Not necessarily, you may agree on the rules of co-existence, individual and rational differences remain better and faster
They may not agree on all issues. There are individual differences; what I want may not be what you want though we are guided by common principles
There would certainly be some disagreements though they will have a lot in common. They are imperfect humans!
Most probably NOT.
But the answer - will strongly depend
a) from the sizes of group (of selection)
b) from relationship in the considered group. Often contradictions arise even among the friends who are carrying out a common task - for example in a difficult backpacking. A good example you can find in a book "Psychological climate in tourist group" by A. Berman. According to his observations In group of Four - just there is no time for disagreements.
The group of 12 most often breaks up into 2 subgroups - everyone with its leader (situation "Leader and "anti-leader".
All in all: irrespectively - are the members of the chosen group of
"of free, equal, and rational people" - acquainted or chosen randomly - everyone has his own code of rules he follows.
There is more than one rational set of rules upon which which humans can co-exist.
Dennis
Dennis Mazur
They will not agree 100% but may agree upto a level as they may have some commonality.
All individuals are unique in nature, so they will not agree in all the issues.
People, being people will never agree. suppose that is why we are different
Depends on what counts as rational. If rationality is utility-maximization, agreements will be sabotaged by prisoner's dilemmas.
When two people agree in everything, one is not thinking.
Vilemar Magalhães
If you are sending them on a mission to Mars, then you can train them to agree! In a given country, we live under the rules of law that should apply equally to all but some violate them.
They may not agree on all issues. There are individual differences; what I want may not be what you want though we are guided by common principles
Certainly if a group of people agree on one thought they can live together
This question imposes a normative socio-economic model: it is not an actual question. Would a person who insisted that the free, rational human individual as a concept was a social construct be allowed to answer, or would they be regarded as non-rational? (Nāgārjuna, Evan Thompson and Emile Durkheim might all be examples of this.) What about a person who freely voted for communist parties, as in West Bengal and Nepal, or a woman who defended the cultural value of wearing the hijab?
No, but if they are rational, they can at least discuss their differences and how to reach an understanding.
Yes, if they are equal (close interests and income), free (independent) and rational (live by calculations of means/ends), they will all come to an optimal result and decide whatever leaves the group better off.
Obviously, some philosophers have thought so (Kant, Rawls, Gauthier) and given their reasons for thinking so.
Possibly, the fact that they don't agree between themselves on what this set of rules would look like is a reason to doubt that claim; at least if the philosophers in question can be considered free, equal and rational in the relevant sense.
If intellectual and healthy minds prevail, it would be possible to live in a peaceable society. It is highly unlikely, however, as I have seen some of the most peace loving individuals turn on those around them when they feel "backed in a corner" whether for real or by perception.
Yes they would, because having a set of commonly shared rules (starting with how to communicate) is the only way how people can live in groups. It s called culture and developed by every community of mankind.
The reason for the association of the groups, from my experience, is because there is a mutual interest. Regularly, this interest arises mainly when there are factors (internal or external to the group) that affect them. (Theory of social action).They aren´t mutual interest so no exist the association of the groups.
I agree with Subhash C. Kundu in that, as human beings, we would all share in similar wants and needs. It seems the disagreements we experience lie in the specifics. We have examples of this in the similarity of moral laws in early societies. So why the presence of warfare from those same early periods in societies? Because off the application of those wants and needs.
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Philosophy
- Moral Philosophy