Utilitarian, Egalitarian society
The con of a utilitarian, egalitarian society is that we still expect people to fit into specific roles, regardless of who they are. For example, not all women are going to be the master logicians we expect them to be, and not all men are going to be care bears. Sorry, it isnt realistic and it is just painful for everyone.
You're my care bear, Jadae...
Socionics -
the16types.info
@Ashton:
Egalitarianism is not about making the people equal in every way and eliminating everything individual in them. It's about giving them the same rights, power (ideally, everyone only has the authority over themselves), chances and oppurtunities and let them decide how they want to be different from anybody else.
Last edited by Pa3s; 10-30-2012 at 05:00 PM. Reason: correction
„Man can do what he wants but he cannot want what he wants.“
– Arthur Schopenhauer
Not really, but you're the closest. What Ashton is advocating is actually aristocracy through and through, whereas you're a proponent of democracy in this case and egalitarianism means equal chance no matter what age, sex and race you are. It demolishes nepotism.Originally Posted by Pa3s
Me likey Socionics, and that's what happens when politics gets in the way.
Merit and fitness is not easily measured. IMO, egalitarianism is about the acknowledgement of a simple informational problem when dealing with issues of policy. There are moral arguments for egalitarianism which I will not go into here but regardless of any moral arguments, inherited wealth and power are not a true measure of merit or fitness. The problem of human organization is confounded by inheritance, succession and inability to make a accurate determination of merit after a chain of inheritance and succession has debased the ruling class.
Aristocracy and aristocratic rhetoric would try to persuade individuals that inheritance and unearned wealth and influence based on birth is somehow a true measure of merit, and that birth, and bloodline is somehow more important then deeds and action. This is of course a ludicrous fantasy but a well worn line of reasoning which has show itself bankrupt and insufficient.. No society lasts, the ruling class degenerates, individuals of merit and ability fall into the lower and oppressed classes, and these individuals will not stand idly by but will seek to rise by whatever means necessary. Modern society is a rebellion against the cycle of dynastic rule and hereditary inheritance and succession which has failed to provide for the advancement and enlightenment of humanity. Even from as early the Roman empire(and there are certainly examples even earlier), where the 5 good Emperors were successful in rule would be undone by one act of familial inheritance in the promotion of Commodus as emperor.
When individuals within a population have equal opportunity and equal access, ability is easier to determine. Their success and failures are theirs and not by some circumstance of birth or inheritance, it is that level playing field which must be established and maintained which will allow the accurate determination of ability that will allow society and the social organism which forms from the interaction between the individuals of this society to achieve a greater level of utility.
Regardless of the efforts to maintain equality, access and opportunities for individuals in society, great inequalities exist, and this is the natural order of things in nature, but the casual acceptance of this natural situation is not necessarily desirable, there is no law that says natural is good or best simply what has emerged from the past. Humanity is largely characterized by our ability and willingness to overcome and circumvent nature, it is not a rebellion any more then being alive is a rebellion against being a speck of dust. It is simply our nature to understand, gain understanding and knowledge and make decisions based on that understanding. It is also our search for novelty, beauty and our desires which propel us to ignore the determined past to seek a undetermined future, for good and for ill. Being slave to the past and the past cycles of rise and fall is no desirable reality. We will all die, societies will rise and fall, the evils of the past will occur again and again in the future. There will always be more and more problems as long as humanity and the societies humans form exists, but this is no reason to despair and never was. I believe that it's better to strive for something despite these facts which are inescapable. But we can escape some of the details, we can achieve some moments of glory and happiness, we can build something which will be astonishing and wonderful to our sense of wonder and beauty. And that's good enough... and if it isn't, then you are truly lost.
Once again, I find disappointment. Once again, I find no satisfaction. Once again, I find that Democracy is a small part of a large movement that seeks to shift blame from those who benefit from oppression to those who suffer from it. Instead of focusing on why it is hardly surprising that its ludibrious crusades pose a clear and present danger to our very existence, I would like to remind people that if I have a bias, it is only against reprehensible skites who impale us on the pike of anarchism.
