Principles of Politics

Mikie

Around 12,000 years ago when human beings discovered agriculture and started settling, populations began to expand and this had enormous implications for social organization. This is arguably the beginning of politics.

The word politics comes from Greek, relating to affairs of the city -- the "polis." One of the first analyses of city affairs, as a distinct object of study, was conducted by Aristotle -- the Politics.

Within cities and, later, within nation-states, where populations are very large, hierarchies of power and authority emerge, classes are formed, and divisions of labor are organized.

All this is obvious, but worth keeping in mind.

Given today's climate, it's worth re-awakening some basic philosophical questions about who and what we are as human beings, what a good life is, where we think we're going, and what values we want to prioritize towards that end -- if for no other reason than informing our political decisions.

A small list of some basic points that I have found useful in my own political thinking is as follows:

1. All power, all authority -- including something as consequential as political power or as microcosmic as personal relationships -- should be questioned for legitimacy.

2. To quote Marx and Engels, "The history of all hitherto existing society is the history of class struggles." Various classes of people -- conquerors, nobles, aristocrats, priests, plutocrats -- have played the role of the masters of mankind. There has always been a pyramid-like organization, where the vast majority of people are essentially powerless.

3. Rulers have always justified -- to themselves and to the ruled -- their own legitimacy. Whether through the claims of being an embodiment of God, the "divine right or kings," natural law, or merit -- there is always an attempt at rationalization and a pretext for actions.

Applying these abstract premises to the real world -- particularly our current secular, technological situation -- we see them manifest in new ways. Taken out of order, our current "masters of mankind" (#2) are, indisputably, the wealthy. I think George Carlin summed it up nicely in one of his last comedy specials:

I'm talking about the real owners now, the real owners, the big wealthy business interests that control things and make all the important decisions. Forget the politicians. The politicians are put there to give you the idea that you have freedom of choice. You don't. You have no choice. You have owners. They own you. They own everything. They own all the important land. They own and control the corporations. They’ve long since bought and paid for the senate, the congress, the state houses, the city halls, they got the judges in their back pockets and they own all the big media companies so they control just about all of the news and information you get to hear. —

How do they justify their position of power (#3)?

They say that it has been earned in a capitalist system -- by hard work, innovation, creativity, the vote of the "free market" -- and, although flawed, that this system benefits all of mankind much more than previous systems. It rises "more people out of poverty" than any other system, and so on.

When questioning the current world rulers and whether their power is legitimate (#1), we can very quickly throw out these flimsy pretexts and intellectual apologists when we simply look around. When we put down our automatic behavior and tacit assumptions for a moment, and look at our real lives, we know very well no matter how happy or comfortable we may be, the vast majority of us are not given the same opportunities or resources that our wealthier neighbors have. When scaled up to the degree of super-wealth -- the wealthiest 0.1% -- the differences are staggering.

We see that the expenses that comprise the "American Dream" -- a house, a car, an education, food, etc -- puts the vast majority of us in debt. We see policies with majority support being completely ignored for the policies favoring the wealthy and powerful.

In conclusion, if one accepts the principles mentioned above and uses them as guides for interpreting our current situation, one cannot help but wonder if we're long overdue for the overthrowing of plutocracy and the system which sustains it (capitalism).

The more we clearly see the problem, the better we can see the solution, formulate appropriate goals towards a solution, and generate corresponding local, individual and collective actions to this end. This cannot happen unless we reawaken our curiosity and start questioning the world. To do so seriously, a framework for this questioning is crucial.

The Questioning Bookworm

Given today's climate, it's worth asking or re-awakening some basic philosophical questions about who and what we are as human beings, what a good life is, and what values we want to prioritize -- if for no other reason than informing our political decisions. — Xtrix

Agreed. However, since society, especially American capitalist society, has a heterogeneous demographic as a country, I believe that there is no clear answer to these questions. On top of this demographic makeup, we have people with different career interests, social interests, hobbies, activities, etc. At some point, and no matter what system we are under, there will be conflict amongst these different people in general. We see this all the time. For instance, you already pointed differences between the 'haves' and 'have-nots' in America, and how this contributes to the greater divided in wealth due to debt and other factors for the less fortunate. This is one of the many reasons I think it is vital to act on the notion that politics is a realm where we need to work with the best policies, systems, and leaders we can get. In other words, voting for the lesser of two evils in all scenarios. On top of that, we need to prioritize candidates and policies that are aligned with helping people. If the system is broken, which I believe in some areas it is, then we need to prioritize, demonstrate, motivate people to vote for officials that are aligned, and try our best to elect.

