Join the Discussion - View Single Post

Jasper84 · 07-17-2007

Again, sorry if you see my attempts at classifying people according to this as putting people in boxes.

Attempt of classify the goal of societial systems by their goals for individuals, as often offset by what individual have to do for it (And not by how they work.) I am not at all claiming that each seperate point them has to be either true or false in someones opinion. People take any degree of thinking that any of them is a goal. (although some combinations are unlikely)

Nothing. (The only utterly non-authitorian point of view.)

The following also will have varying control systems, like democracy, meritocracy etc.(but those are not really the topic)
Also, people can claim to say that helping in some goals should be voluntary, for any of these. This view is not taken into account in the "right"/"left" classification. Ignoring that, the below goes from right to left. IMO forcing anything is a little authitorian; Arguably need not a bad thing. (Especially considering i am sure people will at least agree with the first one; prevent people from hurting each other.) Of course some goals may only be there to serve another goal.

Prevent individuals from hurting each other.

Provide infrastructure and public areas(for all individuals).(Usually idea that that does not come naturally.)

Below it starts to become more costly.(need not in negative sense) None of these are necesary obligated, as said bolded above.(Hmm, same could go for points above, but doubt anyone will take that opinion.)

Meritocratic goal; Putting effort in giving people the chance to fill the different jobs(/parts of society), by for instance, giving right of education.(Possibly only if they have not had a chance at that yet.)

Provide social security. Rights for the individuals like for food, water shelter, or even more depending on the degree.

To authitorian side.(depending on exact views.)

Make individuals do things because they should; even if it does not affect other individuals.(Artsy-ness, religion, protecting them from themselves/giving them more options later.) Often done because people not deemed ready to decide.

Do something to the universe irrelevant for individuals in the world.(For artsy-ness, religious reasons.)

You can use your imagination what the resulting viewpoints could be from the point of view of different combinations. Of course, degrees in belief in the above do not exactly represent opinions, they are classifications, not specifications. Also one can try arguing why what belief should be reached. Although i think it is very subjective, it might depend on the nature of humans; that is something that was abstracted away to reach this classification, and ditch distractions. Nature of humans is also subjective but seems more concrete to me. I guess it also depends what you are comfortable with, your attitude in life.
Again, if you think your point is in none of these, or i miss points, feel free to note. Please try to read them well so you are not mistaken though.

I could try make a similar list of what points of view there could be about the nature of humans, or with what people are comfortable with; but i will leave that up to you.
I mean relative importance, existence of other points, and usefulness of this classification to be the topic of the discussion. Then again, i am not lord and ruler.

07-17-2007	#25 (permalink)
Jasper84 under construction Join Date: May 2007 Location: Utrecht, the Netherlands Posts: 593	Re: The purpose of societal systems Again, sorry if you see my attempts at classifying people according to this as putting people in boxes. Attempt of classify the goal of societial systems by their goals for individuals, as often offset by what individual have to do for it (And not by how they work.) I am not at all claiming that each seperate point them has to be either true or false in someones opinion. People take any degree of thinking that any of them is a goal. (although some combinations are unlikely) Nothing. (The only utterly non-authitorian point of view.) The following also will have varying control systems, like democracy, meritocracy etc.(but those are not really the topic) Also, people can claim to say that helping in some goals should be voluntary, for any of these. This view is not taken into account in the "right"/"left" classification. Ignoring that, the below goes from right to left. IMO forcing anything is a little authitorian; Arguably need not a bad thing. (Especially considering i am sure people will at least agree with the first one; prevent people from hurting each other.) Of course some goals may only be there to serve another goal. Prevent individuals from hurting each other. Provide infrastructure and public areas(for all individuals).(Usually idea that that does not come naturally.) Below it starts to become more costly.(need not in negative sense) None of these are necesary obligated, as said bolded above.(Hmm, same could go for points above, but doubt anyone will take that opinion.) Meritocratic goal; Putting effort in giving people the chance to fill the different jobs(/parts of society), by for instance, giving right of education.(Possibly only if they have not had a chance at that yet.) Provide social security. Rights for the individuals like for food, water shelter, or even more depending on the degree. To authitorian side.(depending on exact views.) Make individuals do things because they should; even if it does not affect other individuals.(Artsy-ness, religion, protecting them from themselves/giving them more options later.) Often done because people not deemed ready to decide. Do something to the universe irrelevant for individuals in the world.(For artsy-ness, religious reasons.) You can use your imagination what the resulting viewpoints could be from the point of view of different combinations. Of course, degrees in belief in the above do not exactly represent opinions, they are classifications, not specifications. Also one can try arguing why what belief should be reached. Although i think it is very subjective, it might depend on the nature of humans; that is something that was abstracted away to reach this classification, and ditch distractions. Nature of humans is also subjective but seems more concrete to me. I guess it also depends what you are comfortable with, your attitude in life. Again, if you think your point is in none of these, or i miss points, feel free to note. Please try to read them well so you are not mistaken though. I could try make a similar list of what points of view there could be about the nature of humans, or with what people are comfortable with; but i will leave that up to you. I mean relative importance, existence of other points, and usefulness of this classification to be the topic of the discussion. Then again, i am not lord and ruler. Last edited by Jasper84 : 07-17-2007 at 09:14 PM.