World wide peace? What do you think about it?

What do you guys think about worldwide peace?

Are we ever going to see it one day?

Or do we need an exterior crisis(lol, independance day) to make us realize that we need to stop bashing each other?

>>1

I think that we need an existential crisis to bring about this change; but it doesn't seem we'll be strong enough as a species to pull ourselves out an existential crisis, should one ever arise.

It's ironic, I think: World peace coming just before the end of the World.

existential crisis? surly you must use spellcheck more carefully.

Existentialism is a stupid way of trying to get peace. What happens when existentialism become a tradition? Existentialists will fight against themselves and when the next one wins they will become a the tradition and be fought against etc etc..

>>2
needs more apocalypse

world peace is achievable only when there exists one person in the world. the absence may be possible but very, very unlikely. to do so we would likely need to follow the guidelines detailed in John Lennon's "Imagine".

>>6
Too many criminals and retards. Can't be done, sorry.

robot uprising -> humans are killed -> society of robots -> peace

We need to have a hueg world orgy

>>2
I disagree.  While it is possible to break the spirit of individuals, it's impossible to crush the collective human will to go on.  Humanity would fight tooth and nail to ensure its survival, and it would go on even further than that if necessary.  But I don't think it would resolve our differences.  World Peace will only come to be when all nations and cultures adopt the same view.
Education systems should be more geared toward philosophy.  that would help a lot, I think.

>>3
>>4

You're both stupid in the head. By Existential Crisis, I mean something that is triggered by an event, like Floods from melting ice caps or something. Such an event would make us reflect on our own existence and we would act accordingly. (Be that fighting for survival, or rolling over and dying.)

 
>>10

All nations and cultures will never adopt the same view and such an all-encompassing society simply wouldn't work. I don't believe it's in human nature.

world peace is bad for business - so we'll never see it until all the shop-keepers and managers are booted out of the political systems.

>>12
World peace is good for business as it allows development and the creation of a skilled low-crime labour force.

>>10
Depends which philosophy.

I beleive children should be given rudimentary mentorring in the philosophy or philosophy and politics. Meaning they should be instructed to be critical and open and not get overly obsessed with any political movement other than those core ideals, such as human rights, that allow liberty to exist.

i would like there one day to be able to create the so called "collective hive mind." i know people fear this because it sounds like the loss of individuality, but i don't neccessarily think we would lose a sense of self. what we do lose is the ambigious nature of language. connecting everyone's mind to eachother, allowing instantaneous and unobstructed, unambigious communication between everyone in the world, would not end the fact that thoughts originate from the self. it would simply allow everyone to know everyone else as intimately as they know themselves. i think that would bring as close to world peace as we possibly could have.

>>15
gb2 borg cube

>>13
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH
Peace profitable?
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH
How naive.

You have no idea how much easier and how lucrative it is to treat human beings like garbage in acquiring power and affluence.  You win the thread for naive dumbfuck.
/golfclap

The very essence of capitalism is struggle, and struggle can be extended into warfare for resources, territory, and control.  The whole system of economics is based around the haves and have nots, inequality is absolutely neccessary, universal prosperity will never exist as "good for business".  Dumbfuck.

What's "good for business" is foreign corporations practically buying up countries and milking them for all it's worth.  What's "good for business" is to attack your neighbor for his oil sources and sell them to thirsty energy conglomerates, what's "good for business" is enslave foreign populations and pay them in shit so you make a gigantic profit.

Amerikkans, have you ever really suffered the horrors of war? That's right, no, you haven't.  You have never suffered the "total war" practiced in WWI and WWII, you boast about your military successes whilst your citizens live in idyllic peace, far from the cities your armies ravage.  Amerikkans are horribly naive about their foreign policy, and they think the rest of the world fucking loves them and longs to be like them, and are completely flabbergasted when some Arab Terrorist Organization blows up a civilian target. HOW DIRTY! TO ATTACK CIVILIANS!  Why, the bombs we dropped on Germany and Hiroshima were so special as to only kill Nazi and Imperial Officers.  We always defend the rights of Humanity, except for niggers in Rwanda and Sudan.

