Who's worse?

Started by Vell, February 23, 2012, 12:01:12 am

Previous topic - Next topic

Vell

I have a question for you: Here are two people.

One is an apathetic individual who follows society blindly.

The other is an individual who profits off them.

Who is worse?

winkio

Why are we judging them?  Maybe both people play roles that allow good things to occur.  Following society allows large powerful grass roots movements, which can be very productive and even necessary.  Profiting off of 'the masses' allows a feedback loop that can control or direct the group towards a desired function.  Yes, in my opinion, the people who negatively judge those who are different than them are the worst of the three types presented.  Of course, criminals, etc. would be much worse, but that is off topic.

Vell

Now that is an interesting response. I shall try to give it the respect it deserves as I react.

QuoteFollowing society allows large powerful grass roots movements, which can be very productive and even necessary


Would these "grassroot" movements be required, if each individual thought for themselves and examined the society around them for faults? If each person awoke and thought of their actions and the actions of those around them, would not the movements then become a more widespread thing... and moreover, would they not also be more successful? I find your stance interesting, but this argument seems to hold no weight to me. Movements can occur regardless of whether or not people think for themselves and are, so my reason would have my believe, more likely to happen and be successful if the people taking part think critically.

QuoteProfiting off of 'the masses' allows a feedback loop that can control or direct the group towards a desired function.


I'll be honest. This statement confuses me. You appear to be saying the equivalent of "profiting off the masses allows one to get enough 'power' to model the media to influence people toward an end." if you are saying that, well. Not only do I find actively manipulating others an atrociously amoral act, I would say that even if I did not I would have a counter. That is, that there are those who have that very power, and they choose to "direct the group" towards ends which only add more coin to their own coffers.

QuoteYes, in my opinion, the people who negatively judge those who are different than them are the worst of the three types presented.


Hmm. I agree - judging others negatively is generally an act with poor if any moral weight. However, to think critically one must accept that the morality of another's actions do have an effect onhow others act. Being convicted of a crime does not make you immoral. Similarly, being let go does not make you moral. Morality is independent of the court system. I am defining morality as an application of reason which can be determined by logic. After all, if every person's reason is acting without bias and assuming that their chosen moral laws applied universally (including equally to their own detriment as to their own benefit) would not every person's moral code end up the same?

So you can counter me by pointing out that the former are doing nothing wrong. They haven't chosen anything, they merely follow. Well, uh, that's a choice. Nobody was born a follower. There are people born leaders; but everyone can think for themselves. That many choose not to does speak against their character.

winkio

Let's try a simple statement to start:

Interacting on a lower level allows more people to stay coordinated than interacting on a higher level.

Imagine a group of 100 people looking at a screen.  In the first scenario, the screen displays only two commands, 'left', and 'right'.  With just a little practice, all 100 people can move in unison according to the commands displayed on the screen.

In the second scenario, the screen displays more numerous and complicated commands such as 'open a can of soda', 'do a jumping jack', 'draw a circle', etc.  It is much harder to get everyone to do these things in unison, as they are more complex.

If we are talking about grass roots movements, it is very easy to get people to repeat simple commands, keyphrases, or behaviors.  It is very difficult to get them to repeat actual thought patterns.  Thus I would argue that it is much easier to build a stable grass roots movement with people that do not think for themselves than with those that do.

There are many historical examples of this phenomenon from the mother of all grass roots movements: religion.  How many sects of Christianity are practiced in the United States today?  I don't know myself, but it must close to a hundred.  Christianity used to be one solid grass roots movement, but each time a sufficient number of free thinkers existed, a new sect split off.  Christianity itself was a sect of Judaism started by a free thinker named Jesus and his free thinking disciples (sorry, I don't know their names).  So to that extent, movements will be more stable if their members think less.

While I can't deny that there are many people who selfishly feed off of these movements, I attribute that more to the quality of the person and less to the means they use.  There are ways to profit off of interactions with the masses while still doing a lot of good.  Bill Gates raked in a ton of cash, but he distributed modern technology to every level of society, creating a much more advanced culture.  Edison did something similar with the lightbulb.  My point is that there is nothing wrong with taking money, but I agree that there is a potential for abuse.

I agree that following is a choice.  I would argue that leading and even deciding to neither lead nor follow are also both choices.  Now different people see these choices in different ways, and I can't really offer anything except my own personal opinion: all choices have their merits, there are no wrong choices among the three.

