But we'd still need a value judgement to determine how much loss of money equals how much risk to life. — Echarmion

So you're probably right about this not being the place to re-hash the moral relativism argument, but the above is the interesting part with regard to this thread. Why are you drawing a limit to rationality? Whatever it is (which I obviously don't agree with) that you think rationality can use to determine values, why does it suddenly go away when determining something like the above.

Is it to do with...

I don't believe that rationality is precise enough to offer answers to all legal value judgements, at least not given current cognitive capacities. — Echarmion

...? If so, then how are you judging where rationality becomes too imprecise. I always considered rationality to be best in precise situations and worse when applied to too large a scale (too many factors to be reasonably considered). You seem to be saying the opposite? That when it comes to really broad matters like human rights we can rationally determine the way forward, but for something precise like the relative value of risk to life vs loss of property, its becomes useless.

Perhaps without revisiting the moral relativism argument, you could put a bit more detail on how you think preciseness affects rationality?

How do you view this? If a democracy is supposed to have the goal of establishing justice, where does it go wrong? — frank

If we look at the working of the judiciary specifically, I don't think whether or not verdicts are just is strongly connected to democracy as such. It's more a question of the self-image and self-policing of the judiciary.

If we look at legislative question, I think the answer is broadly that a democracy is always in tension with non-democratic sources of power. If you think about it, militaries technically have the ability to impose their will on the civilian government pretty much everywhere. That they don't exercise this power is mostly down to, again, self-image. Most generals in, say, the US military wouldn't dream of launching a military coup, and they know that if they did, they cannot rely on their officers and soldiers following orders.

Comparable "taboos" don't exist with regards to economic power, so the holders of economic power are much less constrained in using it for their benefit. Democracies nevertheless have the advantage that it is much harder to ignore the interests in of the population at large compared to other systems. Even the most despotic ruler will be overthrown eventually, but being able to vote means the government needs to be a lot more sensitive to public opinion. If the population has a strong sense solidarity, this means that all interests will end up being somewhat protected.

So you're probably right about this not being the place to re-hash the moral relativism argument, but the above is the interesting part with regard to this thread. Why are you drawing a limit to rationality? Whatever it is (which I obviously don't agree with) that you think rationality can use to determine values, why does it suddenly go away when determining something like the above. — Isaac

What I mean is more like "grey areas". Rationality doesn't go away, but there is a difference between those rules that are necessary for "just" society and those rules which can be decided either way. Essentially, there are two layers of normative questions: There are personal morals, which affect every single decision, though it's not necessarily always possible to compute the answer. And then there is social morals, or law, which only compirses those rules which are indispensable to protect people's ability to follow their personal morals.

If so, then how are you judging where rationality becomes too imprecise. I always considered rationality to be best in precise situations and worse when applied to too large a scale (too many factors to be reasonably considered). You seem to be saying the opposite? That when it comes to really broad matters like human rights we can rationally determine the way forward, but for something precise like the relative value of risk to life vs loss of property, its becomes useless. — Isaac

Not exactly, but I realize I am not being terribly clear hear, and I may also be contradicting myself occaisonally. These are rough ideas that I have that I need to think about, or discuss, more. You are right that "large scale" problems are more difficult to think through, but they also allow more abstraction. It's relatively easy to argue that we should respect all beings who appear to be sentient in a way comparable to humans. We don't need to bother with the peculiarities of the beings, since reciprocal respect seems the best approach either way.

But when we get to more peculiar questions like what this means for the distribution of wealth an resources, it gets a lot more complicated, and our argumentative chains get longer and longer. This may be related to whether or not you approach this topic "top down" or "bottom up", that is whether you start with a social or an individualistic approach.

And there it is - the problem is funding, in other words money. — Shamshir

Right. I'd restructure things so that they're not based on money in any traditional sense.

The majority must not just want, they must want what is right. :joke:

The majority must not just want, they must want what is right. — TheMadFool

Consider the following trilemma:

Reduce taxation.
Increase government spending.
Balance the books.

One might rationally be in favour of all the above, but in general, one cannot have all 3 at once; something has to give. So a rational voter will likely vote for some (any) combination of 2 of these, at the expense of the 3rd. But this means that a population of entirely rational voters can achieve a two thirds majority for all three, and that is impossible to implement.

And this is an idealised and unrealistically simple state of affairs. In practice there are hundreds of interlocked and complex policy decisions to be made and voters are not even well informed, never mind rational. Implementing what the majority want is always actually impossible, and even to the extent it might be possible is unlikely to be wise.

So just because a majority favour policy X, that does not mean that policy X can be implemented in a way that is consistent with other policies that have a majority. Life is more interesting than that, and it is not just a matter of someone knowing better what is right.

One might rationally be in favour of all the above, but in general, one cannot have all 3 at once; something has to give. — unenlightened

Actually you are wrong, unenlightened.

You can indeed have all of the three.

