Philosophy Forum

Read Topic
Reply

Universal Values

Philosophy Forum
» Ethics
» Universal Values

Get Email Updates • Email this Topic • Print this Page

IMO, I have recognized some universal values that I feel will be recognized by the entire world. What do you think?

Clean air
fresh water
healthy food
sound and secure home in all weathers
adequate clothing
travel
recreation
access to medicine and medical facilities
family security
entertainment
transportation
incentives to grow and learn

To me these are not freedoms, they are entitlements. They shouldn't have to be earned.

Thanks for your consideration, Smile

William

@William,

Sorry Bill but i thought you might have mentioned something like moral values, these are luxuries to a lot of people.

@xris,

xris;65733 wrote:

Sorry Bill but i thought you might have mentioned something like moral values, these are luxuries to a lot of people.

Universal values are moral values. And yes, they shouldn't be luxuries. Every human being is entitled to these. IMO

Thanks,
William

@William,

I agree with you, William. I believe that all people should have access to these things you mention, or they should at least not have any barriers in the way of them having these things, which is the case in point. An egalitarian society is the most just society.

@hue-man,

hue-man;65751 wrote:

I agree with you, William. I believe that all people should have access to these things you mention, or they should at least not have any barriers in the way of them having these things, which is the case in point. An egalitarian society is the most just society.

If you agree, that's ok with me, though I will have to look up what egalitarian means. Ha. :perplexed:

William

@William,

William;65724 wrote:

IMO, I have recognized some universal values that I feel will be recognized by the entire world. What do you think?

Clean air
healthy food
sound and secure home in all weathers
adequate clothing
travel
recreation
access to medicine and medical facilities
family security
entertainment
transportation
incentives to grow and learn

To me these are not freedoms, they are entitlements. They shouldn't have to be earned.

Thanks for your consideration,
William

hi william-
are you saying that you feel a government should provide these things for its people or guarantee that they have access to these things free of cost....or are you simply stating what you feel human beings value in life?
ot are you stating the basic needs that without which no one can be said to have their minimum?

right off the bat, you forgot water. living in india, that is in my life daily. there are whole cities which have run out of water since april and have to buy it and have it delivered in tanker trucks.

but i will have to compile my own list and get back to you and compare. i mean you are not mentioning freedom of speech and so forth-so i am not yet clear on exactly what your context is here.

i am going to focus on your phrase 'entitlements. They shouldnt have to be earned' for the moment. be back later...

---------- Post added at 07:50 AM ---------- Previous post was at 07:25 AM ----------

ok, i'm back...

I think the first four set the mood for what you are trying to say. Add clean water as the fifth, and I think that about covers it. I would replace the part about home with 'shelter' because it is more general and feasible in certain parts of the world. total climate control is not necessary. And that these entitlements also belong to prisoners as well-even within the jail system they are to be agreed upon and guaranteed.

Now I think we are branching off somewhere else. The rest of these things can be insured by most people on their own-except in the case of prisoners. For instance, prisoners are indeed entitled to recreation or physical exercise, proper bathing facilities, clean clothes, incentives to grow and learn, medicine. But I think your intention was not to talk about prisoners' rights here.

To go on to the rest of your list, in the case of travel, I dont see that as an entitlement though I can see that there should be no restriction on it if the individual or group has the means and desire to do so. Not sure what you meant here. Travel is a luxury, isnt it? At today's prices anyway. And I dont see it as a necessity for everyone.

Recreation and entertainment must be two separate entitlements? I would say they are something that the individual can provide himself in such a way as fits his means and does not encroach on anyone else's entitlements. It is up to the individual what he thinks recreation and entertainment is-mother teresa probably felt her work was entertainment and recreation so how can we define this?

Family security- you lost me there, what is that? Do you mean security such as law and order? Protection from attacks and so forth? Morally I would like to think that is an entitlement that any bystander would provide-but it becomes a political and global issue very fast. This is a gray area.

Transportation-do you mean public transportation? Should it be free, or simply not restricted to certain people? Are you talking about a highway infrastructure, such as is so badly lacking here in india where we are unable to have access from things we need before they are spoiled in the heat?

incentives to grow and learn would have to be provided to prisoners also, but even poor children here in india can find their own incentives to grow and learn. or do you mean education in a formalized institution? that is a different issue. as long as society reveres degrees and credentials and bars those who have none from advancing, you might want to consider a government should provide it to everyone-but this is a different can of worms for me. dont want to go off topic here.

