[can't get to my Sent folder right now and i am afraid i may be over the limit for the day. if so, apologies!]
andie nachgeborenen wrote:
> Ravi suggested aome stone-age model, which is not realistic barring
> catastrophe. So maybe we have not exhausted the alternatives, but
> what are they? Please describe one in at least very general terms.
>
listen old chap, i never suggested a stone age model. in fact i said approx: "i supposed you are leaving out tribal/aboriginal/similar societies because they are not possible?". well, now that you have maligned my position ;-), i might as well adopt it: such societies still do exist, don't they: aboriginal tribes, gypsies, etc?
you also write:
> I don't know that much anthropology, but I also don't know of any
> tribal/aboriginal society that aspires to anything like the degree of
> human freedom and dignity embodied in liberal ideals. (And rarely
> realized even in part even in those.) It would be surprising if they
> did, those aspirations being a late development of a highly
> articulated modern society.
i entire agree with your careful use of the word "aspiration" rather than "achievement". but what if, as i had asked, other societies had "achieved" these ideals without such explicit and well-understood and expressed (formalized) aspirations. perhaps (to go out on an analytically unstable limb here) the very need to come up with aspirations and frameworks and act based on them prevents us from reaching a more natural state of peaceful co-existence? (apologies if i sound too new age ;-)).
miles responds to my question:
> As often as I bring up examples of hunting and gathering tribes to
> illustrate that our social arrangements are neither necessary nor
> universal, the anthropological research supports Justin's point:
> h & g societies tend to be intolerant of diversity (if you
> don't share the tribe's religious beliefs, you're expelled).
> So if you value social diversity, in general, you don't want
> to live in a small hunting & gathering tribe.
ok, to play devil's advocate, does diversity matter i.e., can we come up with a set of moral objectives and beliefs that does not include or require diversity? i sense i am re-opening the debate with this one, and perhaps i need to go back and re-read the thread.
also, like jks i don't know much about anthropology, but from my meagre reading it looks like the opinion seems to swing a bit back and forth (first mead is right, then she is wrong, then she may be right again, and then there's bodley, i think that's his name), no? is your background in anthropology?
finally, to jks:
accepting your premise, what if we have run the course with western liberalism? what if this is as good as its going to get?
--ravi