Civic Duty in Regards to Religion or Humanity

[Unveiled Artist]

@Valjean What I'm curious about, actually, is if there is a poll on how various cultures interpret civil duty in the pandemic. What's the scale in how much one would sacrifice themselves as lay people for the life of the whole.

 

[Valjean]

Oh. Force is counterproductive and makes the plan to save humanity quite worse. It's a catch-22 to solve in my opinion, but, well.

Do you really think a diverse society of millions of people could exist coöperatvely and harmoniously without law (force)?

No. I like authority that works with the people not authority that defines a person's rights; I like democracy.

What's the difference, exactly?

I don't understand the second question. Can you give an example of laws of social behavior?

Almost all laws relate to social behavior: traffic laws, pollution regulations, laws against burglary, armed robbery, machine guns, pet lions, tigers and bears; drug laws, &c.

It's a cultural thing. Individualism isn't bad in itself. When you give people the right to help others its more beneficial than telling them what to do.

Individualism is fine if you're an individual living in isolation. But we're not bears. We're wired as hunter-gatherers; to live coöperatively in small bands, but when we began living in large, diverse societies we had to curb our natural tribalism and adopt a Social Contract, where individuals abandoned perfect freedom for coöperation -- enforced where needed. A few anti-social individuals can wreck a lot of damage if left unchecked.

In a band of ten or fifteen members, destructive indivdualism is easily recognized and informally checked, but in a superband of millions, wouldn't formal regulations and coercive enforcement be needed?

The method of execution is the problem not the individualism. It's like going into a meeting and instead of asking your employees how will they contribute you tell them what they would do. In that sense, when someone challenges that authority's decisions it becomes a problem. Individualism encourages that challenge. The problem is individualism and coercion don't work together. I know the goal is to save people from dying by keeping yourself from being contagious but people just have different values.

But how should socially harmful individualism or conflicting 'values' be treated?
Usually practices endanger public health or safety are regulated or forbidden.

Take censorship on social media, media itself, government, and other. An individualist would want to know all the facts to decide for him or herself. Others don't mind decisions made for them. We're just different.

I'm all in favor of uncensored public information. I don't see this as a socially harmful practice requiring any sort of coercive intervention.

 

[Fool]

What's this have to do with civic duty or religious law? It's just a claim that something you're calling love is universal; that everyone wants it, but that not everyone gives it.

love is a basic need. this is expressed in the golden rule to do unto other's as you would have done unto you.

 

[Fool]

I believe each person has their own morals and practices to protect themselves and others from catching viruses. I don't believe a group is immoral if they choose a way not supported by the majority. Not siding with the majority doesn't mean they don't care and it's pushes a fallacy and dichotomy to think otherwise. I'd assume religions that don't have that dichotomy would think likewise but I think it's individual.

service to self and service to other self are the only options. the service to self is deluding itself; if it thinks that the parts are greater than the whole.. it will eventually meet the boundary of it's limits and have to requalify

 

[Fool]

I don’t think that all people wish to be so selfless that they are just a blank state of nothing just catering to, being obedient to, listening to, being submissive to what other selves want from them or to do.

we're discussing a group of people who promotes the idea of unconditional love yet choose the idea of free will as more important than the fact that their behavior is limited to love of self. this is what makes a hypocrite. promoting an idea while not acting on it.

if someone doesn't want to do what is best for all, then why not remove themselves from that society vs being antisocial within it? why not alienate themselves physically? aren't the prisons full of service to self types for a reason?

This example gives the impression of guilt tripping and bad selfishness in order to get other selves to fit into a particular “selfless paradigm.”

the illusion is that self should have the right to put the whole at risk because of bad behavior. its only a win situation for the selfish. they don't need to feel guilty. nor does anyone have the power to make someone have a conscience. wouldn't it be better if they didn't want to follow the greater good by simply alienating themselves both physically and psychologically vs just psychologically?

“If you don’t do such and such, you’re not being selfless and loving your neighbor.”

one's choices never supersedes another's boundaries. good boundaries make good neighbors vs ignoring social distancing, masking, and vaccines doesn't. unless the service to self type is invited into someone's space, they shouldn't be in another's person's personal space.

 

[Revoltingest]

I never liked the term, "civic duty"....too much implication of
imposed obligation. I prefer that one assume societal
responsibilities freely...more personal goals.

 

[night912]

love is a basic need. this is expressed in the golden rule to do unto other's as you would have done unto you.

One can argue that your golden rule is a rule of selfishness. Going by that rule, what you do to others is actually you doing you (service to the self).

1. You are doing service to others for your the selfish reason of wanting that same service to return to you, the self.

2. You doing service to others by doing the kind of service that you, the self, wants. You were selfishly thinking only about you, the self, that you thought that the service you want for yourself, is what others also want and/or should need.

3. By you selfishly doing the things you want done onto you, the self, you neglected to do the service that others want done onto themselves. By being selfish and only thinking about the self, you could have done the most horrendous thing ever done onto them according to their own wants and/or needs because you were selfishly thinking about what you want, and not what they want.


