Is democracy better than despotism?
How can we say unless one thing is right and the other is wrong? Don't all our political ideas contain a grain of moral thinking? Maybe not!
What do you think?
It is important in a discussion like this to define terms. We (US) do not live, nor ever lived in a democracy. We live in a sort of Republic with elected representatives making the decisions for us. Here is one good way to put it:
"Key Takeaways: Republic vs. Democracy
Republics and democracies both provide a political system in which citizens are represented by elected officials who are sworn to protect their interests.
In a pure democracy, laws are made directly by the voting majority leaving the rights of the minority largely unprotected.
In a republic, laws are made by representatives chosen by the people and must comply with a constitution that specifically protects the rights of the minority from the will of the majority.
The United States, while basically a republic, is best described as a “representative democracy.â€
In a republic, an official set of fundamental laws, like the U.S. Constitution and Bill of Rights, prohibits the government from limiting or taking away certain “inalienable†rights of the people, even if that government was freely chosen by a majority of the people. In a pure democracy, the voting majority has almost limitless power over the minority.
The United States, like most modern nations, is neither a pure republic nor a pure democracy. Instead, it is a hybrid democratic republic.
The main difference between a democracy and a republic is the extent to which the people control the process of making laws under each form of government."
In my view, a govt formed from a well written constitution, is the way to go. (I know, what is a 'well written constitution'?)
Despotism. What is that. Here is one definition:
"The English dictionary defines despotism as "the rule of a despot; the exercise of absolute authority." The root despot comes from the Greek word despotes, which means "master" or "one with power." The term has been used to describe many rulers and governments throughout history." Is that good or bad? Can't tell without the details. Some despots (usually called a benevolent ruler) are good for the people. Most haven't been. And some were mixed; some elements of rule bad others good.
Rather than hoping for a benevolent ruler, I'd prefer a constitutional republic--as long as all are forced to follow the established rules and laws.
QuoteIs democracy better than despotism?
We would first need a definition of "better" before we could answer that question. What exactly do you mean by better, or perhaps more accurately by what criteria are we defining better and worse to be?
Quote from: Vulcan on March 15, 2021, 09:31:19 PM
Is democracy better than despotism?
A wise, beneficent ruler might result in better consequences for all involved than democracy but the problem is the path to power selects for narcissism and sociopathy. I can imagine a future AI making decisions that resulted in more equitable outcomes than the results of a popular vote. I, for one, welcome our AI overlords.
Yes, we can.
Quote from: Vulcan on March 15, 2021, 09:31:19 PM
Is democracy better than despotism?
Yes.
QuoteHow can we say unless one thing is right and the other is wrong? Don't all our political ideas contain a grain of moral thinking? Maybe not!
What do you think?
Basic human rights - the Law - Social contract. You don't harm, abuse, kill people knowingly, you don't violate their rights, you obey the law. If you break any rules of that triangle, you face different levels of sanctions, social or lawful.
The point of democracy is a constant push for providing
standards for as many people as possible, without any exceptions. However, standards are not only just provided by the state, its organs and its institutions, but also members of a given society.
Other than that, people can have any kind of ideas about 'rights or wrongs'. As long as that system is established and sustained, the individual ideas of 'right and wrong', 'morality' and 'ethics' in any context are only the subject of philosophical discourse. If they want to discuss about right or wrong, they can take a philosophy course, join a group.
Which brings up the question of what are those standards. While it looks like an awfully messy and complicated subject, it is really not. The most important base is the rules and laws, opportunities must work equally for everybody. That's pretty much it. Basic standards.
If people with capital and wealth, with different physical traits, genders, sexual orientation, ethnic background are treated completely different ways than some other in that triangle -which is what has been happening everywhere around the world- then there will be corruption and conflict, most importantly crime in every scale. I'm not talking about some fairy tale understanding of 'justice'. Justice is again, a standard.
Democracy is NOT freedom; 'I can do, get whatever I want'. Democracy is NOT 'so many fancy civil rights and rights to do whatever you want'. That's monarchy-oligarchy...fascism in the end. Because only a group of people can do or have whatever they want in a society. That's the basic math. Doesn't matter how many people live in what size of a place. Doesn't matter, if there are two people living in somewhere. A man called Daniel Defoe have illustrated that brilliantly, 300 years ago.
