Philosophy Discussion Forums | A Humans-Only Club for Open-Minded Discussion & Debate

[Ecurb]

Yes, we ought to take things of value from people (whether or not they have "acquired them without inflicting loss or injury"). That's because we think that taking these things creates a better society, and is conducive to human happiness and well-being.

Every thief, tyrant, Crusader, marauder, warmonger, Inquistioner, witch-burner, and slaver in history has so thought, from Genghis Khan to Stalin and Hitler to Mao and Pol Pot.

Bunk. Some tyrants were interested only in themselves (although their propaganda may have claimed otherwise).

The fact that many tyrants abuse what you see as human "rights" is irrelevant to the argument. The same tyrants ALSO abuse what I see as human rights. HItler was a vegetraian who loved dogs. We cannot assume that therefore dog-loving or eating broccoli is evil. Morton's post is another example of dissembling and irrelevant distraction.

[LuckyR]

Changing a benefit to a mandated benefit doesn't magically transform it into "charity", it remains a mandated benefit.

Those terms are not mutually exclusive.

Only the most naive wouldn't be able to figure out that employers incorporate mandated costs in their total compensation package (which remains fixed since their competitors pay them also), so they aren't out any money, so no tears of sympathy required.

Of course they "out money." So are their customers, who will pay higher prices to cover those costs. That their competitors also pay them doesn't make the costs disappear.

If you want to expand the definition of charity to include things that don't follow the standard (such as paid-for universal mandated benefits) I suppose you are free to do so.

If there are fixed costs (like mandated benefits), they are made up by lowering variable costs. Higher benefits lead to lower wages, the total compensation package is fixed. Or to put it more simply, if mandated unemployment insurance disappeared today, employers would either keep it (if their employees wanted it) or drop it and likely raise wages (to stay competitive in the labor market), ultimately the labor costs would change very little.

[Belindi]

What other marker of civilisation could there possibly be, GEMorton, apart from altruism?

A "civilization," or "civilized" society, is a society characterized by cities ("Civitas" being the Latin term for "city"). A city is a community so large that most of its inhabitants do not know most of the others (in contrast to tribal villages). I.e., civilized societies are societies of strangers. The essential virtue for civilized societies is tolerance, for people who may not look like you, worship your gods, observe your customs, share your interests or values, or even speak your language --- because in cities you will encounter such persons regularly.

Collectives are ruled by laws. A civilised collective has altruistic laws.

Civilized societies are collec-tions, but not collec-tives. A collective is a group of people working cooperatively at a common task or in pursuit of a common goal or interest. There is no such common goal or task or interest in which all members of civilized societies are cooperatively pursuing.

A civilized society may have some altruistic laws, because some lawgiver (including majorities in democratic societies) at one time or another decreed them. They may also have oppressive laws, for the same reason. Brutal dictatorships and theocracies are also civilized societies.

Conurbations and cities do typify modern collectives, but cities were not the very first signs of civilisation. The very first sign of civilisation was not cities, or the wheel, or the discovery of fire, it was a sign that one human being took care of another human being.

To name brutal dictatorships and theocracies such as Taliban, and North Korea, and Al-Qaeda ,and ISIS 'civilisations' is to degrade the meaning of the word.These are less civilised than liberal democracies with efficient welfare and human rights.

[Gertie]

]Now, why would you suppose I think that? I've never said any such thing. No, no one "deserves" rights (any rights), though they can be said to deserve some of the things to which rights attach --- but not all of them. You have two arms, and you have a natural right to them because Nature provided you with them, but do you "deserve" them?

Deserts, merit, etc., apply to the fruits of human actions. Rights (natural and common rights, not legal rights) are not themselves fruits of human action; they are simply pseudo-properties --- a kind of tag --- assigned to persons to denote a particular historical fact about them: the fact that they acquired the thing to which they claim a right without inflicting loss or injury on other moral agents. Rights are not honorifics or rewards.

Once again, GE Morton prefers nit picking and defining words to actually discussing issues. I can see why. Any actual discussion would portray his paucity of good will.

Discussing philosophy with Morton is like swimming upstream; try as you might, you never seem to get anywhere.

