Philosophy Discussion Forums

GE Morton wrote: ↑January 21st, 2019, 1:37 pm

Belindi wrote: ↑January 21st, 2019, 12:09 pm GEMorton, do you agree that societies exist and have to be paid for in some fashion?

If not, how do you think people are going to do activities such as trade?

"Societies" don't need to be paid for, but certain functions and the institutions which perform them, e.g., maintaining a rule of law, defense, managing natural commons, supplying certain public goods, must be paid for if the society is to provide the advantages for which it is sought. Providing for everyone's personal welfare, however, is not one of those functions. That is the responsibility of each individual member of the society.

But if society does not provide enough care for the workers the workers will get sick and be unproductive. Unless society makes a surplus profit there won't be money to pay for any intellectuals, highly trained professionals, or artists. Unless society provides care for the workers there will be two factions in the society; the poor, and the rich elite. Do you want that? I don't because such a divided society is bad for law and order. Additionally the workers who have not been cared for are less proficient as soldiers , nurses, or policemen and other lower grades of public servants.

It's true that personal welfare should be taught as part of personal responsibility . Social mobility is less likely to happen when many people fail to prosper. Many people fail to prosper when society is divided into rich and poor.

Belindi wrote: ↑January 21st, 2019, 8:05 pm
But if society does not provide enough care for the workers the workers will get sick and be unproductive.

By "society," do you mean government? Surely that is not true of most workers, either historically or presently. Most of them are quite able to take care of themselves.

Unless society makes a surplus profit there won't be money to pay for any intellectuals, highly trained professionals, or artists.

You frequently speak of "society" as though it is a moral agent in its own right, with interests, goals, duties, etc., distinct from those of its members. That is a "category mistake." Propositions imputing such properties to "society" (or any other group) must be translatable to propositions about the members of the group, or they are meaningless. So to claim that "Society has a duty to do X" must be translatable to, "Alfie, Bruno, Chauncey (the members of the society) have duties to do X."

I think by "surplus profit" you mean "gains from trade," as understood in economics. All free trades (whether goods for goods, labor for money, goods for money) yield gains for both parties, because what each gained from the trade is worth more to him than what he gave up (otherwise the trade would not have occurred). Whenever the gains, over time, yield more than the agent requires for immediate needs, he will spend it on other things of interest to him, including art, professional services, education for his kids, etc. The 19th and early 20th centuries were the most inventive in human history --- and all of it was financed by private investments and contributions.

Unless society provides care for the workers there will be two factions in the society; the poor, and the rich elite.

Again, by "society" do you mean "government"? Not so, unless there is some legal structure forcing that result. In a free society wealth will distribute itself, like most other natural variables, along a bell curve, with a few poor, a few rich, and everyone else somewhere in between.

GE Morton wrote: ↑January 22nd, 2019, 12:55 pm

Belindi wrote: ↑January 21st, 2019, 8:05 pm
But if society does not provide enough care for the workers the workers will get sick and be unproductive.

By "society," do you mean government? Surely that is not true of most workers, either historically or presently. Most of them are quite able to take care of themselves.

Unless society makes a surplus profit there won't be money to pay for any intellectuals, highly trained professionals, or artists.

You frequently speak of "society" as though it is a moral agent in its own right, with interests, goals, duties, etc., distinct from those of its members. That is a "category mistake." Propositions imputing such properties to "society" (or any other group) must be translatable to propositions about the members of the group, or they are meaningless. So to claim that "Society has a duty to do X" must be translatable to, "Alfie, Bruno, Chauncey (the members of the society) have duties to do X."

I think by "surplus profit" you mean "gains from trade," as understood in economics. All free trades (whether goods for goods, labor for money, goods for money) yield gains for both parties, because what each gained from the trade is worth more to him than what he gave up (otherwise the trade would not have occurred). Whenever the gains, over time, yield more than the agent requires for immediate needs, he will spend it on other things of interest to him, including art, professional services, education for his kids, etc. The 19th and early 20th centuries were the most inventive in human history --- and all of it was financed by private investments and contributions.

Unless society provides care for the workers there will be two factions in the society; the poor, and the rich elite.