>>4
You don't understand what fucking existentialism is.
Lurk moar.
www.wikipedia.com

>>14
There are cultures in which "Human rights" are not a "Core value" of their philosophies.  Its a western stereotype that everyone buys into "human rights".

>>17

Oh noes, is that a cynic ranting off in random tangents?

>>19

OH I SEE NOW, WE HAVE A POSTMODERN SUBJECTIVE NIHILIST.

I don't see your fucking point. Are you suggesting that because other people believe in something else that the ideals of human rights do not apply to them? Do you not believe that every human being is entitled to some basic freedoms, such as free speech? Perhaps the philosophies that don't entail that are necessarily WRONG. In any case, there is in EVERY culture a similar base in which all their ideals come from. For example, in every society there is something inherently WRONG about murder, implying a necessary right to life. So human rights are necessarily the core values in ANY philosophy. That is one of the basic goals of philosophy -- to detail what is and what is not a human right.

>>17
Good god is this what marx's has on his side

>>19
Ethics is the foundation and ultimate goal of philosophy in every culture, even eastern.

>>20
"Perhaps the philosophies that don't entail that are necessarily WRONG."

Congratulations, you just produced the "western stereotype" I talked about.  It's really nice of you to call entire schools of thought "wrong" because they don't fit in with your philosophical frame of mind.  How narrow your mind must be to play only in the realm of what society (more specifically, YOUR society) considers as intellectual thought.

"In every society there is something inherently WRONG about murder"

As long as it doesn't fit into your religious convictions, or your entertainment purposes, or for purposes of conquest.  Let's see, the Aztecs murdered those they captured as sacrifices to the gods, the Romans fed people to lions, wars kill countless civilians and soldiers alike.  The only "base" I see is a concept of "unacceptable killing" which has a very disparate application, such as the killing of nobility being "bad" and killing of peasants "A-OK".

"So human rights are necessarily the core values in ANY philosophy"

Not in, hrm, many religious belief systems, which undeniably deal with philosophical questions, many place more emphasis on the position of humanity in respects to the universe and the divine, rather than what you can and can't do in this world. Buddhism in fact focuses on the denial of the individual identity, the "self" and the absolution of desire and fear to escape samsara.  Buddhism doesn't give a fuck about what happens to you in this life because pursuing after your wants is only going to perpetuate your reincarnation in samsara.  I sense the western naivete is strong in this one.

"OH I SEE NOW, WE HAVE A POSTMODERN SUBJECTIVE NIHILIST."

Yeah, my feelings are so fucking hurt.  Let's not get into classifying which school of thought we think in, it's rather immature, even for the internet. /sarcasm  Objectivist pig.

"Do you not believe that every human being is entitled to some basic freedoms, such as free speech?"

It's a flowery concept, unfortunately since it has no real reprecussions for violating them, and since they get violated all the time, you have to consider that one of the reasons people don't fucking care about violating them is because they don't believe they exist. 
Let me put it another way, people obey religious doctrines because they believe and hope they will get a reward in the afterlife, they believe in the existence of something they can't prove exists, but steadfastly hold to it.  People believe in human rights because they are taught to believe it is necessary for human society to exist, despite the numerous cohesive societies throughout history that do not adhere to human rights, such as the Aztecs, the Persians, the Romans, the Chinese, the Russians all had societies that lasted for good long periods of time.  Human rights are simply a tenet of the current era of western sytled democracy, and I don't think people believe they will get some divine retribution for violating someones human rights as they imprison them without trial.

I for one have yet to see a tag on a placenta that comes with the US bill of rights stapled to it, where are you getting these rights? Oh yeah, they were made up, fictitious.

In conclusion, human rights are dandy, I support them as a baseline of human dignity and as a measurement tool for "free" societies, but don't cry over split milk when you hear they get violated, some societies work fine without them, certainly not America, but some.
And seriously lose some of your western blinders, not everyone thinks like westerners do, and they aren't inferior for simply not embracing your schools of thought.  If you really had it all figured out the rest of the world would all be talking the talk you do.