The problem I find interesting in general political philosophy is: attempting to control, eradicate, and block injustice. Yet injustice always persists in any nation, country, and local. There is always a group that is marginalized. There is always someone who is suffering. But this is not an excuse to not keep trying. The journey and ascendence to improve are what life is all about--Nietzsche's Will to Power comes to my mind here as well as Albert Camus's conclusion in The Myth of Sisyphus.

Anyhow, thanks for making this thread. Political philosophy is one of my favorite subjects to plumb the depths of. Cheers!

Mikie

Agreed. However, since society, especially American capitalist society, has a heterogeneous demographic as a country, I believe that there is no clear answer to these questions. — The Questioning Bookworm

That's beside the point if the questions aren't being asked.

If the system is broken, which I believe in some areas it is, then we need to prioritize, demonstrate, motivate people to vote for officials that are aligned, and try our best to elect. — The Questioning Bookworm

Sure. And we can do so on tentative assumptions -- we don't have to work out the answer to every question before we act.

The problem I find interesting in general political philosophy is: attempting to control, eradicate, and block injustice. Yet injustice always persists in any nation, country, and local. There is always a group that is marginalized. — The Questioning Bookworm

Well the main issue, in my view, is power. Whoever controls the major decisions of a society (usually only a "few") wields disproportionate influence over the everyday lives of the "many." Power dynamics and structures are everywhere, from families to marriages to the military to corporations to government. There's nothing necessarily morally "wrong" or "bad" about this. But they should be questioned for legitimacy. If authority, domination, and control are found to be illegitimate, they should then be dismantled, eradicated, blocked, etc.

Anyhow, thanks for making this thread. Political philosophy is one of my favorite subjects to plumb the depths of. Cheers! — The Questioning Bookworm

Thank you -- cheers to you.

Philosophim

↪The Questioning Bookworm

I just wanted to add that you provided a very nice analysis.

BitconnectCarlos

I've never understood why we need to see the history of all hitherto existing society as a history of class struggle. By all means, you're free to put on those goggles but couldn't someone just as easily claim that the history of all existing society is a history of gender relations or disability liberation? Or ethnic relations, of course. To put social class head-and-shoulders above all the other topics out there has always seemed dubious.

The Questioning Bookworm

↪Philosophim

Thank you, appreciate it!

The Questioning Bookworm

↪Xtrix

Thank you for the wonderful reply. Power and its dynamics in politics is definitely the main issue.

Mikie

To put social class head-and-shoulders above all the other topics out there has always seemed dubious. — BitconnectCarlos

There are many aspects of history, of course. Whether class is the issue isn't relevant. What matters is that it is an essential part of the progress of history. It necessarily implies power structures, which I believe is even more fundamental than class. Class is a manifestation of power systems, and so easier to analyze.

I don't see disability or women's rights really being on par with class struggles. Perhaps an argument can be made for the role of thought and ideas, of technology, and of values, but if anything they seem on equal footing.

It all matters. Some aspects are broader than others. Class, when taken as an object in its own right, happens to be one which explains a great deal of historical trends.

BitconnectCarlos

↪Xtrix

I don't see disability or women's rights really being on par with class struggles. — Xtrix

Well are you a woman or disabled? If not then of course you wouldn't see these things as important as class, but for those who face those issues daily they can be just as important if not more important than class. It's all about where you're situated in society. Gender and disability related issues can cut across social classes.

I like talking about social class and I certainly view it as relevant. What Marxism does, however, is it places the economic as the essential characteristic of the society as well as human nature. So when you quote Marx is evokes that conception to me. If you simply want to portray social class as one among many in society I'm totally fine with that. Power I think is an interesting issue and I don't think it's completely synonymous with class, although the two are related.

