Star Trek's Vulcan culture had it right
A few totally random and unconsolidated musings from a guy who definitely is not a philosopher and not prone to esotericism:
Yes, the good of the many outweigh the good of the few: I would sacrifice myself for family and friends, and I would sacrifice family and friends for the good of a greater concept of culture/community.
...And related, Personal responsibility is more valuable to community than personal rights: An individual obsessed with what he/she believes to be his/her own rights has the potential to be acting out a conflict of interest with his/her society. I will defend your rights to the end, and hope at least some of the beneficiaries will do the same for me.
...And further related, Emotional behavior, acting upon personal passion, is totally overrated: You could also say "'sensitive' is too often synonymous with 'selfish' in describing people." Personal passions are too often used as an excuse to behave badly towards fellow humans, to deliberately seek out conflict. My responsibility is to the efficient operation of my society. I would rather act following accepted rules of polite behavior than demand recognition for my emotions.
...And even further related, Your difference of opinion from mine is not sufficient reason for conflict: The nice thing about opinions is that every one of them is correct. I personally actually like to work with people of differing opinion; it provides insight I myself might not have. I am interested in productive motion towards my goals and personal interests. That is best served in building collaboration/consensus and avoiding conflict. I have no interest in sustaining enmities or grudges. I'm really into keeping the peace and sustaining friendship with all who aren't deliberately evil (and frankly, the deliberately evil are relatively rare amongst people who are capable of any level of social interaction). If you find disagreement and become interested in sustaining enmity with me, I'd rather simply walk away and find others willing to collaborate. There are plenty of them out there.
Evidence is of greater practical use than faith: I don't want to dwell too long on this because I very sincerely do not want to cause affront to the faith of friends. Personally, I felt liberated, almost a "born again" sensation, when I came to the realization that the concept of faith itself was not of service to the way I conduct my daily business. I began to analyze why I believe things and allow more evidence-driven plasticity where I discovered lingering beliefs without evidence. Again, I will defend your right to faith to the bitter end, but faith itself is not for me.
...And related, Anecdote and human perception are lousy tools of objective observation: An accumulation of anecdotes can be more useful, but best of all are quantitative, instrumental measurements and statistical hypothesis tests.
...And further related, "Proof" is a concept for mathematics, courts of law, and children engaged in schoolyard dispute, not necessarily for scientific disciplines: "Proof" only has a place in non-mathematical scientific endeavors on very, very rare occurrences. To know a thing and systematically seek its proof functionally eliminates the greatest strength of the scientific method, the mechanism for self-correction. Proponents of creationism sometimes argue that "science is disproved all the time", which kinda misses the point that it's supposed to be. Disproving some hypotheses leaves evidence for those left standing. That's the whole "why" of why scientific disciplines progress.
The rule of law should serve as a minimum standard of behavior, at least in places where the citizenry has a mechanism to reasonably influence law: In such places, if an individual perceives institutional injustice or a law that is not likely to achieve its intent, that individual should work to change the law through proper channels, not willfully break it. Ideally, law should reflect the (preferably secular) values of its society.
Carry on.
...and live long and prosper.
Yes, the good of the many outweigh the good of the few: I would sacrifice myself for family and friends, and I would sacrifice family and friends for the good of a greater concept of culture/community.
...And related, Personal responsibility is more valuable to community than personal rights: An individual obsessed with what he/she believes to be his/her own rights has the potential to be acting out a conflict of interest with his/her society. I will defend your rights to the end, and hope at least some of the beneficiaries will do the same for me.
...And further related, Emotional behavior, acting upon personal passion, is totally overrated: You could also say "'sensitive' is too often synonymous with 'selfish' in describing people." Personal passions are too often used as an excuse to behave badly towards fellow humans, to deliberately seek out conflict. My responsibility is to the efficient operation of my society. I would rather act following accepted rules of polite behavior than demand recognition for my emotions.
...And even further related, Your difference of opinion from mine is not sufficient reason for conflict: The nice thing about opinions is that every one of them is correct. I personally actually like to work with people of differing opinion; it provides insight I myself might not have. I am interested in productive motion towards my goals and personal interests. That is best served in building collaboration/consensus and avoiding conflict. I have no interest in sustaining enmities or grudges. I'm really into keeping the peace and sustaining friendship with all who aren't deliberately evil (and frankly, the deliberately evil are relatively rare amongst people who are capable of any level of social interaction). If you find disagreement and become interested in sustaining enmity with me, I'd rather simply walk away and find others willing to collaborate. There are plenty of them out there.
Evidence is of greater practical use than faith: I don't want to dwell too long on this because I very sincerely do not want to cause affront to the faith of friends. Personally, I felt liberated, almost a "born again" sensation, when I came to the realization that the concept of faith itself was not of service to the way I conduct my daily business. I began to analyze why I believe things and allow more evidence-driven plasticity where I discovered lingering beliefs without evidence. Again, I will defend your right to faith to the bitter end, but faith itself is not for me.
...And related, Anecdote and human perception are lousy tools of objective observation: An accumulation of anecdotes can be more useful, but best of all are quantitative, instrumental measurements and statistical hypothesis tests.
...And further related, "Proof" is a concept for mathematics, courts of law, and children engaged in schoolyard dispute, not necessarily for scientific disciplines: "Proof" only has a place in non-mathematical scientific endeavors on very, very rare occurrences. To know a thing and systematically seek its proof functionally eliminates the greatest strength of the scientific method, the mechanism for self-correction. Proponents of creationism sometimes argue that "science is disproved all the time", which kinda misses the point that it's supposed to be. Disproving some hypotheses leaves evidence for those left standing. That's the whole "why" of why scientific disciplines progress.
The rule of law should serve as a minimum standard of behavior, at least in places where the citizenry has a mechanism to reasonably influence law: In such places, if an individual perceives institutional injustice or a law that is not likely to achieve its intent, that individual should work to change the law through proper channels, not willfully break it. Ideally, law should reflect the (preferably secular) values of its society.
Carry on.
...and live long and prosper.