You just erase the public debt that the central bank has, which is the largest individual owner of that debt! Erasing 2,5 trillion dollars, basically 1/8 of the gross debt, has to give Trump some money to build that wall and lower taxes of the wealthy, you know. As you can say the central bank is de facto part of the public sector, a consolidated public sector balance sheet would net this debt out.

Yippiee!!! :grin: :grin: :razz:

Life is more interesting than that, and it is not just a matter of someone knowing better what is right. — unenlightened

:up:

We need, as you said, "rational voters". Absent that, democracy is nothing more than the tyranny of the majority. An oxymoron apparently but brings into relief the painful fact that the system of democracy by itself is simply not enough for a good government. We need educated, well-informed, rational people to make a true democracy. I want to say that the world's democracies are attempting to do that by laying necessary emphasis on education, developing and encouraging methods of increasing the intelligence of the general populace but I would be lying. Don't you think?

It's not the fault of the leaders though. The blame falls squarely on the shoulders of the people themselves. Ill-informed and irrational people don't vote for what's right but for what they want. What they want is hardly ever about making education accessible. So, their children are as/more irrational than them. These children grow up and repeat the process. It's a vicious cycle which negatively impacts democracy.

But I do agree that "life is more interesting than that". What I said does very little justice to the complexity of the matter but it's certainly something to think about.

. Ill-informed and irrational people don't vote for what's right but for what they want. — TheMadFool

Or they just choose something from the plate of rotten choices given to them. And just whine about the choices being bad, but not doing anything themselves.The problem isn't irrationality, it's more about basic apathy, the belief things won't improve and there's nothing you can do about it.

For example, I haven't met the American who is happy about the country having the most expensive health care system in the World that only gives out a mediocre service (except for the rich) and results in poor health statistics compared to other countries. Perhaps it's the rich doctor enjoying his 1%-status that enjoys the system.

For example, I haven't met the American who is happy about the country having the most expensive health care system in the World that only gives out a mediocre service (except for the rich) and results in poor health statistics compared to other countries. Perhaps it's the rich doctor enjoying his 1%-status that enjoys the system. — ssu

Perhaps, but doctors do not constitute a majority - that's lawyers. The problem is one cannot have a good, cheap, universal, private healthcare system. It is not enough to vote for apple pie, one has to vote for orchards and bakeries too, and that means not letting me build a gambling parlour on grandpa's apple farm.

The problem is one cannot have a good, cheap, universal, private healthcare system. — unenlightened

Look, every other health care system IN THE WORLD is cheaper than the US system. And A LOT of these health care systems even with their flaws make the people under these systems to live longer and be healthier than Americans.

The only reason for this is extremely simple: the American system IS INTENDED to make a profit for companies in the health care business, who basically have made the system for themselves. Americans simply want to pour money to the system in order for someone to make a fortune.

And it seems like many Americans are so demoralized, that they fear anything radically different would be even worse.

The only reason for this is extremely simple: — ssu

private — unenlightened

Well, actually you can have even private companies in an universal health care system. Starting from private insurance companies ordered by law to give the service with a reasonable modest incentive to do it. Or the government buying the medicine on bulk, which can lower the prices.

But when the private companies themselves define the health care system, then you are right, it indeed is impossible.

Democracy is one of the very WORST forms of government. And Democracy doesn't even result in democratic decisions. Democracy is a sham - you generally just get 2 Capitalist morons as a choice. You pick one way and then you get a DICTATOR for 4 years.

Just look at the last slew of US and UK presidents - a laundry list of ABSOLUTELY DEMENTED individuals with Obama snuck in there to ensure Wall Street reigns supreme.

Ask 1000 people off the street if they want war... you'll get 999 NOs - and yet we live in a Democracy.

Democracy keeps people in line because it represents the illusion of choice. "I can change the direction of the country with my vote" - What a joke.

Karl Marx was on the right track. The correct form of government is SOCIALISM... But with a philosopher at the top. As Plato teaches us, there can be no peace on earth until kings become Philosophers and vice versa. When you put a regular man at the top of all the resources, the absolute nature of power corrupts absolutely.

When you put a regular man at the top of all the resources, the absolute nature of power corrupts absolutely. — PhilCF

And philosophers are not regular men?

Ask 1000 people off the street if they want war... you'll get 999 NOs - and yet we live in a Democracy. — PhilCF

This is a nice fiction, but it's not true. Wars have been fought with a broad majority supporting them. People are not categorically opposed to violence.

When I use the term Philosopher, I use it in its correct context, i.e. someone who loves, and therefore spends his life in the pursuit of wisdom. "Regular" is just an interchangeable word. Philosophers are the only people who are on the right path, or in the case of the enlightened mind, who have reached their destination in this life. But enlightenment is rare... I know because I am fortunate to have attained enlightenment... and I know of no one else in my social circle, or father afield who has attained my level of knowing. I watch some videos of Tolle (the Power of Now), and he for sure is enlightenment, but like Nietzche, he speaks such a knotty truth, his Philosophy is offputting to the herd. I am fortunate in the sense that I am fully enlightened (Moksha), and yet I can explain my thought to anyone with a reasonable (low) education.

