Godlike Productions - Discussion Forum
Users Online Now: 1,801 (Who's On?)Visitors Today: 303,188
Pageviews Today: 480,423Threads Today: 153Posts Today: 2,412
06:05 AM


Back to Forum
Back to Forum
Back to Thread
Back to Thread
REPORT ABUSIVE REPLY
Message Subject Any civilization that allows women to have authority over men is on its way out. Period.
Poster Handle Anonymous Coward
Post Content
let's not throw out put the baby merit with the bathwater of moral decline

Even one that "successfully" employs immoral strategies is still a subset of moral decline.

Successful is subjective. Does the means justify the ends?

I say f all that other crap and let's just give a ruthless meritocracy a chance.

I dont mean ruthless as violent but I mean committed truly to meritocracy no holds barred

Capitalism is a subset of meritocracy

We can have a proper blind meritocracy that still has a safety net for the poorest of the poor. Thst is the moral element.
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 73839705


It's difficult discussing the subjectivity of morality. Morality is upheld as objective, just as philosophies are, and this becomes the point of contention that allows for debate and evolution. Morality evolves because it is upheld as objective, but by its very nature of evolving it is subjective. This debate and attention is vital to resist moral decline. This attention and discussion can instill traditional morality, and opens it up for deeper interpretation and understanding.

There is little attention to morality in current times, those who debate morality reject the wisdom of tradition and degenerate the issue to impracticality, trying to reinvent the wheel. Those who accept tradition do nothing to further their understanding of it, in order to avoid leaving it open to interpretation that would justify the first groups instincts for reinvention.

Meritocracies do not work because there is an incentive, and will always be an incentive, for certain groups to organize and monopolize structures of power. Even with a single ethnicity or religion, subgroups will form. The more conformist a culture is, the more incentive there is for subcultures to monopolize power through corruption and censorship. Even with a culture that tolerates diversity, cultures that have adapted strategies as a response to historical conditions will continue to rationalize their power-monopolizing behavior. Moreover, it is idealistic to think you can root out all of these subcultures by religious or ethnic identity, as they've already adapted into different organizational structures, such as secret societies.

Capitalism is excellent, but so too is a republic democracy, a constitution, and decentralized power. In the success of this model, we see a mimicry of natures strategy of diversifying, allowing different groups to go their own way and implement their own strategies.

Our nation has become far more centralized, and this has a great deal to do with the emphasis on merit. Merit, as a general concept, is ambiguous and can be purely good. However, in application and cultural discussion it almost always has to do with ones contribution to structures of power. When these structures are corrupt, merit is a poor value system to use.

I don't mean to argue against merit as a value system entirely. I brought this up in a thread about men and women because I see a balance in the genders. Women, who are less capable then men in most conditions where merit can be easily ascertained, find ways to value themselves regardless of merit. This mind state is important to have, just as valuing merit is important. Two genders with a proclivity towards different mind sets that balance each other out.

As for people successfully implementing immoral behaviors, you're really going to need to take that up with nature. As far as I can tell, morality is a luxury. Nature is filled with murder, cannibalism, and pedophilia and while these things are unpleasant, they do serve a function. You may say this is just nature, and humans are different, but I would point out that every evil behavior has negative consequences on the species involved. Species that could gain an advantage by cooperating have to deal with their fellows eating them. Species that could raise their young have to instead focus on proliferating constantly. Its stressful, its violent, its detrimental to individual growth, yet its what nature has had to do to survive.

So I think immoral behaviors serve a function, and moral behavior is simply an upgrade in function. I'm not saying immoral behaviors are great, I'd love to get rid of them, but they exist and I don't think you can - not with free will in play.

As for safety nets for the poorest of the poor, I'd say get the government out of it. Let communities look after their own, mutual accountability more healthy dependency. The impoverished will know who to pay back and feel compelled to do so, the community will know better what support the impoverished need than a bureaucratic decree.
 
Please verify you're human:




Reason for reporting:







GLP