Another problem

Not sure what you mean by "advanced"...but compared with field mice, we are advanced. Compared with might exist in this universe, we might very well be not very advanced at all.

In any case, in the most advanced scenarios I can imagine, there still would have to be a hierarchy in place to allow for reasonable order. I don't see anything particularly threatening to an advanced civilization in having structure.

So I guess I am asking: What is your point?

Well my point is simply that, and this could be grossly inaccurate, why is it that if we have the power to control our urges to do things that we deem wrong, we don't? Simply saying that humans are "imperfect" beings isn't good enough, because this supposes a notion of perfection, which to me is a concept humans created, not one that exists naturally.

Well I think we do...although not perfectly. Certainly better than we did 5000 years ago; or 500 years ago.

But "hierarchy" or structure is not needed just to help us "control our urges" (not controlling urges MAY be a sign of great advancement???)...but also to make things work reasonably in a complex social structure.

Easy example: We need a means to determine where traffic signs are needed...it cannot be a function of each of us deciding for ourselves.




I'll wait for someone else to comment on this, Aaron. You may be wrong about the nature of "perfect/imperfect"...and even if you are correct...you may be wrong about the implications on what you are investigating here.

Your argument is a non-starter because social forces cannot be equated with psychological forces. In short, group behavior cannot be anthropomorphized as a variant of the behavior of individuals. Any one of us who considers themselves to be a "moral law abiding citizen" could find themselves killing "their country's enemies" in time of war with little or no remorse. The fact that there are power structures which either regulate or channel social forces is par for the course of human history. Technological "advance" is no indicator of "social advance" in a world of natural unequal distribution of wealth.
Only the Western philosopher who is willing leave his comfortable armchair and relinquish his per capita twenty six fold consumption of the world's resources relative to the poorest nature, is qualified to attempt to preach the pursuit of "social advance". Are you ?

Wow...talk about opening a can o' worms. This seems like you are touching real Metaphysics: Plato, Aristotle, Kant, etc. Man's morality, existence, place in the Universe and all that. Way over my head.

Then you might like my Philosophy of Human Nature class...

Your response was the basis for my argument. We are in agreement, but there is a part of me that thinks that individualized decision making isn't a bad thing, especially given (1) we are social creatures and (2) it has worked on a small scale before.

Some may understand that I am not clearing this thread from my New Posts because of amusement.

We have a new football. Or futbol.

I. Kant understand Philsophy. I always put Decartes before the horse. Sorry, an illusional evil force of Nature made me do that.

Your views beg the question 'what does it mean to be advanced' and 'how advanced do we claim to be'

In relation to a system of heirachy - as we are both social and individual creatures, a system of heirachy produces a level of cohesion that does not otherwise exist. Your question seems to indicate that you believe 'advancement' means the giving up of the individual side of human nature for purely the social...that line of thought would end in a tangled knot.

It's probably a good question for a philosphy class, because if you actually bought into the question, it could produce quite a debate. Personally I find the question and concepts fundamentally flawed.

They raise (not beg) those questions (plural)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Begging_the_question

Having said that, the guy is just an argumentative attention troll.

Tosser.

You show your lack of experience of war. Those who have been socialized to reject murder as acceptable behavior suffer from participation in wars when they can see the effects of their behavior. They may accept the superficial claim that it is morally reasonable to kill the enemies of one's country in time of war, but they still suffer the effects of those actions. Only people who were sociopathic or psychopathic to begin with actually enjoy the opportunity to kill which war provides. From the unknown veteran suffering from post-traumatic stress disorder to Audie Murphy, the surviving victims of war are legion.

The psychological point you make is understood, but the key issue for me is that social forces over-rule and to a large extent act as an insulator at the time with respect to "normal" morality. If that were not so war would indeed be eliminated. The psychological point you make is post facto to actual participation in combat.

Innate behaviors and social tendencies are adequate enough for the formation / operation of a self-regulating ape group. Any progress and complexity of organization beyond that requires the invention of language and prescribed formal systems that are memorized and passed-on to future generations (information which eventually becomes stored outside the brain). The need to generalize rather than exhaustively provide instructions for each contingent, particular situation garners the appearance of ideal policies and lofty canon trying to regulate the messiness of everyday life. As well as yielding abstract legislative frameworks with empty placeholders for leadership positions in an orderly structure.

Such ideal standards provide the individual with reference points for how far the imperfections of "real" behavior and worldly affairs have caused one to stray from a norm or the applicable rule / concept (i.e, "It's time to return from the deep waters before sight of the beach or coast is completely lost."). When rigidly and pervasively enforced to the letter, however, humans endure the misery of being governed by the equivalent of a machine diagram depicted on paper or other data-storage devices.

No, the key point to you is that, once again, as always, you get to sit up in your ivory tower and glibly pontificate on mattes about which you really know nothing. No one goes into combat for the first time knowing what the experience will be like.

Maybe you should stick to your infantile thread about "farting" rather than stalk me round the forum displaying your simmering resentment to your ridiculous challenge to what what you pounce on as dissent from your "pearls of wisdom".

If you had watched some of the plethora of programmes currently playing on the BBC recounting first hand experiences of war, you might understand the predominance of social forces over psychological ones.

Stalk you around the forum? I strongly urge you to get professional help as soon a possible. Your delusions and paranoia are getting the better of you.