Hope this is enough to provoke more discussion.

@William,

William

I like your list. I would include these as human rights.
Healthy food does include water.
And to me it means mostly fresh raw fruits and vegetables; mostly salads and a non-meat diet. I've been living on these since I was 18. Now I'm 78. I love it. And it works to keep me extremely healthy.

Human Rights are a contribution of deontological philosophy to modern thought. You will find many from your list in The United Nations Universal Bill of Human Rights. This document was militated for - and written by - by Eleanor Roosevelt.

@William,

William;65724 wrote:

IMO, I have recognized some universal values that I feel will be recognized by the entire world. What do you think?

Clean air
healthy food
sound and secure home in all weathers
adequate clothing
travel
recreation
access to medicine and medical facilities
family security
entertainment
transportation
incentives to grow and learn

To me these are not freedoms, they are entitlements. They shouldn't have to be earned.

Thanks for your consideration,
William

Yes i agree in our society these are the basics. Are these the basics to survive? I don't think so. They are definitely some core values but we have grown to expect so much more than just food, water, and air. Your right, they shouldn't have to be earned but unfortunately in some cases they must.

@William,

Salima, thank you. Your comments in bold, all else mine.

"are you saying that you feel a government should provide these things for its people or guarantee that they have access to these things free of cost....or are you simply stating what you feel human beings value in life?
ot are you stating the basic needs that without which no one can be said to have their minimum"?

No, governments will evolve to a global consortium. As long as we have separate governments, there will never be entitlements. Governments and religion represent "barriers" Once we get serious about offering these entitlement will we begin to communicate with each other and in that process barriers that separate us will diminish. Religion and governments are but two human constructs that protected us because we didn't not have these entitlements and fought each other to obtain them. IMO, if there is a cost to an entitlement, it is not an entitlement. Entitlements are free. We are, as human beings allow to those entitlements that will allow us to live life on this Earth. There should be no cost to that. The words, "cost of living" make my blood boil. This Earth is not for sale, to be own by none, but shared by all. That is a prime universal directive. Minimums and maximums are based on limitations the current reality imposes. What is, is, and we do our best with what we have to work with as it relates to the resources we have to work with. Our current economic structure is what is limited. Not good in a growing population. People are not innately greedy, they have been conditioned to be. That's called "temptation", and the world it rift with it.

"Right off the bat, you forgot water".

It was assumed on my part. Sorry, let's add it. There is no such thing as life without it. It is our most valuable resource other than people. As I have stated," what good is a golden fountain if no water flows from it".

"There are whole cities which have run out of water since april and have to buy it and have it delivered in tanker trucks".

We have the knowledge that will allow us to create a orange grove in the desert. The only resource thatis needed is water and knowledge. Desalination is the answer until we can establish an environment that create natural precipitation, rain. We have the technology that will allow us to build water conduits making barren land fertile. Our only deterrent is cost, and what to do with all the salt. We, IMO, can figure that out. We need to do what we can do, totally independent of cost. Cost is our biggest problem.

"i mean you are not mentioning freedom of speech and so forth-so i am not yet clear on exactly what your context is here".

There is no freedom of speech in a world that does not communicate. Once we begin to transition to a world that honors these entitlements will we begin to communicate eventually leading to a universal language that in all probability will be English. Then we will be able to "clean up" our speech and eliminate the ambiguity of it that is used to manipulate that speech.

"I would replace the part about home with 'shelter' because it is more general and feasible in certain parts of the world. total climate control is not necessary. And that these entitlements also belong to prisoners as well-even within the jail system they are to be agreed upon and guaranteed".

Shelter could be a cave. Yes, a home would be contingent on environmental conditions. Shelter is too broad and can be interpretated in many erroneous ways

"Now I think we are branching off somewhere else. The rest of these things can be insured by most people on their own-except in the case of prisoners. For instance, prisoners are indeed entitled to recreation or physical exercise, proper bathing facilities, clean clothes, incentives to grow and learn, medicine. But I think your intention was not to talk about prisoners' rights here".