>>23

Firstly, you are highly paranoid about looking at things a certain way, and this is causing you to blinded, and not me. I think you completely miss the point of what human rights are. Human rights, in fact, exist because NO SOCIETY CAN HOLD WITHOUT THEM. Again, think about a society that doesn't hold any right to life. In such a society, everyone would be suspicious of everyone else, and be frightened that their neighbor might end up killing one who lives in that society -- and so society would never exist, it would be impossible for anyone to communicate to each other without believing they could be killed at any moment. Or think about a society which doesn't hold telling the truth very highly. Anything anyone says could potentially be a lie, so again, you have the same problem -- society can't exist, because people won't be able to communicate to each other. This is the basis of ethical theory. This means that there are going to be certain things that people will value in all societies, because, in fact, society cannot exist without people valuing them.

What does this mean for human rights? It means that any philosophy, in order to be consistent, one must define what a human being is, and what rights are allowed to human beings. Yes, you are right that certain societies did not give rights to every human being -- but, then, the people who didn't have rights would not be considered human beings. They would be barbarians or slaves or whatever, but not human beings. Of course, in our day and age, our criteria for being human is vastly different -- but that does NOT mean a society does not believe in human rights. Every society does, because in order for a society to exist, rights must be given to everyone in that society in order for people to cooperate safely.

Way to be a fucking tool of the liberal agenda. Do you seriously think you're being "progressive" and "open-minded" by saying that this big bad western society is not the only one that exists? You think you're breaking down barriers, opening people's minds? Hahahaha. You're not doing anything but spouting bullshit about things you have no idea about. You're right, western thought is NOT the only thinking out there, but there is a basis for ALL ideas between societies. They will all have the same basic structure, just like all houses have the same basic structure, because they all have the same basic function.

Human rights have nothing to do with *society* and its efficiency and stability. They are intrinsic to existence and are safeguarded by laws of universalizability ("If one human is discriminated or not allowed to speak her mind, neither am I. If she can be locked up without trial because she might be dangerous, then so can her jailor.")

Second, you do not now what a liberal agenda is, because a movement that large can not define an agenda. fark.com has an agenda, democratiya.com has an agenda.

>>17
You forget to remember that profit is good. If you profit you are doing good. The wealth of coorporations comes directly from their ability to produce high quality goods and services cheaply and the purchasing power of their customers. Peace allows development and the creation of a skilled low-crime labour force with which to fulfil these 2 demands and create profit. As you can see profit does good for the workforce and they reward shareholders by working and buying in order to increase the value of their shares.

>>19
>>22
>>23
Culture consists of 10000s of different ideas, thus are redundant. With this in mind you can see that cultures are free to adopt liberty, capitalism and human rights as part of their core values with little effect on unrelated ideas. They can then capitalise on their ideas and improve the value of their culture. Chop suey, tacos and curry for instance.

>>20
Indeed the idea that certain cultures are infallible and should never be changed is absurd. Though I don't see how >>19 meant this.

>>22
>>23
I referred you to my response to >>19 as I believe that there is no such thing as culture oriented philosophy or science. You are either correct or incorrect as it is apparent that the laws of physics do not change from one place to another. Eastern philosophy and western philosophy are pointless classifications, philosophy should be judged by it's merits and not it's origin. Ethics in philosophy across the globe was generally heading towards the same conclusions, if one school of philosophy discovers more than another and then another school of philosophy declared it's culture to be infallible, then when exposed to the school of philosophy that progressed further it will decide not to adopt further progress and will have stunted it's growth. It is illogical.

>>23
Generating consequences for violating laws are the basis for law enforcement across the world for 1000s of years. Violating free speech can have negative consequences for the criminal, if sufficient non-corrupt law enforcement is in place. You stated the obvious when you said that human rights were not adopted by succesful civilisation that were stable for long periods of time, however the civilisations you stated were tyrannic and treated their citizens horrifically in some cases. Supporting human rights is not like supporting a religion (like buddhism) because you think it has divine properties, supporting human rights is common sense because without it you end up with tyranny and enormous amounts of sufferring. It could also be argued that socieites always hold some form of moral codes, honour codes and human rights in lesser forms, not just outright universal declarations. The aristocracy for instance frowned apon killing or disempowerring other aristocrats because if they acted like savages then untrustworthy upstarts from the lower ranks whom they have no control over could rise up and take the place of the aristocrat they removed.