Democracy is about self awareness of putting a limit to everything, it is about knowing that 'freedom' is either for all, or for none when it comes to the autonomy and continuity of that system. It's a system for adults. Not for billions of snot crying, tantrum throwing brats like us... "But I waant all thaaat, I haaate all the otheeers".
With the right leader despotism could be much better. Finding the right leader? Not much of a chance.
There is no end to the shit humans believe.
Quote from: aitm on March 16, 2021, 08:58:34 AM
With the right leader despotism could be much better. Finding the right leader? Not much of a chance.
Let's say you found one. He/she is going to be someone, something completely different when holds power. The right leader doesn't exist. It's like children dreaming of the perfect parents in a way. There are no perfect parents. Child needs to grow up and take care of himself.
Quote from: Shiranu on March 15, 2021, 11:32:50 PM
We would first need a definition of "better" before we could answer that question. What exactly do you mean by better, or perhaps more accurately by what criteria are we defining better and worse to be?
Right. So "better" could mean (for purposes of this conversation) what kind of society you think is just or preferable without regards to mere efficiency.
To avoid circular reasoning by injecting the word just (or justice) into the premises, let me ask you: Do you think having a society where civil liberties are respected is better than a society who (on an efficiency level) is equal to it, but has no civil liberties? Can "civil liberties in our your society" be anything other than an ethical concern? What about not wanting racism in society? (Or a society based on racism?) Is this not wholly a moral concern?
I have my own views on this, but I didn't ask the question in order to push my own position. I think it's a matter worth discussing. I did need to clarify what "good" meant... and the definition I'm giving is "ideal for you (the answerer of the question) in any way except efficiency."
Another way to go about answering the question is to ask yourself what political views you hold, and then remove all moral and ethical propositions from them. Is whatever you are left over with is sufficient for a worthwhile or sufficient political schema? (Meaning "sufficient to you" or maybe "sufficient for a rational person"... not "potentially sufficient for anybody.")
I think "Right" and "Wrong" are only human conceptions and don't exist by themselves.
Quote from: Vulcan on March 17, 2021, 04:29:55 PM
Right. So "better" could mean (for purposes of this conversation) what kind of society you think is just or preferable without regards to mere efficiency.
What do you mean by efficiency? Certainly, you can provide some sort of 'efficieny' by slavery or oppression of certain groups and classes. Honestly, it feels like you have some sort of slavery in mind as you are arguing about some hypothetical system without "civil liberties". If you remove people's basic, legal rights and use them to provide efficiency in a society, that system is called slavery. In practical terms, building that system would require mass violance of every kind commited by some authority in a given land which is the definitiion of genocide. It's really not an 'efficient' system interestingly enough.
But then you can't remove all kinds of 'ethics' and 'universal morality', and point which people are to lose or not to lose the 'civil liberties' for 'efficiency', can you? Unless you want to toss a coin? Or you just simply assume that the current traditional system of white supremacy is the basic ground to go which is based on 'religious ethics' to begin with: that non-white groups are 'inferior'; they are bad for 'efficiency' and so that they are created to serve the 'superior' white men. So it is based on some morality. Good old,
religious morality. They have come up with a 'secular' version of it some time ago. But the original source is religous ethics.
Yeah...When you just think, you removed what you think should be removed because it is some sort of an invented nonsense from your point of view, you end up where you started. Doesn't look sufficient for a rational person.
QuoteTo avoid circular reasoning by injecting the word just (or justice) into the premises, let me ask you: Do you think having a society where civil liberties are respected is better than a society who (on an efficiency level) is equal to it, but has no civil liberties?
What's that circular reasoning? Justice is just a standard. It's not some sort of an alien, supernatural substance floating around you need to jump and down in air to get it or lose it. It's not a word in some new age term called 'Soical Justice Warrior'. It's the sum of all lawful, social; organic relationships in a society.
The religious understanding of 'justice' is based on righteousness, some set of religious norms...etc. Like fascism.
The secular understanding of justice is about creating equal standards and opportunities for as many people as possible in a society, not because humanism, social justice...whatever the fuck kids are bitching about today, but because you need those standards for a society to function as a whole. Religous norms do not work. They have never worked.
QuoteCan "civil liberties in our your society" be anything other than an ethical concern? What about not wanting racism in society? (Or a society based on racism?) Is this not wholly a moral concern?
