What is the best philosophy for a society?

If i were a cosmic watcher, & observed the inhabitants of the earth for a few millennia, I would ponder the role of religion in human society.

Benefits of religion to society:
1. Most religions impart morality. A moral people have less crime & other antisocial behavior.
2. Most religions promote sincere, altruistic behavior toward their fellow man. This also makes for a more peaceful, caring society.
3. Some religions promote showing respect & honor to the administrators of the state.. this saves the taxpayer's money, as less enforcement is needed to administer the power structure.
4. Some religions promote honesty as a virtue, even in paying taxes & individual duties to the state.
5. Some religions promote hard work as a virtue, lessening the need of dependency, & increasing the wealth of society.

I would also observe some disadvantages that religion brings to society:
1. Unscrupulous scoundrels are able to manipulate people in the name of religion.
2. Some religions seem fixated on total control of the people, demanding submission & obedience to the religious elite.
3. Some religions are in competition with the state, & want to control the rule of law. Some religions ARE the state & are intolerant of any philosophical competition.
4. Some religions cannot live in harmony with diverse views, and work to exclude other opinions.
5. Some religions are amoral, or promote moral relativism, break down the family structure, build dependency, & burden the rest of society with anti social behavior.

And, as a cosmic watcher, i would conclude some things about philosophical views in a successful society.

1. First, i have to define 'successful'. I would put liberty, prosperity, opportunity, & order as the hallmarks of a successful society. This seems to provide the most happiness for the most people.
2. Law is generally respected & little enforcement is needed. People are voluntarily moral, & treat each other with respect & dignity. The dominant religious view will flavor all of society's interactions.
3. The burden of govt is minimal, so people have more of what they work for, & their labors are not wasted in administration.
4. Fair, even laws are in place to protect the weak from exploiters.
5. A moral, peaceful society, where people are free to express themselves, engage in business, & find the maximum fiscal & social freedom in their interpersonal relationships is the ideal.
6. Some religious views promote this better than others.
7. It is better for all of society to encourage religious views that further this social structure, & discourage those that are a detriment to society.
8. The rule of law reflects the moral basis of society. An immoral society encourages immoral, antisocial behavior, & a moral one encourages morality & the rule of law.

I would also conclude that a rational view of religious & philosophical views is impossible, in the human experiment. People do not seem interested in promoting a stable, orderly environment, but one of destruction & mayhem. Human beings seem to be their own worst enemy.

 

so, you're a THEIST cosmic watcher, I take it?

else why would something as impartial as a lizard beast from the horsehead nebula assume that religion imparts morality. any actually impartial cosmic watcher would see a bunch of critters, all behaving more or less the same. they would then conclude that those who claim to believe in a superpowered creator god don't REALLY believe in it, given the parity of lives lived.

 

evidently your cosmic watcher wasn't able to do a fly-by over Scandinavia, Australia, New Zealand, and Japan. poor little lizard, with his underpowered shuttle craft. now he'll go back to the HHN thinking the earth is Californy.

 

If you really think about it, a good religion or philosophy should be accepting to nature...the very thing that we are dependent on for life. Also, in contrast, science is a way to exploit nature and has thus stripped our world of it's natural resources and put us in danger. The correct way to live, if we want to see our yellow sun turn red, is to just "be" in our natural state.

Science has empowered us to cover the planet at 7 billion strong, and we still misunderstand it and misuse it.

 

Do you count some variety of secular humanism as a religion for these purposes?

 

I would say he is. Secular humanism, to me, would seem to exponentially empower the effects of religion since religion is just as human-centric as secular humanism is. To over exist is to overwhelm the infrastructure.

 

less navel gazing and more growing our own vegetables and harvesting rainwater. boom tish.

 

That's a good way to put it. Do we need quality of life, or just life? I'm flexible. If life is all we need then life is all we will have. If you want to be the greatest thing, in all of humanity, then you'll have a great strain on your "quality of life". Note the "purpose" that is inherent in "quality". Purpose is also inherent in our exploitation of resources.

 

right on!

the quality inherent in purposeful life is vastly superior of course, but it's a quality unrecognisable to the indolent. the turn of soil, the plant of seed, the nurture of plant, then the harvest and preparation for loved ones ..... there's more quality of purpose in that than a visit to the mall with an unlimited gold card, or a 100 sundays spent in supplication to a deaf mute god. which one will 'guarantee' immortality? the securing of a fertile and clean world for our descendants? the death defying rush of a shopping spree? or plaintive entreaties to a god who probably doesn't exist?

 

Amazing. On the one hand you speak in a declarative fashion inferring the existence of a god who is a deaf mute; then on the other hand you speak of a god that "probably don't exist". Is there a distinction between gods or is there confusion and uncertainty as to the existence of a god or God?

 

I see you didnt enjoy that one

 

Such avoidance of the issue.. Why not try to rationalize the distinctions or confusion and/or uncertainty?

 

derail fail.

 

Interesting response. Typically human. Avoid the topic & focus on the messenger. Ok, as a Cosmic Watcher for several millennia (you can call me CW), MY beliefs are irrelevant. I will take your response as a baiting tactic. We cosmic watchers have had to deal with your sneaky tactics since you've been able to speak. But we have a code, & we do NOT reveal information that only we are privy to.

So i'm not giving you any information about my space ship or mode of travel, or whether there is intelligent life in the universe, or whether you are really reading this, now. But i will bring this up at the next cosmic watcher convention.. i'm sure it will get some laughs.