Mikie

I don't see disability or women's rights really being on par with class struggles.
— Xtrix

Well are you a woman or disabled? — BitconnectCarlos

No, but nor do I have to be in order to see that they're much less broad and less impactful than class. I'm not a cooper, either -- and I suppose one could make the argument that barrel-making is on par with class as well -- but we would rightfully laugh at that. There are various degrees of generality we're talking about. This isn't to say women's experiences, or disabled people's experiences aren't important -- they are -- but that they do not account as well for the historical trends as do, say, politics and economics. I think we can all agree with that -- or should. If we get hung up on what "the" essential feature of history is, we won't get off the ground.

There's a reason Marx's analysis was so influential. Nietzsche and Heidegger take a similarly broad view of history as well -- in terms of morals (values) and understandings of "being," respectively -- and are rightly influential because of it.

What Marxism does, however, is it places the economic as the essential characteristic of the society as well as human nature. — BitconnectCarlos

That's a misrepresentation, in my view. To attribute class to "human nature" doesn't make sense. Class is a kind of social organization and categorization. Perhaps the drive for power, domination and control are aspects of human nature -- but then so is love, cooperation, empathy, etc. Marx's analysis stresses the importance of class in his analysis, but because he's not insane he wouldn't deny other aspects of history or human nature.

Power I think is an interesting issue and I don't think it's completely synonymous with class, although the two are related. — BitconnectCarlos

I don't think it's synonymous either.

ChatteringMonkey

In conclusion, if one accepts the principles mentioned above and uses them as guides for interpreting our current situation, one cannot help but wonder if we're long overdue for the overthrowing of plutocracy and the system which sustains it: capitalism. The more we clearly see the problem, the better we can see the solution, formulate appropriate goals towards a solution, and generate corresponding local, individual and collective actions to this end. — Xtrix

The things is, there never has been a "legitimate" legitimatization. It's not as if Gods or lineage where anything other than a story some people told to give their rule legitimacy.

To put it bluntly, the truth is that ultimately there never has been another legitimisation than holding power. One has the mandate of heaven, until one has not... which is essentially the same as saying one can be in power, until one loses that power.

Our current situation isn't any different from times past. Those in power want to keep it and tell stories to that that effect, and those that don't believe those stories want the ones in power gone because.... well, they want some of that power too.

Questioning legitimacy is fine and all, because there really is no reason to just accept any of it, but i'm not sure what kind of 'solution' you expect? If we ever would manage to overthrow the current rulers you will invariably get a new class of rulers, which will effectively only be legitimized by the fact that they managed to overthrow the previous rules, by power in short... rinse repeat.

Mikie

Our current situation isn't any different from times past. Those in power want to keep it and tell stories to that that effect, and those that don't believe those stories want the ones in power gone because.... well, they want some of that power too. — ChatteringMonkey

Not necessarily. They may simply not want to live under oppression and tyranny.

But yes, almost any system of power since the neolithic revolution has been "justified" in some way, and almost all of it has been completely bogus. That doesn't mean we stop questioning.

Questioning legitimacy is fine and all, because there really is no reason to just accept any of it, but i'm not sure what kind of 'solution' you expect? — ChatteringMonkey

That depends on what you're asking. In the easy case of an Adolf Hitler, I think the solution is easy enough: don't allow people like that to have any power whatsoever.

If someone is a head coach and his team goes 0-12, you're likely to fire the coach. Etc. There are almost infinite solutions. You can't ask about a "solution" in a vacuum -- you have to discuss specific cases.

If we ever would manage to overthrow the current 'rulers' you will invariably get a new class of rulers, which will effectively only be legitimized by the fact that they managed to overthrow the previous rules, by power in short... rinse repeat. — ChatteringMonkey

Says who? This is just a lack of imagination, really. It's been beaten out of people's heads for years, but there are plenty of ways to organize people.

