Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

InspectorG-007 t1_iueq3n9 wrote

I would say an oscillation between the two allows the DNA better chances of survival in different and changing environments.

Pure Utilitarianism could lead to living like an ant hill, or it could be the best route in survival situations.

Egalitarianism allows some to pursue activities that may allows new expressions or innovations. But it can also lead to decadence where no one undertakes the undesirable tasks and wastes resources on trivialities.

16

ChocoboRaider t1_iufndem wrote

My guy, I don’t think egalitarianism is mutually exclusive with utilitarianism, they aren’t even in the same axis or field. Not is it what leads to decadence. And from a utilitarian perspective, egalitarianism is pretty useful.

1

kaam00s t1_iuh8tum wrote

I agree, it depends on the goal pursued by utilitarianism, the goal can be to reach the highest level of egalitarianism.

2

contractualist OP t1_iuk6hqe wrote

This appears to be more of a descriptive view, whereas I'm focusing on the normative.

If its just about DNA, you can justify a patriarchal military state that can produce more citizens and conquer more territory. It may be effective at its goal, but its not moral. Morality, meanwhile, would be based on the principles free people would agree to in a social contract.

1

InspectorG-007 t1_iuk7rqi wrote

A Patriarchy military State in modern day would run into the problem of blowing up the very resources it's fighting for.

What is Morality other than a survival mechanism?

Social Contract works great, but unforseen(or ignored) consequences eventually force us to slide down Maslow's Pyramid and resort to force.

Plus, I would argue, that due to humans being Pack Mammals, most will naturally leave the decision making(essentially participation) to delegation during times of plenty, only to be left with poor planning and grift when times change to bad.

0

contractualist OP t1_iuk9cvr wrote

>A Patriarchy military State in modern day would run into the problem of blowing up the very resources it's fighting for.

So if we had enough resources, it would become moral?

Because morality is grounded on freedom, it would be what free people would reasonably agree to. A survival mechanism is amoral; any actions can be justified to survive.

The only way we can judge what is called "sliding down" is by having a certain standard to fall from. The standard is the social contract, its the moral law whether or not its obeyed.

I agree that the social contract will be delegated and I will discuss this more on my substack (I talk about it a bit here)

2