Society/Culture Are hierarchies bad?

Remove this Banner Ad

Number37

Anyhow, have a Winfield 25.
Oct 5, 2013
19,181
19,920
AFL Club
Sydney
The answer is always to be responsible for yourself. The people who do that the best usually end up in a position they deserve and society respects that.
How does that work for people (1) in third world countries? (2) with congenital disabilities?
 

Coolangatta

Premiership Player
Oct 27, 2007
3,652
3,105
Western Australia
AFL Club
Brisbane Lions
Think of a man who dreams of leaving his law firm to open a portable dog wash. Now that's progress; that's a hierarchy. If you appear to be confusingly perplexed, then that's your fault; you're not woke enough to get it. Sorry if I sound like I'm going off on a tangent. My point is, tax the rich! That way, I can finally have a biycle with rockets strapped to it.
 

Log in to remove this ad.

Number37

Anyhow, have a Winfield 25.
Oct 5, 2013
19,181
19,920
AFL Club
Sydney
Given there is a clear hierarchy of nations on Earth and throughout human history, it doesn't work nearly as well as people with congenital disabilities in Australia.

Poor people will always be poor, rich people will always be rich, and not because of merit, just because that's the way it is and has always been throughout history.

You seem to be having it both ways.
 

Taylor

Community Leader
Jul 16, 2009
57,045
66,236
Perth
AFL Club
Fremantle
Poor people will always be poor, rich people will always be rich, and not because of merit, just because that's the way it is and has always been throughout history.

You seem to be having it both ways.
I was actually showing that there are clearly and obviously better places to live on earth.
 

Number37

Anyhow, have a Winfield 25.
Oct 5, 2013
19,181
19,920
AFL Club
Sydney
I was actually showing that there are clearly and obviously better places to live on earth.
You seem to be saying that merit is best, then you are saying that some places are better than others. How then does merit work for those not living in the better places? (Assuming that the better places to live are based on merit)
 

Taylor

Community Leader
Jul 16, 2009
57,045
66,236
Perth
AFL Club
Fremantle
You seem to be saying that merit is best, then you are saying that some places are better than others. How then does merit work for those not living in the better places? (Assuming that the better places to live are based on merit)
Hierarchies of merit are ideal and certain nations are far worse for people with disadvantages.

Should we invade the worse places on the planet to make their culture and society more like ours so that disadvantaged people can live better?

I'm not even sure we could get consensus that some places on Earth are objectively better and others are objectively worse. Certainly not when Australia is going to be in the top handful of places ever in human history in every category.
 

Number37

Anyhow, have a Winfield 25.
Oct 5, 2013
19,181
19,920
AFL Club
Sydney
Hierarchies of merit are ideal and certain nations are far worse for people with disadvantages.

Should we invade the worse places on the planet to make their culture and society more like ours so that disadvantaged people can live better?

I'm not even sure we could get consensus that some places on Earth are objectively better and others are objectively worse. Certainly not when Australia is going to be in the top handful of places ever in human history in every category.
Ease up on the mayo.
 

Gethelred

Brownlow Medallist
May 1, 2016
19,188
39,969
AFL Club
Carlton
Has there ever been a society that hasn't had a hierarchy?
How would we know?

Humans have spent their time until very, very recently cramming orthodoxies down other human's throats, by sword and gun. If an alternative isn't permitted to be experimented with or allowed to rise, how would we know if it isn't an inevitability under a different set of priorities?
 

Soft Downhill Skier

2008-2010 wasn't me.
Sep 21, 2004
42,142
42,792
AFL Club
GWS
Hierarchies of competence are generally good. Provided all have access to that in an equal footing.

The main opponents of a true meritocracy are those currently in political and economic power.

Nobody who uses the term woke left in a discussion about hierarchies will ever be near the top.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

Carringbush2010

Brownlow Medallist
Jun 6, 2016
13,331
8,132
Perth
AFL Club
Collingwood
Other Teams
Pines Football Club
Can you nominate a society that we have documented evidence for that lacks a hierarchy?

I think you're presupposing an antecedent where one may not exist.
No you can't - that's the point. No hierarchy = anarchy.

That may sound simplistic but mark my words without it you have chaos.
 

Gethelred

Brownlow Medallist
May 1, 2016
19,188
39,969
AFL Club
Carlton
No you can't - that's the point. No hierarchy = anarchy.

That may sound simplistic but mark my words without it you have chaos.
I genuinely think you are presupposing a condition for societal existence that you haven't demonstrated. Just because hierarchical societies are the way things are does not immediately entail that they are the only option.
 