Again, by "society" do you mean "government"? Not so, unless there is some legal structure forcing that result. In a free society wealth will distribute itself, like most other natural variables, along a bell curve, with a few poor, a few rich, and everyone else somewhere in between.

By society I mean a group of individuals who cooperate for mutual benefits. A group of individuals ('society' for short) needs a moral consensus in order that they can cooperate to keep order. Individuals who participate in a society do have duties to the corporate efforts, so I agree with you on this point.

By surplus profit I mean not only gains from trade but also gains from making, mining, and growing surpluses. I think we agree here too.

A centralised authority such as the government is usually the biggest decision maker. In past times priests and kings made decisions on behalf of their domains. I disagree that in a free society wealth distributes itself like bell curve. A bell curve may vary between shallow and steep, or even be a sort of bell with a very splayed bottom so that the poorer people vastly outnumber the rich. Great inequality of rewards makes for a lot of ills as I have explained already. These ills affect mainly the poor, in the short term, however all members of the society suffer in the loner term from inequality of rewards.

GE Morton wrote: ↑January 21st, 2019, 11:19 am

LuckyR wrote: ↑January 21st, 2019, 3:39 am
Currently, felons are weighted towards the economically challenged. And any meager wealth accumulated by these felons would likely be best spent (from the perspective of society) in keeping the felon's kids out of the welfare system.

Ah, so saving money for taxpayers (who have no duty to finance anyone's welfare in the first place) takes priority over securing justice for crime victims. The "criminal justice system" becomes a "criminal welfare system."

Not so much. I apologize for being difficult to understand. The benefit to society by using a economically challenged felon's wealth to keep his children off welfare isn't saving the monetary cost of the welfare, it is the lowering of the chance that the kids will follow their father's lead into a life of crime, benefiting future crime victims.

LuckyR wrote: ↑January 22nd, 2019, 8:28 pm
The benefit to society by using a economically challenged felon's wealth to keep his children off welfare isn't saving the monetary cost of the welfare, it is the lowering of the chance that the kids will follow their father's lead into a life of crime, benefiting future crime victims.

As I mentioned to Belindi, "society" is not a moral agent and cannot be predicated with moral properties. Nothing benefits (or harms) "society." Propositions asserting such properties are meaningful only if they are reducible to propositions about individuals. You seem to be suggesting that reducing the risks of hypothetical injustices to hypothetical future individuals takes priority over securing justice for actual victims. It seems incongruous, and presumptuous, to me to ask actual victims to sacrifice justice for themselves in order to secure it for some hypothetical persons. If present victims are not entitled to justice, how can those hypothetical persons be entitled to it?

Belindi wrote: ↑January 22nd, 2019, 1:56 pm
By society I mean a group of individuals who cooperate for mutual benefits. A group of individuals ('society' for short) needs a moral consensus in order that they can cooperate to keep order. Individuals who participate in a society do have duties to the corporate efforts, so I agree with you on this point.

Ok, but keep in mind that "society" in the sense of, "American society," "French society," etc., does not denote a group of cooperating individuals. It merely denotes a group of people who happen, largely by accident of birth, to occupy a certain territory. They have no common goals or interests and are not all engaged in any cooperative endeavor (though there are many such cooperating groups within those societies).

By surplus profit I mean not only gains from trade but also gains from making, mining, and growing surpluses. I think we agree here too.

I'm not sure we do. There are no surpluses from making, mining, farming, etc. At least not intentionally, and not for long. All of those producers produce only what is needed to satisfy anticipated demand. They would be forced to sell any surplus produced at a loss, so they try their best to avoid doing that.

I disagree that in a free society wealth distributes itself like bell curve. A bell curve may vary between shallow and steep, or even be a sort of bell with a very splayed bottom so that the poorer people vastly outnumber the rich.

It is actually a "log-normal" distribution. More on that here:

http://wrauny.blogspot.com/2013/02/why- ... we-do.html

Great inequality of rewards makes for a lot of ills as I have explained already. These ills affect mainly the poor, in the short term, however all members of the society suffer in the loner term from inequality of rewards.