Yes, it means a lot more than that. No, the second is not a moral concern, but a main concern in building of a functional society in average. Maybe for the individual, it is a moral concern. And the last question sounds more like an information about you than a question. It tells that you are highly likely a white, heterosexual male. It's interesting isn't it. Aagain, doesn't matter how much you try to 'reduce' or carry it to some so called higher concept in your mind, politically correct it to discuss... you end up where you started.
QuoteI have my own views on this, but I didn't ask the question in order to push my own position. I think it's a matter worth discussing. I did need to clarify what "good" meant... and the definition I'm giving is "ideal for you (the answerer of the question) in any way except efficiency."
Well, you are far more transparent than you think. What's the next stop? Rationality of 'Biological determination'? Since we are so politically correct, lol.
QuoteAnother way to go about answering the question is to ask yourself what political views you hold, and then remove all moral and ethical propositions from them. Is whatever you are left over with is sufficient for a worthwhile or sufficient political schema? (Meaning "sufficient to you" or maybe "sufficient for a rational person"... not "potentially sufficient for anybody.")
But you can't remove it, can you? Because you wouldn't see/imagine yourself or your own identity group without "civil liberties". Noone would. For discussion purposes or not?
If you think democracy is some sort of generosity bestowed to some groups by another as some fancy morality that looks shiq on some countries, you'll witness an interesting future.
Quote from: drunkenshoe on March 18, 2021, 06:10:22 AM
What do you mean by efficiency? Certainly, you can provide some sort of 'efficieny' by slavery or oppression of certain groups and classes. Honestly, it feels like you have some sort of slavery in mind as you are arguing about some hypothetical system without "civil liberties". If you remove people's basic, legal rights and use them to provide efficiency in a society, that system is called slavery. In practical terms, building that system would require mass violance of every kind commited by some authority in a given land which is the definitiion of genocide. It's really not an 'efficient' system interestingly enough.
I excluded efficiency because I was asked to clarify what I meant by "good." It was a fair question. But if I said, "whatever leads to justice" or something like that-- which is kinda what I wanted to say-- it would lead to circular reasoning. Because justice has to do with morality.
You seem to think I have some kind of political agenda. I don't. I am asking a question about objective morality and its relation to justice to spark debate. If I had given my views at the outset, I'd have risked the debate becoming "do you agree or disagree with MY view." I didn't want that. I wanted an open discussion wherein everybody expresses their opinions and we discuss the ideas that come up.
Let's focus on slavery for a minute. Is slavery wrong? I think most of us agree that it is. Is it just a matter of opinion then? Some of us, like myself, want to say that slavery is wrong... and that's not just my opinion... you can use REASONING to get there. (Not some airy fairy "out there" moral realism... but a view based on logic and reason alone.)
You call justice "the sum of all lawful, social; organic relationships in a society." That's looking at things using the sociological paradigm. Even many people who use such a paradigm to conduct research in the field don't imagine that their paradigm settles the issue of what justice is once and for all.
So back to slavery. Was slavery okay for the Romans to practice? It worked FINE for the Romans. It made their empire rich. The sum total of social and lawful relationships in society hadn't allowed abolitionism to take hold of the Roman consciousness. That's a fact.
But it doesn't make it right that people were beaten at whim and made to work in fields all day. It doesn't make it right that women were sold into a lifetime of sexual servitude. I think we can all agree that's wrong. But then we must ask... wrong by what metric? Personal opinion? The metric of reducing violence? (Then what makes VIOLENCE wrong? And why do we want to reduce it?) Societal custom? Then, when customs change then right actions change? It is difficult for us to accept that slavery may become "right" again some day.
What's your opinion on the moral status of slavery? I think slavery is morally wrong (in an objective sense). It was wrong in ancient Rome, it was wrong in the colonial period, and it's wrong today. I assume you also don't like slavery, but I want to hear YOUR reasoning as to what's wrong with it. If you want to reiterate that slavery is violence, then tell me what's wrong with violence.
Look man. I don't need to make you share my beliefs on the matter. I wanna have a discussion. Lets engage in one. If you disagree with me-- FINE. I want to discuss WHY you disagree. Not "force" you to agree with me. I know my position has weaknesses. I'm fine with that. Like I said before, I didn't set out to make this about my position... rather an open discussion/debate about the issue. You down for that?
Quote from: viocjit on March 18, 2021, 12:02:15 AM
I think "Right" and "Wrong" are only human conceptions and don't exist by themselves.