The fact that we have prisoners is because these entitlement are not available to all people. Prisoners are a consequence. The process we will transition to will allow us to realize those who commit crimes are victims too. They are victims of this reality. In today's climate, unreasonable "comfort" afforded criminals encourages recidivism in that they cannot deal with this reality and commit crimes to, essentially, "return home". But to answer your question, yes, but it will be a gradual process of understanding just what is "comfort" and what if "fair and just".

"To go on to the rest of your list, in the case of travel, I dont see that as an entitlement though I can see that there should be no restriction on it if the individual or group has the means and desire to do so. Not sure what you meant here. Travel is a luxury, isnt it? At today's prices anyway. And I dont see it as a necessity for everyone".

There are two types of travel; recreational and fundamental. Fundamental is what is needed as it relates to those contributions one offers to the overall paradigm we call life. The more I think about it, it may not be an entitlement, but a part of a rewards system that compensates individual contributions. Fundamental travel would be just adequate "transportation needed. Thanks for bringing it up. Let's keep it open for discussion. Travel would definitely be dependent on energy resources, especially global travel. The reason I emphasized the word I did in red, is because it is those words that IMO, corrupt thought, especially "means and desire". Price should not be a factor as it relates to "entitlements".

"Recreation and entertainment must be two separate entitlements? I would say they are something that the individual can provide himself in such a way as fits his means and does not encroach on anyone else's entitlements. It is up to the individual what he thinks recreation and entertainment is-mother teresa probably felt her work was entertainment and recreation so how can we define this"?

The only thing that can encroach on one's entitlements is "GREED", which is why I emphasized "FITS HIS MEANS" in red. What you should have said, IMO, is, "OVERWHELMS HIS
SENSIBILITIES". For those of lesser knowledge among us, must be allowed to grow and learn at their own pace dependent on their sensibilities. We must establish a foundation that will allow that to happen free of coercion and control.

"Family security- you lost me there, what is that? Do you mean security such as law and order? Protection from attacks and so forth? Morally I would like to think that is an entitlement that any bystander would provide-but it becomes a political and global issue very fast. This is a gray area"

There are no gray areas; just rationalizations. There is only one (1) family, and that is Father/Mother/Child. Once we begin to transition, we will learn how so very important that universal paradigm is. There are no "universal" substitutions for it. Yes, in this reality, there has to be. But what is important is the focus on the child. That is an imperative. Our public domain must be child friendly. As it stands today, it is "ADULTS ONLY". We will learn there is no difference in the child and the adult, as adults in this reality are just older, contaminated children. We are all human beings, it's just some are more knowledgeable than others.

"Transportation-do you mean public transportation? Should it be free, or simply not restricted to certain people? Are you talking about a highway infrastructure, such as is so badly lacking here in india where we are unable to have access from things we need before they are spoiled in the heat"?

As we transition we will be able to establish a method of transportation that will be compatible with natural energy resources available. Due to our current economic structure and the "costs involved", we do not apply critical thought in developing these energy sources for it would disturb the current structure. That economic structure needs to be drastically changed allowing us to do what we can do, rather than what we can afford to do. Petroleum is not a natural energy source, it is a contrived one. We can contrive a more environmentally and resource friendly one.

"incentives to grow and learn would have to be provided to prisoners also, but even poor children here in india can find their own incentives to grow and learn. or do you mean education in a formalized institution? that is a different issue. as long as society reveres degrees and credentials and bars those who have none from advancing, you might want to consider a government should provide it to everyone-but this is a different can of worms for me. dont want to go off topic here".

The reason I put this last is because this is the new "economic system" that will be the foundation that supports the other entitlements. We must devise a "rewards" system, that is benevolently controlled, that inspires all human beings the ability to offer what they can to the world. The human being is our most valuable resource. As it relates to your repeated reference to prisoners, let us clearly understand who prisoners are. They are the extreme of those human beings who cannot abide by the reality we are currently surviving in. They represent the extreme anger and mental illness this reality has created simply because of the lack of these "entitlements". People cannot be controlled. They can only be guided and it starts at the top down, in an effort to lift up, not suppress human thought and participation in the overall process of what we call life. So many people in the world are suppressed because of the current economic structure. So we need to create a new one that will not suppress, but encourage.

