Could the whole world be solved in one line?

[Ellie]

If a new holy book was published, (I suggest calling it the Book of Dave(c) :p), which just contained one line, could this solve all the world's problems if everyone stuck to it?

Fer example:

1. Do whatever the hell you want so long as it does not harm others in the process.

Murder: breaks the rule, as it harms others.
Rape: breaks the rule as it harms others (even if only mentally).
Stealing: it harms others as it costs them money, which they rightfully earnt, which they could need for fuel money, travelling, running their house. Without it they are hurt mentally and also could be hurt by dying of starvation or whatever.
Pornography: ok as it doesn't harm others, unless it is a form that does, such as a filmed rape.
Hentai: ok, as it doesn't harm others in any way.
Drinking alcohol: it doesn't harm others.
Drinking alcohol *in excess in public*: could harm others. (You get into fights, waste police time, etc).
Smoking: ok, if you enjoy it.
Smoking *in public*: breaks the rule as it harms others.
Lesbian/gay/bisexual/transexual/straight: all fine as it doesn't harm others.

In theory this seems like a perfect solution, but of course nothing works in reality. This thread is to discuss this. Can our world be solved in one line? If so, what would that line be, why, and would it work exactly?

Obviously in my example you could argue that you don't like people watching Hentai, so that indirectly harms you mentally. Or, you could argue that stealing from a rich person doesn't harm them.

(Sorry - does this belong in the Symposium? I think it does, but then... I could be wrong. I mean, it's a debate, a discussion, etc).

 

[sixtyandaquarter]

Debate?
On what? That having 1 line is better than 10 (commandments) when no one can pay attention to any 1 of those 10? How would 1 line be any better?
Have one vague line leaves room open for all sorts of people to come in and take things out of order - look at nearly every quoted line from a holy source and you'll manage to find thousands of different ways people are bending that line.

Who defines harm?
Lesbians gays, etc... don't harm me - but someone else is harmed by it in their minds. Boom. We're right back where we started only instead of having 10 things we can revoke parts of we can revoke 1 entire thing - not much better.
Pornography? Yeah some people blame it for harming moral fiber.
Religion itself is called harmful - whoops can't have a faith. Can't be of a political view either, as your views are harmful to the social classes by some eyes. Suddenly you can't do very much - why? Because there are assholes out there in the really real world who like to twist and pervert every wording they can - that's why 10 is better than 1... everyone thinks it's so easy to pervert an entire set of commandments or an entire scripture, but it's a lot easier to pervert 1 line of nonsense.

I fail to see symposium, but I'm not sure if I'll close this... yet.

 

[Yum]

Debate?
On what? That having 1 line is better than 10 (commandments) when no one can pay attention to any 1 of those 10? How would 1 line be any better?

I think he wanted to discuss whether or not it's possible to write a single line which would sum up the solutions to fixing the world's problems - that and only that, not that it would be better than having 10 lines, just if it was theoretically possible. I kinda believe it is:

Be selfless.

Maybe if everyone followed that rule, noone would ever get hurt?

 

[High Hopes]

This sounds similar to what Janna Levin was talking about on the August 26th Edition of the Colbert Report. She was saying that she, and some other theoretical physicists, were trying to reduce all of the laws of the universe down to one mathematical equation.

I happen to agree with $60.25. There's room to interpret everything(Well, except 2+2) in a different manner. One vague rule, rather than ten less-vague rules, could(and would) be easily twisted to make it mean something else.

 

[Venetia]

I think the sentence'd have to be really long ...

Don't kill, don't steal, don't cheat, don't molest, don't harm, don't infringe, don't disobey, don't blindly obey, don't hook, don't phish, don't skip out on taxes, don't knock around the elderly, don't drive your car through a schoolyard, don't get drunk and pass out on the lawn of the President, don't flip off the cops, don't jumpkick your little sister, don't make out with animals, don't go to donkey shows ........

But if you summed it all up, I guess:
'Don't be a dumbass.'

Murder: dumbass.
Rape: dumbass.
Stealing: dumbass, except when totally awesome.
Pornography: sweet
Hentai: super sweet
Drinking alcohol: spice of life
Drinking alcohol *in excess in public*: dumbass.
Smoking: weh
Smoking *in public*: dumbass.
Lesbian/gay/bisexual/transexual/straight: the slightly-melted-but-still-totally-edible icecream of life

All humor aside though, I think a lot of crime would be quelled if people stopped their dumbassery. Then again, no one-law could squelch all crimes, because it's all up to interpretation by the litigators, victims, and perpetrators.

 

[sixtyandaquarter]

Yum, read the words that make up the sentences.
"A new holy book", automatically brings up the old holy books. The common thought when you think of holy books in the Western World is in the Judeo Christian tree (yes, that includes Muslims for the people who don't know any better). What's in that tree? 10 commandments.
Hence the divide in my response between 1 rule compared to 10 sentence.