Plenty of things are human conceptions and have no existence by themselves, but are nonetheless real in some sense. Look at math. I argue that morality is real in the sense that math is real. If we were to blink every living thing out of existence, moral concern would disappear. But so would math.
What I'm arguing is, like math, morality isn't a matter of opinion. You can get it wrong. Not that it has some kind of supernatural existence or anything.
[quote author=Vulcan link=topic=14234.msg1298606#msg1298606 date=1616109288
What I'm arguing is, like math, morality isn't a matter of opinion. You can get it wrong. Not that it has some kind of supernatural existence or anything.
[/quote]
Interesting discussion. I must disagree--morality and ethics are a matter of opinion within whatever society one is discussing. There is no objective morality. The correct or moral way to act within any society is determined by what is accepted by most. There is no 'higher authority' to help us determine what morality is. That is why I think the best govt. is a constitutional republic. The problem with that is that while the laws and rules of conduct are spelled out, they must be enforced and enforced equally on all members of a society.
The following is what I posted in another thread:
I don't subscribe to moral relativism-- one can see in shades of gray without denying black and white exist. Morals were not handed down by a higher being, they evolved up biologically and socially. Because we are mammals and social creatures, because we have speech and can communicate complex ideas, ways of interacting have evolved that are beneficial to our survival. The more complicated the behaviors and personal interactions the more they become open to interpretation, yet morals are not completely open to an individual's whims because we share the same physiology and because individuals don't exist in isolation, we both compete and cooperate. Humans have their own morality, octopuses have their own morality, ants have their own morality. Betraying one's family or close group is considered immoral because we are humans. Octopuses, who don't share our physiology and don't live social groups, have no such moral compunction. For us, when an action is truly immoral it isn't anti-God, it isn't immoral on a cosmic scale, it is at its core anti-human.
There are three acts of faith that I concede: 1) Life is worth living, 2) humanity is worth preserving, and 3) suffering matters.
From This Life: Secular Faith and Spiritual Freedom by Martin Hägglund:
The most fundamental form of secular faith is the faith that life is worth living, which is intrinsic to all forms of care. In caring about our own lives and the lives of others, we necessarily believe that life is worth living. This is a matter of faith because we cannot prove that life is worth living despite all the suffering it entails. That life is worth living cannot be demonstrated through a logical deduction or rational calculation. Rather, the faith that life is worth living sustains us even when our lives seem to be unbearable or intolerable. Moreover, it is because we believe that life is worth living that our lives can appear as unbearable or intolerable in the first place. If we did not believe that life is worth living, we could not experience our lives either as fulfilling or as unbearable, since we would be indifferent to the quality of our lives and unmoved by anything that happens. ...
Acts such as slavery, rape, and murder are wrong, they have always been and will always be wrong, because they are anti-human, meaning they are destructive to empathetic, social primates who care about our lives as individuals, the continued existence of humanity, our own suffering, and the suffering of others. Humans continue to evolve. We don't always know which actions will result in good outcomes and sometimes when we know something will result in bad outcomes we do it anyway, but I believe there is good (humanity thrives) and bad (decimation).
Vulcan, it doesn't matter if you have a political agenda or not. What you offer is not an original idea or something interesting worth discussing. It's the oldest bullshit in the book. Call it 'efficiency', for the 'good' of the state, country...etc. We can find many other words for it. Roman Empire is a horrible example. The bit with women is touching, I guess you read my post in the limbaugh thread, lol. Yeah I'm a woman. But if you think men and boys weren't sold as sex slaves back then or not sold as sex slaves now, you don't only lack historical perspective, you lack general information about the world you live. Which fits your identity by the way. (Just that kind of design in your post is nine yards of red flags to me.)
Anyway, you avoided my main point. I told you my reasoning. You have avoided that too. Standards.
You have already made a moral decision at your part with what you offer. As I said before, unless you offered a coin toss or imagined yourself 'oh yeah, I'd do good without civil liberties and basic rights, cool!' which you didn't. And then your decision is based on 'nonwhite group's lives are disposable, their rights can be removed, because they are inferior to me and to my group'. Concious or unconscious... AND this is a moral decision. So your point is invalid. You can't remove it with what you offer. You build on another one.