Pie eyed

Premium Platinum
Jun 26, 2007
40,016
18,596
AFL Club
Collingwood
Other Teams
Magpies
Art is better cos its more beautiful, stimulating and technically complex.

those who think certain art isnt better then other art debase the whole concept of art.

my kids drew a couple of squiggles on a piece of paper. Took them 1 minute. For you to say a Monet or Van Gogh isnt better then my kids art is objectively insulting to Monet and Van Gogh.
ROFL.

You think all great art takes a long time or something?
That all great art is visual?
That all great art is made by a professional artist?

That is not how it works.



You beliefs about art expose you more than you think.
 

Seeds

Hall of Famer
Sep 15, 2007
44,716
40,643
I don't know
AFL Club
Geelong
ROFL.

You think all great art takes a long time or something?
That all great art is visual?
That all great art is made by a professional artist?

That is not how it works.



You beliefs about art expose you more than you think.
Can you not read? Whose post are you responding to? Its certainly not mine.
 

Seeds

Hall of Famer
Sep 15, 2007
44,716
40,643
I don't know
AFL Club
Geelong
Hierarchies of merit are ideal and certain nations are far worse for people with disadvantages.

Should we invade the worse places on the planet to make their culture and society more like ours so that disadvantaged people can live better?

I'm not even sure we could get consensus that some places on Earth are objectively better and others are objectively worse. Certainly not when Australia is going to be in the top handful of places ever in human history in every category.
The answer to your question is yes.
 

Seeds

Hall of Famer
Sep 15, 2007
44,716
40,643
I don't know
AFL Club
Geelong
Poor people will always be poor, rich people will always be rich, and not because of merit, just because that's the way it is and has always been throughout history.

You seem to be having it both ways.
Thats not true at all. You are taking something that is more probable and assuming that its absolute. Thats a failure of logic. Rich people become destitute and Poor people become rich in all societies. but it happens far more often in societies based on merit.
 

Carringbush2010

Brownlow Medallist
Jun 6, 2016
13,331
8,132
Perth
AFL Club
Collingwood
Other Teams
Pines Football Club
I genuinely think you are presupposing a condition for societal existence that you haven't demonstrated. Just because hierarchical societies are the way things are does not immediately entail that they are the only option.
Presupposing? Maybe look at the question again, has there ever been a society without hierarchy? Well I can't think of one.

So I can't presuppose a society without one.

Hierarchy(s) are not a concept or societal construct, they're organic, a natural mammalian trait, they're NOT an 'option'. So I'm not sure what your point is.
 

Gethelred

Brownlow Medallist
May 1, 2016
19,188
39,969
AFL Club
Carlton
Presupposing? Maybe look at the question again, has there ever been a society without hierarchy? Well I can't think of one.

So I can't presuppose a society without one.
Maybe look at the post you're quoting again?

What I said was that you are presuming that hierarchies are a condition of society - or, for the purposes of this discussion, a condition of our mammalian ancestry - without definitive proof it is.

Hierarchy(s) are not a concept or societal construct, they're organic, a natural mammalian trait, they're NOT an 'option'. So I'm not sure what your point is.
My contention is this: demonstrate it as a human trait, as opposed to a mammalian trait, because in a lot of ways we've moved beyond simply being mammals and into a category of our own.
 

Carringbush2010

Brownlow Medallist
Jun 6, 2016
13,331
8,132
Perth
AFL Club
Collingwood
Other Teams
Pines Football Club
Maybe look at the post you're quoting again?

What I said was that you are presuming that hierarchies are a condition of society - or, for the purposes of this discussion, a condition of our mammalian ancestry - without definitive proof it is.


My contention is this: demonstrate it as a human trait, as opposed to a mammalian trait, because in a lot of ways we've moved beyond simply being mammals and into a category of our own.
Presuming? How can a society or any organised structure be that structure without hierarchy? There you should find your answer.

A human trait? You do realize we're mammals right? We're one and the same not mutually exclusive. This is not a 'choice' or an 'option', before humans could speak there was and still is an innate need to structure for the purpose of organization.

Feel free to argue that it is avoidable and not have structure, remembering there is not nor has there been a society without structure (not that I can think of nor has anyone provided evidence of), that should be interesting.
 

Gethelred

Brownlow Medallist
May 1, 2016
19,188
39,969
AFL Club
Carlton
Presuming? How can a society or any organised structure be that structure without hierarchy? There you should find your answer.

A human trait? You do realize we're mammals right? We're one and the same not mutually exclusive. This is not a 'choice' or an 'option', before humans could speak there was and still is an innate need to structure for the purpose of organization.

Feel free to argue that it is avoidable and not have structure, remembering there is not nor has there been a society without structure (not that I can think of nor has anyone provided evidence of), that should be interesting.
Relationships are inevitable, because interelation between two parties necessitates a relationship, but a hierarchy is different from a relationship.
 

Remove this Banner Ad

Remove this Banner Ad