In his response to Gertie Morton writes:

One has a duty to aid another in distress when the victim will suffer a substantial loss in welfare (serious injury or significant loss of property) which the rescuer can prevent or mitigate at a relatively small cost (loss of his own welfare). So, yes, I have a duty to prevent the blind man from wandering into a busy street, to save a child drowning in a shallow pond, to render CPR to an apparent heart attack victim, to help a neighbor escape a burning house and extinguish the fire, to intervene if I witness a theft, mugging, rape, assault, etc., to the extent I can do so without risking my own life or limb.

That duty is conditioned upon several factors:

1. The victim did not bring the distress upon himself by some wilful and intentional act when he "knew or should have known" what the consequences would be;

2. The victim has done all in his power, in the circumstances, to save himself or his property;

3. The rescuer has no reason to believe the victim would not reciprocate, were their roles reversed. I.e., Alfie has no duty to save Bruno if he knows Bruno has shirked or would shirk that same duty.

That duty, to the extent it is honored, advances the goal of the axiom by reducing risks of welfare losses for all agents, but only when the three conditions apply.

A couple of other points: the duty only requires action when the cost to the rescuer is "relatively small." But since welfare consists in securing what one values, and values are subjective and idiosyncratic, only the rescuing agent can decide how large that loss will be. Hence the Duty to Aid must be discretionary, not mandatory.

Picture this; GE MOrton is dining at a fancy restaurant. Strangely (given his personality) his dinner companion is the gorgeous Dominique Francon. Suddenly, Ms. Francon grasps her throat, unable to speak, but gasping for breath that will not come. "Aaaargh," she cries. It is clear that she is choking on a piece of meat.

"I know the Heimlich maneuver," says Morton. "But I'm afraid that you didn't sufficiently masticate your steak. That's why you're choking. Since you should have known that this might lead to choking, I have no duty to help you."

"Aaaargh!" cries Francon, turning blue.

"In addition," Morton calmly states,"I have no reason to believe you would help me if I were choking. I believe in the reverse Golden Rule -- never help others unless they would help you."

Ms. Francon collapses to the ground and dies. "Oh well,"says Morton, returning to his dinner and carefully chewing every bite.

Why bother discussing morality with someone whose views are so clearly uncharitable, self-serving, and (frankly) obnoxious? In Jane Austen's "Sense and Sensibility", Elinor Dashwood knows how to deal with Morton and his fellow travellers (from memory), "Elinor agreed with everything he said, because she did not think he deserved the compliment of rational opposition."

Yep. When faced with a moral no-brainer like Singer's 'would you ruin your shoes to save a toddler drowning in front of you', if you have to create a checklist for such situations to see what they might be able to do for you - that's the point anybody should realise they've gone horribly wrong somewhere. Take a breath, step back, and realise despite your intentions, rationalisations and logic, you've totally lost the plot. It's the morality of psychopathy.

[Leontiskos]

Why bother discussing morality with someone whose views are so clearly uncharitable...

Yep. When faced with a moral no-brainer like Singer's...

This is just question begging. Morton gave his principles, inferences, and conclusions. Where are your principles? Where are your arguments? These are just thin appeals to intuition, and they are ironically coming from folks who believe there is no objective morality.

It apparently comes down to the simple fact that you are unable to justify your morality, and so must devolve into ad hominem and appeals to emotion.

[GE Morton]

Yes I wasn't assuming you're forbidding people from helping others if they wish. Rather there is no moral ought involved as far as you're concerned. Your only axiomatic ought is to allow each agent to maximise their own interests. It seems you agree with this?

Yikes, long post. I'll have to respond in segments.

You're ignoring the language of the axiom, Gertie, and also your own first sentence above. The Axiom, again, is, "Develop principles and rules (of interaction) which allow all agents to maximize their welfare." There is no "ought" that anyone maxmimize anyone's welfare; there is only an "ought" to develop (and then obey) rules which allow everyone to maximize welfare. Moreoever, the welfare in question is anyone's welfare, not just the acting agent's.

The presumption underlying the axiom is that everyone desires to maximize welfare, his own and (usually) that of (at least) certain others close to him. The aim of "morality" --- moral principles and rules --- is enable everyone to do that, insofar as that ability is facilitated or impaired by actions of other moral agents. But it doesn't obligate anyone to advance anyone's welfare, even one's own. The mendicant monk who lives in an unheated hovel and subsists on boiled millet and water is not behaving immorally. He would only be acting immorally if he impaired anyone else's ability to maximize welfare (their own or anyone else's).