Take corporations. There's no reason why corporate organization has to be a top-down, un-democratic structure. But people don't even consider questioning that because an alternative (to them) is unimaginable. But alternatives do indeed exist.

Take a look at the Spanish Revolution for political organization, too.

True, we can just say that illegitimate power is a fact of human history that will never go away. In that case, go to sleep.

ChatteringMonkey

Says who? This is just a lack of imagination, really. It's been beaten out of people's heads for years, but there are plenty of ways to organize people. Take corporations. There's no reason why it has to be a top-down, un-democratic structure. But people don't even consider questioning that because an alternative is unimaginable. But alternatives do indeed exist. Take a look at the Spanish Revolution. — Xtrix

I don't think this is a matter of lack of imagination. There are plenty of alternatives in imagination. I think this is an empirical question. And i've read about it, and have actually seen it happen time and again, no matter what intentions one may have initially, it more or less ends up in the same place.

In that case, go to sleep. — Xtrix

No, you misunderstand. In that case, take power yourself... which is the opposite of going to sleep. The thing I take issue with is that you think there is a solution, not the fact that you question legitimacy.

Mikie

The thing I take issue with is that you think there is a solution, not the fact that you question legitimacy. — ChatteringMonkey

A solution for what? Where do I say I think that? If I had a magic, general solution, I assure you I would have given it by now.

ChatteringMonkey

↪Xtrix

A solution for what? Where do I say I think that? If I had a magic, general solution, I assure you I would have given it by now. — Xtrix

In conclusion, if one accepts the principles mentioned above and uses them as guides for interpreting our current situation, one cannot help but wonder if we're long overdue for the overthrowing of plutocracy and the system which sustains it: capitalism. The more we clearly see the problem, the better we can see the solution, formulate appropriate goals towards a solution, and generate corresponding local, individual and collective actions to this end. — Xtrix

I was under the impression that you were advocating overthrowing plutocracy because of it's lack of legitimacy.... and so the solution was some sort of legitimate power.

If you were to say I want to overthrow plutocracy because I don't like it, or because it's bad for me and a lot of people, I'd be fine with that. I just don't think the concept of legitimacy does anything really.

BitconnectCarlos

↪Xtrix

That's a misrepresentation, in my view. To attribute class to "human nature" doesn't make sense. — Xtrix

I wasn't doing that. I was saying that according to Marx "human nature" is essentially just the product of the economic system. In evaluating a society, according to Marx, look first and foremost at its economic structure or system. Again, this isn't me this is Marx.

If we get hung up on what "the" essential feature of history is, we won't get off the ground. — Xtrix

Tell that to Marx.

Mikie

If you were to say I want to overthrow plutocracy because I don't like it, or because it's bad for me and a lot of people, I'd be fine with that. I just don't think the concept of legitimacy does anything really. — ChatteringMonkey

I think there could be many reasonable solutions for the particular problems we face, but it takes questioning and working together to discover and implement them. The concept of "legitimacy" you're hung up on is a simple one: asking if this power structure is a legitimate one says is it justified, is it earned, are the decisions being made and actions being undertaken rational ones? etc. If you can justify to someone why you make a decision or take an action, then do so. Orders should be questioned. If you can't, you shouldn't be in power, take that action, etc. Who's the judge and jury? The people are -- namely the people who have to abide by the judgments and decisions of another. The ones who take the orders from above should question not only the orders, but why it is we're listening to this person (or these people) in the first place. Call it whatever you like, but to say you don't think it "does anything" is pretty strange. You do it all the time. Or should, anyway,

Mikie

I was saying that according to Marx "human nature" is essentially just the product of the economic system. — BitconnectCarlos

I don't see him saying this either, really. Things that may appear "natural" are largely conditioned by economic factors and class, yes. But human beings have been around for 200,000 years, long before any real "economy." Was there no human nature prior to the industrial or agricultural revolutions?

In evaluating a society, according to Marx, look first and foremost at its economic structure or system. — BitconnectCarlos

Sure. That's quite different than attributing things to "human nature."