>>23
>>24
I will not respond to >>24 as >>24 used profanity. This response serves as an example of a lesser moral codes, which will result in the reduction of bigotry and an increase in the logic and free flow of discussion!

>>25
Human rights preserve liberty. Universability is a logical step up from collectivism. There is a problem that if everyone around you responds when someone's liberties are trampled on, you personally don't have to join in and can enjoy the benefits of preserved liberty. This is why we have a law system. I am not the one who accused others of possessing a liberal agenda, but many statements made in this thread appear to be liberal cliches.

>>26
Oops I made a mistake in my response to >>17.

>>17
The wealth of coorporations comes directly from their ability to produce high quality goods and services cheaply and the purchasing power of their target customers.

>>26 "There is a problem that if everyone around you responds when someone's liberties are trampled on, you personally don't have to join in and can enjoy the benefits of preserved liberty." Um, the idea is that a human responds to a breach of someone's rights as if it were her own. As such, we may vest the power in a system of jurisprudence - that can be described as following universability.

Universability on this level is collectivism on a species-wide scale, which is ethically sound.

>>28
People don't necessarily have to join in if enough people are doing it for them. If there is a protest you support which already has 1 million people but which requires you to sit out in the cold for hours, what is the point of joining in?

It is this apathy that most political movement aim to eliminate via emotional encouragement and dogmas such as the one we are discussing.

"If there is a protest you support which already has 1 million people but which requires you to sit out in the cold for hours, what is the point of joining in?" What if half a million reach that decision because they suspect a high turnout? It is best for me to make my voice heard in this case, and anyone who wants to make the same sentiment heard.

>>28
Horseshit, you don't live in the real fucking world, when someone sees someones rights get trampled on, they are just as likely to be a pussy and hide in fear, lest their rights get stomped on by the malefactor for standing up.

>>24
I like how you still stay in the fucking box yourself, ethical behavior is not the extension of functioning societies you fucking twat.

Fuck your sociological theories, ethical behavior is simply a by product of improving probability of gene expression, protecting your family and to a further extent humanity is nothing more than your genes trying to continue their proliferation.

Ethical behavior only exists as it improves the likelihood of the survival of the gene, and we must consider that the genes themselves must have survived before ethical behavior developed, thusly ethical behavior is not absolutely necessary for the organism to survive, even when in confliction with other organisms. 

Do primates express "ethical" behavior? We can be certain that they don't give a ratfuck about the lesser male who gets killed for coming too close to the Alpha.  Do they think that the ape had the right to live? Hardly.

What I find funny is how humanists want to call humankind so very grand and having these "rights" inherent to them and only them, that everyone of their species should protect and venerate, when they are so very similar to other creatures that are not given the same rights.  Humans reproduce like other organisms, they age like other organisms, they metabolize like other organisms, and yet the defining factor is we deem ourselves possessing "reason".

Ethical behavior is not necessary for a society, an anarchic, lawless society is still a society, and believe it or not, some people prefer that kind of society.

I appreciate you calling be a liberal tool, It really shows how fucking naive you are.  Human rights will be stomped on and nobody will fucking care, much less do something about it.  Last time I checked, the Chinese killed plenty of their own people in Tiennamen, and yet the rest of the world still fucking trades with them.

Cry fucking more about your human rights, they will be ignored, evil will prevail, and you live in a delusion.  You won't do shit to stop it, even if you could.

>>31
Unless they have guns too.

>>32
Ethical behaviour exists because we are intelligent sentient beings and we contemplate philosophy and recognise that sentience exists in others. This is why despots are so eager to dehumanise their enemies, so that people dismiss the fact that they are sentient. Your mindset is responsible for an enormous amount of sufferring.

>>32

lol someone's not thinking things through. Or trolling. Either way you're a dumbass.