If you are able to offer or entertain this idea, you are a white, heterosexual male. This is as simple as this. There is no other identity group that would offer or even think of a system like this that would be better in some way. It's not some interesting idea. You are just racist. Or you are not even aware that your point is racist. But that's the picture with what you offer when you remove the usual political correctness.
Quote from: drunkenshoe on March 19, 2021, 10:51:30 AM
If you are able to offer or entertain this idea, you are a white, heterosexual male.
I am not ONE of these. I'll leave it to you to figure out which one. (Since you're the expert).
Are you saying only white people care about moral realism? Because that's false. Right off the top of my head I can think of a number of black thinkers who have given the issue an incredible amount of consideration (MLK, Cornel West). One of my black philosophy professors spoke passionately on the issue, and I bet if you reproduced what you wrote in your last post in an email to him, he'd call YOU a racist. (I'll furnish you with his email if you want.) I HOPE you aren't a white person going around saying that no black person cares about moral objectivity.
You are politicizing something that isn't inherently political. Reading what you wrote as charatibly as I can, I think your concern may be that a culture or system may use "objective morals" as an excuse to coerce or control people of a different culture or system.
My personal response to that is that fundamental to my ethics is "nonviolence." And that includes "soft" forms of violence like poverty, exploitation, control, and coercion. I certainly take a page from Freire's "Pedagogy of the Oppressed" in my thinking about ethics and society. My primary moral concern is "how to do good"... NOT "how to stop bad." I'm a pacifist. I want to achieve the highest good using very little violence (or none at all, if possible). And this INCLUDES "soft" violence (poverty, coercion, or more subtle kinds of violence).
To me, and many others, ethics is not JUST a grand societal concern. It affects how you treat people in one on one relationships and exists independently of any present societal structure or social force. Sure, moral thinking comes into play at a societal level, but "the rubber hits the road" so to speak in plain ol' interpersonal relationships. I'm trying to make arguments geared at those who want to "do the most good with their lives" NOT people who want to control the actions of others.
I didn't read your Rush Limbaugh post. Sorry. Whatever you thought was a reference to it (as it turns out) wasn't about you.
You presume WAY too much about me. You think I have ideas about civil liberties when I haven't explained ANYTHING about my position concerning civil liberties.
I AM aware that men and boys were sold into sexual servitude in ancient times. I even thought about mentioning it, but I didn't because I was keeping the subject matter concise. And (on the whole, under the Roman paterfamilias cultural paradigm) the exploitation of women was far more systemic than that of men or boys. Though each is equally deplorable.
What is it with you and efficiency? Do you need to go back through the thread and see why I brought the word up? Somebody asked for clarification. I said I WASN'T talking about efficiency. (Because a benevolent dictator is the most efficient in the conception of some.) I wonder if you are even comprehending the conversation, and you just wanted to step in and yell "racist" because you think it's a "white person's conversation or something."
If I'm wrong about that, then let's start the conversation over. You make your case about justice being standards again (because I'm not quite clear on what you meant) and then I'll respond with my thoughts.
But if you want to hold to the "anyone who cares about this is obviously a straight white male" schtick, then you need to go have a conversation with ANY black/gay/female philosophy professor so they can set you straight. Even if they personally don't care (which I bet they
do), they'll at least tell you that many, many, many philosophers who are not straight white males care about moral realism.
Quote from: Mike Cl on March 18, 2021, 07:58:58 PM
[quote author=Vulcan link=topic=14234.msg1298606#msg1298606 date=1616109288
What I'm arguing is, like math, morality isn't a matter of opinion. You can get it wrong. Not that it has some kind of supernatural existence or anything.
Interesting discussion. I must disagree--morality and ethics are a matter of opinion within whatever society one is discussing. There is no objective morality. The correct or moral way to act within any society is determined by what is accepted by most. There is no 'higher authority' to help us determine what morality is. That is why I think the best govt. is a constitutional republic. The problem with that is that while the laws and rules of conduct are spelled out, they must be enforced and enforced equally on all members of a society.
I blame theists for this kind of thinking. We've all heard it before, "how can you have morality without a supreme being?"
Well, I think you can. The same way we can state mathematical and logical propositions, we can come up with potential "moral facts" and debate them for validity. True, there is much controversy and disagreement concerning how this should be done (or even if it can be done). But truth ain't always easy. So, maybe it's worth investigating
Let's not make the discussion about laws and rules. Laws and rules are there so that society can function. If you intentionally destroy a person's hopes and dreams, just because you enjoy watching them suffer... you may not have broken any law. (And maybe there should be no law that prevents this behavior.) But that's not to say you haven't done something morally wrong.