If we get hung up on what "the" essential feature of history is, we won't get off the ground.
— Xtrix

Tell that to Marx. — BitconnectCarlos

No need, because he doesn't say this. His famous phrase that "all hitherto history is the history of class struggle" itself is very quickly qualified by Engels in the footnote, but it doesn't mean class struggle is the ONLY aspect of history. An essential one, yes.

BitconnectCarlos

↪Xtrix

But human beings have been around for 200,000 years, long before any real "economy." Was there no human nature prior to the industrial or agricultural revolutions? — Xtrix

There was still an economy at those times, there has always been economy. Marx definitely doesn't believe in any permanent, immutable human nature. I'm just conveying Marx's stance here.

Engels in the footnote, but it doesn't mean class struggle is the ONLY aspect of history. An essential one, yes. — Xtrix

I don't know what the footnote says because I don't have the text on me, but of course Marx believes in the existence other aspects of human history. It's that he places the economic as the overriding one, i.e. the one which is the ultimate determinant of the others. That's a Marxist view. It's been a while since I've read Marx but make no mistake about it, the economic super-structure of a society is primary, according to Marx. I'm not seeking to misrepresent Marx.

ChatteringMonkey

I think there could be many reasonable solutions for the particular problems we face, but it takes questioning and working together to discover and implement them. The concept of "legitimacy" you're hung up on is a simple one: asking if this power structure is a legitimate one says is it justified, is it earned, are the decisions being made and actions being undertaken rational ones? etc. If you can justify to someone why you make a decision or take an action, then do so. Orders should be questioned. If you can't, you shouldn't be in power, take that action, etc. Who's the judge and jury? The people are -- namely the people who have to abide by the judgments and decisions of another. The ones who take the orders from above should question not only the orders, but why it is we're listening to this person (or these people) in the first place. Call it whatever you like, but to say you don't think it "does anything" is pretty strange. You do it all the time. Or should, anyway, — Xtrix

Ok, let me specify that I don't think it does anything philosophically. I don't think you get there by referring back to the concept of justification either. It's not as if there is agreement on what counts as proper justification. 'The people' is an abstraction, there's no such thing. Individual people object to it because they don't like being subject to power or don't like a particular decision for whatever reason. And they can be successful if they can convince enough other people. It's a form of politics in the end. And yes, if I do it, I do it for those same reasons.... if i'm being honest with myself.

The ones who take the orders from above should question not only the orders, but why it is we're listening to this person (or these people) in the first place. — Xtrix

I just want to add that this is a very modern and recent notion, and not something that really plays out like you might think in practice, even today. Very rarely do orders get questioned. In fact I would say in most organisations it is tacitly understood that this is precisely something you do not do.... even if they may pay lip-service to the idea outwardly. And I think the reason for this is a very straightforward one. An organisation where everybody is some kind of philosopher that questions everything all the time (and so also has to be informed enough to be able to judge) just doesn't work as well.

Mikie

Ok, let me specify that I don't think it does anything philosophically. I don't think you get there by referring back to the concept of justification either. It's not as if there is agreement on what counts as proper justification. — ChatteringMonkey

You, and other philosophy hobbyists (not meant insultingly), often fall back on reasoning like this. What difference does it make whether there's "agreement"? Not everyone agrees that Donald Trump is a terrible president. Not everyone "agrees" that the world is round. If you're waiting around for certainty before acting, you'll do nothing indeed.

But of course we dismiss nonsense like this in the real world. If someone orders you to do something, and you believe it unjust, you question the orders. You ask for an explanation until it makes sense to you. It's also context-dependent. Pulling your child by the arm because you're angry that they turned on the television is one thing -- pulling them away because they ran into the street and there's an oncoming car is another. The world is a complex place, and we use practical judgments all the time. So let's take the conversation away from abstract, academic discussion -- where we will find no agreement whatever, and which will divert us from the real situation we find ourselves in, politically or otherwise -- and look to what's actually happening. Let's look to the political and economic structure of our society. Let's look to the structures of our workplaces, where we, in the real world, work for a salary or a wage. Then let's ask if these structures should remain in place or not. If we find that they have no real justification for existing, then we should discuss alternatives.