A sound, workable moral theory will not presume to prescribe what people "ought" to do to live a more rewarding or satisfying life. It will only be concerned with how they interact, with whether and how their efforts to improve their welfare, however they may define it, interfere with others' efforts to do the same.

OK but google says the meaning of ''moral subject'' is essentially the same as ''moral agent'', but nevermind, can you just clarify what you mean?

Well, if Google says that, they're mistaken. I gave a formal definition of those two terms in another thread, some time ago. It is:

A Moral Agent is a sentient creature who
a) has interests and some capacity for pursuing them, and
b) is capable of recognizing other qualifying creatures as moral agents who likewise have interests, which may differ from his own, and
c) is capable of understanding and formulating moral principles and rules and acknowledges the need for them in a moral field.

A Moral Subject is a sentient creature for whom a), but not b) nor c) is true.
A Moral Imbecile is a sentient creature for whom a) and b), but not c), are true.

Here is a fairly decent discussion of that subject:

https://digitalcommons.calpoly.edu/cgi/ ... ontext=bts

I agree with that author that who are to count as moral subjects (also called "moral patients") is a question "extrordinarily difficult to answer." I suspect my own definition of "moral subject" above is not sufficiently informative, and will require that finer distinctions be made within that category.

This is an important distinction. Because if you are including subjects (conscious beings) who don't have moral agency, isn't there a prob then with the notion that eg children, dogs, and peeps with severe learning disabilities have equal agency when it comes to maximising their wellbeing?

There is no problem with the postulate of Equal Agency per se. The theorems of a moral theory are binding only upon moral agents, since only agents (by definition) are capable of understanding them. But we do need principles which apply to other morally signifcant or "morally considerable" creatures. That they are sentient creatures who have interests and some ability to act on them by itself makes them morally significant, and requires moral agents to take those interests into account when pondering their own actions. Precisely what obligations we have to moral subjects is (as mentioned) a difficult question and (in my view) best left to a separate thread.

If you agree that's a problem, then I'd say there's actually a spectrum we all fall on re our ability to maximise our own wellbeing. We all have strengths and weaknesses, and we all have different starting positions in life. If I inherit a fortune, my agency in practice is more far reaching than if I was born into a skint homeless family, with **** schools and healthcare, etc.

So theoretical equal agency sounds fine, but isn't based in reality.

Well, now you're confusing Equal Agency with material equality. Equal Agency does not presume that everyone has equal "ability to maximize their well-being." That is not true of the members of any living species. Some tadpoles swim faster than others, some leopards are better hunters than others, some fir trees grow taller and sow more seeds than others. Equal Agency is not "theoretical." It just means that anyone who qualifies as a moral agent (per the above definition) is subject to the same moral rules. There is no morally relevant basis for demarcating classes among them.

Again, there is no obligation to maximize anyone's welfare. There is only a presumption that that most people seek to maximize welfare (their own a certain others') and an obligation not to act in ways that impair others' ability to do so.

(more later . . .)

[GE Morton]

Conurbations and cities do typify modern collectives, but cities were not the very first signs of civilisation. The very first sign of civilisation was not cities, or the wheel, or the discovery of fire, it was a sign that one human being took care of another human being.

Well, most anthropologists would disagree with you. Civilized societies are usually distinguished from tribal, or "pre-civilized" societies, and the basis for the distinction is not people caring for each other --- members of all primate societies do that --- but by the presence in the former of agriculture, which frees a portion of the population from hunting and gathering and thus enables them to develop other skills and new industries, and permanent settlements, which become cities.

"A civilization (or civilisation) is a complex society that is characterized by urban development, social stratification, a form of government, and symbolic systems of communication . . .

"Civilizations are intimately associated with and often further defined by other socio-politico-economic characteristics, such as centralization, the domestication of both humans and other organisms, specialization of labour, culturally-ingrained ideologies of progress and supremacism, monumental architecture, taxation, societal dependence upon farming and expansionism . . .

"Civilization, as its etymology (see below) suggests, is a concept originally associated with towns and cities. The earliest emergence of civilizations is generally connected with the final stages of the Neolithic Revolution, culminating in the relatively rapid process of urban revolution and state-formation, a political development associated with the appearance of a governing elite."

