Your profile reflects your reputation, it will build itself as you create new debates, write arguments and form new relationships.
Make it even more personal by adding your own picture and updating your basics.
Perfect
| Reward Points: | 3 |
| Efficiency:
Efficiency is a measure of the effectiveness of your arguments. It is the number of up votes divided by the total number of votes you have (percentage of votes that are positive). Choose your words carefully so your efficiency score will remain high. | 100% |
| Arguments: | 3 |
| Debates: | 0 |
The analogy presented about a large defence force is very much flawed.
The aim for the duration of the serving in the defense force is success of the unit, as failure will impinge upon the individual's life. In essence, it is still about benefiting the individual. Thus, the collective values will help the group and in turn, benefit the individual.
If society prospers, but as a citizen, you are poor, then you will remain poor. Whilst others will help and donate things to you, you will still be poor. Similarly, the success of the group does not help you as an individual.
The analogy presented about a large defence force is very much flawed.
The aim for the duration of the serving in the defense force is success of the unit, as failure will impinge upon the individual's life. In essence, it is still about benefiting the individual. Thus, the collective values will help the group and in turn, benefit the individual.
If society prospers, but as a citizen, you are poor, then you will remain poor. Whilst others will help and donate things to you, you will still be poor. Similarly, the success of the group does not help you as an individual.
The negative asserts:
- co-operation is always more successful
- only in unity can people benefit
- hence "stick[ing] together" is what one should do, for favourable outcomes.
Co-operation is successful on what terms, and for whom? Is group success more important than benefit for other people? I think not! The "moral corruption and detriment to both your[the individual] and other's outcomes" should NOT happen, in maintaining unity of the group.
No, it is not "only in unity that people can benefit". The idea of a group benefiting the members warrants actions that will benefit the collective. The negative has presented the outcomes of moral corruption and detrimental outcomes to other members of the group. How, then, will this "really benefit"? The negative is thus contradictory.
As a person, one should always act in accordance with one's set of values, and not deviate from it. Constant improvement to these values helps makes them "good" in terms of benefiting the person and maintaining a sustainable social environment with lessened suffering.
|
I am probably a good person but I haven't taken the time to fill out my profile, so you'll never know! |