Mikie

The ones who take the orders from above should question not only the orders, but why it is we're listening to this person (or these people) in the first place.
— Xtrix

I just want to add that this is a very modern and recent notion, and not something that really plays out like you might think in practice, even today. — ChatteringMonkey

The notion doesn't play out how you think, because you're certainly not listening to mine.

As far as it being modern and recent -- formulated as such, perhaps. But these issues have been discussed since the Greeks. Justice, politics, power, etc. Hardly "modern."

Pfhorrest

↪Xtrix

Not much to add but :100:

ChatteringMonkey

Let's look to the political and economic structure of our society. Let's look to the structures of our workplaces, where we, in the real world, work for a salary or a wage. Then let's ask if these structures should remain in place or not. If we find that they have no real justification for existing, then we should discuss alternatives. — Xtrix

See I'd like to have this conversation, but I think you are asking the wrong question... and I just can't get past that because i think it skews the dialogue. I think you are making the philosophers mistake (also not meant as an insult btw) that everything can and needs to be justified. I don't think it works like that because any given culture is an ongoing dialogue where things get decided for various reasons over large periods of time, by a lot of different people. Maybe it's a political compromise that an organisation is the way it is, maybe there are practical reasons that aren't readily visible to someone viewing it from the outside, maybe there are reasons long forgotten... or maybe there is indeed no apparent reason at all. In any case, no one persons can possibly know the full reason for how the way things are... and so it's not really a fair question.

I don't think you can really judge these things outside of their particular socio-political context, nor will thinking about or discussing alternatives yield good results without extensively trying them out and seeing what works in practice.

If we take goverment as an example to illustrate the point, the question there is I think not whether or not there is justification to exist or not, or whether or not it should be overthrown because it is oppressive or lacks legitimacy... I think it will exist no matter what, with or without legitimization, and will always be oppressive to some extend. The question for me is rather, and this is more of a republican notion, how can we minimize the oppression? There is no non-existing zero-option which it can be compared to.

So yeah, I don't know how to argue this point any better, it just seems obvious to me that this is not the way to be approaching these issues.

Pfhorrest

the philosophers mistake (also not meant as an insult btw) that everything can and needs to be justified — ChatteringMonkey

When you tell someone else that they must do (or think) something, it absolutely does call for justification. Xtrix isn’t saying that people need justification for voluntarily participating in the social structures we have, but that the compulsive participation in them needs justification.

E.g. why shouldn’t I just be allowed to keep living where I live unless I pay someone to “let” me? Why should they get to decide that? Not why I should have the permission to pay them to let me, but why I should be obligated to do so.

ChatteringMonkey

↪Pfhorrest

When you tell someone else that they must do (or think) something, it absolutely does call for justification. Xtrix isn’t saying that people need justification for voluntarily participating in the social structures we have, but that the compulsive participation in them needs justification.

E.g. why shouldn’t I just be allowed to keep living where I live unless I pay someone to “let” me? Why should they get to decide that? Not why I should have the permission to pay them to let me, but why I should be obligated to do so. — Pfhorrest

Because they have the power and you have not, is the short of it.

Why should they let you live there if they could just take your property?

History has been one long struggle to secure more rights for people.

If we are to make abstraction of all of history and pretend like there is a world in which power relations between people don't exist, then I don't think we will get anywhere.

There is no zero-option, I don't know why this is so hard to understand.

Pfhorrest

Because they have the power and you have not, is the short of it. — ChatteringMonkey

That's an answer to why we are required, not why we should be.

Also, given that who has the power is always in the end a question of who has the greatest differential of support minus opposition, the really relevant question is why should we let them have it? Why should most people stand with or at least not against a certain social power structure? "Because they have the power" is no answer to that, because they only have that power because of what people think the answer to that is.