I am not going to go into too great a detail about ignorant pedants, but be assured that I'd like very much to respond to Democracy's claim that two wrongs make a right. Unfortunately, taking into account Democracy's background, education, and intelligence, I am quite sure that Democracy would not be able to understand my response. Hence, let me say simply this: Democracy really yearns for the Oriental despotisms of pre-Hellenic times, the neolithic culture that preceded the rise of self-consciousness and egoism. By the same token, it abhors the current era, in which people are free to convert retreat into advance. Democracy has been declaring a national emergency, rounding up everyone who disagrees with it, and putting them in concentration camps. It's time to even the score. I suggest that we begin by notifying people of the fact that I would never take a job working for Democracy. Given its confused, niddering values, who would want to?
Democracy's insecure notions promote racism with all of its stolid and supercilious facets: greed, self interest, narrow-mindedness, and most of all, stupidity. Democracy, please spare us the angst of living in a fallen world. Democracy sincerely needs a healthy dose of conflict-resolution and peer-mediation training. Am I being unduly harsh for writing that? I think not. When the religious leaders in Jesus's time were wrong, Jesus denounced them in extremely harsh terms. So why shouldn't I, too, use extremely harsh terms to indicate that Democracy craves crisis?
Democracy is vindictive, raffish, slatternly, balmy, evil, and bumptious. Need I go on? Democracy insisted it'd never provide the pretext for police-state measures. Unfortunately, it wasn't long before it did exactly that. It promised it'd never prevent us from recognizing the vast and incomparable achievements, contributions, and discoveries that are the product of our culture, but then it did just that—and worse. At least Democracy is consistent, but I insist that I have a workable strategy for building an inclusive, nondiscriminatory movement for social and political change. Naturally, the proof of the pudding is in the eating, but I have already established that it seems that no one else is telling you that Democracy's trucklers have no velleity to advocate concrete action and specific quantifiable goals. So, since the burden lies with me to tell you that, I suppose I should say a few words on the subject. To begin with, Democracy can't possibly believe that power-hungry opportunists are inherently good, sensitive, creative, and inoffensive. It's subhuman but it's not that subhuman.
Democracy is trying to brainwash us. It wants us to believe that it's mentally deficient to expose every otiose practice of every otiose politicaster; that's boring; that's not cool. You know what I think of that, don't you? I think that we need to look beyond the most immediate and visible problems with Democracy. We need to look at what is behind these problems and understand that in order to educate the public on a range of issues we must demand a thoughtful analysis and resolution of our problems with Democracy. And that's just the first step. Remember, only the impartial and unimpassioned mind will even consider that I recently informed it that its fans exploit public sympathy in order to bolster support for its putrid, brash tracts. Democracy said it'd "look further into the matter"—well, not too much further. After all, it cannot tolerate the world as it is. It needs to live in a world of fantasies. To be more specific, I see myself as a link in the endless chain of generations, with an inescapable responsibility to embark on a new path towards change. That's just a fancy way of saying that I would like to give you an example of how delirious Democracy can be. Democracy has admitted that it intends to destroy our culture, our institutions, and our way of life. Okay, that may have been a particularly bald-faced and unsubtle example, but Democracy should definitely heed Cicero's advice, "Appetitus rationi pareat." (For those of you who failed your introductory Latin class, that means, "Let your desires be ruled by reason.") There is one final irony to my story. Democracy's view that the best way to serve one's country is to excoriate attempts to bring questions of fanaticism into the (essentially apolitical) realm of pedagogy in language and writing is nonsense upon stilts.
Equality of opportunity is fine, equality of outcome is not.
That is one defintion, yeah, but it is also has another definition within a long-term relationship, which is the one in which worries me more in terms of relational consequences over time. I also kind of wonder, now, if the term is different cross-culturally.
Yes, specifically, but also about roles that trickle down from that. Well, rather, I am most concerned about how we are expected to behave stemming from expectations of gender, so I am saying that the notion of egalitarianism in such relations can be just as negative or positive as notions of yesteryear. I feel that while we condemn the past, such as our skewed concept on the 1950s as some time-freezing moment in life, that we are apt to revisit the idenitical error in judgement in new ways.
