A shared challenge regarding the foundation of ethics

[Charles]

Oh stop, they are all relatively cohesive now no matter their history. We in the west have a lot of violence in our histories too.

Stop with what? Giving facts about civillian massacres?

[siam]

1) Yes it’s an important “element” among many other elements such as tolerance.
True, but our modern multicultural societies must find ways to incorporate diversity otherwise we’re looking at totalitarianism, which has never been the most desirable form of governance.

2) The problem with theism is its tendency to regard those of different faiths (or none) as offending against the one true god and therefore deserving of discrimination or even death.

1) not sure if tolerance is an "important" element for social cohesion (but it is necessary to varying degrees)---a set of common "values" are far more important ?....its because tolerance is not that important, totalitarian societies can have social cohesion....in fact, intolerance (such as making up an enemy or enforcing class/cast/race structures) can enhance social cohesion of the group.

2) There are elements of exclusion in all identity-constructs (otherwise they would not work as identity-constructs)---even non-theistic ones such as a nation-state excludes others---for example, the French have long excluded certain groups of Frenchmen from being fully "French"...etc. Americans have a history of viewing any new group of "Americans" with suspicion and mistrust---and some of the old groups such as African Americans are always the "other" in a system built on structural inequality....(which, right or wrong, is still a value)


...So within a greater identity-construct, there can be hierarchies (of privilege and exclusion) which become value structures of a society. These values (right and/or wrong) hold the paradigm---or the "civilization"/culture. This is the "soft-power" and one measure of power of a culture/civilization can be if it attracts others to give assent to its "values"/ways. 2 methods of attracting assent is through force or by persuasion---either one of these, if very successful, can lead to self destruction. A mono-culture can lead to stagnation which will lead to self-destruction (without dynamism and change---any paradigm/value structure will lose its relevancy) and a forced conversion will lead to rebellion....?.....

...the ideal situation would be to have diversity of cultures/value structures that create an environment of constructive competition....?......but diversity will inevitably create tensions---which is a necessary side-effect---the trick is not to avoid/ignore or try to force "toleration" of such tensions----but to engage with them constructively.....tensions caused by differences can be an important tool for positive change in some instances?

[Roy]

Nonsense Roy, I listed quite a few totalitarian regimes/empires some of which lasted for centuries. And China and Cuba are still totalitarian, the few ruling over the majority. Totalitarianism works - thanks for making my point. And Rome did well for centuries.

What point? This one?
"Even today some of the most cohesive countries are religious - Muslim in fact. Democracies are much more messy with different factions at odds with each other. Much less cohesion. "

AFAICT your 'point' is that democracies lack social cohesion because they incorporate multiple political views, while Iran and Algeria have much better social cohesion despite periodically disintegrating in civil war and mass slaughter. So that's total bollocks.

Your other 'point' seems to be that democracies such as the UK and US, both of which have had uninterrupted government for well over a century, won't last as long as totalitarian regimes such as Cuba which has had its government overthrown half-a-dozen times over the same period. So that's also total bollocks.

The only point you're actually making is that you're either ignorant of history or willing to ignore events that don't fit your false views.

[Roy]

Oh stop, they are all relatively cohesive now no matter their history.

Bollocks. A country that had its government overthrown 6 years ago, its opposition leader assassinated 4 years ago and was in a state of emergency 2 years ago is not relatively cohesive in comparison with western democracies.

[seer]

Stop with what? Giving facts about civillian massacres?

No, the fact that totalitarianism does work. It controls the general population. Yes the that often involves destroying opposition, but that brings cohesion.

[seer]

Bollocks. A country that had its government overthrown 6 years ago, its opposition leader assassinated 4 years ago and was in a state of emergency 2 years ago is not relatively cohesive in comparison with western democracies.

Again nonsense, do you need a list (again) of totalitarian empires that lasted for centuries? And you only cherry picked a few of the Muslim countries I listed. Hell, look what is happening in the US right now, riots, Congressman and his aids shot, and remember our own Civil War. Democracies are inherently factious with different groups vying for power. James Madison understood this, to bad you don't.

