I don't disagree. But it seems that that was the same in the past, yet people would often make deals with only a handshake. What happened? Why is it that people are less trustworthy NOW, as opposed to the past?
Baron Max
Whatever happened to honesty?
- Thread starter S.A.M.
- Start date
I don't disagree. But it seems that that was the same in the past, yet people would often make deals with only a handshake. What happened? Why is it that people are less trustworthy NOW, as opposed to the past?
Baron Max
Great
Now lets look at "physical science" and the means it has to bypass "behaviour" and see if it has any parallel to the successful passage of an ambulance crashing into a helicopter
that says nothing about an overall decline in a community's ability to adhere to an ideal
Last edited:
Times change and people change, sometimes for the better.
I guess its kind of sad we cannot trust each other but at least people are more careful.
Great
Now lets look at "physical science" and the means it has to bypass "behaviour" and see if it has any parallel to the successful passage of an ambulance crashing into a helicopter
I never said bypass... only to look beyond (i.e. go deeper than the abstraction of behavior).
When a community grows, it has less ability to constrain the behavior of its individual members. That's a pure function of entropy and what isn't constrained is compusory. To adapt, a community will enforce process constraints which protect it's members from the compusory behavior of lying and cheating.
hence calling upon an abstraction to use physical science to go deeper than an "abstraction" bears similarity to a burning ambulance amongst helicopter spare parts
great
now establish how dishonesty is the default (or natural) position of a community
(IOW the premises for your argument are tentative - one could just as easily expect an increase in honesty, ..... if one held that due to entropy society would no longer be able to constrain persons to be dishonest)
In short, aspects of sociology remain forever within the parameters of soft science since it doesn't have the reducible terms of hard science.
If you disagree, what do you propose to use to determine the "normal specimen" of society that would make it possible to use words like "entropy" in a meaningful fashion?
Last edited:
There is no such thing as honour anymore. Or at least it no longer has any value to anyone anymore.
ha, as if people from the past were honest or had honor.
what a myth that is. shows how good they were at stroking people. well i think the percentage was even less in the past than today.ha, as if people from the past were honest or had honor.
Maybe you are right about that, but it WAS valued more in the past.
Ah yes of course. The notion of being khuddar [roughly translated as self respecting] has all but vanished from society. Now sycophancy and appearances are more valuable.
Honesty is actually a disadvantage.
I think that's a very incorrect anology. A better one would be stop looking at the forrest and start looking at the governing laws of tree formation.
Both honesty and dishonesty are the natural position of a community.
(IOW the premises for your argument are tentative - one could just as easily expect an increase in honesty, ..... if one held that due to entropy society would no longer be able to constrain persons to be dishonest)
Honesty breeds trust and trust breeds cooperation. As we are a social species, we are inclined to judge the trustworthiness of people. estalishing and maintaining a base of honesty so trust and cooperation can result takes alot of work whereas dishonesty is near effortless especially when the targets are anonymous. Entropy doesn't take the path of highest energy as you are well aware.
You don't even have to consider "soft science" in this case. It's very well known in physics that anything that is not forbidden is compulsory (this was made very clear in quantum mechanics). There really isn't anything that doesn't follow this pattern. Constraints might be applied to reduce the count of compulsory events or reduce the effects of them; however, they cannot be eliminated. For humans, both honesty and dishonesty are comulsory events; however, honesty is valued more than dishonesty because cooperation (which is one of our major survival advantages) won't function without it. It requires alot of energy to maintain (a low state of entropy).
You mean like forbidding your child to play with your gun on the kitchen table? I am talking about reality forbidding things. For example, reality forbids you from transforming into a gaggle of geese 5 seconds ago.
Yes, it was more valued. But it was mainly due to people knowing all the other people in the clan, tribe, town, village, etc. If someone was untrustworthy, it would be known quickly and others would no longer deal with him. He'd be effectively ostracized or shunned by the community.
Can you imagine a small group of close friends ostracizing someone in, say, New York City? Or Toronto? It would make no difference to that untrustworthy individual.
See? Just more proof that there's just too fuckin' many people!!!
Baron Max
Is that why you're so adverse to upholding honesty?
No, or murder would be rampant. Sometimes, we forbid things that aren't necessarily harmful and can in fact be quite beneficial, but that are certainly complicated. Different themes would fall under this category, such as certain drugs and expressions of love. Such restrictions simply won't be followed by everyone. If the restriction isn't permanent but instead only temporary, some people may wait until such a restriction is lifted, but not everyone. I believe the wisest are usually not so keen on breaking restrictions that, while unreasonable, aren't earth shattering, but will instead challenge society into justifying their restrictions.
It is. All you have to do is put a uniform on it
give it up scott.
I think societies go through cycles that reflect their economic conditions. When one is up, there is greater latitude and liberty, then down it goes. Currently we are living in the era of the myth of social equality, a condition that has been going steadily downhill since the 70s.
There is an excellent book called East and West by C Northcote Parkinson, that ideally addresses this issue.
http://www.amazon.com/East-West-Cyril-Northcote-Parkinson/dp/0313229554
Last edited:
The fact that the people who do the most killing are not only legally allowed to do so but jailed if they refuse to 'report for duty' speaks volumes of humanity's reservations concerning killing fellow human beings. Even under such conditions, I remember the case of one U.S. soldier who reported for duty but asked, and was allowed, to carry an unloaded weapon. I believe during one of his downtimes he finally fled to Canada. Ofcourse, Canada has been deporting many of these soldiers, something that I and many canadians (even some politicians) aren't proud of:
Members of Parliament press for government to stop deportation of U.S. solidiers
S.A.M. said:scott3x said:
give it up scott.
Whatever do you mean, dear?
I think I know what you're implying, but you will note that the same principle applies to many things. I have brought the subject up frequently, whether it's the war on drugs, the restrictions placed on our knowledge concerning 9/11, paranormal activities, prostitution, and.. other subjects ;-).S.A.M. said:
Looks interesting.
You're probably right, I don't suspect Sam knows anything about honesty enough to be adverse to it.