That's what I'm talking about here: what actions are right vs what actions are wrong. (And is there an objective way to tell the difference.) I'm NOT asking what actions are punishable or ought to have legal consequences.
In my view (and I'm an atheist) we can deduce morality using a few axioms, a basic principle or principles, and logic can do the rest. No god (or society) required. Neither do we require any kind of "authority" to make something right or wrong. We don't need "The Grand Arbiter of Math" to tell us that the pythagorean theorem is okay. We figure that out through logical proofs.
And that's the method I propose for approaching ethics.
Quote from: GSOgymrat on March 18, 2021, 10:50:58 PM
The following is what I posted in another thread:
I don't subscribe to moral relativism-- one can see in shades of gray without denying black and white exist. Morals were not handed down by a higher being, they evolved up biologically and socially.
I kind of think of things the same way, although I don't necessarily think that whatever evolution has "left us with" is necessarily moral. (Not that you think that or anything, but it's an important distinction to make.) Evolution has left us with violent and destructive tendencies, but also a sense of empathy. Therefore, I don't think of things in terms of the "inclinations evolution gave us" because that's a mixed bag. But I do think of things in terms of "the good senses" evolution gave us.
Let me return to math. Our hunter/gatherer ancestors benefited from the cognitive ability to count animals (prey) in a field, or distribute berries among tribe members. This is the "nub" of our ability to do advanced mathematics. Of course, we aren't given the ability to perform calculus instinctually. We had to discover and learn calculus. But we wouldn't have been able to do so without an instinctual ability to comprehend basic numbers.
I think it's the same with morality. We have empathy. We have a sense that some things are right and others are wrong. That's the starting point that evolution gave us. But not the ending point. We need logic to parse through things and figure out a genuine system of moral thinking. We need to have debates where we can correct the mistakes that instinct alone provides us with.
For instance, instinct urges us to conform to our own tribe or group. But moral urges may conflict with group conformity at certain points. That's where the debate begins over what may be "objectively" right or wrong. And it's an on-going debate... like MATH is an ongoing debate... like SCIENCE is an ongoing debate.
We don't have the answers merely lain before us. We have to figure things out. I love the prospect of having such debates about what is right and what is wrong. Even if we can't reasonably conclude something, we learn much along the way.
I also enjoy the meta ethical debate. "Can we really objectively determine if something is right or wrong?"
Because there are interesting arguments for all sides of this debate. Arguments that deserve our attention, because it's an important matter to work out.
Quote from: Vulcan on March 20, 2021, 08:30:12 PM
I am not ONE of these. I'll leave it to you to figure out which one. (Since you're the expert).
I see. But you have avoided the point again. You -me or anyone else sapient- cannot produce a premise stripped from some moral point of view or some political opinion, stripped from a personal moral point of view.
QuoteAre you saying only white people care about moral realism?
No, on the contrary. I'm saying, they are far more likely to see their own ‘morals’ as the 'required' standard, sometimes more than that as the objective reality and place everyting else down in the hierarchy according that.
QuoteYou are politicizing something that isn't inherently political. Reading what you wrote as charatibly as I can, I think your concern may be that a culture or system may use "objective morals" as an excuse to coerce or control people of a different culture or system.
It is political. So ‘inherently’ or not, it doesn’t require me to politicize it.
For starters, the culture and system are not seperate form people and their actions; their personal morals. The concern(s) in building a society it's not just about one culture coercing or controlling the other culture, but the control and coercion exists between different groups in one culture. Not just wealth, ethnic, religous, gender groups, but also communities determined by occupation for example.
QuoteMy personal response to that is that fundamental to my ethics is "nonviolence." And that includes "soft" forms of violence like poverty, exploitation, control, and coercion. I certainly take a page from Freire's "Pedagogy of the Oppressed" in my thinking about ethics and society. My primary moral concern is "how to do good"... NOT "how to stop bad." I'm a pacifist. I want to achieve the highest good using very little violence (or none at all, if possible). And this INCLUDES "soft" violence (poverty, coercion, or more subtle kinds of violence).
Like everyone else. People who don't fit in your description still do things on "how to do good" according to themselves.
