Do you believe in the need for rules or "order"?

[nyouremyperfect10]

I believe the fact we are social animals is something scientists say to dupe us.

 

Doesn't a sapient individual acknowledge that a person can do as they please in life?

 

What utility do "rules" actually bring?

[WWLabRat]

This seems like a trolling question at first, but I'll bite...

 

 

 

I believe the fact we are social animals is something scientists say to dupe us.

 

Rules were around long before scientists (in the modern way of thinking), alchemy, or philosophy. So to say that scientists simply say that we are social animals is ignoring lifetimes of evidence that we really are.

 

 

 

Doesn't a sapient individual acknowledge that a person can do as they please in life?

 

This seems to be an issue entirely separate from what you were asking before. This is more a question of free will. Certainly, even with rules, a person is still able to do as the wish. But as with all things, every action has an equal and opposite reaction. Breaking a rule is going to have consequences. A person is free to do as they please in life, but they should know, understand, and accept the consequences of their decision.

 

 

 

What utility do "rules" actually bring?

 

Rules, whether written or implied, allow a basis for logical decisions to be made. It all boils down to preservation. A rule against suicide prevents someone from killing themselves to keep population levels up. Why do we keep the population up? To allow for a larger, more diverse, genetic pool. This helps us as a species to be able to adapt to a changing environment. Murder is against the law for the same reason. Even if it weren't, what would keep families of those who are killed from attacking and killing the murderer?

[chris logan]

I believe the fact we are social animals is something scientists say to dupe us.

 

Doesn't a sapient individual acknowledge that a person can do as they please in life?

 

What utility do "rules" actually bring?

nope, science did not dupe you. We are 'social animals' and rules serve as a guide so we don't end up in total chaos. imagine a city with no rules, no laws, no police force. now add to that equation banks, stores, drugs and guns. discarding rules would be like trashing the corner stones of civilization.

[ADreamIveDreamt]

I am not an animal.

[Phi for All]

I believe the fact we are social animals is something scientists say to dupe us.

 

Doesn't a sapient individual acknowledge that a person can do as they please in life?

 

What utility do "rules" actually bring?

 

How is doing just what you please the decision of a sapient person? We have a access to a great deal of power. We're social alright, but we're also highly communicative tool-users with high intelligence. There's a hundred ways a day we can run afoul of each other, trying to share this planet between 6.5B of us. Rules mark patterns of behavior, we LOVE patterns for helping us make sense of the world. The utility of rules is in providing a framework so we all know what our civilization expects of us. Then we can all do as much of what we please as possible.

 

I am not an animal.

 

Minerals can't type and plants usually speak in first person plural. What are you?

[ADreamIveDreamt]

 

Minerals can't type and plants usually speak in first person plural. What are you?

 

I am whatever you create me be to,just do not create me into an animal.

[WWLabRat]

I am not an animal.

I am whatever you create me be to,just do not create me into an animal.

 

 

Kingdom: Animalia

Phylum: Chordata

Class: Mammalia

Order: Primates

Family: Hominidae

Tribe: Hominini

Genus: Homo

Species: H. sapiens

 

Too late.

[Phi for All]

 

I am whatever you create me be to,just do not create me into an animal.

 

You may be using a different definition of animal, perhaps a religious one. How about a fish, you want to be a fish? You come from a long line of fish, you know.

 

But the rules say you're probably a primate, another good reason we need order.

[iNow]

Doesn't a sapient individual acknowledge that a person can do as they please in life?

 

What utility do "rules" actually bring?

We are ourselves collections of molecules, atoms, and quarks, and even molecules, atoms, and quarks have order and follow rules whether they want to or not. Rules for humans and societies are just a bit more complex and nuanced, but at their core not terribly different.

 

Also, just from a pure logic standpoint, wouldn't the removal of rules itself be a rule (thus negating the stated objective)?

[WWLabRat]

We are ourselves collections of molecules, atoms, and quarks, and even molecules, atoms, and quarks have order and follow rules whether they want to or not. Rules for humans and societies are just a bit more complex and nuanced, but at their core not terribly different.

 

Also, just from a pure logic standpoint, wouldn't the removal of rules itself be a rule (thus negating the stated objective)?

 

I'm not sure that removing rules could be considered a rule unto itself. It's illogical. About the same as saying that the only rule is there are no rules. If there are no rules then there's nothing to dictate that no rules is a rule. As you can see, it gets to be rather circular. The same argument is used in theories of time travel and paradoxes. If someone goes back in time to kill their biological grandfather, etc...

 

However you do have a good point about how rules are needed even on an atomic level...

[Tridimity]

I am not an animal

 

 

We are all animals, yourself included. You don’t get to have an opinion where facts are concerned.

 

 

I believe the fact we are social animals is something scientists say to dupe us.

 

Doesn't a sapient individual acknowledge that a person can do as they please in life?

 

What utility do "rules" actually bring?

 

 

We have evolved the co-operative traits necessary to survive in social groups. It is possible to live in complete isolation from the rest of humanity, if one so wishes, but I do not think that this would be an easy or enjoyable life, on the whole. As such, rules are a necessary part of social life. Problems arise when the rules are not conducive to the wellbeing of certain individuals or groups – but that is why we have the field of Politics.

[nyouremyperfect10]

nope, science did not dupe you. We are 'social animals' and rules serve as a guide so we don't end up in total chaos. imagine a city with no rules, no laws, no police force. now add to that equation banks, stores, drugs and guns. discarding rules would be like trashing the corner stones of civilization.

 

And? Anything goes. Morals don't exist, and are wholly subjective if they do exist.