Mikie

Let's look to the political and economic structure of our society. Let's look to the structures of our workplaces, where we, in the real world, work for a salary or a wage. Then let's ask if these structures should remain in place or not. If we find that they have no real justification for existing, then we should discuss alternatives.
— Xtrix

See I'd like to have this conversation, but I think you are asking the wrong question... and I just can't get past that because i think it skews the dialogue. I think you are making the philosophers mistake (also not meant as an insult btw) that everything can and needs to be justified. — ChatteringMonkey

Forget the word "justification," then. Think of it this way: someone tells you to do something, and you question why. The "why?" question is asking for an explanation, a reason, a rationale, or any other way you'd like to phrase it.

I think the real mistake is getting too hung up on words. Yes, that has it's place and is often very important, but in this context it derails the real world situation I'm trying to discuss, which is our current political and economic situation in the United States.

Maybe it's a political compromise that an organisation is the way it is, maybe there are practical reasons that aren't readily visible to someone viewing it from the outside, maybe there are reasons long forgotten... or maybe there is indeed no apparent reason at all. In any case, no one persons can possibly know the full reason for how the way things are... and so it's not really a fair question. — ChatteringMonkey

Again, you're off in space. Asking something like "Why do things happen?" isn't even a question. Others are so abstract and general it's nearly impossible to talk about. You have to ask about the real world, which we all live in -- not some hypothetical world. So in this world, there certainly is a reason and a history for the existence of corporate structure. There is a reason we subsidize the fossil fuel industry. There's a reason the wealthiest 0.01% get nearly all the legislation they want passed. Etc. etc. There are all kinds of specific reasons for specific structures -- again, in the real world. It's up to us to ask if we accept them or not. So when Kennedy or LBG told us that by invading Vietnam we were defending Vietnam, we had a choice to accept or reject that explanation. When W. Bush told us Iraq had weapons of mass destruction, that too was a justification for war. We had a choice to accept that or not.

And so on.

I don't understand this attitude of "we'll never know the full reason," etc. It's very strange. Let's keep it down to Earth for a while -- we can discuss more abstract things later.

So yeah, I don't know how to argue this point any better, it just seems obvious to me that this is not the way to be approaching these issues. — ChatteringMonkey

And I'm still a bit baffled at that.

Mikie

If we are to make abstraction of all of history and pretend like there is a world in which power relations between people don't exist, then I don't think we will get anywhere. — ChatteringMonkey

No one is pretending this -- quite the contrary. Power structures are indeed real and should be questioned. Authority should be questioned, in general. That's all this principle says. And you yourself use it all the time. You're over-complicating it by getting hung up on the specific wording.

There is no zero-option, I don't know why this is so hard to understand. — ChatteringMonkey

The only one talking about a "zero-option" is you. No one is advocating for such a thing, whatever it means. Yes, government exists. Power differentials exist. Government, power, and authority should be questioned for legitimacy. The burden of proof is on the person or entity exerting control to show that it is reasonable and justified -- just like in acts of war. Just like when a doctor wants to perform surgery. Just like when there's a ruling from a court.

True, there's always some kind of justification and pretext for all kinds of rotten behavior. It's our job as human beings to decide whether we're convinced by the rationalization or not. Some of the time, the burden can be met. Most of the time, it can't.

I'm not sure at this point what you're arguing against. Perhaps you're doing so for the sake of arguing -- otherwise, I fail to see the trouble, besides confusing the term "justify" with some kind of Socratic philosophical notion.

Mikie

↪Pfhorrest

Thank you.

ChatteringMonkey

There are all kinds of specific reasons for specific structures -- again, in the real world. It's up to us to ask if we accept them or not. — Xtrix

My point is you or I do not know what the real reasons are. Doesn't it seems strange to you to judge something you only have partial knowledge about at best?

The only one talking about a "zero-option" is you. — Xtrix

No you did, in asking for a justification for something to exist. Things exist first, without justification, like governments and rulers, oppressing people... and then we try to make things better. I think you can only make a good evaluation of organisations if you take into account where they come from, what progress has already been made, what can reasonably be expected given that history etc etc...

That was my point, that you seemed to advocate some kind of flat a-historical evaluation via the principles set out in the OP. If that's not what you are advocating, than my point is moot and I apologize for the trouble.

Principles of Politics

Welcome to The Philosophy Forum!

Categories

More Discussions