Thanks, as always, IMMHO. Smile

William

---------- Post added at 09:01 AM ---------- Previous post was at 08:56 AM ----------

Yogi DMT;65773 wrote:

Yes i agree in our society these are the basics. Are these the basics to survive? I don't think so. They are definitely some core values but we have grown to expect so much more than just food, water, and air. Your right, they shouldn't have to be earned but unfortunately in some cases they must.

Thank you Yogi, IMO these entitlements will allow people to live. What we have to do to survive is the problem. Life is about living life, not surviving it. There is a difference.

William

@William,

salima;65765 wrote:

are you saying that you feel a government should provide these things for its people or guarantee that they have access to these things free of cost....or are you simply stating what you feel human beings value in life?
William;65809 wrote:
No, governments will evolve to a global consortium. As long as we have separate governments, there will never be entitlements. Governments and religion represent "barriers" Once we get serious about offering these entitlement will we begin to communicate with each other and in that process barriers that separate us will diminish. Religion and governments are but two human constructs that protected us because we didn't not have these entitlements and fought each other to obtain them. IMO, if there is a cost to an entitlement, it is not an entitlement. Entitlements are free. We are, as human beings allow to those entitlements that will allow us to live life on this Earth. There should be no cost to that. The words, "cost of living" make my blood boil. This Earth is not for sale, to be own by none, but shared by all. That is a prime universal directive. Minimums and maximums are based on limitations the current reality imposes. What is, is, and we do our best with what we have to work with as it relates to the resources we have to work with. Our current economic structure is what is limited. Not good in a growing population. People are not innately greedy, they have been conditioned to be. That's called "temptation", and the world it rift with it.

Hey William, Salima,

Just a quick question here (neat topic btw - some I agree with, some I don't). But anyway: [INDENT]William, so let's go with this for a second since these deals, postulations can't be examined with any worth except in the light of some practicality. If, as you answered, such entitlements wouldn't be doled out via some government, then whom?
[/INDENT]Obviously this is hypothetical, I'm just curious as to your mindset. My point in asking is that while we can say "Everyone should have Everything and be Happy and Healthy!" - such prophesies of utipia aren't in dispute; the question is how do we make this a reality.

So yea, I'm just curious. Thanks

---------- Post added at 10:51 AM ---------- Previous post was at 10:49 AM ----------

What's more - what if the access and distribution systems we DO have in place (that make your ideal even remotely possible) only exist BECAUSE of the power structures we have in place? There exists the distinct possibility that the very structures you're railing at are the ones which make your dream even workable in the first place!

Talk about irony... just an added thought here

@William,

thanks for clarifying, william...i am most interested in the 'transition' you are talking about, is it something you see already happening or something that you see needs to happen?

also, i especially want to see an economy without money-maybe that would be another thread, or there might be one to resurrect from the archives.

@William,

Capital idea!

Wishing well and the best for humanity is all fine and good. But it falls limp; without meaning and substance if somehow and in some way we don't define the how.

@Khethil,

Khethil;65836 wrote:

Capital idea!

Wishing well and the best for humanity is all fine and good. But it falls limp; without meaning and substance if somehow and in some way we don't define the how.

As a revolutionist ..shoot all the rich bar stewards and divide it up between the rest of us.Don't give me too much as some one might shoot me.How would humans react if every one did 40 hours work and got paid exactly the same...Would the pop star stop singing the surgeon stop operating?

@Khethil,

Khethil;65826 wrote:

Hey William, Salima,

Just a quick question here (neat topic btw - some I agree with, some I don't). But anyway:
[INDENT]William, so let's go with this for a second since these deals, postulations can't be examined with any worth except in the light of some practicality. If, as you answered, such entitlements wouldn't be doled out via some government, then whom?
[/INDENT]Obviously this is hypothetical, I'm just curious as to your mindset. My point in asking is that while we can say "Everyone should have Everything and be Happy and Healthy!" - such prophesies of utipia aren't in dispute; the question is how do we make this a reality.

So yea, I'm just curious. Thanks

---------- Post added at 10:51 AM ---------- Previous post was at 10:49 AM ----------

What's more - what if the access and distribution systems we DO have in place (that make your ideal even remotely possible) only exist BECAUSE of the power structures we have in place? There exists the distinct possibility that the very structures you're railing at are the ones which make your dream even workable in the first place!