Blizzard

[EDIT]Eh, winkio already replied before me. I don't really have time now to change and apply my reply so I'll leave it as it is.[/EDIT]

Quote from: UltaFlame on February 23, 2012, 01:28:26 am
Would these "grassroot" movements be required, if each individual thought for themselves and examined the society around them for faults? If each person awoke and thought of their actions and the actions of those around them, would not the movements then become a more widespread thing... and moreover, would they not also be more successful? I find your stance interesting, but this argument seems to hold no weight to me. Movements can occur regardless of whether or not people think for themselves and are, so my reason would have my believe, more likely to happen and be successful if the people taking part think critically.


Hm, I disagree. Everybody awakening is pretty much utopian thinking. Technically you are right. If everybody started thinking for themselves, they world would change. But as I said, this is so unlikely that I don't see much point in taking this event happening into account.
Though, I think what winkio meant is that following society is already a movement by itself. After all you have a lot of people following a specific set of rules, regardless whether they made or like these rules. Correct me if I'm wrong, winkio.

Quote from: UltaFlame on February 23, 2012, 01:28:26 am
I'll be honest. This statement confuses me. You appear to be saying the equivalent of "profiting off the masses allows one to get enough 'power' to model the media to influence people toward an end." if you are saying that, well. Not only do I find actively manipulating others an atrociously amoral act, I would say that even if I did not I would have a counter. That is, that there are those who have that very power, and they choose to "direct the group" towards ends which only add more coin to their own coffers.


Think of this: If one person possesses a lot of wisdom, enough wisdom to be able to distinguish between what is good and bad for the masses, why should that person not be given such authority? Obviously that wisdom will also cause the person to act in the best interest of the masses. This isn't a rare occasion. There have been leaders throughout the history that were that wise and that brought prosperity to people. Does it matter if they profited of them if they brought so much goodness? I say let him have it, he's earned it. The same actually applies on a much smaller scale. If you have a social circle of a couple of people, there will always be one person that is more assertive than the others, that influences the rest. I don't believe this to be immoral. I only believe it to be immoral to profit at the expense of others (usually criminals do that). e.g. In our country the situation is getting worse and worse every day. The politicians are doing nothing about it, they only keep filling their pockets. If we are fucked up, then they have no right to do that, they haven't "earned" it.

Basically what I am trying to say: If you manipulate others into doing something that is good for them, why should that be a bad thing? When you inspire somebody to do something, this is also some sort of manipulation, yet nobody is saying "OMG, HE TOTALLY MANIPULATED HIM INTO DOING THIS AND THAT". I don't even see anything wrong into "manipulating" people to further one's own ends as long as nobody is at a (big) disadvantage. Such "positive manipulation" is still manipulation, yet nobody seems to judge it. I think that we constantly manipulate and are being manipulated by the people around us. Except that it's called "influence" so it sounds nicer.

Quote from: UltaFlame on February 23, 2012, 01:28:26 am
Hmm. I agree - judging others negatively is generally an act with poor if any moral weight. However, to think critically one must accept that the morality of another's actions do have an effect onhow others act. Being convicted of a crime does not make you immoral. Similarly, being let go does not make you moral. Morality is independent of the court system. I am defining morality as an application of reason which can be determined by logic. After all, if every person's reason is acting without bias and assuming that their chosen moral laws applied universally (including equally to their own detriment as to their own benefit) would not every person's moral code end up the same?

So you can counter me by pointing out that the former are doing nothing wrong. They haven't chosen anything, they merely follow. Well, uh, that's a choice. Nobody was born a follower. There are people born leaders; but everyone can think for themselves. That many choose not to does speak against their character.


I generally agree as well. I'd say that laws reflect a general moral code that applies to most people (don't kill, don't steal, etc.). Using the moral code of just one person is flawed as one person cannot possibly be 100% right. Moral is not something that can be absolutely defined. As "good" and "evil" are merely points of view, so is moral. Technically, there are countries that say it's ok to kill, even if only under specific circumstances (e.g. death penalty).
Check out Daygames and our games:

King of Booze 2      King of Booze: Never Ever
Drinking Game for Android      Never have I ever for Android
Drinking Game for iOS      Never have I ever for iOS


Quote from: winkioI do not speak to bricks, either as individuals or in wall form.

Quote from: Barney StinsonWhen I get sad, I stop being sad and be awesome instead. True story.

EntropyUSB

Well, we are looking at it from a general perspective; couting out the odds and ins of each side.

On one hand, you have someone who follows along; most likely hoping that good things will come their way, yet deep in their heart they know better.
On the other hand, you have someone who tends to force the situation the way they want it; creating a decent profit and striving from the matter that is.

If anything, you still have to bring in the other variables such as "common sense".

Although both people play a small role in life that millions of us do, there is still that small portion of our hearts or our minds that tell us to do differently.

At any moment, either of them could change... whether by choice or by being forced.
Spoiler: ShowHide