Still baiting? Forget it, dude. You're not getting any deeper insights into the mysteries of the universe from me. I went out on a limb as it is, speaking incognito as a cosmic watcher. I thought the REASONING would appeal to some of the more thoughtful humans, but i should have known that reason is of little use to humanity, as they prefer to fight & manipulate & deflect with hysteria.

 

I agree that it is in humanity's interest to take care of the home they live in, as there are not a lot of other options nearby. And it does seem to me that humanity is at a stretching point, where the earth's resources are becoming strained, & the interrelation of population, energy, & food become more apparent.

The topic here relates to that, somewhat. What philosophy of life that humans typically hold is the best for them & the planet? I'm not sure how you can blame 'science' for man's appetite. Sure, science & technology has empowered you to exploit the resources of the planet, but there is a natural system of equilibrium that always brings things back into balance. No other creature on earth worries about that stuff, it is very enlightened of you to see beyond your own personal existence.

I see the population problem as a big one. It seems to be getting exponentially worse. Your more responsible cultures are being overwhelmed by the irresponsible ones. You are sending food to them, to encourage the out of control breeding. Why do you do that? It is unsustainable, you know. You will not be able to grow enough food to keep feeding those societies that breed uncontrolled. Other species on your planet have populations that rise & fall with the food supply, but they find a natural equilibrium. You humans seem to create an artificial bounty, by shipping food from fertile, riparian regions that have found a population balance, to regions that cannot sustain themselves. But eventually, your energy resources will diminish, arable land will peak, & food production will stabilize or even decline, if water or energy sources shrink.

I see ANY philosophy of humans, where speculations are made about the nature of the universe with NO scientific proofs, as religious in nature. Yes, secular humanism is one. It is a philosophy or religion as much as any other. I see they have magnificent edifices to teach their doctrines, & much time & effort is spent in proselytizing converts.

 

And there's the hackneyed device - implying histrionics.

The other stuff I'll pay, though. Nice prose

 

All any living thing needs is life, & the basics for survival. What is this 'quality' or 'purpose' you speak of? That seems to be an imaginary construct, to help you cope with reality. How do you conclude anything about purpose or quality?

Purposeful life? Do you mean sustenance & protection? Do you mean reproduction? What other possible purpose could you have? You seem very angry at those who believe in a higher power, & blame them for the problems on the planet. Why is that? Most of your current problems are due to overpopulation, mismanagement of resources, & meddling with the natural order of things. How is any particular philosophy or religion responsible for that? The madness of humanity transcends religious views. I have seen death, destruction, lies, manipulation, & mismanagement from EVERY philosophy known to man. Why do you single out a particular religion to blame everything on?

I find logical fallacies to be very consistent in the human experience. For some reason, passions overtake reason, & humans need to defend their ideology.. usually to the death.

 

The subject here is 'what is the best philosophy for a society?' I made a list of pros & cons of *some* religious views & their impact on society. EVERY society has some kind of philosophical basis.. even moral relativism or amorality is a basis for behavior. My question is what philosophical views are best for society? Which ones further the culture, & which ones are destructive? Is there a place for being utilitarian with morality in society, since that is really what we do. No one can claim absolutes, even with amorality. So why not embrace a set of rules that are positive for society?

 

I would submit the best philosophy for mankind. ( not necessarily society whatever that means ) is the Golden Rule.

 

Do persons erase the existence of other persons? Yes, they do (I know by inference). I am not obligated to explain this but I do right here. You cannot have "quality or purpose" without other conscious minds (to evaluate that purpose). Like in "The Matrix: Reloaded" (The Architect), purpose is a mathematical anomaly (that allows love and hope), and thus Neo exists to render the formula as valid (in context of our story telling). #PEDESTRIAN

 

An ideal society would embrace utilitarianism and would compel all philosophers to abandon their noble art and take up gardening instead, so that they might contribute something of actual value to their community.

 

Utilitarianism doesn't account for the "want". "I want something" and "you want something". You have to presuppose a "thing", and "intuitively" desire a want. The "want" of Utilitarianism is really just an extension of the human person. "A human wants something"..."an abstraction of an object".

 

Ah, then you agree that this is an imaginary construct. It is not real, but is a delusion, like the matrix. In reality, all we need are the basics of life: sustenance & protection. Everything else is a construct from others or our own making. If you were dropped onto a deserted island, or lived as a hermit in the mountains, other people's influence would be negligible. Would you still have purpose or quality beyond survival? It seems to me that the elevated 'purpose & quality' being spoken of here is just abundance & affluence.. plenty. We are not struggling to meet our basic needs, so can indulge in philosophical exercises, pondering things that would be irrelevant to our survival.

Unless there is some higher purpose from some cosmic being, how can our mere animal instincts provide any purpose other than survival & reproduction?

This does relate to the OP, as it is the basis for many religious/philosophical views. If there is a higher power, then a moral code is a possibility for our collective lives.

 

That is a logical rule.. 'do as you would be done by'.. simple, clear, easily understood. But how do you consider it 'best' for mankind?

I used 'society' to differentiate between cultures & nations, which are sometimes arbitrary, i know. But usually there is a prevailing 'religion' or philosophy in a society, but there is not in all of mankind.

Why would that be 'ideal'? One could argue that a successful society (by my def. in the OP) is one that instills morality & positive values of behavior in the people, as well as the work ethic you allude to. But mere gardening is no guarantee of altruistic behavior.. some of the meanest, orneriest people that ever lived were farmers.

 

I pretty much agree with you except for the red. The process we are doing here is anthropomorphizing. The projection of a "person's purpose" to concepts "necessarily anthropomorphized" is entirely fabricated. Show me an instance where a purpose is not an evaluation in the mind.