Rewards are just when they are apportioned according to merit, which means they are necessarily, and inherently, unequal. E.g., if you invent a widget 10,000 people will find useful and will pay $100 for, you will reap --- and are entitled to --- greater rewards than if your widget only appeals to 10 people who will pay no more than $10 for it.
[/quote]

GE Morton wrote: ↑January 24th, 2019, 12:22 am

LuckyR wrote: ↑January 22nd, 2019, 8:28 pm
The benefit to society by using a economically challenged felon's wealth to keep his children off welfare isn't saving the monetary cost of the welfare, it is the lowering of the chance that the kids will follow their father's lead into a life of crime, benefiting future crime victims.

As I mentioned to Belindi, "society" is not a moral agent and cannot be predicated with moral properties. Nothing benefits (or harms) "society." Propositions asserting such properties are meaningful only if they are reducible to propositions about individuals. You seem to be suggesting that reducing the risks of hypothetical injustices to hypothetical future individuals takes priority over securing justice for actual victims. It seems incongruous, and presumptuous, to me to ask actual victims to sacrifice justice for themselves in order to secure it for some hypothetical persons. If present victims are not entitled to justice, how can those hypothetical persons be entitled to it?

Well your first error is the assumption that financial compensation (likely to be pennies on the dollar for the typical felon) is the de facto definition of "justice"

GEMOrton wrote:

Ok, but keep in mind that "society" in the sense of, "American society," "French society," etc., does not denote a group of cooperating individuals. It merely denotes a group of people who happen, largely by accident of birth, to occupy a certain territory. They have no common goals or interests and are not all engaged in any cooperative endeavor (though there are many such cooperating groups within those societies).

What you describe is an aggregate of individuals not a society.

Belindi wrote: ↑January 24th, 2019, 10:24 am
What you describe is an aggregate of individuals not a society.

I take a "society" to be a group of individuals so situated as to be able to interact, and who do interact with at least some of the other members at least occasionally. An individual who never interacts, except perhaps by accident, is not a member of that society, even though he may occupy the society's claimed territory.

Societies so defined may have many structures. The important point here is that modern civilized societies are not collectives, tribes, giant co-ops, or "big happy families." They have no "organic unity." Their members have no natural bonds, no shared personal histories, no common interests, and they are not all working cooperatively toward common goals. They are all working toward goals of their own, usually in cooperation with others who share those particular goals --- which may be antagonistic to the goals of other members of the society. The evidence for this is empirical, and quite obvious.

GE Morton wrote: ↑January 24th, 2019, 2:08 pm

Belindi wrote: ↑January 24th, 2019, 10:24 am
What you describe is an aggregate of individuals not a society.

I take a "society" to be a group of individuals so situated as to be able to interact, and who do interact with at least some of the other members at least occasionally. An individual who never interacts, except perhaps by accident, is not a member of that society, even though he may occupy the society's claimed territory.

Societies so defined may have many structures. The important point here is that modern civilized societies are not collectives, tribes, giant co-ops, or "big happy families." They have no "organic unity." Their members have no natural bonds, no shared personal histories, no common interests, and they are not all working cooperatively toward common goals. They are all working toward goals of their own, usually in cooperation with others who share those particular goals --- which may be antagonistic to the goals of other members of the society. The evidence for this is empirical, and quite obvious.

These are all good points, GEM. However you have omitted an important activity that societies need to cause individuals to agree to cooperate. A myth, often a religious myth but frequently a secular myth, has the power to do this. For Americans this myth is very often the idea of America as in Make America Great Again; this does not refer to geographical boundaries, or the sizes of cities or the average heights of citizens, or anything physical. Make America Great Again is about an important myth, the myth of America itself which is a mental construct , a fiction that people believe in.

Belindi wrote: ↑January 24th, 2019, 3:18 pm
These are all good points, GEM. However you have omitted an important activity that societies need to cause individuals to agree to cooperate. A myth, often a religious myth but frequently a secular myth, has the power to do this. For Americans this myth is very often the idea of America as in Make America Great Again; this does not refer to geographical boundaries, or the sizes of cities or the average heights of citizens, or anything physical. Make America Great Again is about an important myth, the myth of America itself which is a mental construct , a fiction that people believe in.