Talk about irony... just an added thought here

Thank you, for your comment. This is not something that can be solve in a couple of weeks. This inequity has been going on since the beginning of what we know as time. An in all that time it has been wrong. Understandable, but nevertheless wrong.

We currently live in a reality, all 6.7 billion of us that is controlled by an unbelievably small number of people. And they are all gazillionaires. They would have to be, that's why they have control. You know the old saying, "Money makes the world go around" and all, It fact, it is what is what is retarding it, and if we are not careful, we will begin going in reverse. For what I espouse, not rail, to occur will take time, but any progress toward that "utopia" is a good thing. In other words forward momentum, not reverse momemtum.

What is common, in our reasoning ability, is to research the past to find precedent that will justify and action, thought or behavior in the present. This process will require new thought and it will require one step at a time.
First let's examine your language, and let's start with yours as it address this thread and the words I have emphasized by the bold print. Now that language was gathered in the present, by examining the past to justify and give meaning to the personal perspective of one, Khethil. Now, let's first agree that the above are indeed "entitlements". Now you did specify "some", and that relieves you of total commitment. The word some, means "not all". For this to work it will take a commitment by all, not some; such has always been the case and that is why we have conflict in the world and build barriers.

If indeed these entitlements are universal constructs, to malign, deter or impede the establishing of this "new reality" or "global harmony" could only come about by using standard reasoning criteria that in truth got us into the mess we are in taday. (See list).

Now back to the language. Let's look at yours, for instance. Over all you communication concerning this subject was outstanding and absolutely expected, but let's examine it closer.

DEALS, POSTULATIONS: "Deals" has nineteen different definitions to that word and totally out of context to the original post for there has been no mention of any deals as of this time, though you did "soften it a little with the word "postulations" which has four different meanings and agreeable with me in that one of those meanings is "A fundamental principle" which is no way, IMO, associated with deals in an analogist sense. Overall inference, negative, pro status quo, negating further investigation. A word that could have been used to indicate further investigation and agreement to the postulation of "universal values" would have been the title of the thread "universal values", if you do, in fact believe they are universal values. The fact that you used "deal and postulate" indicates reservation on your part inferring they are "not".

WORTH: This is a word primarily used to establish economic viability. Such as it could apply to a human being as having value or being worthless. After all we are talking about human beings. And in today's reality some are indeed deem "worthless". Sad, but true. This thread is postured to try and eliminate justly that. As far as economic vialbility, that is the monkey wrench in all of our equations that prevent us from doing what is right as it proscribes to what we can afford to do. We can create a better "economic system" that is not based on the value of rarity but unlimitedly abundant and benevolently "controlled" to insure all these entitlements are met for all people. The only limitations will be the resources available. No matter what they are they must be equitably distributed.

PRACTICALLY: Talk about an ambiguous word, that's a good one. If I am currect you are referring to it's " function ability". It will function if we don't have to rely on "economic practically". We have the knowledge and ability to do just about anything we need to do, but the roadblock that has always stood in the way is it's "affordability". We have an ample amount of technology that is sitting on the back burner because it is not financially viable to pursue it or develop it. Such as cold fusion, for instance utilizing one the most abundant element we have; hydrogen and even nuclear if we can figure out what to do with the waste. Now, I will agree here I have touched on subjects I am absolutely ignorant to, but I assure there are minds that can do what mine can't. We just need to free them up to allow them to function toward those technologies independent of the restraints financial viability places on them that determines ins all to many cases what they should pursue.

RAILING: I thought I was "espousing". Your use of the word is just indicating you "devil's advocacy", which is good when it is used in developing a theory or hypothesis, which again refers to the antagonism as to whether or not these are in deed Universal values or truths.

IRONY: Please tell me what is so ironic? I have a hard time understanding why you would use that word.

Now how do we make this a reality? By replacing an economic system that is base on rarity. Once that is done, you will be suprise what we will be able to do.

"If, as you answered, such entitlements wouldn't be doled out via some government, then whom"?

