Lela XX
cool4
A disagreement:
Assume a world of absolute truth and absolute false:
Group A: Not allowed to lie (always trusted)
Group B: They may lie or they will tell the truth (can't be trusted)
If Group A and Group B they have some hunting ground that is shared between their land, they are coming with an agreement of whose allowed to use the land, and when each group is allowed access. If Group B agrees to anything, Are we required to give them the benefit of the doubt that they were being truthful. When we find out they lied what is acceptable moral action?
If Group A can't lie, they wouldn't have free will, I think.
If they choose not to lie, they would have free will.
I think agreements should always cover the consequences for breaking the agreement. One consequence that seems fair is to bring a lawsuit against Group B to compensate Group A, preferably as stated in the agreement.
My original hope was to practice win-win with Gaians to see that it can be fun and beneficial for everyone. But few, if any, seem to have the foresight to see the value in it.
The issue of free will isn't one I wanted to bring into the equation. I think we should step back and say they choose not to lie by their current cultural/environmental/religious beliefs, and thus Can't lie just to keep the thought experiment simple. Assume no one within the groups goes against their own group.
but a lawsuit doesn't solve the problem, it just creates a messy trial between Group A and Group B, and some sort of authoritarian deciding who wins a lawsuit (could be biased). Both parties can't win.
The implied Lawsuit seems to assume that the entire group gets blamed. What is the case if only individuals of Group B are responsible?
Another case with the same groups
Let say Group B attacks Group A with mustard gas. Is equal retaliation acceptable. Group A will be allowed to attack Group B with mustard gas? Is the use of fear of equal retaliation acceptable form of settlement for breaking the rules? It's worked historically, in fact fear seems like one of the best ways to create a stalemate between two parties of people, which unless we all accept one culture that's what we would consider peace. Only problems would be cultures that don't have a fear of dying when committing an attack.
So solutions to create peace:
1) Kill those that don't wish to accept some specific *culture.
2) wait for an attack and then attack back with equality, (man for man)
3) wait for an attack and then attack back with more then equality, (man for many man)
4) create a bunch of treaties and contracts and promises that say they will promote peace, but no ideal system to keep them maintained. A Contract is only as good as the actions of the people who sign them.
*culture: loosely being used as accepting governmental/societal laws/ect.
As for seeing the Value: I don't really see the value in it, because although you may get people from around gaia that have subtle view differences, overall they're probably from a place that is relatively safe place to be, they have enough rights/shelter/food/running water and more(wifi/computers/education) to make decisions about how the world should be run. The reason a lot of Humanitarian projects take place in Africa, and other places that are much worst off, is because they give a perspective that will be missing from people that have everything they need for survival. If you truly want to change something, you need the perspective of why it's that way.
A lot of ideas about change come from the mentality "my way of life is pretty good, I have a bed to sleep in every night, an education, a job, friends, family, food, water, people respect women and the occasional minority" Then they see a place where they don't have that sort of lifestyle and think they should. Thus the My culture is better then your culture mentality. So I think you do have to humble yourself before you can really change the way things are.
Reply