"Fuck your sociological theories, ethical behavior is simply a by product of improving probability of gene expression, protecting your family and to a further extent humanity is nothing more than your genes trying to continue their proliferation."

Ok, and what would give you the greatest chance of gene proliferation? That's right! Interaction with other human beings! Helping each other! Forming society! What other animal has been as successful as human beings in expanding and multiplying? Right, our genes realized that by forming groups and using tools etc. would proliferate the species. So basically you're saying we're evolutionarily inclined to forming society. And any society needs to have ethical codes and human rights in order to survive. So we are evolutionary inclined to creating human rights, because it is beneficial for the species as a whole. At least, according to your logic.

"Do primates express 'ethical' behavior? We can be certain that they don't give a ratfuck about the lesser male who gets killed for coming too close to the Alpha.  Do they think that the ape had the right to live? Hardly."

That's right! And now, think about why they are still living in trees in fucking jungles in Africa. That's totally more preferable then what we have now, right? No? OH OK

"What I find funny is how humanists want to call humankind so very grand and having these 'rights' inherent to them and only them, that everyone of their species should protect and venerate, when they are so very similar to other creatures that are not given the same rights.  Humans reproduce like other organisms, they age like other organisms, they metabolize like other organisms, and yet the defining factor is we deem ourselves possessing 'reason'."

Yes. We're more important because of the fact that we can reason, or at least most of us do(you seem to be one of those that don't possess a drop of reason). I don't see anything wrong with that.

"Ethical behavior is not necessary for a society, an anarchic, lawless society is still a society, and believe it or not, some people prefer that kind of society."

Even people advocating anarchy don't think it would be logical or sane to let people do whatever they want, unless your talking about 16 year old suburbanites who are bored out of their minds. You're probably one of them, so you know what I'm talking about. Anyone who's ever talked about anarchy as a legitimate system of government actually don't advocate the total loss of government. Someone needs to be there to protect the citizens from each other. Even in total anarchy, without a government, people will eventually band together forming their own little societies, within which people agree not to try and kill and steal from each other. So even in anarchy, rights to life and property would pop up.

"I appreciate you calling be a liberal tool, It really shows how fucking naive you are.  Human rights will be stomped on and nobody will fucking care, much less do something about it.  Last time I checked, the Chinese killed plenty of their own people in Tiennamen, and yet the rest of the world still fucking trades with them."

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA. I'd like to see you try to instill a revolution to overthrow whatever government you live in. See how little people care about their rights then. There's a reason why anarchy isn't exactly popular -- people like the rights they've been given. Take them away, and you'll find yourself in a shitstorm.

"Cry fucking more about your human rights, they will be ignored, evil will prevail, and you live in a delusion.  You won't do shit to stop it, even if you could."

Oh no, I could do something to stop it. I could tell you to kill yourself. Seriously, you're not worth anyone's time. I think we agree that you don't deserve your right to life.

>>34
No, ethical behavior exists because it is advantageous for survival and the perpetuation of the species.

>>35
Didn't you just prove how like the tyrants you are by suggesting that I don't deserve to live?
You're getting angry on the internet.
Man, I'm a good fucking troll.
QQ little man

The only way World-wide peace will be achieved is to somehow unite everybody (Whether it will be through fear, economics, necessity, nationalism (If you can call it that - supernationalism perhaps?), your guess is as good as mine) or total destruction.

>>36
You got cause and effect mixed up. It was advantageous to have an intelligent problem solving mind and sentience is a "side-effect" that occurs once such a mind is developped. Some morals are natural, but some morals are created as a result of the existence of sentience.

>>36
Hahaha, I added that kill yourself bit seeing as how I knew you were a troll. It's a standard response to idiots like you. I don't really mean it, but you should still gtfo /pol/ for being a boring twat.

>>39
What do you mean boring twat? There is hardly lively debate in /pol/ ever.  Just people spouting rhetoric and trolls whacking away.
You want me to fucking leave a discussion, when I'm anynonomous, and there is no real detraction from me trolling here, as long as you get riled up?  You're on fucking 4chan.