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

[GE Morton]

If you want to expand the definition of charity to include things that don't follow the standard (such as paid-for universal mandated benefits) I suppose you are free to do so.

I admit that "forced charity" is a bit of an oxymoron, as "charity" carries a a strong connotation of being voluntary. But the core meaning is aid or benefits granted to others, especially needy others.

"1. Provision of help or relief to the poor; almsgiving.
2. Something given to help the needy; alms.
3. An institution, organization, or fund established to help the needy.
4. Benevolence or generosity toward others or toward humanity."

https://www.ahdictionary.com/word/search.html?q=charity

If there are fixed costs (like mandated benefits), they are made up by lowering variable costs.

No. In a competitive market any variable costs an employer could reduce would already be reduced. Any mandated benefit is simply added to those costs. That added cost doesn't enable any reduction of other costs.

Or to put it more simply, if mandated unemployment insurance disappeared today, employers would either keep it (if their employees wanted it) or drop it and likely raise wages (to stay competitive in the labor market), ultimately the labor costs would change very little.

Some employers and employees might do that, but many would not. Many workers --- especially those with skills in high demand --- would prefer a higher wage to a benefit for which they see little need. What wage they could command, in turn, would depend upon current supply and demand for their particular skills. Workers who perceived a need could buy their own unemployment insurance.

Any government-mandated benefit necessarily drives up the costs of the product or service and thus the prices suppliers must charge for them. There is no free lunch.

[LuckyR]

If you want to expand the definition of charity to include things that don't follow the standard (such as paid-for universal mandated benefits) I suppose you are free to do so.

I admit that "forced charity" is a bit of an oxymoron, as "charity" carries a a strong connotation of being voluntary. But the core meaning is aid or benefits granted to others, especially needy others.

"1. Provision of help or relief to the poor; almsgiving.
2. Something given to help the needy; alms.
3. An institution, organization, or fund established to help the needy.
4. Benevolence or generosity toward others or toward humanity."

https://www.ahdictionary.com/word/search.html?q=charity

If there are fixed costs (like mandated benefits), they are made up by lowering variable costs.

No. In a competitive market any variable costs an employer could reduce would already be reduced. Any mandated benefit is simply added to those costs. That added cost doesn't enable any reduction of other costs.

Or to put it more simply, if mandated unemployment insurance disappeared today, employers would either keep it (if their employees wanted it) or drop it and likely raise wages (to stay competitive in the labor market), ultimately the labor costs would change very little.

Some employers and employees might do that, but many would not. Many workers --- especially those with skills in high demand --- would prefer a higher wage to a benefit for which they see little need. What wage they could command, in turn, would depend upon current supply and demand for their particular skills. Workers who perceived a need could buy their own unemployment insurance.

Any government-mandated benefit necessarily drives up the costs of the product or service and thus the prices suppliers must charge for them. There is no free lunch.

Your red statement, which you seem to describe as an alternative to my choices, is in fact a rewording of my red statement.

[Belindi]

Conurbations and cities do typify modern collectives, but cities were not the very first signs of civilisation. The very first sign of civilisation was not cities, or the wheel, or the discovery of fire, it was a sign that one human being took care of another human being.

Well, most anthropologists would disagree with you. Civilized societies are usually distinguished from tribal, or "pre-civilized" societies, and the basis for the distinction is not people caring for each other --- members of all primate societies do that --- but by the presence in the former of agriculture, which frees a portion of the population from hunting and gathering and thus enables them to develop other skills and new industries, and permanent settlements, which become cities.

"A civilization (or civilisation) is a complex society that is characterized by urban development, social stratification, a form of government, and symbolic systems of communication . . .

"Civilizations are intimately associated with and often further defined by other socio-politico-economic characteristics, such as centralization, the domestication of both humans and other organisms, specialization of labour, culturally-ingrained ideologies of progress and supremacism, monumental architecture, taxation, societal dependence upon farming and expansionism . . .

"Civilization, as its etymology (see below) suggests, is a concept originally associated with towns and cities. The earliest emergence of civilizations is generally connected with the final stages of the Neolithic Revolution, culminating in the relatively rapid process of urban revolution and state-formation, a political development associated with the appearance of a governing elite."