[seer]

What point? This one?
"Even today some of the most cohesive countries are religious - Muslim in fact. Democracies are much more messy with different factions at odds with each other. Much less cohesion. "

AFAICT your 'point' is that democracies lack social cohesion because they incorporate multiple political views, while Iran and Algeria have much better social cohesion despite periodically disintegrating in civil war and mass slaughter. So that's total bollocks.

Your other 'point' seems to be that democracies such as the UK and US, both of which have had uninterrupted government for well over a century, won't last as long as totalitarian regimes such as Cuba which has had its government overthrown half-a-dozen times over the same period. So that's also total bollocks.

The only point you're actually making is that you're either ignorant of history or willing to ignore events that don't fit your false views.

I never said that Cuba will last longer than the US, I said that Cuba has a cohesive society, and that there have been totalitarian empires that have lasted for centuries, way longer than the modern liberal societies of today have lasted thus far.

[Roy]

Bollocks. A country that had its government overthrown 6 years ago, its opposition leader assassinated 4 years ago and was in a state of emergency 2 years ago is not relatively cohesive in comparison with western democracies.

Again nonsense,

It's not nonsense, it's factual data that you are ignoring in favour of the insane idea that civil rebellion is social cohesion.

do you need a list (again) of totalitarian empires that lasted for centuries?

You haven't produced any such list. The few examples you did provide either haven't been around for centuries, or have histories of recurrent civil war and violent seizure of power.

And you only cherry picked a few of the Muslim countries I listed.

I used the examples you provided. If they don't stand up to scrutiny, that's your problem. That you tried to defend them as valid examples even after they were shot down is your problem too.

Hell, look what is happening in the US right now, riots, Congressman and his aids shot, and remember our own Civil War.

I remember that the US civil war was nearly two centuries ago, in comparison to the much more recent civil wars in the countries you claim are more cohesive.

Democracies are inherently factious with different groups vying for power. James Madison understood this, to bad you don't.

I understand it. What I don't do, but you do, is pretend that military dictatorships are any less factious, or that totalitarian regimes haven't experienced civil unrest.

[seer]

It's not nonsense, it's factual data that you are ignoring in favour of the insane idea that civil rebellion is social cohesion.

No idiot, there is social cohesion after such rebellions are put down. You know like after our Civil War.

You haven't produced any such list. The few examples you did provide either haven't been around for centuries, or have histories of recurrent civil war and violent seizure of power. I used the examples you provided. If they don't stand up to scrutiny, that's your problem.

More nonsense, many of these Empires lasted much longer than the modern liberal states of today so far.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_empires

[Roy]

No idiot, there is social cohesion after such rebellions are put down. You know like after our Civil War.

Oh, so now you want to include racial segregation, voter intimidation and fraud, institutionalised discrimination/racism and anti-miscegenation in 'social cohesion'.

At this point, your idea of 'social cohesion' is effectively meaningless since you've used it to cover everything from apartheid to usurpation to armed rebellion, and any claim you make about social cohesiveness can be ignored.

More nonsense, many of these Empires lasted much longer than the modern liberal states of today so far.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_empires

Which ones were totalitarian and socially cohesive throughout their existence?

I never said that Cuba will last longer than the US,

You implied it, since the US is a democracy and Cuba is totalitarian: "Democracies, as practiced today, are fairly new - they may not survive into the future. We know that Totalitarian systems did work in history, for very long periods of times."

[seer]

Oh, so now you want to include racial segregation, voter intimidation and fraud, institutionalised discrimination/racism and anti-miscegenation in 'social cohesion'.

At this point, your idea of 'social cohesion' is effectively meaningless since you've used it to cover everything from apartheid to usurpation to armed rebellion.

Well no, since these upheavals are usually short lived, some lead to change, but others, like in China just lead to different totalitarian regimes. The fact is Roy for most of human history most people have lived under such totalitarian rule and humanity survived and even thrived and cohesion was maintained - certainly maintained enough for survival, even growth.

Which ones were totalitarian and socially cohesive throughout there existence?

Homer, I did not say that they were necessarily cohesive throughout their existence, democracies are often in upheaval, like ours as been for a good part of our history. The very problem with factions that Madison warned about.