 

We are all animals, yourself included. You don’t get to have an opinion where facts are concerned.

 

 

 

We have evolved the co-operative traits necessary to survive in social groups. It is possible to live in complete isolation from the rest of humanity, if one so wishes, but I do not think that this would be an easy or enjoyable life, on the whole. As such, rules are a necessary part of social life. Problems arise when the rules are not conducive to the wellbeing of certain individuals or groups – but that is why we have the field of Politics.

 

Politics is about power and governance.

 

All the same, to assert that we are social animals is just the beliefs of scientists.

We are ourselves collections of molecules, atoms, and quarks, and even molecules, atoms, and quarks have order and follow rules whether they want to or not. Rules for humans and societies are just a bit more complex and nuanced, but at their core not terribly different.

 

Also, just from a pure logic standpoint, wouldn't the removal of rules itself be a rule (thus negating the stated objective)?

 

Despite professing such intelligence, you've obviously been duped by the agenda of scientists. I see no evidence that humans are indeed "social".

[WWLabRat]

 

And? Anything goes. Morals don't exist, and are wholly subjective if they do exist.

 

Politics is about power and governance.

 

All the same, to assert that we are social animals is just the beliefs of scientists.

 

Despite professing such intelligence, you've obviously been duped by the agenda of scientists. I see no evidence that humans are indeed "social".

 

The first to points you state do have some basis, so I have no true argument with them, at the moment. The second two points however are just complete nonsense. And with one key feature to the viability of the human race I will prove that we as a species are compelled to be social. What is this feature? Sexual reproduction. Day 1 biology lecture would include that humans are not capable of asexual reproduction. as such, interaction between two separate individuals is required for the continuation of genetic material. Need more evidence? Ok, well how about this: are you capable of doing everything for yourself? If you break a bone or get a deep cut, are you able to make a cast or sew the wound shut on your own? Even if you answer yes, someone would have taught you, whether a parent, sibling, another relative, or a friend. All of these are social relationships. Are you able to fix your own vehicle? What about treating your own waste? Growing your own crops? Fix your own computer? Every person alive has their own skill sets which allow them to take their place in society to keep things running smoothly. Imagine all that exists that you use in your daily life. Ok, so you sit in your mother's basement eating Funyuns and drinking Mountain Dew. That's great. Sit there, reply to threads, etc. Who gets your food for you? Who runs the servers that keep the web pages up? Those are other people and as much as you may hate to admit it, your daily life is entirely dependent upon other people.

[nyouremyperfect10]

 

The first to points you state do have some basis, so I have no true argument with them, at the moment. The second two points however are just complete nonsense. And with one key feature to the viability of the human race I will prove that we as a species are compelled to be social. What is this feature? Sexual reproduction. Day 1 biology lecture would include that humans are not capable of asexual reproduction. as such, interaction between two separate individuals is required for the continuation of genetic material. Need more evidence? Ok, well how about this: are you capable of doing everything for yourself? If you break a bone or get a deep cut, are you able to make a cast or sew the wound shut on your own? Even if you answer yes, someone would have taught you, whether a parent, sibling, another relative, or a friend. All of these are social relationships. Are you able to fix your own vehicle? What about treating your own waste? Growing your own crops? Fix your own computer? Every person alive has their own skill sets which allow them to take their place in society to keep things running smoothly. Imagine all that exists that you use in your daily life. Ok, so you sit in your mother's basement eating Funyuns and drinking Mountain Dew. That's great. Sit there, reply to threads, etc. Who gets your food for you? Who runs the servers that keep the web pages up? Those are other people and as much as you may hate to admit it, your daily life is entirely dependent upon other people.

 

Of course morals don't exist. and?

 

As for your block paragraph, lol.. Well, social relations don't exist, as it IS the beliefs of scientists who cite as such. Kindly prove it's not.

[WWLabRat]

My proof is this: you are communicating with me right now. That is interaction between two individuals of the same species with a digital medium.

[nyouremyperfect10]

Yes. And?

[WWLabRat]

Communicating is inherently social. Therefore, you are socializing. So by that means you are social.

[nyouremyperfect10]

i don't care again. the beliefs of scientists mean little to me.

[WWLabRat]

Then I ask you: Where is your proof that humans are not social by nature?

[ydoaPs]

What utility do "rules" actually bring?

Being less likely to get eaten by a tiger. Or the entirety of your lifestyle.

[nyouremyperfect10]

Then I ask you: Where is your proof that humans are not social by nature?

 

There are not many people who actually adhere to rules.

 

It's a popular fiction that people actually do.

Being less likely to get eaten by a tiger. Or the entirety of your lifestyle.

 

I don't live in the Amur. And?

[ydoaPs]

I don't live in the Amur.

.....because humans are social animals. How do you think your family (look at that, a social structure) got to where you were born rather than Amur? Your profile says you're interested in Anthropology, yet you buck it entirely without any basis and contrary to literally all evidence and even basic common sense.

[nyouremyperfect10]

yes, I am interested in paleoanthropology.

 

 

However, people often contradict, whether in word or deed. Hence, I can believe in an anthropological sub-discipline and not believe in the rationale for social structures. Comprende?

[Phi for All]

i don't care again. the beliefs of scientists mean little to me.

 

This seems inconsistent with the purpose of a science discussion forum. We're here to interact socially in a loosely structured debate format for educational goals. Not caring is anathema to learning. And one goal of science is to provide explanations that are so trustworthy you don't have to rely on belief to embrace them.

[nyouremyperfect10]

As said, people contradict.

 

I value science, but think science is the beliefs of scientists alone.