Replies

Feel free to explain them. I'm listening. However, first answer the root question: WHY should society be functional? Or exist at all? To preserve the human race? But why should humanity be preserved? Give me reasons OTHER than your personal preference, or the personal preferences of a 51% voting majority.

I tend to go overboard when discussing this and I still always manage to forget important details. I'll try to avoid being too verbose.

Humans typically share a common set of desires. Those common desires include, but are not necessarily limited to, continued posession of property, life, well-being and the life and well-being of loved ones. Why those desires exist can be debated, but humans tend to show those desires more often than not (feel free to disagree with any assertion here, I'll try to back up anything you don't buy right away). Given that most people want to continue living, it's logical to assume that they wouldn't want someone to kill them. Given their desire to maintain and keep their property it is logical to assume that they would not want someone to take their property. Given a group of humans with mutual desires -- continued living and property posession -- they could potentially form an agreement whereby no one will kill or steal from another. To make the agreement have merit, punishments for violating the agreement are determined in andvance and should an individual violate the agreement the rest of the group can see that the punishment is carried out.

That, IMO, is the absolute foundation for organized socieities: implied agreements based upon mutual desire. Yes, should someone not care about their own life, they could freely violate the agreement and thus face the consequences from their society. That much has been happening for thousands of years. Should the majoirty decide that a minority no longer has a "right" to life and property it can be removed, thus mob rule.

ACK. I hit "post reply" way too early. I had a little more to say.

As for why it is "desirable" to have a functioning society -- it's desirable for the humans in it. There's nothing inherently "good" or "bad" about it, it's just what happens when humans with common interests get together. The only reason for humans to preserve human existence is because humans desire it to continue. Should a significant number of humans ("significant" being variable depending on the abilities of the group in question) suddenly desire otherwise, then human existance would end.

Thus, I freely admit that my "moral" choices are based on my own desires. I *want* to live in a functioning society. I don't *want* to be raped, killed or deprived of property. I happen to live amongst a large group of people who, for the most part, share the same desire and are willing to live under rules wherein potentially undesirable consequences are imposed for murder, rape or theft.

Humans typically share a common set of desires... posession of property, life...

Agreed.

Given a group of humans with mutual desires -- continued living and property posession -- they could potentially form an agreement whereby no one will kill or steal from another. To make the agreement have merit, punishments for violating the agreement are determined

Once again, agreed. This is called the "Social Contract".

Should the majoirty decide that a minority no longer has a "right" to life and property it can be removed

This is the fatal flaw in the Social Contract: It can be rewritten at will by the changeable preferences of humans. You don't really have any "unalienable rights" unless there's an authority beyond mankind, that says so. "Endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights...", remember that?