Will Societal Creation Be Immoral?

--- In spacesettlers@yahoogroups.com, "Brad Walsh"
> Seems to me the only way to handle this is to allow every human
the
> capability to investigate every possible cultureal/societal
variation and
> choose for themselves.

What if they like to be near their family and friends in one
particular Habitat but their personal ideals are fundamentally in
opposition to the purpose of that society. In a pluralistic society,
one could always find groups of similarly inclined people ato form a
social network. They could even advocate to change the society. That
doesn't necessarily work in a *splintered universe* of different
societal models.

The Tin Can full of
> anti-religionists can raise their children as they see fit,
including
> (withing their household) labeling religion as delusion. But by
making
> religion out to be Anathema within their community, and outlawing
it from
> their Can on pain of banishment, aren't they just being Taliban,
declaring
> war on the rest of humanity that doesn't submit to their way of
thinking?

Not really. They're choosing to live according to their own beliefs,
not impose them on the rest of humanity. I chose religion because it
is close to many people's lives and there is a lot of well-meaning
zealotry to try to convert others to join, so such a Habitat would
be a magnet to those trying to undo the experiment.

You can substitute Libertarianism for religion. You can choose
homosexual to the exclusion of heterosexual, or vice versa. You can
substitute Mennonite for Athiest. A bunch of Atheists decide that a
Mennonite Habitat has to be made more liberal to oppsoing views.
They join and try to subvert. Or some kids grow up and turn out to
be trouble-making athiests. Same problem as I described, but now the
tables are turned. What do you do with those Athiest young adults?
Re-educate them in the ways of the church and community or allow
them to spread the seed of doubt and thus undermine the very
rationale for the Habitat?

Are they all Taliban for excluding other, opposing points of view?

I
> hold the same view for religious extremists and for Orionists--
movement
> between orbital colonies should ideally be by choice alone,
because anything
> else is denial of an innate right, and an implicit threat to all
humanity.

>From your answer I take your position to be that the right of the
individual takes precedence over the right to the community to
remain true to its defining character. Do you reach the conclusion
that this leads to an environment that precludes long-term stability
for these societal crucibles?

> To me it would be so much cooler to shop societies, and to know
that I had
> the right to bail on one if I got there and found it to be
unsuitable for
> me.

Me too. I choose the one I like, settle there, raise a family, and
things are tickety-boo for a couple of generations and then BAM,
some descendent of mine decides they're something that is anathema
to the rest of the community. Because this descendent has long term
roots there and knows no other community they're not so inclined to
*shop around* for another community and abandon all they know. What
to do?

>
> Of course there is implied in this proposed system the need for
all humanity
> to find a consensus "decency," and to ostracize groups that cross
beyond
> that boundary.

Let me play Devil's Advocate.

Why? These groups are literally their own little worlds. What does
it matter to the rest of humanity how they decide to conduct
themselves.

Humankind can't live with a subset that permits cannibalism
> or pedophilia, because we perceive these to be groups that commit
violence
> against the innocent.

They chose to live there. Why can't they decide to live according to
their own creed? If you know the rules going in . . .

Of course you've highlighted two behaviors that are extreme and
unlikely to form groups of likeminded people.

How do people decide they have a hankering for eating other people
and then seek out others of similar persuasion? Do they eye up the
group for their similar beliefs or for how they would taste roasted
versus baked versus boiled?

As to pedophilia, I don't see a punch of pedophiliacs getting
together, bearing children, raising them, all in order to molest
them, and having this continue for generations. This instability is
inherent in the design. I can't see it taking off.

>
> Don't worry, atheism is clearly still well within the line
of "decency",
> even among Christians.
>
> Brad

Ah, down here it is, but how well received is it when a group want
to settle and live their lives in a certain fashion, perhaps even to
escape from the athiests and their influence in society. Now to find
that what they attempted to escape from on Earth is stalking them in
orbit and trying to undo their work at creating their desired
society.

TangoMan