QuoteTo me, and many others, ethics is not JUST a grand societal concern. It affects how you treat people in one on one relationships and exists independently of any present societal structure or social force. Sure, moral thinking comes into play at a societal level, but "the rubber hits the road" so to speak in plain ol' interpersonal relationships. I'm trying to make arguments geared at those who want to "do the most good with their lives" NOT people who want to control the actions of others.
No. When somebody open fires in public places and kill people in work, school or just in street; when another person produces/designs some product knowingly that it will harm people, children; harm society (apps, social media platforms, all kinds of mumbo Jumbo homepathic health/beauty products) or create, contribute to a mass fraud like in 2008 mortgage crisis they ALL know what they are doing. And people die or have their life ruined as a result. Elaborated example below.
QuoteYou presume WAY too much about me. You think I have ideas about civil liberties when I haven't explained ANYTHING about my position concerning civil liberties.
“Can "civil liberties in our your society" be anything other than an ethical concern? What about not wanting racism in society? (Or a society based on racism?) Is this not wholly a moral concern?â€
You are not asking, IF “civil liberties†are anything other than an ethical concern or IF attached to some other concepts, things. You are asking ‘Can’ they be anything other than an ethical concern. And then add that as an example; isn’t racism only an ethical concern? Esp. that one.
No, they are not. No, it is not. That's a very specific example and familiar in this context for specific arguments which are introduced exactly the same.
Everyone presumes/assumes a lot about everyone they are interacting with some way. They just don’t say, write about it… give anything away. Because there is this fear of being wrong and embarassed about it. On the contrary, I find it writing my initial impressions openly is far more productive. Do you really care what a perfect stranger who lives some other part of the World thinks about you? Well, I don’t either. Frankly, it is better to get the first thing out, esp. if you are annoyed, right or incorrect because if the conversation goes on from there, it is almost always a better and a more meaningful one than some vague, politically correct exchange.
Having said that I’m -as you can see- a pretty emotionally reactive, opinionated person. That doesn’t mean, I can’t have a conversation. The opposite. It just needs a bit of a getting used to maybe because I think I need a different plane to do it. Sorry, if you are offended. Don’t be.
QuoteI AM aware that men and boys were sold into sexual servitude in ancient times. I even thought about mentioning it, but I didn't because I was keeping the subject matter concise. And (on the whole, under the Roman paterfamilias cultural paradigm) the exploitation of women was far more systemic than that of men or boys. Though each is equally deplorable. ... I didn't read your Rush Limbaugh post. Sorry. Whatever you thought was a reference to it (as it turns out) wasn't about you. ...
Slavery is the main reason Roman Empire collapsed. It is a bad example. Considering the very elaborate slavery system in that culture, your emphasis on women as sex slaves seemed very narrow and postmodernist to be honest. With my initial impression, it looks like put there onpurpose, not because personal about me but because playing to a general field, if you get what I mean. (Boys are still sold into sexual servitude, and men live similar things with women in prostitution, legal or in human trafficking. Their numbers are not as many as children or women. Also prostitution is not that stigmatising for males, but societies are often blind to sexual attrocities when it comes to males because of the general traditional look. There are an estimated 30 million slaves in the World today in this or that way.)
QuoteWhat is it with you and efficiency? Do you need to go back through the thread and see why I brought the word up? Somebody asked for clarification. I said I WASN'T talking about efficiency. (Because a benevolent dictator is the most efficient in the conception of some.) I wonder if you are even comprehending the conversation, and you just wanted to step in and yell "racist" because you think it's a "white person's conversation or something."
What is my problem. All of the below.
-"Is democracy better than despotism?" question followed by the idea about ‘civil liberties’ defined as just moral concerns, and moral concerns as obviously as arbitray feelings, beliefs and choices… being tied to the ‘they are not actually related to politics’; political ideologies etc… -as I understood from your posts- is the first part and base of (all kinds of) fascistic systems. That’s the initial step. The other part is that the main problems of society can be solved independently from these. Efficiency fits this argument perfectly. Head to toe. Because it all arrives to how the society works better in the end.
It is not about yelling racist. That’s what I saw because that’s what I’ve seen hundreds of times, probably more with this. What is right or wrong? What do right and wrong determine? How is that related to human life and society? The end of that road is always the same. Yeah, it is a big claim, I know.
