I think we should agree upon...

[Global Skeptic]

Sometimes, but not always "I think we should agree upon..." is followed by "an universal standard to judge all humans by!" It is not always phrased that way, but it amounts to it and my non-universal answer is this: I won't based on my personal principle agree on anything that can then by used against any humans, for which they haven't agreed upon!!!

 

[Terxpahseyton]

Sounds like Anarchism to me. Why is agreement of such utmost priority?

 

[Global Skeptic]

Sounds like Anarchism to me. Why is agreement of such utmost priority?

Because we are social animals. Even the individualists want the rest of us to agree that individualism is good for all of us.

 

[GoodSarmatian]

And I think we should all agree that a society is more then the sum of it's individuals, so there you go.

 

[Global Skeptic]

And I think we should all agree that a society is more then the sum of it's individuals, so there you go.

For which at least some will claim that there is no society, only individuals.

 

[GoodSarmatian]

For which at least some will claim that there is no society, only individuals.

Would this be the same people who say we are social animals ?

 

[Global Skeptic]

Would this be the same people who say we are social animals ?

No, you got me there. Individualistic versus collective doesn't match one to on with the claim that we are social animals.

 

[Terxpahseyton]

Frankly - to view the individual as a subject distinct from its social environment is merely a model. If people reject that society actually exists I may just as well reject that the individual actually exists (unless it really has no social environment, naturally). If you view individualism as a means to its own end and as an absolute - I can see how one demands that everyone has to agree to everything. But that angle just doesn't make sense. So you will have to do better if you want to argue for the dogma of active agreement.

 

[Glassfan]

I think we all agree... that murder is wrong. That abusing children and the weak and taking advantage of the helpless is wrong. That tolerance and fairness are good. There's a long list of consensus concepts we probably do agree with in principle, though as we begin to split hairs we begin to disagree, since in our different upbringing, we have learned different definitions for our words.

Murder is wrong - we all agree. But what is murder? There are alternative definitions to murder that we constantly fight over in these forums. Forinstance, if after being found guilty, the murderer is executed, some believe that the execution is another murder. That a soldier who kills his enemy in war time is a murderer. That even killing in self defense is murder. Generalities are easy to agree upon - the devil is in the details.

 

[ParkCungHee]

Sounds like Anarchism to me. Why is agreement of such utmost priority?

As a side note to this discussion: The Anarchists on this forum must be doing a good job arguing our case, if agreement sounds like Anarchism.

 

[Mechanicalsalvation]

Sometimes, but not always "I think we should agree upon..." is followed by "an universal standard to judge all humans by!" It is not always phrased that way, but it amounts to it and my non-universal answer is this: I won't based on my personal principle agree on anything that can then by used against any humans, for which they haven't agreed upon!!!

Anything can be misused. One thing is to agree on something that appears universal which is usually right thing to do and other thing is to make out of it sterile and solidified dogma which is usually wrong.

 

[Dachs]

As a side note to this discussion: The Anarchists on this forum must be doing a good job arguing our case, if agreement sounds like Anarchism.

We are building a consensus. Please try again later.

 

[Global Skeptic]

Just for the fun of it, and no - I am not an anarchist.
The Universal Declaration of...
It just might be that there is a reason for it not being - The Universal Natural Law of... and instead - The Universal Declaration of...

 

[Traitorfish]

Think you might be reading too much into it, there. The name is inspired as far as I know from the United States "Declaration of Independence" and the French "Declaration of the Rights of Man and Citizen", both of which did claim to outline universal and natural laws.

We are building a consensus. Please try again later.

At bottom, all collective decision-making processes are consensus-building processes. It's just a question of how much violence you're willing to deploy in order to obtain one.

 

[ParkCungHee]

At bottom, all collective decision-making processes are consensus-building processes. It's just a question of how much violence you're willing to deploy in order to obtain one.

Traitorfish play Mass Effect already.

 

[Terxpahseyton]

As a side note to this discussion: The Anarchists on this forum must be doing a good job arguing our case, if agreement sounds like Anarchism.

Well, I agree they do a good job in presenting it as an arrangement where the individual (and its desires) count the most.
They do a bad job in presenting the actual realization of this arrangement and along with that in presenting how the valuation of said wishes translates into a satisfaction of actual needs (which I would like to label the defining criteria). Because all I have gathered so far are vague assertions as to how one couldn't actually know that it doesn't work. But just as it is easy to make such assertions if one has some intellectual substance (which naturally is of overabundance at this OT) - it is easy to not take them as solid cause for reconsideration.

 

[Tahuti]

Traitorfish play Mass Effect already.

Damn it, I was about to mention Mass Effect until I read this!

 

[bestrfcplayer]

This is sounding a lot like what Rousseau said (at least the posts made by Global).

 

[ParkCungHee]

Snip

What I meant was the idea that you associate agreement with anarchy, rather then disagreement, disorder, confusion, etc.

 

[Terxpahseyton]

(intellectually not opposing to what I said, but you probably explicitly talking about the emotional intuitive whatever angle -) Hm good point and fair enough. Yes one could say ideologically OT has penetrated me with anarchistic thought and this one is going to stay. Who knows, once I get my career going that might pose some important reflection (light reference to the "political engagement" thread).