You are viewing a single comment's thread from:

RE: Some thoughts on the archetype of a virtuous society

in #philosophy6 years ago

You speak of "society".

I would say that in a society that does not look at local structures and circumstances, experience is limited. Basically, sense of duty and competence go hand in hand only if there are recipients and transmitters equally in a smaller group, which is locally limited and experiences itself as a self-effective unit.

This form of group membership, in order to understand oneself as an individual as well as a part of the collective, is undermined by large societies such as nations, states and even federal states. I am not sure what ideal size a group must have in order to create ideal conditions for the perception of positive self-regulation. Maybe a hundred? Maybe five hundred? A village?

Everything that goes beyond my physical limits in my perception is treated by me in the form of my capacity for abstraction. Now the abstract is very tricky, as we know. It is quickly moving away from the concrete. The quality of life in modern societies is - as it seems - experienced as inferior. I feel compelled to be interested in protecting my vested rights, of which I cannot be sure that it really reflects my interest. I can't really reach those who decide and I have to trust them. Whereas in the past a ruler credibly assured that his actions were motivated by his faith in God (the supreme, spiritual, etc.), today we cannot and do not assume this.

Besides, I don't even know if my assumption that a small and local group would actually be rated better by me, as I currently live in a big city. In a small group, the responsibility of the individual is in greater demand and thus also the moral consequences of the direct social control of the group participants. Wrongs and successes are more visible in each case.

Families are a pretty good indicator of whether my morality is really authentic and how my family members treat me and I with them may be good for examining my ability to be effective in a small group. But here too it is difficult: how do I measure this effectiveness? Through emotional attention, through financial? Do my family members experience me in their daily actions and decisions or am I not away from home during the day and we then lead a second-hand life in the evening, where we inform each other about what has happened and every experience is inevitably "contaminated" by it. We are not living witnesses of local community work.

... But it very well could be that I do underestimate the local work I actually participate in myself ... Difficult to see through ...

Sort:  

Yes, there is truth in your words, but what I was referring to was the virtue of a society but seen merely from the ideal point of view, in practice everything depends on people, as I said, we could establish a society with the most perfect laws, with the greatest rights, with the best structure, but if people are not perfect the social model will fail. For a society to prosper, it needs to develop a model adjusted to its people.

Part of the failure of Third World nations to achieve economic prosperity is due to the continued attempt to westernize society. For although they always manage to westernize a segment of people, they never end up making everyone adapt to that model of market economy, to "democracy", and to the rest of Western culture. This is due to the whim of some to seek to resemble the Western nations, without taking into consideration the characteristics of their societies. The best model of society will always be the one that best fits its people. Thanks for your comments, greetings!

Coin Marketplace

STEEM 0.20
TRX 0.14
JST 0.030
BTC 64785.95
ETH 3471.44
USDT 1.00
SBD 2.51