal objects, which have a meaning, not collect and surround oneself with tons of useless things, nor to possesse corporations, people, land, artworks, names, facts (in this society it happens...). Money is logically useless.

I disagree that catholism is logical.

Everything would be much easier, if I could rule, instead of an imperialist country, you'd have an iron fist over your backs, stinking workers!!!!!

Communism! Trekism(*)!

(* one could argue that the civilisation in ST:TNG is of a communist nature)

I'm something of an idealist. I think laws should be governed by logic, in as much as there should be minimal regulation... only what is NEEDED, and that it should be 'fair'.

To me, that implies 'logical'... because moralities, and especially religion, don't NEED to be fair...

Regarding property - for me, the ideal would be some comfortable medium... tending, perhaps, towards disallowing property.

I favour the old fashioned tribal mentality, where an individual had some possessions, and the tribe had some possessions which tribe-members had access to. Sort of 'rational communism', perhaps?

no laws are needed, at all

I suspect that logic will win, because everyone thinks that their beliefs are logical

Because they are? Religion itself doesn't follow logic, and morals are constructs that evolve & change over time. Logic (and math) doesn't

Do you think math hasn't evolved? Pythagoras sure wasn't complete with his description, and neither was Leibnitz. Just as religious morality has been interpretted differently in time so has math. As for your 'religious morals change over time' it is humanity's interpretation of a religious script that has changed, not the words themselves. Our interpretations of any material, including your stronghold math, will change in time.
Science as well Aristotle->Newton->Einstein->Heisenberg

And to make a statement about 'perfection' while disregarding morality is absurd. When you say, "we should use logic," you are making a moral statement because you are answering the question 'what should I/we do?" To escape morality is impossible under the pretext of your original question.

But still, wither is logic?

Nope, morals & religion are *NOT* the same, never were, never will be.

You should put that question in a poll.

Perfect? In what sense?
Perfect in terms of efficiency and/or progress or Perfect in terms of quality of life?

In the case that you mean perfect in terms of quality of life (how happy and fufilled everyone is), then I would have to argue that a 'perfect civilisation' is an oxymoron in the most fundamental way.

You can have varying qualities of civilisation, but by it's very definition you cannot have a perfect civilization. The point at which a group of people cease classification as a subsistance culture and become a 'civilisation' (by the text book) is upon specialisation of tasks, (Joe no longer has to hunt, gather, protect, and build. Now he can focus just on building, and in some way his expertise in this area will provide an means to access the benefit from others).

So once there is the separation and specialisation labour (with or without possesion and/or money-which would definitely worsen the situation if present) the will be someone who has to clean toilets, or risk his life for the others. Some jobs will be more desirable than others, some more profitable in ways (even the amount of 'service' it earns in a possesionless society). This will generate 'task envy' and 'task pride'. In addition, some will be better than others in their designated field thus generating 'task inadequacy' and 'task excellence'. In the end, possesions or not people will be unhappy or at a loss in some way (if there are winners there must be losers, and with specialisation of roles-'civilisation'- there will always be winners and losers).

In terms of perfection in relation to quality of life and happiness, there only is one true option; a complete lack of civilisation where every individual and/or family unit exists in a purely subsistance socio-economic setting without any real possesions or currency. Only then will everyone have a chance to be 'happy' or at least equal. Idealy, the individuals would be as unintelligent, well adapted to their environment, and isolated from each other as is reasonably possible.

I often joke to myself that the best thing Humankind could do to itself with all of the technology it has ammassed is to genetically engineer itself to perfectly fit into a ecological niche and lose all intelligence.

On the opposite end of the spectrum is perfection in terms of efficiency and progress. This option is not so much of an immediate self-redundancy as the other as it is unrealistically inobtainable.

In this case, individuals happiness is irrelevant, as they should exist only to advance the whole. In this kind of civilisation logic must rule supreme over all else. There would be no controversy over female/child soldiers, embryonic stem cell research, compulsory organ harvesting, culling of the population to meet optimal capacity in relation to economic capacity, political freedom, human rights, ect...

Basically it would have to be a total autocracy in which everyone had unflinching loyalty to 1 leader, who himself had unflinching loyalty to progress, efficieny, and the interests of the whole. Any form of human self-interest on any strata of society decays this 'perfect' civilisation. This would be option 'laws based on logic without possesion'.

Ultimately both options are as unrealistic. However, the first option has existed successfully for some millenia (though one might argue that it decayed quickly upon the maturity of human evolution). In the end, the two options are hopeless, one defys the very question, the other asks too much of humanity. There is no possible 'perfect civilisation', the term is as ludicrous as it is impossible.

However, you have not asked anyone attack the validity of the question itself, so if I had to pick a civilisation 'closest' to perfection it would have to be a centrist society in which progress and efficiency were juggled with happiness and quality of life. Possesions (though not neccesarily money) would be essential in managing self-interest. So I would conclude 'Laws based upon logic with possesions' would be the most balanced and lest inherently flawed model. Something like a modern day centrist-capatalistic-welfare-state.

Also, as a final note, you may have noticed that I did not include morality and religion were not included in my 'run-down' of the topic. This is as both are too subjective (and also irrelevant, though lets not set too much flame bait...) to be applied to such a broad and hypothetical topic (the latter more so than the former).

I disagree that catholism is logical.

Why do you think that catholic religion is not logical? Not the church, the power, the dogmas, the hierarchy... only the message of Christ. Where it isn't logical?

<snipped for brevery>



Dude, that was an *awesome* post, my hat of to you, and i agree with just about everything in it

Why do you think that catholic religion is not logical? Not the church, the power, the dogmas, the hierarchy... only the message of Christ. Where it isn't logical?

What *is* the message of Christ? The bible? If you think the bible is logical then i fear this will be a long, very long, discussion ;)

;)

What *is* the message of Christ? The bible? If you think the bible is logical then i fear this will be a long, very long, discussion ;)

Absolutely not.:)
I have no time now, I have to go, but if this thread survive until this evening I am happy to tell you!;)

Which would be the perfect civilisation
The "perfect civilization" is a myth. People aren't perfect and neither will be any civilization they build. Any attempt to build a civilization without taking into account the contrariness and arbitariness of humans is doomed to failure.