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

Cooperative efforts to fence in livestock, dig the soil for a crop, and build dwellings require that people help each other.
Large collectives and conurbations are further developments of the basic helping each other.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civilization

How the concept and label 'civilisation' is used and has been used historically are not the basic ground for civilisation. The basic ground for civilisation is one individual helping another whether from pity or reciprocity such as honest trade. When a civilised collective regresses from a morality of generalised pity and honest reciprocity it becomes less civilised; and this is a lesson you can learn from history and present day comparisons of some regimes with other regimes.

[mystery]

Yes, we ought to take things of value from people (whether or not they have "acquired them without inflicting loss or injury"). That's because we think that taking these things creates a better society, and is conducive to human happiness and well-being.

Every thief, tyrant, Crusader, marauder, warmonger, Inquistioner, witch-burner, and slaver in history has so thought, from Genghis Khan to Stalin and Hitler to Mao and Pol Pot.

we should take because we think it best for you. there is no thought or care for you, only we.

or

we should take because we think it best for we. there is no thought or care for you, only we.

or

we should take. there is no thought or care for you, only we.

or

might makes right, as long it is is we and not you.

or

we is right because it is we, you is wrong because it is you.

--

btw: one of the oldest forum traditions is to close a thread as soon as Hitler is invoked.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin%27s_law

[GE Morton]

Cooperative efforts to fence in livestock, dig the soil for a crop, and build dwellings require that people help each other.
Large collectives and conurbations are further developments of the basic helping each other.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civilization

How the concept and label 'civilisation' is used and has been used historically are not the basic ground for civilisation. The basic ground for civilisation is one individual helping another whether from pity or reciprocity such as honest trade. When a civilised collective regresses from a morality of generalised pity and honest reciprocity it becomes less civilised; and this is a lesson you can learn from history and present day comparisons of some regimes with other regimes.

Well, you've now changed your claim. At first it was, "What other marker of civilisation could there possibly be, GEMorton, apart from altruism?," and, "The very first sign of civilisation was not cities, or the wheel, or the discovery of fire, it was a sign that one human being took care of another human being."

Altruism, and "taking care of another human being," are not the same as "cooperative efforts" and "people helping each other."

But the same objection applies. People cooperate and help each other in ALL societies. That is why all societies, human and animal, exist --- to facilitate some sort of cooperation. Those features don't distinguish civilized societies from tribal or "primitive" societies, or even from animal societies.

And, of course, cooperation and people helping each other don't constitute altruism. They usually do so for mutual benefit.

Most civilized societies throughout history have not been very altruistic; indeed, they've been much less altruistic than most tribal societies, because they are not kinship-based. People are more disposed to care for kin than for strangers, and civilized societies are societies of strangers.

[Ecurb]

Well, you've now changed your claim. At first it was, "What other marker of civilisation could there possibly be, GEMorton, apart from altruism?," and, "The very first sign of civilisation was not cities, or the wheel, or the discovery of fire, it was a sign that one human being took care of another human being."

Altruism, and "taking care of another human being," are not the same as "cooperative efforts" and "people helping each other."

But the same objection applies. People cooperate and help each other in ALL societies. That is why all societies, human and animal, exist --- to facilitate some sort of cooperation. Those features don't distinguish civilized societies from tribal or "primitive" societies, or even from animal societies.

And, of course, cooperation and people helping each other don't constitute altruism. They usually do so for mutual benefit.

Most civilized societies throughout history have not been very altruistic; indeed, they've been much less altruistic than most tribal societies, because they are not kinship-based. People are more disposed to care for kin than for strangers, and civilized societies are societies of strangers.

Neither people nor other mammals help others only for "mutual benefit". Female mammals routinely donate to their children scarce resources which they could use for themselves . They do not expect (nor do they receive) any tangible benefit in return.

I'll agree that in small, tribal societies where everyone is related to everyone else, cooperation occurs more naturally. Nonetheless, although laws are neither written nor codified, the responsibilities of the societies' members are clear -- expressed in the mores of the society and sanctioned (positively and negatively) by its members. The hunter who kills an animal is expected to share the bounty with other members of the group -- just as the rich executive is expected to pay his taxes in civilized societies.

