Chat/Comment thread

Wouldn't that simply be determined by which society provides more freedom and liberties to it's citizens?- Oni

It is the highest. Anything else falls bellow that.- Oni

I would think so. Yes. To better living. I don't get the question. Well of course not because that negates having actual freedom and liberties protected by laws. Anarchy is the antithesis of that. It's lawlessness, therefore no laws will be in effect to protect your rights, freedoms and liberties.Like in Iran.- Oni

Well yeah, I'm the one typing.But "better" can be objetively determined. Well then we're talking about individual "bests" and not cultural bests or what's best for a society.A society is not based on individual opinion but on a collective, objective, consensus.- Oni

...and from an objective stand point, one can be determined to be better than the other.- Oni

Hear that former slaves? Laws can never, ever ensure more freedom than you have without them.We're talking about liberty as opposed to slavery. Freedom as in free, rather than confined. The liberty to determine things for yourself rather than being restricted. And laws that protect that DO ensure you'll have more freedom than without that. Do you really have the liberty to possess what I own?Do you really have the freedom to punch me in the face? Objectively? As an example, I'd say poverty levels, nutritional levels, access to medicine, free of diseases, human rights, to start with.A place or culture or society that has slaves, people are starving and are full of diseases is worse than a place without that or with a very low percentage of that. I'd say not being a slave is better living.- Oni

Not YOUR objective stand point, AN objective stand point. In other words, not subjectively better but objectively better.Saying: "YOUR objective stand point" is a SUBJECTIVE stand point even though you used the word "objective."Objectively some sultures are better than others. How? Like I pointed out to Rhavin, a society that has slaves, disease, no medicine and a high percentage of starvation is worse than a society that doesn't. Why? Because societies free of those things promote a better living condition and longer life spans for human beings.So there is a degree of better and worse. There is a guage to determine what promotes a better living condition for humans.- OniEdited by onifre, : No reason given.

Cultures in which these things are prevelant...I said nothing about it being a criteria for a culture. It is relevant. You know it is. And you're being evasive. Ok? What's the point to that comment?- Oni