On top of 'can there?', 'will there?', 'should there?' is the comparison between, with the words discuss not far behind.

 

[Yum]

Yum, read the words that make up the sentences.

lol. you're telling moi to do that.

quarter:

"A new holy book", automatically brings up the old holy books.

Okay but what does the original poster say after talking about "A new holy book"

wyatt:

which just contained one line, could this solve all the world's problems if everyone stuck to it?

Hence my point:

I think he wanted to discuss whether or not it's possible to write a single line which would sum up the solutions to fixing the world's problems - that and only that, not that it would be better than having 10 lines, just if it was theoretically possible.

stands.

he's not trying to compare it to the 10 commandments, it's more of a write your own new line thing.

And hell, even the 10 commandments are flawed - too many different exegesis.

The common thought when you think of holy books in the Western World is in the Judeo Christian tree (yes, that includes Muslims for the people who don't know any better). What's in that tree? 10 commandments.
Hence the divide in my response between 1 rule compared to 10 sentence.

Okay, thanks for pointing out your tree of logic as to why you posted something which didn't answer the original poster's point of investigation.

 

[Ellie]

I used the "holy book" example because of all the people who seem to follow the bible, the qu'ran, the er... all the other ones, to the exact word. (If they follow 1,000 pages then surely they'd follow one line).

Don't be a dumbass sounds good in theory but then in reality, whose to say what dumbass means? Someone who's been locked up for a long time for repeated child abuse obviously doesn't see what he's doing as wrong, so he wont see himself as being a dumbass. But then other people will see him as being a dumbass.

> And yes, I'm in no way comparing it to the ten commandments, since the bible and others contain a lot more than just those ten contradictory statements.

 

[Cruelty]

Nothing just makes everything all better.

 

[sixtyandaquarter]

No one follows any holy book to the line, it's impossible. Hell, the Pope goes to confession every single day, and that guys supposed to be all holier than I - and I haven't gone in, god.... umm... over a decade?

But that doesn't matter.
You say 1 line. I'm telling you 10 aren't working. I'm telling you people break all 10, what's going to stop them from breaking 1? There's 10, a better chance of breaking them - and at the same a clear indication. Don't murder - people break that all the time. Don't steal - oops, kinda breaking that all the time too people are. Don't do this and that - guess what? It's being done.

One line will fail where 10 did as well, if not just as badly or more so because there is now so much room to bend. There's a reason governments have dozens of laws over the same crime in regions - because theres less room to bend.

Throw out my bible reference if you want, but it stands. You want to throw it out, fine I'll just replace it with the 10 rules at my old public school that all cover up "don't be a dick" and all fail equally.

 

[Yum]

It's supposed to be theoretical. Please 60.25 -_- which part is so hard to understand

Original poster:

which just contained one line, could this solve all the world's problems if everyone stuck to it?

Oh and wyatt: I still stand by "People stop being selfish" line. that oughta fix the world up.

 

[sixtyandaquarter]

Yum... that defeats the purpose of debate and discussion. Of course you can sum it all up in one line. But "if everyone stuck to it" leads to no debate whatsoever. Because then, you just have a "if I said the sky was red with purple polka dot clouds and if everyone believed me does that make me right?" argument.

 

[Yum]

Yum... that defeats the purpose of debate and discussion. Of course you can sum it all up in one line. But "if everyone stuck to it" leads to no debate whatsoever.

Incorrect. For example: I say People should stop being selfish, and they actually did - would that solve the world's problems? - can that contradict itself? Is being selfish too broad a characteristic to use? What about a situation where not being selfish can get you to lose something due to a lack of adapted expectations and thus you hurt yourself/ your own? Which problems does it actually seek to solve?

Questions still arise, arguments can be formed, there can be debates.

Because then, you just have a "if I said the sky was red with purple polka dot clouds and if everyone believed me does that make me right?" argument.

Different content, different approaches to discussion. Just because both of our statements are theoretical, hypothetical and consist of one line doesn't mean they can have the same content or direction. "if I said the sky was red with purple polka dot clouds and if everyone believed me does that make me right?" Does not have content nor direction in this context and is thus not a valid parallel.

Although even that statement can prompt debate in the right forum i.e. Cogito ergo sum? other theories on existence? and all that.

Good game.

 

[Venetia]

I think you all suck eggs at debating! My way of debating is way better, because:

a.) I like dictionary.com
b.) I like thesaurus.com
c.) Reason C
d.) I think I'm right, therefore, I am.
e.) You all have tiny fundamental flaws in your phrasing I can exploit! >:'D

So instead of keeping the argument going with topical remarks, I'll jab you all with a pointy stick! BWAHAHA feel my wrath

[/half-assed mimicry]

 

[Despain]

Yes, the whole world can be solved in one line:

Despain is king.