I'll further agree (I think) with Morton that there are certain moral principles which (although culturally constituted themselves) supercede the laws of the State. We all recognize potentially state sponsored activities which would lead us to withhold our tax dollars. However, most participants in this thread would not include food stamps, medicare, national healh care, or government supported housing among these activities.

One popular philosopher from 2000 years ago addressed this issue:

Shew me the tax money. And they brought unto him a penny. [1] 20 And he saith unto them, Whose is this image and superscription [2] 21 They say unto him, Caesar's. Then saith he unto them, Render therefore unto Caesar the things which are Caesar's; and unto God the things that are God's.

Property exists only because of the laws of the state and its existence is enforced by the minions of the state. If we look at tribal societies (in which the concept of "property" is very different) we see the distinction. The dead animal is not the "property" of the hunter -- by custom it "belongs" to the group. Similarly, in civilized societies the money one earns belongs (in part) to the group. Everyone who pays his taxes must agree in principle. The group is NOT forcibly taking something from someone else; it is collecting its fair share, just as the children in the tribe partake of the meat.

Exactly how the money fairly and openly collected is spent is, of course, a matter of debate, contention, and political turmoil. Neither I nor GE can definitively say what constitutes the best way to spend the money.

All laws (including both property laws and tax laws) are violent and coersive. If we agree that violent coersion is (ipso facto) a bad thing, we can agree that utopia must be an anarchy. Would property even exist in a utopian anarchy? I don't know, and enither does GE Morton. Can a utopian anarchy ever exist? I don't know, and neither does GE Morton.

[Belindi]

Cooperative efforts to fence in livestock, dig the soil for a crop, and build dwellings require that people help each other.
Large collectives and conurbations are further developments of the basic helping each other.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civilization

How the concept and label 'civilisation' is used and has been used historically are not the basic ground for civilisation. The basic ground for civilisation is one individual helping another whether from pity or reciprocity such as honest trade. When a civilised collective regresses from a morality of generalised pity and honest reciprocity it becomes less civilised; and this is a lesson you can learn from history and present day comparisons of some regimes with other regimes.

Well, you've now changed your claim. At first it was, "What other marker of civilisation could there possibly be, GEMorton, apart from altruism?," and, "The very first sign of civilisation was not cities, or the wheel, or the discovery of fire, it was a sign that one human being took care of another human being."

Altruism, and "taking care of another human being," are not the same as "cooperative efforts" and "people helping each other."

But the same objection applies. People cooperate and help each other in ALL societies. That is why all societies, human and animal, exist --- to facilitate some sort of cooperation. Those features don't distinguish civilized societies from tribal or "primitive" societies, or even from animal societies.

And, of course, cooperation and people helping each other don't constitute altruism. They usually do so for mutual benefit.

Most civilized societies throughout history have not been very altruistic; indeed, they've been much less altruistic than most tribal societies, because they are not kinship-based. People are more disposed to care for kin than for strangers, and civilized societies are societies of strangers.

Societies are formed of people who cooperate. For cooperation to happen individuals have to feel pity. or feel they need reciprocal services in the community. I agree these motives are present in tribal and in animal societies .

Those societies that have been less altruistic than others are societies where people are less free to feel altruism or to cooperate freely with designated others such as less powerful 'races'. We say that sort of society is "less civilised" by which we imply that particular society has regressed from a norm that is based in altruism and freely -given cooperation.

Such regressive societies are sometimes called dystopian.They are often marked by the relegation of women and poor people to a lower social status, and by markedly unequal distribution of goods and services.

[GE Morton]

Societies are formed of people who cooperate. For cooperation to happen individuals have to feel pity.

Oh, surely not. People cooperate because it is in the individual interests of each of them to do so. Cooperation doesn't presume or require any emotional attachments among the parties, and in most cases there aren't any.

I agree these motives are present in tribal and in animal societies.

Then why call societies in in which they're less frequent "less civilized?" If anything, they're less tribal.

We say that sort of society is "less civilised" by which we imply that particular society has regressed from a norm that is based in altruism and freely -given cooperation.

Well, that is a spurious norm, no doubt the product of wishful thinking. It is not the actual norm in real civilized societies.

You seem to be using "civilized" as an honorific, i.e., to describe societies which approach certain moral ideals you embrace. But literally the term just denotes societies characterized by cities.