On Jan 31, 2:16=A0am, calibra...{at}freenet.de wrote:
> On 30 Jan., 00:33, mdj  wrote:
>
> > On Jan 29, 3:26 pm, calibra...{at}freenet.de wrote:
>
> > > The vast majority of people is corrupt and this won't ever change
> > > as it is simply human - whether it's money or power they are after.
> > > The only thing stopping most people is that they don't have the
> > > opportunity to be corrupt - because they have nothing other parties
> > > are interested in. Politicians have their vote.
>
> > Circulus in probando (IOW, you are begging the question)
>
> > The flaw in this argument is easy to see if we replace 'corrupt' with
> > murderer/rapist/theif/bigot.
>
> You are certainly right about the "vicious cycle" but you don't
> really argue against people not being corrupt and why that's
> the case ;-)

The point I was disagreeing with was that people will always be
corrupt because it's human nature. In reality I'd argue that the
number of 'corrupt' individuals isnt' really any higher than the
number of 'criminal' individuals. Both are minority groups, and
neither is useful as a measure of what it means to be human :-)

> > Heck, not that long ago western societies viewed women as
> > being a lesser form of life who's only purpose was to serve men.
>
> In fact they still do - but to a lesser extent. Proof: Unequal wages.
> Why have western countries become more "civilized" in this respect?
> Because they need woman as workers! This can be very well seen
> in Germany and other European countries where woman have to
> earn their living and later have to cope with birth and the upbringing
> of the child(ren). Companies sanction woman with lower wages
> and worse job opportunities.

This is of course quite true, but we must also consider that the
situation is constantly improving. Being permitted to have an
education and become financially successful and independant is an
order of magnitude better than not being able to, which is tantamount
to slavery.

> > Even slavery was justified with equally weak naturalistic and/or
> > religious arguments.
>
> Today we are more clever in this respect, also: We have so-called
> temporary workers with extremely low wages or "minimum wages"
> to just not let them starve...

And it's terrible. Is this however because *we* are corrupt, or the
system (that evolved more than it was designed) is flawed ?

> A word to the "naturalistic argument": You seem to think of
> civilization
> being 'the right thing' and people acting against it as individuals.
> IMHO civilization is completely artificial and it doesn't really work
> very
> well. The sheer number of crimes and wars shows that every day.

IMO civilisation is an emergent property of our Darwinian origins;
cooperation increases the chances of survival and the quality of life.
If I called it artificial I'd have to call myself artificial, and
since I'm virtually certain I have no creator, I'm forced to conclude
I'm 'natural' ;-)

As to wars, I'm yet to see an example where the protagonists were not
trying to enforce some misogynistic authoritarian regime. Prejudice,
which is one of our ugliest artificial constructions, is the cause of
much misery, no?

> Of course it has improved somewhat: A 15th century lord would call
> himself quite civilized but today he looks like a barbarian.
>
> So everything is relative, anyway.

Not everything. Suffering is universally disliked by those who suffer.
Pleasure is universally appreciated by those who indulge in it. There
may well be as the saying goes "a fine line between pleasure and pain"
but a line nonetheless exists. A line line also exists between light
and dark; the light bringing warmth, growth and safety. The dark
bringing coldness and death. You will find humans have a universal
appreciation of fire when placed in a cold dark forest ;-)

Of course, our language is full of colourful relativistic adjectives.
At times, the fact that we can describe something in relative terms
tricks us into believing it really is so.

How many of us havn't stood atop a tall building, and marvelled at how
the people below look like ants...

> > On the other hand, it is said that a Corporation can be defined as an
> > entity with no body to imprison, and no soul to feel guilt. Our
> > society has not yet reached the point where we adequately punish
> > corporate misdemeanours, let alone felonies.
>
> Guilt, like moral, is an artificial construction, made by people to
> control people (to "herd" them) and of course you could punish
> corporations as laws exist for pretty much every crime possible.

It's the breaking of artificial taboos that's artificial, not the
feeling of guilt. When you hurt another person, it's the realisation
of how you'd feel were the roles reversed that prompts the feeling of
guilt.

> The question remains why this isn't done more often. I can
> imagine various reasons: cases are too complicated, too costly
> or companies simply evade because they threaten to lay lots
> of people off.

Here you are saying: "Most people aren't corrupt, but they're afraid
of what will happen if they force the corrupt people to change". That
pretty much sums up how I feel about it too

Matt
--- SBBSecho 2.12-Win32