They are not just moral concerns. They are closely attached to politics, politcial idoelogies and policies made to arrange human affairs and society in every context. We just don’t see it -how can we?- because we don’t live in a tribe with 500 people that relies on primitve agriculture. We live in cities of millions or towns of tens of thousands the least. Human capacity is limited with his arm’s length. Thinking beyond that requires great effort, and objectivity is not an option. And as there are some categories defined before us, we can’t point to something home cooked out of them. Just opinions produced taken by bits from here and there.
While there is no such thing as universal morality, humans don’t need one either. The laws and rules given created in the triangle I wrote in my first post is more than enough. The problem in my opinion is explaining human deeds/actions with morality vs immorality. Because we all -like every other kid in the world- were raised with ‘you don’t do … these things because it is wrong, bad’. Nobody explained this to us from a secular anthropological point and same thing has been going on. I mean the form the information - knowledge is given. The explanation.
The main education, justification on this around the World is shaped by religious concepts of right and wrong, gods, hell, karma... More commonly, we teach kids what they taught us: “Violance is not an answer.†Unfortunately, violance is a very good answer. Infact, it is so good just the tought of it is enough to instill fear and manipulate human behaviour drastically, instantly in a mass scale. And that takes one individual with a bomb or an automatic weapons at some cases. Pacifism do not protect people from bullets or explosives. Everyone is a pacifist when not under any threat. Everyone supports and desires for world peace.
We must not kill other human beings, unless it’s self defense. Why? Because it is wrong, baaaad, immoral and illegal? No. If we kill each other, we can’t live together. If we can’t live together as a society, we can’t survive. This seems simple. When we think about this, we can’t disregard that not everyone would kill each other, we are social animals. But then, we know that there will be some group of people who would be much better killers than others. So we need a standard. We need to treat everyone as potential killers and punish everyone who kills. Therefore, it’s illegal to kill people. This is much more important than ‘killing is wrong and bad’.
Suppose that there are two murderers. One is black, other is white. And they commit the crime in the same place, somewhere with death penalty. The white man gets life, and gets parole after serving 20 years from good behaviour, while the black man is given death penalty and executed.
Everyone wants the murderers punished, can’t imagine the pain of the victims blah blah…they want ‘justice’ because most people see justice as revenge or some sense of sacred closure, some functional fear as an example. But justice/injustice is actually much bigger concept than that.
The ‘injustice’ there is political. Because race is a political construct, and its roots are in social, personal and interpersonal relationships from the country as a whole culture down to the smalles unit; family. All those people who are far more likely to send a black man to his death than a white man for the same crime, adopted that unconscious-conscious ‘filter’ if you will, from their communities;
families, relatives, social groups…etc. A few extremists groups aside, nobody raises their children to be racists. They just act the way they inherited. Because this has a history, and a traditonal morality within. Children see, hear that and monkey see, monkey do.
The injustice involves everyone in that society because the standard is broken. Law exists to provide that standard, and when it doesn't work the consequences are not limited by injustice by law. Because now, the black and the white know that they live in different standards. They are treated differently. While murder looks like an extreme example, you can apply this to almost everything. Opportunities in life, education, personal relationships... What happens then? Then the members of these two groups act completely different in every direction in the society. From living the daily life to simple responsibilities to much bigger ones. Because before the social contract in street, the law conract was broken. This is not just something between black and white. It's also between wealthy and poor.
-Another thing. When people -all of us included- try to produce opinions and ideas, they often do not check the distance of that idea to themselves, their own position and identity. Also, I don’t know if you live in the US, but my observation with American culture -and generally, recently with the English social media culture - suggest that the current tendency is trying to strip politics from every possible context because of the manipulation and extreme tendencies with ‘civil liberties’ that seems to drown everyting. But I think the problem is how are those ‘civil liberties’ are percieved, not actually how they work.
QuoteBut if you want to hold to the "anyone who cares about this is obviously a straight white male" schtick, then you need to go have a conversation with ANY black/gay/female philosophy professor so they can set you straight. Even if they personally don't care (which I bet they do), they'll at least tell you that many, many, many philosophers who are not straight white males care about moral realism.
No. I think I answered this above. But to elaborate it. In my opinion, people are just like each other, Vulcan. (I’m included needlessly to say.) I know nobody wants to hear about it -but again they live according to it anyway- stereotypes and generalisations work.
Anyway, if you want to go on, write what you think. If not, it is fine.