You implied it, since the US is a democracy and Cuba is totalitarian: "Democracies, as practiced today, are fairly new - they may not survive into the future. We know that Totalitarian systems did work in history, for very long periods of times."

I implied nothing, concerning Cuba lasting longer than the US, you are fibbing. I never even hinted that all totalitarian governments would last longer than all Democratic governments.

[Tassman]

1) not sure if tolerance is an "important" element for social cohesion (but it is necessary to varying degrees)---a set of common "values" are far more important ?....its because tolerance is not that important, totalitarian societies can have social cohesion....in fact, intolerance (such as making up an enemy or enforcing class/cast/race structures) can enhance social cohesion of the group.

True, but not in a good way! And to avoid the dangers you mention “tolerance” (within certain guidelines) is all important.

2) There are elements of exclusion in all identity-constructs (otherwise they would not work as identity-constructs)---even non-theistic ones such as a nation-state excludes others---for example, the French have long excluded certain groups of Frenchmen from being fully "French"...etc. Americans have a history of viewing any new group of "Americans" with suspicion and mistrust---and some of the old groups such as African Americans are always the "other" in a system built on structural inequality....(which, right or wrong, is still a value)

A “system built on structural inequality” may still be a value, but it’s unacceptable in a modern multicultural society, which is why we now have the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. All the more important in that we now live in a global village, as opposed to separate states.

...So within a greater identity-construct, there can be hierarchies (of privilege and exclusion) which become value structures of a society. These values (right and/or wrong) hold the paradigm---or the "civilization"/culture. This is the "soft-power" and one measure of power of a culture/civilization can be if it attracts others to give assent to its "values"/ways. 2 methods of attracting assent is through force or by persuasion---either one of these, if very successful, can lead to self destruction. A mono-culture can lead to stagnation which will lead to self-destruction (without dynamism and change---any paradigm/value structure will lose its relevancy) and a forced conversion will lead to rebellion....?.....

...the ideal situation would be to have diversity of cultures/value structures that create an environment of constructive competition....?......but diversity will inevitably create tensions---which is a necessary side-effect---the trick is not to avoid/ignore or try to force "toleration" of such tensions----but to engage with them constructively.....tensions caused by differences can be an important tool for positive change in some instances?

I agree with all the above with the caveat that the dangers of "tensions", which you rightly outline, will require the "tolerance" which you seem a little ambivalent about.

[Tassman]

Well no, since these upheavals are usually short lived, some lead to change, but others, like in China just lead to different totalitarian regimes. The fact is Roy for most of human history most people have lived under such totalitarian rule and humanity survived and even thrived and cohesion was maintained - certainly maintained enough for survival, even growth.



Homer, I did not say that they were necessarily cohesive throughout their existence, democracies are often in upheaval, like ours as been for a good part of our history. The very problem with factions that Madison warned about.



I implied nothing, concerning Cuba lasting longer than the US, you are fibbing. I never even hinted that all totalitarian governments would last longer than all Democratic governments.

Sigh!

Regardless of the best form of maintaining social cohesion, the undeniable fact is that as social animals cohesion must be maintained in some form or other otherwise our survival as a species is at risk.

Our evolution was a process of survival via selection and gene propagation. And our morality (which is what this topic is all about) is an extension of (and supported by) evolutionary theory and exists to enable our survival via group living...whether in a totalitarian environment or a democratic one. Although, I think we'd all agree that the latter makes for more pleasant living for the majority.

[Tassman]

No, the fact that totalitarianism does work. It controls the general population. Yes the that often involves destroying opposition, but that brings cohesion.

It may well work but it's inherent violence in enforcing conformity often results in rebellion and uprisings. In any case, democratic systems are fairer for the majority and consequently more likely to remain stable.

[seer]

It may well work but it's inherent violence in enforcing conformity often results in rebellion and uprisings. In any case, democratic systems are fairer for the majority and consequently more likely to remain stable.

Really? Have you see the leftists in my country lately! They shoot congressmen. The whole point of this discussion Tass is that if social cohesion is the goal, it can be reached in a number of ways - and no way is more or less moral than any other way.