... a social system that is on average fair and just? — apokrisis
A post-scarcity,demarchic[democratic] social system is as "fair and just" as I can imagine. — 180 Proof
In the year 2081, the Constitution dictates that all Americans are fully equal and not allowed to be smarter, better-looking, or more physically able than anyone else. The Handicapper General's agents enforce the equality laws, forcing citizens to wear "handicaps": masks for those who are too beautiful, earpiece radios for the intelligent that broadcast loud noises meant to disrupt thoughts, and heavy weights for the strong or athletic. — https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harrison_Bergeron
Fairness is not something you come across in the world.
It's something you do in the world. — Banno
How does it make sense to ask which of these is in thermodynamic equilibrium? — Banno
Fairness is not something you we come across in the world.
It's something you we do in the world.
(Edited for ↪javra
) — Banno
How does it make sense to ask which of these is closest to thermodynamic equilibrium? — Banno
That is also my own facile answer to this thread's title question. The physical universe is not a God to be held responsible for my personal flourishing or perishing. Instead, the world in which I live & act is an amoral (neutral) context for my own moral choices. So, if I want the world to be more Good and less Evil, it's my job as a moral agent to attempt to "make it so". Unfortunately, as you noted, our personal Utopia votes are seldom unanimous ; because we all "differ on the ontological details". Hence, the necessity for a moderate philosophical attitude toward the extremes of Good & Evil. :smile:Although I'm quite surprised by this, in a pleasant manner I'll add, I here fully endorse Banno's laconic answer (thought doubtless we'll differ on the ontological details):
Only if we make it so. — Banno — javra
Good~evil is tarred jargon as it does speak to the simplicities of reductionist models of causality. But we can sort of get what the terms are getting at from a systems perspective and its ecosystem style, richness constructing, hierarchical complexity. — apokrisis
Fortunately though, we humans are moral agents, who have the power to design a sub-system of our own : an ethical society, which is intended to be Fair and Just. — Gnomon
Isn't that the role of Philosophy, to deduce both the Good and the Bad aspects of the Real and Cultural worlds, and to devise a new more Ideal social system that will be better for A> those who seek justice, or B> those who seek power? Perhaps to emulate Nature in its physical perfecting tool : survival of the fittest, by means of competitive selection. Or to discover a new metaphysical tool for increasing moral fitness.In a perfect world, that might look rather like social democracy. — apokrisis
To which I might only add that ethics may be of more help here than physics. For while physics tells us what is the case, ethics acknowledges that we might well make things otherwise.Hence, the necessity for a moderate philosophical attitude toward the extremes of Good & Evil. :smile: — Gnomon
Perhaps to emulate Nature in its physical perfecting tool : survival of the fittest, by means of competitive selection. — Gnomon
Unfortunately, as Marx noted, the thinking philosophers usually leave the implementation of their Utopias to doing politicians, who tend to sort themselves into dueling dualistic categories, such as Liberals and Conservatives, or Nationalists and Communists. — Gnomon
You do not appear to even see the ethical considerations. — Banno
I'll leave you to it. — Banno
Well, I suspect that ↪Gnomon will go along with your scientism. — Banno
Is the real world fair and just? — Gnomon
here are my two contributions to this thread:
Fairness is not found in the world, it is found in what we do about it.
The way things are does not determine what we ought do about them. — Banno
Nothing could be further from the truth!*2. Just World :
The just-world hypothesis refers to our belief that the world is fair, and consequently, that the moral standings of our actions will determine our outcomes. This viewpoint causes us to believe that those who do good will be rewarded, and those who exhibit negative behaviors will be punished. — Gnomon
*4. LOGOS :
By using the term logos, he meant the principle of the cosmos that organizes and orders the world that had the power to regulate the birth and decay of things in the world. The cosmos was, as he saw it, constantly changing, and he conceived logos as the organizing principle of change. — Gnomon
We may even gain some philosophical insights from Biology. My latest blog post is entitled : Synchrony : Small World Networks*1. In 1926, during the heyday of Quantum Physics, biologist Jan Smuts*2 intuited the general principle of Holism as an organizing force in biological Evolution. His acumen was immediately recognized by those who later became labeled as "New Agers". But it was overshadowed by the Atomic bomb builders, until the 21st century emergence of Complexity, Systems and Information sub-disciplines of science. As illustrated in the Oppenheimer movie, physics sans ethics can solve a temporary technical problem, but create an even greater moral dilemma.To which I might only add that ethics may be of more help here than physics. For while physics tells us what is the case, ethics acknowledges that we might well make things otherwise. — Banno
I don't want to get in the middle of a spitting contest. But I'll point out that 's discussion of Ecology hardly qualifies as materialistic "scientism". Ecology does have practical applications, but its primary consideration is ethical & holistic*1 : the universe is more than an aggregation of objects & forces. For us earthlings, it's also an association of beings.↪apokrisis
Well, I suspect that ↪Gnomon will go along with your scientism. Of course, I don't think it is I who is not in the game. You do not appear to even see the ethical considerations. But my posts only elicit more spit. — Banno
The physical analogy between a Fair & Just distribution of social states, and thermodynamic equilibrium (balanced measure) is a philosophical metaphor, not to be taken literally. :cool:How does it make sense to ask which of these is in thermodynamic equilibrium? — Banno
Ecology does have practical applications, but its primary consideration is ethical & holistic*1 : the universe is more than an aggregation of objects & forces. For us earthlings, it's also an association of beings. — Gnomon
Equilibrium is the balance of dynamic interaction—when the interactions being measured become “equal”. — Gnomon
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.