Is it true that how well people treat each other is the measure of a society's greatness

maybe

At the very most basic, we can identify basic "goods" or needs of living things. Example: If we lived in a society which never experienced hunger or starvation, that does not limit us from understanding that life without free access to food would be less favorable.

Maslow's Hierarchy of needs is a good benchmark to start from.

I wonder how much a room full of starving people next to a room of dying people or a room full of people in extreme comfort would feel about their struggles

Attached: z4e2e1cpt5l11.jpg (768x1024, 266K)

Thats exactly what the world is like as we speak. Not only in terms of access to food, but wealth, power, stability, education, etc.

We are socially irresponsible as a species, and funny enough those who fight for social responsibility are demonized.

It seems like being told you're above or below average wouldn't change anything... also that may be a problem of calculation

What do you mean by socially irresponsible? Like a bad influence on others? A damage to society? by what measure?

It isn't a matter of being told one thing or another and what do you mean by a problem of calculation.

socially irresponsible meaning that as social creatures with responsibilities to our kin, our actions are irresponsible. That we know all humans ought to have access to food, yet allow starvation to follow the previous example.

The measure is our experience as living conscious beings. Again, Maslows Hierarchy is a good benchmark/starting point in identifying what a socially responsible version of human civilization would grant to its people by right.

Yes.

Adequacy isn't graded on a curve.

by calculation I mean something like how much weight/importance/relevance we attribute to a description or value. Like, how important/relevant we think something is in our self value. so if I think intelligence is important and I measure myself and everyone around me by an estimate of that metric - to decide how valuable a person is because they have that quality I think - but it could be that I decide
that what really matters is that we're all a part of what might be a sacred opportunity in the empty universe and what a person does to bring beauty into the lives of others is what makes a refined person.

...and while intelligence can empower us to bring meaningful benefit to others one might be very capable of solving problems through thinking without having arrived at that conclusion (maybe yet).

like. also all of our language and behavior we pull from what other people happen to be doing instead of death

Also, maslow seems to have misplaced a need for social connection

adequacy meaning physical reactions don't happen without their components or in the psychology of people

Attached: 39897720821_37c1da8fb6_o.jpg (912x684, 197K)

Its been a while - I checked there are social warmth needs. Maybe need for social context is included in that idea

Definitely toward the more biological end of the spectrum, but it also apples at the social level as well, where people's dispositions affect how much and what kind of social contact, how much sameness and consistency, how much love/sex, etc. they may need. All the same, it's important that these needs and their satisfaction are weighed in the absolute sense, rather than relative to what some other person needs or has.

Social connection is literally the first thing after literally staying alive. Maslow placed very high weight on social connection.

We aren't talking about the weighted importance of "intelligence" but rather basic requirements of survival (base two levels of Maslows Hierarchy), followed by connection with social support (third level), followed by self and societal means for advancement ( top two levels). Intelligence -might- be characterized in the top levels, but also so would artistic creativity and other ephemera.

in the psychology where the reactions are more obscured through the amount of involved variables or otherwise through being our of reach by current understanding

Attached: nt79pz6cx7711.jpg (600x613, 74K)

>the self comes last
/pol/ wouldn't take that well, at all.

D'awwww

Attached: 1533785737308.jpg (750x563, 65K)

in the psychology where the reactions are more obscured through the amount of involved variables or otherwise through being our of reach by current subjective understanding

Attached: 38789557080_ed209d8341_o.jpg (5508x3397, 1.01M)

Depends what is meant by "self". I'd argue that we begin developing "self-ness" at the third stage through to the point, each step up reinforcing and galvanizing the previous stages. Further, the base two levels are still in pursuit of the self, but at the primal existential level of either fulfilling those needs or ceasing to exist.

How absolute is something when your sense of pain changes not only through the day but within an event - where swearing or finding a reason to fight may dull the reading of pain in a mind

Attached: ss.png (500x376, 17K)

selfhood (as separate from the rest of the universe) is maybe to perception of importance anywhere.

a carbon atom if it had a consciousness maybe would exist in a space where pipework of contemplation is replaced by immediate reaction. maybe this is incoherent

Attached: _y_UQp09IEWAnyowKGc3STJWGzGBJZWw3rrMpgT9WAs.jpg (576x768, 101K)