I saved addressing this until last for it will be the most difficult. Ideally, the United States, being that it is the most powerful nation in the world, would be great, but unfortunately, under it's capitalistic spell it will have a hard time coming around. But it participating is absolutely a must. All of the ideals it professes, is based on the current economic system. It will take communication with all countries to make this work. It will take a global consortium of the best minds who have excelled in those infrastructures, you mentioned, that make up our planet such as manufacturing, research, distribution, transportation, human resources, education, medicine, natural resources, agricultural, environmental, skilled and unskilled labor, waste management, linguistics, and communication etc., free to think without the constraints place on them by our current economic structure restricting our thought processes.

Khethil, I do not have those answers but I am assured, collectively we do.

Forgive me for picking apart your post the way I did because communication is so very important. If we do agree those values I have mentioned are universal, we must do all we can possibly do to make them a reality. It can only come from a global effort.IMMHO.

Your friend,
William

@William,

Hey William,

Thanks for an... interesting post. I had to dig in there a while to get your replies, but I found 'em. Your editorial on how I asked the question seemed a bit more adversarial than necessary (and not quite accurate as to my intentions). But let's get to the meat here because I think this is an outstanding subject to discuss.

William;65868 wrote:

We can create a better "economic system" that is not based on the value of rarity but unlimitedly abundant and benevolently "controlled" to insure all these entitlements are met for all people.

I think so too, with all the resources the world's nations have mustered, it's all out there. With everything available, and it all attainable, what remains is only the question... how? Which is what I'm asking...

I speak about practicality because I'd like to, somehow and perhaps in some small way, help to contribute to the doable aspect of a better tomorrow. Yea... I know, even if we're just talking here I think it's a good idea to flesh-out the "what ifs" and "how to's"; mainly because these are aspects of which philosophy is concerned.

William;65868 wrote:

RAILING: I thought I was "espousing". Your use of the word is just indicating you "devil's advocacy", which is good when it is used in developing a theory or hypothesis, which again refers to the antagonism as to whether or not these are in deed Universal values or truths.

Sure. Call it espousing... call it anything you like. Let's not get stuck though

William;65868 wrote:

IRONY: Please tell me what is so ironic? I have a hard time understanding why you would use that word.

Well, it seemed pretty straight forward. Let me try and rephrase; Here's a hypothetical to help illustrate:

What if one of the reasons we have access to all these resources (as well as technology and the infrastructure to distribute worldwide) was precisely because their establishment and development was accomplished in the pursuit of greed!

You and I march in ready to Balance the Equation!

There exists the distinct possibility that by remaking the construct we might eliminate the very elements that made it workable in the first place!

Because of the incongruity between our goals and their attainment (wherein attainment meant the obliteration of the means) it therefore could be remotely called 'ironic'. But This was mentioned only as a side-point. It seems to have deeply bothered and perplexed you. Sorry bout that

William;65868 wrote:

"If, as you answered, such entitlements wouldn't be doled out via some government, then whom"?
I saved addressing this until last for it will be the most difficult. Ideally, the United States, being that it is the most powerful nation in the world, would be great, but unfortunately, under it's capitalistic spell it will have a hard time coming around. But it participating is absolutely a must. All of the ideals it professes, is based on the current economic system.

... and at long last, the question starts to get answered. Woo!

Yea, you're probably right - the holders of wealth here aren't likely to want to give that up. Nor would they anywhere I suppose. And, I'm guessing, we're probably the worst offenders of "economic inequity". My country was and is built on this inequity; my wife and I were just talking about this earlier:[INDENT] If we look at just electricity alone: She and I dont' run much in the way of appliances, but if we paird that down to the bare essentials, there'd probably be enough "bare necessity"-power for another 2, 3 or 4 people. Enhance this to our view of food and... realistically, we probably eat twice as much as we need calorically (and we don't eat that much either!). Hell, there's probably enough resources in waste alone - in the U.S. alone - to feed and house a vast number of people on this planet.
[/INDENT]But we're stuck; we're stuck on this gluttonous lifestyle. Yea I know; the values we hold dear regarding equality are ironic (there's that word again) when you look at how we deal with economic inequality. Which is to say - we don't.

William;65868 wrote:

It will take communication with all countries to make this work. It will take a global consortium of the best minds who have excelled in those infrastructures, you mentioned, that make up our planet such as manufacturing, research, distribution, transportation, human resources, education, medicine, natural resources, agricultural, environmental, skilled and unskilled labor, waste management, linguistics, and communication etc., free to think without the constraints place on them by our current economic structure restricting our thought processes.

Agree completely...

