So I start classes tomarrow. I'm actually excited. I'm graduating this year. Sometime. I'll get back to you.
Anyway, I'm taking an English lit class on old Greek and Roman classics. Stuff I'd like to read anyway. Cool. Plus a political science course on war and peace in the middle east. Fun stuff.
Oh! And my birthday is on the 24th. Of what, I'm not saying.
Anyway, the question of the day is as follows:
If you could only choose one basis for a society, would you base it on-
1. Equality
2. Making the minimum quality of life as high as possible
3. Maximising the total quality of life (highest average)
Now, by quality of life I mean lifespan, comfort level, purchasing power, happiness, etc.
My significant other was torn between the first two. I rejected equality out of hand, because it could be at any level. I'm most attracted to the third option, because it seems the most uninhibited: it can reach the highest heights.
So, I'm curious to hear your thoughts.
Lurker
(Peekaboo)
2 comments:
The third option most definitely. When it come to a successful society having each individual being the best they can be in any chosen area, has to be the best solution. How can anyone argue that maximizing an individuals potential could be anything less than the best solution. The problems leys in implementation. How can a society succeed at maximizing potential. Society by its very nature seeks common ground. A beautiful dream but a fruitless effort.
Well, some would argue that it doesn't seem fair that some people get left behind.
Many people judge their quality of life not on how well their lifestyle actually is but on how well they are doing compared to others. Its a very human thing.
Thats why the second option is the most likely to be reached by compromise. The upper end is undbounded and the lower end is always in focus.
Post a Comment