 

[candle]

Be selfless.

Maybe if everyone followed that rule, noone would ever get hurt?

You have obviouslt never read Terry Goodkind's Sword of Truth series. Go read it in its entirety and you will see what is so completely wrong with that statement.

 

[Brosek]

I think the sentence'd have to be really long ...

Don't kill, don't steal, don't cheat, don't molest, don't harm, don't infringe, don't disobey, don't blindly obey, don't hook, don't phish, don't skip out on taxes, don't knock around the elderly, don't drive your car through a schoolyard, don't get drunk and pass out on the lawn of the President, don't flip off the cops, don't jumpkick your little sister, don't make out with animals, don't go to donkey shows ........

But if you summed it all up, I guess:
'Don't be a dumbass.'

Murder: dumbass.
Rape: dumbass.
Stealing: dumbass, except when totally awesome.
Pornography: sweet
Hentai: super sweet
Drinking alcohol: spice of life
Drinking alcohol *in excess in public*: dumbass.
Smoking: weh
Smoking *in public*: dumbass.
Lesbian/gay/bisexual/transexual/straight: the slightly-melted-but-still-totally-edible icecream of life

All humor aside though, I think a lot of crime would be quelled if people stopped their dumbassery. Then again, no one-law could squelch all crimes, because it's all up to interpretation by the litigators, victims, and perpetrators.

I can understand some crimes... "Desperation crimes" that is.

Crime: Robbing a bank, because you want to be rich.
Desperation Crime: Robbing a bank, because your daughter is dying and its the only way to save her.

Crime: Killing someone because they disrespected you.
Desperation Crime: Killing someone because they rushed you with the urge to take your life. I.E.: Self-Defense

Crime: Vandalizing public property because you can
Desperation Crime: Vandalizing public property because its the only way to save your life.

Also.. there is one word that sums up everything.

Hourglass.

 

[Yum]

You have obviouslt never read Terry Goodkind's Sword of Truth series. Go read it in its entirety and you will see what is so completely wrong with that statement.

No thanks, I don't like using up my time on long fantasy books, nor do I take Mr. Goodkind's stories as the words of Ultimate Truth YHVH.

 

[candle]

While SoT is in fact a fantasy series, it is governed by a philosophical outlook on life very similar to that of Ayn Rand. There may be magic in the books, but every book contains a "rule" that is an undeniable truth about how the human civilization works. Each "rule" is very simple and sometimes nothing more than common sense.

Your life is yours alone, rise up and live it. While not one of his "rules," this statement is the underlying principle of Goodkind's SoT.

To sum up the major philosophy of SoT, being selfless for the sake of being selfless is in fact selfish and will only result in harm to you and those around you.

Being selfless in helping others is to give them control over your life. You no longer have any right to it but what they deign to give you.

Being selfish is being human. Every action you make is selfish to some extent because you will almost always expect something in return. In religion, you give your devotion for salvation, not because it is the "right" thing to do.

"Right" and "wrong" are truths, and, like all truths, they are entirely relative. They exist only to those who perceive them, and no two people view them exactly the same.

Only through selfish desires can you live a full and wholesome life. Your life is yours alone, rise up and live it.

You don't have to read the entire series to understand it, though. The Faith of the Fallen is entirely about selflessness and selfish desires, though that is not why it is my favorite book.

It is my favorite because of its depiction of both the nobility and the depravity of mankind. The 'noble' life is governed by openly selfish desires, and the 'depraved' life is governed by selfish desires hidden behind the mask of selflessness.

Of course, you don't have to believe in Goodkind's philosophy, but after reading his books and coming to know and love them, I have seen many instances where his "rules" are in fact truth.

 

[Yum]

Every action you make is selfish to some extent because you will almost always expect something in return. In religion, you give your devotion for salvation, not because it is the "right" thing to do...

You don't always expect something in return... well maybe you do but not for some other people. But I suppose relatively few people can understand the meaning of true servitude.

Right let's get into the meat of it.

Being selfless in helping others is to give them control over your life. You no longer have any right to it but what they deign to give you.

Not if you define subjugating/ manipulating others as selfish because then when we take into consideration that noone else in the world is selfish either, noone will subjugate or manipulate others (for their own selfish ends) and noone will want to control you negatively.

Fin.

It is my favorite because of its depiction of both the nobility and the depravity of mankind. The 'noble' life is governed by openly selfish desires, and the 'depraved' life is governed by selfish desires hidden behind the mask of selflessness.

Oh I get my kicks out of that from the real world

While SoT is in fact a fantasy series, it is governed by a philosophical outlook on life very similar to that of Ayn Rand. There may be magic in the books, but every book contains a "rule" that is an undeniable truth about how the human civilization works. Each "rule" is very simple and sometimes nothing more than common sense.

':|