... there's only one construct I can see wherein the basic needs of all humanity can be met. Individual countries aren't going to do it nor are loose alliances. The only way, I can see, that such issues will ever have any possibility for resolution is through some sort of World Government. [INDENT] Yea I know - that's fightin words to most people (though why I've no idea). But for all the things people do when they organize, all the different types of endeavors they set out on, isn't the VERY best one that helps ALL humanity? And in the end, aren't we ALL reliant on one another for our basic health and welfare?

If there's ever a reason for people to organize, come together and construct a set of guidelines towards marshaling all our resources (i.e., create any king of government) it would almost HAVE to be for the betterment of all human kind and therefore would necessarily be concerned with what 'humans' need as a species.
[/INDENT]

William;65868 wrote:

Forgive me for picking apart your post the way I did because communication is so very important.

It's quite alright. I know many of these issues are emotionally charged and that even simple questions; depending on how they're read, can be seen a devious. If I may offer some advice; sometimes a word is just what it says - nothing between the lines, nothing deviously incurred. Smile

Thanks

@William,

"We can create a better "economic system" that is not based on the value of rarity but unlimitedly abundant and benevolently "controlled" to insure all these entitlements are met for all people. The only limitations will be the resources available. No matter what they are they must be equitably distributed."

Now how do we make this a reality? "By replacing an economic system that is base on rarity."....William (post #14 above)

william, do you mean to replace currency with things that are 'rare' whether or not they have any value to people? because if diamonds are one of them, i really dont want any. so what will happen to me? will i trade with someone who has granite and doesnt know what to do with it? will this be a barter system?

i am afraid i am not the 'practical' kind of person, but i can be the straight man...or the devil's advocate, whatever be the case. i can ask questions to draw out more ideas i hope from people who have studied these things. my ideas are too silly-like i had an idea in my utopia there would be trading of services and skills etc, not purely material goods, and that would replace currency. but i didnt go so far as to think about having to enforce that-seems impossible given the mindset of the majority.

@salima,

salima;66143 wrote:

"We can create a better "economic system" that is not based on the value of rarity but unlimitedly abundant and benevolently "controlled" to insure all these entitlements are met for all people. The only limitations will be the resources available. No matter what they are they must be equitably distributed."

Now how do we make this a reality? "By replacing an economic system that is base on rarity."....William (post #14 above)

william, do you mean to replace currency with things that are 'rare' whether or not they have any value to people? because if diamonds are one of them, i really dont want any. so what will happen to me? will i trade with someone who has granite and doesnt know what to do with it? will this be a barter system?

i am afraid i am not the 'practical' kind of person, but i can be the straight man...or the devil's advocate, whatever be the case. i can ask questions to draw out more ideas i hope from people who have studied these things. my ideas are too silly-like i had an idea in my utopia there would be trading of services and skills etc, not purely material goods, and that would replace currency. but i didnt go so far as to think about having to enforce that-seems impossible given the mindset of the majority.

Sorry for the delay in responding, Salima: You to khethil. I'm getting there.
William

@William,

William;66871 wrote:

Sorry for the delay in responding, Salima: You to khethil. I'm getting there.
William

Salima,

"William, do you mean to replace currency with things that are 'rare' whether or not they have any value to people"?

No. Replace the currency system that is based on rarity to one that is not. There are no values other than the universal ones. Now that is what is difficult to understand. Something as insignificant as points on an identification card allowing people the freedom to access what they need. Now what they need you will find, IMO is very little once the inducements and temptations are out of the way. The world is composed of many different people who are "victims" of their environment.(No one should be a victim) Their sensibilities must not be infringed with. Giving there so very many who are oppressed due to this economic system our hands are tied in allowing these people to grow at a pace that is compatible with the knowledge they currently have. Imagine a ladder with 12 rungs. The twelth rung being total enlightenment, the bottom the least. The number 2 rung helps the 1 rung: the 3 rung helps the 2 rung; the 4 rung helps the 3 rung and so forth. That is the precise meaning of giving a hand up rather than a hand out. The higher rungs are too far removed to communicate to the lower rungs and why there needs to be this graduated progression; but they are all compatible for the top rung began at the bottom rung and there is compatibility. The lower rungs should not be exposed to anything that is beyond their sensibilities to understand it. As it stands today, we can only give hand outs based on what we can afford to give. If we were truly human, I promise you, there would be no such thing as a millionaire. Though their life could entail having what a person who merits what a millionaire has "earned", but no more that what they are entitled that would be considered opulent. He would merit what he has access to the hand up he gave to the rung below him and on down the ladder. Now the 11th rung of the ladder would consist of a consortium of those in the world who are the most enlightened and benevolent. The top would be in essence "King". A position of merit bestowed by he lower rungs. He is chosen, for it is his initial wisdom that feeds the lower rungs.

