15 Nov 12
Originally posted by stellspalfieListen to God and follow his direction. It will never work with man leading man as history has proven.
the year is 2050, we the members of this forum are the committee that rules the earth. we are despite are disagreements intelligent humans, we want whats best........
how do we decide how to come to an agreement?
But it's a good question even though most of us would be dead by then.
- Joined
- 16 Jan 07
- Moves
- 95105
15 Nov 12
Originally posted by galveston75duh!!! the committee cant listen to god, because we all believe in different or no gods....how do we deal with this problem for the good of life!!!!
Listen to God and follow his direction. It will never work with man leading man as history has proven.
But it's a good question even though most of us would be dead by then.
16 Nov 12
Originally posted by stellspalfieThat means must only believe in God of the Holy Bible and His Christ. Problem solved. 😏
duh!!! the committee cant listen to god, because we all believe in different or no gods....how do we deal with this problem for the good of life!!!!
HalleluYah !!! Praise the Lord! Holy! Holy! Holy!
- Joined
- 31 May 06
- Moves
- 1795
16 Nov 12
Originally posted by stellspalfieWe form 2 camps.
the year is 2050, we the members of this forum are the committee that rules the earth. we are despite are disagreements intelligent humans, we want whats best........
how do we decide how to come to an agreement?
Those that believe in a secular government where decisions are not made based on religion.
And those that believe in theocracy.
The bigger camp silences the smaller one.
Unless they are roughly equal in size, in which case you get an unending stalemate.
16 Nov 12
Originally posted by stellspalfieThe only way it works is if Barak Obama is leading the said committee. Otherwise the world is screwed.
the year is 2050, we the members of this forum are the committee that rules the earth. we are despite are disagreements intelligent humans, we want whats best........
how do we decide how to come to an agreement?
16 Nov 12
Originally posted by stellspalfieOn what, precisely, are we attempting to reach agreement? Also, are you presuming that this agreement, upon being reached, will obligate us? If so, then we need to hash out the conditions under which an agreement is legitimate; the conditions under which assent is also consent. Presumably we'd need to some notion of fairness here, and some constraints against coercion, fraud, and so on.
the year is 2050, we the members of this forum are the committee that rules the earth. we are despite are disagreements intelligent humans, we want whats best........
how do we decide how to come to an agreement?
16 Nov 12
Originally posted by stellspalfieAssuming that we are all intelligent.
the year is 2050, we the members of this forum are the committee that rules the earth. we are despite are disagreements intelligent humans, we want whats best........
how do we decide how to come to an agreement?
And assuming we all want what is best for the people.
And assuming that we all have access to expert opinion.
I would say that any one of us could have the optimum plan.
Therefore:
Rock, Paper, Scissors.
16 Nov 12
Originally posted by stellspalfieIf we are intelligent and genuinely want what's best then we should come to agreement over most issues. Those that we do not agree on, we can probably come to agree on after further discussion. We can probably also discuss and agree on a reasonable method for deciding what path to take when there is disagreement.
the year is 2050, we the members of this forum are the committee that rules the earth. we are despite are disagreements intelligent humans, we want whats best........
how do we decide how to come to an agreement?
But this will never happen. Most people do not want whats best. They want whats best for them (not the same thing at all). As for the members of this forum being intelligent .....
- Joined
- 16 Jan 07
- Moves
- 95105
16 Nov 12
Originally posted by bbarrlets say that we are the last people on earth and we all live together in a community. we have a mix of lots of faiths and beliefs on here, that generally dont agree on anything, how do we avoid making the mistakes of the past, how do we create a functioning society? what should we do first? set up some sort of system to make decisions?
On what, precisely, are we attempting to reach agreement? Also, are you presuming that this agreement, upon being reached, will obligate us? If so, then we need to hash out the conditions under which an agreement is legitimate; the conditions under which assent is also consent. Presumably we'd need to some notion of fairness here, and some constraints against coercion, fraud, and so on.
fairness is important. how to we make sure its fair? does everybody agree it should be fair? do we care if one faith or belief has a bigger say in things than others?
without anybody in charge, how do we even start?
- Joined
- 16 Jan 07
- Moves
- 95105
16 Nov 12
Originally posted by twhiteheadBut this will never happen. Most people do not want whats best. They want whats best for them (not the same thing at all). As for the members of this forum being intelligen
If we are intelligent and genuinely want what's best then we should come to agreement over most issues. Those that we do not agree on, we can probably come to agree on after further discussion. We can probably also discuss and agree on a reasonable method for deciding what path to take when there is disagreement.
But this will never happen. Most people ...[text shortened]... for them (not the same thing at all). As for the members of this forum being intelligent .....
this is true, but can we change this? or are we doomed to always fail?
16 Nov 12
Originally posted by stellspalfieI would try to assess a couple things first. Is there substantial overlap between our different moral and religious frameworks regarding basic norms of behavior towards one another? For instance, do we all think that stealing is wrong, even if we have different accounts of why stealing is wrong? Also, do we share any basic political commitments? Are we all pretty much committed to conceiving of ourselves as free and equal partners in this joint project we call 'a community'?
lets say that we are the last people on earth and we all live together in a community. we have a mix of lots of faiths and beliefs on here, that generally dont agree on anything, how do we avoid making the mistakes of the past, how do we create a functioning society? what should we do first? set up some sort of system to make decisions?
fairness is ...[text shortened]... ief has a bigger say in things than others?
without anybody in charge, how do we even start?
I'm imagining us all together talking this out. But are you supposing that the conditions for decision making here are less than ideal? Are some of us trying to rob others, forming gangs, etc.? Are we in the State of Nature here, or is there some preliminary agreement among us that we need to set up a social structure with enforcement powers?
16 Nov 12
Originally posted by bbarrIs all this to take place before or after the spread of the religious set infertility virus has been let loose on the world?
I would try to assess a couple things first. Is there substantial overlap between our different moral and religious frameworks regarding basic norms of behavior towards one another? For instance, do we all think that stealing is wrong, even if we have different accounts of why stealing is wrong? Also, do we share any basic political commitments? Are we all ...[text shortened]... iminary agreement among us that we need to set up a social structure with enforcement powers?
- Joined
- 16 Jan 07
- Moves
- 95105
16 Nov 12
Originally posted by bbarr"I'm imagining us all together talking this out. But are you supposing that the conditions for decision making here are less than ideal? Are some of us trying to rob others, forming gangs, etc.? "
I would try to assess a couple things first. Is there substantial overlap between our different moral and religious frameworks regarding basic norms of behavior towards one another? For instance, do we all think that stealing is wrong, even if we have different accounts of why stealing is wrong? Also, do we share any basic political commitments? Are we all ...[text shortened]... iminary agreement among us that we need to set up a social structure with enforcement powers?
there are no set conditions. its just the guys and gals from this forum. if any have such agendas we would need to deal figure out how to deal with it.
how would we begin, we could vote on each issue, but as there are more of certain faith groups on here, would it be fair if everybody had one vote. should we give groups with less representation more votes? to we take political persuasion into account? do we just attempt to please the majority? if we do the minority may splinter off, this may lead to separate, warring nations/groups further down the line.