h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

This 'meta-ethic' stuff: I am right to assume, aren't I, that 'meta-ethic' means the same (in the context of this discussion) as 'collection of ethics' or 'belief system'?



Most people - the ones who aren't strong and ruthless enough to get their own way unaided - prefer to adopt a consensus, and have it enforced on their behalf. Of course, they (we! ) only do this because to avoid being dominated by others!




People will do what is best for them. Full stop. You are too generous when you accuse these people of doing "what others may dislike" when they have no awareness of anyone but themselves!


Pattern-chaser

"Who cares, wins"

Ooops!

"Of course, they (we! ) only do this because to avoid being dominated by others! "

The "because" shouldn't be there any more.

Pattern-chaser

"Who cares, wins"

1.) Yes, I was assuming the definition for meta-ethic that you just gave.

2.)

I should have said "thats not how all humans are". AS long as a society has oner or two people who are strong and ruthless enough to take control, the fact that others may want consencis is irrelevent. Someone will still take control. And, in general, pepole only want consencus because they don't think they can have control. 50% of people, or more would probably take control of their society if they felt that they were strong enough to. Even if I am overestimating this number, it is clear that, in a lage enough society, someone or some group will form a government if none exists. Not all humans are ruthless and power hungry, but many will become so if given the chance. A society without government, that is, an anarchy, is an opertunity for everyone who wants to be in charge to try to take over. THerefore, I dought that a human anarchic (is that the right word?) society can be stable.

I know this is veering off-topic, and I'm the offending 'veerer', but I still think that anarchy is *distributed government*, not *no government*.

Pattern-chaser

"Who cares, wins"

Sorry about my split posting. That's the problem with posting during one's computer applications class (aside from the fact that it's against the rules and that one must hide one's work from the teacher when she looks around...).

Yes, Pattern-Chaser, that's what I meant by 'meta-ethic'. I saw it used that way earlier in the thread and so stole it.

So, the statements:
1. To live in harmony, people must have the same meta-ethic, or at least similar ones.
2. Religions impose meta-ethics, as do governments.
3. In an atheistic anarchy goverment and religion are both removed, and so therefore are two major sources of meta-ethics.
(All right, PC has the contention that "anarchy" is not synonymous with "no government" and it's my belief that atheism is a form of religion, but I think we can agree that "atheistic anarchy" is a system without a centralized, powerful government and with no official religion.)
4. Without a single, unifying meta-ethic provided for them, people would begin to find their own, and conflict with those whose meta-ethics differed greatly. Too much of this conflict, and people will not be able to live harmoniously. (Restatement of 1)

While an atheistic anarchy--is that redundant? It was stated earlier that a strong religious order is much like a government anyway... While an atheistic anarchy would be nice, with everybody cooperating and no use for money and happy cuddling animals in the flowers, it's not very viable. It would take a conscious effort by a group of like-minded individuals going off on their own and separating themselves from the world, and it would be nice if they weren't bothered by any other governments as well. I'm not a history scholar--not much at all--but hasn't that been tried in the past with not much success?

s and s,
~Wes

Besides the points you made in your last patragraph about the dificulties of setting one up, it would only take one or two people to destabalize the anarchy into conflict. Within a generation or two such people qwqwould probably crop up. It might be possible to maintain an atheistic anarchy, but it would be difficult.