ChatterBank0 min ago
Utopia
13 Answers
What would be your idea of an ideal society?
I realise of course that we can probably never have a perfect world and anyway one person's idea of an ideal society will be different from another. But it's just a hypothetical question. It's your turn to dream.
I realise of course that we can probably never have a perfect world and anyway one person's idea of an ideal society will be different from another. But it's just a hypothetical question. It's your turn to dream.
Answers
1 to 13 of 13
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by Romeo. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
I saw that China and thought the same
I think though I'd want access to antibiotics after seeing what happened to that guy's foot.
But antibiotics means sophisticated medicine which requires people permanently working in pharamacology and being paid for it which means money an economy and it all breaks down.
They pay quite a price for their lifestyle
I think though I'd want access to antibiotics after seeing what happened to that guy's foot.
But antibiotics means sophisticated medicine which requires people permanently working in pharamacology and being paid for it which means money an economy and it all breaks down.
They pay quite a price for their lifestyle
-- answer removed --
The Wiccans have it right. 'An it harm none, do what thou will'. This is a variation on Aleister Crowley's 'Do what thou will shall be the whole of the Law'.
I'd change it to say 'An it harm no being, do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law'. 'No being' includes yourself, by the way.
Anarchy has a bad name, with the meaning twisted by governments and rulers. But look up the true meaning - 'mankind living in harmony without the need for laws'.
There's your ideal.
I'd change it to say 'An it harm no being, do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law'. 'No being' includes yourself, by the way.
Anarchy has a bad name, with the meaning twisted by governments and rulers. But look up the true meaning - 'mankind living in harmony without the need for laws'.
There's your ideal.
jno . . . Somewhat true however they substituted submission to the state for submission to 'God'.
Although I can not imagine a utopia where everything is rosy I do believe the human condition could be improved by living by certain principles. One principle I try to live by is that the only kind of relationship that is truly beneficial is one where both or all parties in the relationship derive mutual benefit and all other forms of relationships should be avoided as much as is possible. One person can not truly gain at the uncompensated expense of another.
Of course only rational individuals can envision, create, engage in and maintain such relationships . . . which actually is icing on the cake.
Although I can not imagine a utopia where everything is rosy I do believe the human condition could be improved by living by certain principles. One principle I try to live by is that the only kind of relationship that is truly beneficial is one where both or all parties in the relationship derive mutual benefit and all other forms of relationships should be avoided as much as is possible. One person can not truly gain at the uncompensated expense of another.
Of course only rational individuals can envision, create, engage in and maintain such relationships . . . which actually is icing on the cake.
China Doll, If you were asking me . . .
I was using the broadest definition of relationships which would include the relationship between a thief or murderer and their victim. Unfortunately there are as many (if not more) forms of bad relationships as good, a good relationship being one in which all involved derive mutual benefit.
If what you are suggesting is that what is in actuality good for one must in fact be good for the other I would agree, with the stipulation that it is not just a belief but is really good proving to be so for both over time.
There is a possible exception to this rule being that even a bad relationship can be a good thing if a learning process follows from it (provided it is not fatal in consequence).
If this begs the question, �what is good�, I offer the following definition: Good is that which contributes to the well-being of a creature with the capacity and opportunity to make choices. Where there is no choice and in the absence of reason necessary to make the right choice, nothing else matters.
"Onward through the fog" . . .
I was using the broadest definition of relationships which would include the relationship between a thief or murderer and their victim. Unfortunately there are as many (if not more) forms of bad relationships as good, a good relationship being one in which all involved derive mutual benefit.
If what you are suggesting is that what is in actuality good for one must in fact be good for the other I would agree, with the stipulation that it is not just a belief but is really good proving to be so for both over time.
There is a possible exception to this rule being that even a bad relationship can be a good thing if a learning process follows from it (provided it is not fatal in consequence).
If this begs the question, �what is good�, I offer the following definition: Good is that which contributes to the well-being of a creature with the capacity and opportunity to make choices. Where there is no choice and in the absence of reason necessary to make the right choice, nothing else matters.
"Onward through the fog" . . .
1 to 13 of 13