Now consider the origin of life and the immortality of the soul and it's part of a continuum. The "King" has always been with us. But he too, started out just a seed of the universe. He was among the first as it relates to the "human being". Ha, please don't ask my why I wrote what I just did as it relates to addressing what you asked, it just came out? HA.

" Because if diamonds are one of them, i really dont want any. so what will happen to me? will i trade with someone who has granite and doesnt know what to do with it? will this be a barter system?

Points on a universal ID card, for one suggestion. It will take the wisdom of the top rung coupled with the intelligence of the 11th rung to figure out the details. Such as an ID card encoded with the individuals DNA and photographic proof that would be "his money" so to speak. How many points he has will be determined by resources available, to be determined by the consortium. The consortium would be what we now call the "United Nations" except they would be all focused in only one direction: for the betterment of all. One race; the "human one".

"I am afraid i am not the 'practical' kind of person, but i can be the straight man...or the devil's advocate, whatever be the case. i can ask questions to draw out more ideas i hope from people who have studied these things. my ideas are too silly-like i had an idea in my utopia there would be trading of services and skills etc, not purely material goods, and that would replace currency. but i didnt go so far as to think about having to enforce that-seems impossible given the mindset of the majority".

Salima, there is no utopia. It is a goal that never ends. That, IMO is life itself. You see once we have a goal that, shall we say "is happiness", once we get there, then what? We have no idea of what tomorrow will bring, but we can create a reality that will encourage all to at least "look forward to it". This wisdom I speak can be found in all manners of human thought that can be gathered from art, fairy tales, science fiction, reality, religion, science all of it. Fairy tales especially. When I was a toddler, I remember spending hours going through a collection of Childcraft Encyclopedias and the one that held my greatest interest was the one that contain the fairy tales. Walt Disney was an extremely gifted individual who use innocence of animals to depict human rights and wrongs. such as Cinderella, Song of the South, Snow White, Jiminy Cricket, Pinnochio and so forth. King Midas, Humpty Dumpty so forth and so on and on and on.
Here is a absolutely wonderful clipfrom "Song of the South" a Disney Classic. Let me know what you think.

William

@William,

"Salima, there is no utopia. It is a goal that never ends. That, IMO is life itself. You see once we have a goal that, shall we say "is happiness", once we get there, then what? We have no idea of what tomorrow will bring, but we can create a reality that will encourage all to at least "look forward to it". This wisdom I speak can be found in all manners of human thought that can be gathered from art, fairy tales, science fiction, reality, religion, science all of it. Fairy tales especially."....william

william, i dont see my utopia as a means of my own happiness. i see it as a means of bringing equity to the world, such as you are talking here in your post. i have said things like this in the past in my life outside of and long before this forum (similar to what you are saying in the post) and everyone always says 'that would be utopia, forget it'. so that is utopia and what i would like to see happen. and with people thinking the way they do now, it wont happen. fine by me. but i can still hold that as my own personal ideal, even if i have no means to achieve it. it is my own personal dream for the world, that's all. i realize it doesnt guarantee me any happiness though, or any pleasure in life even if it does materialize. that is a different issue.what is really neat is to find someone else who thinks my dream could work.

i know the song on your link very well by the way. in case you dont know it, take a listen to 'imagine' by john lennon."you may say that i'm a dreamer-but i am not the only one."

@salima,

salima;67099 wrote:

i know the song on your link very well by the way. in case you dont know it, take a listen to 'imagine' by john lennon."you may say that i'm a dreamer-but i am not the only one."

Did you view the clip? I didn't refer to a song in particular.

Thanks,
william

Philosophy Forum
» Ethics
» Universal Values

Read Topic
Reply

Philosophy Forum

Universal Values

Quick Links

My Account

able2know