Like, how medicine is reviewed as more or less damaging than a disorder, to evaluate its worthwhile on the person or the people it affects, because of how it affects the initial person. ie. "It makes me feel this way, so I behave this way, and such and such then reacts this way, and it hurts me (loss of relation, weary relation, stress, etc) when that happens."
have you always been this annoying? shut up
Of course, I can see this possibility. It's more than likely that people adopt "the common good" as the reason to justify their actions, whether they actually intend to secure the equality of oppurtunity or not. But the problems you have mentioned are all connected to a statist society, which something I don't strive for, either.
However, despite the abundance of goods we have now, resources are and will always be limited. And those who control the resources (and the means of production) will always be more powerful than those who don't, because ultimately, everyone's life depends on them. So you have two possibilities in my opinion. You can either let the people acquire what they want (and what they are able to) and then use the state to take parts of these assets to aid the poor (and therefore try to reach equality of oppurtunity). Or you make sure that resources and means of production can not be acquired at all, except through the own, personal work effort. Easier said than done of course, but in my opinion, that's what needs to be done to reach a society of equals.
I think that the first option I mentioned is flawed and barely works the way it should.
„Man can do what he wants but he cannot want what he wants.“
– Arthur Schopenhauer
Expectations tend to dissolve the closer you get to a person. You get to know their frailties, soft spots, fears, as well as their strengths, ambitions, and talents. There are some poor schmucks who play a role even in their most intimate relationships. I feel sorry for the poor bastards.The con of a utilitarian, egalitarian society is that we still expect people to fit into specific roles, regardless of who they are. For example, not all women are going to be the master logicians we expect them to be, and not all men are going to be care bears. Sorry, it isnt realistic and it is just painful for everyone.
"How could we forget those ancient myths that stand at the beginning of all races, the myths about dragons that at the last moment are transformed into princesses? Perhaps all the dragons in our lives are princesses who are only waiting to see us act, just once, with beauty and courage. Perhaps everything that frightens us is, in its deepest essence, something helpless that wants our love."
-- Rainer Maria Rilke, Letters to a Young Poet
Ever since Jadae concluded he is LSE he is remarkably difficult to understand. He now does not make his intentions clear.
He seems to wonder if egalitarianism means something in relationships. Ok, how to be a care bear type A - (the cuckold) go for a girl who is intimidatingly beautiful. Work hard to make lots of money so that you have status, and then live in fear of her adultery. Get boner. Snuggle often and apologize profusely. Obey. Then repeat.
How to be a care bear type B - (mister mom) Be far hotter than your girl, she makes the money, you watch sports on TV give her lots of healthy sperm to make adorable championship babies, watch babies in crib, fix rich wife lots of ice cream and give foot rubs.
Carebear A and Carebear B are not products of society, but psychological tension.
A) If she is really hot and you are not, you need to make the money.
B) If you are really hot, and she is not, she needs to make the money.
Socionics -
the16types.info
It is not a one definition, it is not a definition of it at all, Big Bird. It's an idealised interpretation of a definition of egalitarianism.
Well, there's a lot of ethical types on here posing as logical ones. All I need is korpsey now to jump out of the woodwork and shout like that guy in Mortal Kombat when you upper cut your opponent " where is your math, where is your patterns/give me names" instead of "toasty!"
Providing this is meant to be taken serious at all, socionics, I mean.
Last edited by Absurd; 10-30-2012 at 09:01 PM.
I think youre assuming relations between you and I that simply do not exist.
Ehh...
Every relationship is different and has different expectations in and outside of society's expectations.
-
Dual type(as per tcaudilllg)
Enneagram 5 (wings either 4 or 6)?
I'm constantly looking to align the real with the ideal.I've been more oriented toward being overly idealistic by expecting the real to match the ideal. My thinking side is dominent. The result is that sometimes I can be overly impersonal or self-centered in my approach, not being understanding of others in the process and simply thinking "you should do this" or "everyone should follor this rule"..."regardless of how they feel or where they're coming from"which just isn't a good attitude to have. It is a way, though, to give oneself an artificial sense of self-justification. LSE
Best description of functions:
http://socionicsstudy.blogspot.com/2...functions.html
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