All members of civilized societies never agree, on anything. Nor do they ever all cooperate on anything. The myth to which you refer is one embraced by only some Americans; other people embrace other myths. It is not a myth of American society, but only a myth within that society --- one of many.

LuckyR wrote: ↑January 24th, 2019, 1:40 am
Well your first error is the assumption that financial compensation (likely to be pennies on the dollar for the typical felon) is the de facto definition of "justice"

Yes, that is the definition of "justice," close enough, anyway. "Securing to each what he is due." What he is due is determined by by merit, by some act of his own, whether good or evil. In some cases financial compensation satisfies justice perfectly, as when it compensates for stolen or damaged replaceable property. In other cases it satisfies it imperfectly, as in compensation for loss of life, or pain and suffering. But even imperfect justice is surely morally preferable to no justice. Justice does not demand the impossible.

GE Morton wrote: ↑January 24th, 2019, 3:54 pm

LuckyR wrote: ↑January 24th, 2019, 1:40 am
Well your first error is the assumption that financial compensation (likely to be pennies on the dollar for the typical felon) is the de facto definition of "justice"

Yes, that is the definition of "justice," close enough, anyway. "Securing to each what he is due." What he is due is determined by by merit, by some act of his own, whether good or evil. In some cases financial compensation satisfies justice perfectly, as when it compensates for stolen or damaged replaceable property. In other cases it satisfies it imperfectly, as in compensation for loss of life, or pain and suffering. But even imperfect justice is surely morally preferable to no justice. Justice does not demand the impossible.

One person's opinion. So according to you, there's little to no "justice" in the west since the poor house went away a long time ago. I hope that doesn't bother you.

GE Morton wrote: ↑January 24th, 2019, 3:41 pm

Belindi wrote: ↑January 24th, 2019, 3:18 pm
These are all good points, GEM. However you have omitted an important activity that societies need to cause individuals to agree to cooperate. A myth, often a religious myth but frequently a secular myth, has the power to do this. For Americans this myth is very often the idea of America as in Make America Great Again; this does not refer to geographical boundaries, or the sizes of cities or the average heights of citizens, or anything physical. Make America Great Again is about an important myth, the myth of America itself which is a mental construct , a fiction that people believe in.

All members of civilized societies never agree, on anything. Nor do they ever all cooperate on anything. The myth to which you refer is one embraced by only some Americans; other people embrace other myths. It is not a myth of American society, but only a myth within that society --- one of many.

I agree that there are many myths that uphold American society. The myth of America is well expressed in the emotive words of Star Spangled Banner. Another very important myth that upholds American society ( not only American society!)is money which is the myth which upholds the practice of trade. There is also the old Christian myth which we are informed is strongly adhered to by many people in America and, in America especially , is allied to the myth of money.

LuckyR wrote: ↑January 25th, 2019, 1:53 am
One person's opinion. So according to you, there's little to no "justice" in the west since the poor house went away a long time ago. I hope that doesn't bother you.

What are you claiming is opinion? The definition of "justice"?

That is the definition found in most dictionaries:

"1a : the maintenance or administration of what is just especially by the impartial adjustment of conflicting claims or the assignment of merited rewards or punishments . . ."

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/justice

"1. The quality of being just; conformity to the principles of righteousness and rectitude in all things; strict performance of moral obligations; practical conformity to human or divine law; integrity in the dealings of men with each other; rectitude; equity; uprightness . . .
2. Conformity to truth and reality in expressing opinions and in conduct; fair representation of facts respecting merit or demerit; honesty; fidelity; impartiality; as, the justice of a description or of a judgment; historical justice.
3. The rendering to every one his due or right; just treatment; requital of desert; merited reward or punishment; that which is due to one's conduct or motives . . ."

http://www.webster-dictionary.org/definition/justice

I realize that lefties have concocted their own definition of that term, one which jettisons the "merit" element. Per this spurious definition, what one is due or deserves is not determined by the merit of an agent's acts, but by his mere membership in various categories: "Everyone deserves health care (or housing, incomes, food, education, etc.) because they are human," or, "because they are members of society." No mention of merit. They've coined the neologism "social justice" to denote this morally vacuous concept.

I'm not sure how your comment re: poor houses bears on this question.