I'm gonna go ahead and throw out some perky questions here.
Quote:
Originally Posted by tore
To me, a society means people getting together and agreeing to abolish some freedoms for the betterment of all members of society, such as f.ex the freedom to kill and steal. It means that society's people agree to (or at least generally behave according to) a common compromise in an effort to coexist better.
|
Voluntarily or by force?
Quote:
Originally Posted by tore
I think the part of society that should be gratified are all the regular members who make compromises and follow the common rules (ex. pay taxes and follow laws).
|
'Compromise' as in give up self-interest? As for the common rules, well, those are the ones we shake up by discussions like these.
Quote:
Originally Posted by tore
I think it is important for any society to be an environment where exploiters are not successful, exploiters being defined as someone who at some point does not compromise for selfish reasons.
|
Assuming that everyone generally looks out for his/her own interest, be it by personal or communal benefit; for this supposed 'exploiter'*, as a part of a community, where's the incitement for him/her to take a certain action if the outcome doesn't benefit him/her? By what doctrine are the sacrifice for the collective more justified than the pursuit for personal interests?
*I put it into quotation marks, as I'd say that an exploiter is a person who refines resources into value, nothing more, nothing less.
Quote:
Originally Posted by tore
Generally speaking, they will be criminals breaking society's laws. Still, I think how we treat the elderly, the disabled and criminals will be reflected in the general behaviour in society's members. For example, harsher treatment of criminals may lead to more violence in society. As such, finding the best way to deal with criminals is one of the tougher problems society face, I think.
|
First of all, let's not forget that what constitutes a criminal is thoroughly dependent on the legislation (which, depending on the nature of the jurisdiction, makes it a crime to possess a joint, not wearing seat belts in your car or, as has been brought up on this forum, wearing burkas).
That said, I think that the proper way to look at crime and punishment is not so much the penalty as the compensation for the victim of the crime.
Quote:
Originally Posted by tore
You ask me how to affirm happiness. What does affirm mean? Are you asking how I think happiness is best achieved or are you asking how to determine whether or not people are happy? I have answers to both, but I'm not sure I wanna risk going off on an off-topic rant just yet in case I interpret your question wrong.  |
All that and more; I'd like to know what constitutes happiness in a general sense (or it wouldn't be a communal issue), how it should be achieved by the ones in charge of it (providing we should have such an instance), and not least, how it's measured (once again, on a general scale).