I've seen some disabled/handicapped people at stores getting mad at others for continuously holding all the doors open for them. Some of them that I know personally, explained that the reason for getting angry at people holding the doors open for them is because they are being looked at and/or treated as being less than the average human being who isn't disabled/handicapped. They see it as those people are thinking that they are providing their service for the ones that they think are incapable of doing it for themselves, when in reality, they are capable of doing it themselves.

 

[Alienistic]

wouldn't it be better if they didn't want to follow the greater good by simply alienating themselves both physically and psychologically vs just psychologically?

Who determines what the greater “good?” is? Especially when much of mankind likely cannot discern their elbow from their asscheek- they just blindly follow what everyone else wants for them. If someone knew themselves, why would they need anyone else to determine for themselves what is best for them and all others?

Best way to fleece the populace, in my perception, is to make them think something is for the greater good or for freedom, in these names while proceeding to carry out evil in disguise through them. While making a laughingstock or mockery out of those that don’t obey.

This would be called the good authentic self or good authentic selfishness. I have no problems alienating myself as much as possible from a particular herd if I perceive the collective mentality as insane. They owe me nothing nor do I owe them anything.

 

[Fool]

One can argue that your golden rule is a rule of selfishness. Going by that rule, what you do to others is actually you doing you (service to the self).

1. You are doing service to others for your the selfish reason of wanting that same service to return to you, the self.

2. You doing service to others by doing the kind of service that you, the self, wants. You were selfishly thinking only about you, the self, that you thought that the service you want for yourself, is what others also want and/or should need.

3. By you selfishly doing the things you want done onto you, the self, you neglected to do the service that others want done onto themselves. By being selfish and only thinking about the self, you could have done the most horrendous thing ever done onto them according to their own wants and/or needs because you were selfishly thinking about what you want, and not what they want.


I've seen some disabled/handicapped people at stores getting mad at others for continuously holding all the doors open for them. Some of them that I know personally, explained that the reason for getting angry at people holding the doors open for them is because they are being looked at and/or treated as being less than the average human being who isn't disabled/handicapped. They see it as those people are thinking that they are providing their service for the ones that they think are incapable of doing it for themselves, when in reality, they are capable of doing it themselves.

service to self is a win situation

service to other as self is a win-win situation.

there is no loss in sharing happiness. it just grows

 

[Fool]

Who determines what the greater “good?” is? Especially when much of mankind likely cannot discern their elbow from their asscheek- they just blindly follow what everyone else wants for them. If someone knew themselves, why would they need anyone else to determine for themselves what is best for them and all others?

Best way to fleece the populace, in my perception, is to make them think something is for the greater good or for freedom, in these names while proceeding to carry out evil in disguise through them. While making a laughingstock or mockery out of those that don’t obey.

This would be called the good authentic self or good authentic selfishness. I have no problems alienating myself as much as possible from a particular herd if I perceive the collective mentality as insane. They owe me nothing nor do I owe them anything.

who determines what love is?


everyone wants to be loved. love is a basic need. Without it, offspring and the needy don't survive.


not everyone is loving. the jails and prisons tend to be a testament to that fact.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

if a religion, or belief system promotes loves is it more important to promote one's religion as a civic duty, or is it more important to promote love for humanity?


example: is it more important to promotes one beliefs of personal rights to abstain from getting a covid vaccination vs getting a covid vaccine which would not only increase protection for self but for other's as well?

We can throw around words like "civic duty" but ultimately if your religion promotes love, it is for those you impact. Usually that's the person you run into in the shopping cart line, but sometimes (as in the case of climate change) it can involve in caring for all of humanity as well.

With regards to vaccinations, the adage is "Your right to freedom ends where my nose begins." IOW we are not morally allowed to do as we please if that means hurting other people. Those who refuse to get vaccinated are hurting others--the Delta strain is spreading in teh US because a significant portion of citizens are refusing to vaccinate, and to mask where appropriate.

So it really doesn't matter if they are afraid of needles, or don't want foreign substances in their bodies, or mistakenly think that the vaccine includes a microchip. None of those factors make a difference. The only pertinant facts are: we know the vaccines are somewhere around 90% effective, and that therefore the morally responsible thing to do is get vaccinated, so as to not harm yourself or others.

 

[night912]

service to self is a win situation

service to other as self is a win-win situation.

there is no loss in sharing happiness. it just grows

Not according to you.

service to self and service to other self are the only options. the service to self is deluding itself; if it thinks that the parts are greater than the whole.. it will eventually meet the boundary of it's limits and have to requalify

Besides that. What is lost is what you considered as being one of the most important thing in this discussion. And that is "love."

No love is being recieved from you by others if you provide the most horrendous service to them, eventhough that service may have been the best service that you selfishly want for yourself.

 

[Fool]

Not according to you.

you're confused. the problem is that service to self must still contend with other as self in sharing/gathering resources. no one is an island unto themselves. with the service to all as self there is no contention. the gathering is for all and not just self. again it's a state of mind that the self finds ideal

Besides that. What is lost is what you considered as being one of the most important thing in this discussion. And that is "love."

No love is being recieved from you by others if you provide the most horrendous service to them, even though that service may have been the best service that you selfishly want for yourself.

service, or love if you will, is always being rendered to someone, even in service to self at the expense of other as self.


the problem that the selfish don't grasp is that service to self is only acceptable at the absolute.