In terms of the nice fiction, you are incorrect... People off the street would say "we do not want war" - the Yang is the dominant force in the overwhelming number of human hears... but all the world's a stage, and the dumbed down herd accept the propaganda fed through the state sponsored screen. ISIS is a threat etc...

What about on a small scale: you and your friends vote on what restaurant to go to.

Vs an oligarchy: two of your friends decide for the group.

Vs an dictatorship.

Is one better than the others?

You bet your life that one is better than the other. A democracy creates chaos with a myriad of conflicting view points. There is only one truth in terms of the BEST restaurant... and concensus building is not the correct way to find it. That just collects opinions, often conflicting.

You need one guy who knows... a philosopher king of the restaurant game. Then youll eat well for now and forever.

How does the philosopher king know which is the best restaurant?

And if he chooses a pizza parlor when you were in the mood for Greek, has he still chosen the right restaurant for you?

the Philosopher King concerns himself with what is true. He collects up all the information and then makes the right choice.

You can't be a king because you study Philosopher. Plato didn't mean that. He meant that you give the top spot to the greatest Philosopher alive. And that man knows where to eat x

Say three people come forward claiming to be the best philosopher alive. How do we know which is telling the truth? If any of them?

Have a conversation with them. If one is enlightened you will know within 30 seconds of conversation. If 2 or more are enlightened it might take you about 2 minutes to find the one that has attained the highest state of knowing. I know not how high I am in terms of every human being on the planet, but I have never met, seen or heard of anyone who has anything like my level of insight.

I find that - and this is certainly true in this forum - Philosophy has been ambushed by sophists trying to be clever - this is a real shame as Philosophy is a noble art, and doesn't deserve to be sullied by this nonsense.

If one is enlightened you will know within 30 seconds of conversation. — PhilCF

What gives it away?

@Bitter Crank

What do you think it would take for the US to become a dictatorship?

Only one thing can ever be a goal in itself: Happiness. (Aristotle says so, and I agree.) Whatever other goals we have, we ultimately pursue them for the sake of happiness. Certain other goods may seem like goals in themselves, for example health, friendship and freedom, but even those are subordinated to happiness even though it may not seem obvious at first sight.
Then there are other goals that probably no one thinks are goods in themselves. Most people are aware that they want money in order to be able to buy things.
Now, traditionally any system of government has always been assessed according to what it might be able to achieve and the question “Why do we need a government at all?” is one it is valid to ask. Even a democrat must answer that question and when doing that he will realize that if the purpose of government is to achieve something. Then democracy, which is one particular system of government, must also be there to achieve something other than itself.
What would you prefer? To live in a democracy and be unhappy or to live in a dictatorship and be happy? Both are certainly possible. Maybe a democracy is more likely to make you happy, but that’s a different argument.

Only one thing can ever be a goal in itself: Happiness. ( — Congau

Happiness, satisfaction, a sense if completion?

Just as people differ and so your happiness differs from mine, societies differ: they have different histories, imperatives, and challenges, so the shape of their happinesses differ.

There is no one-size-fits-all government. Do you agree?

Four more years of Trump? But then, in comparison to having eight years of VP Cheney skulking about, Trump is probably not a serious threat.

Trump displays a few mild aspects of fascism: strong-man or one-man rule; crass service to heavy industry (coal, oil, gas, for example); appeals to racial hostilities (even if subtle); what could be a deliberately confusing communication policy which undermines rational discussion; a limited interest in civil rights--all that sort of thing. Fascism has been usefully described as "more of a method than a doctrine". So, it's the disruption of democratic government that is fascistic. Trump isn't the first one to do this, of course.

Trump is a mild sample -- not the real deal, however. The Republican Party has played around with the subversion of democracy. The Senate's refusal to consider Obama's Supreme Court nomination Merrick Garland is the sort of thing that happens in crypto-fascism.

A highly dissatisfied military seems to be a requirement for fascism. We seem to have a reasonably contented military, which is a good thing. Fascism needs a major crisis -- either a real or a manufactured one. Not since the simultaneous attack on the Philippines and Pearl Harbor have we had a sufficiently opportune crisis for American fascism to take off. The Cuban Missile Crisis of 1962 unfolded too swiftly for it to be an opportunity for a fascist attempt.

The People need to be suffering enough and looking for fascist relief. Americans are not suffering enough to spring for a fascist dictator. The vast majority of US citizens are at least reasonably well-fed, clothed, and employed. We may have various unsatisfied longings, but these are not the sort of dissatisfactions that lead people into adulation of the Maximum Leader.

We are not in a 1930s European moment.

Phillip Roth's novel The Plot Against America (pub. 2004) is an interesting take on a fascist takeover. If I remember correctly, it was set in the 1930s and Charles Lindbergh (first to fly Solo across the Atlantic) was the fascist candidate.

Madelaine Albright published a book recently: Fascism - A Warning. Haven't read it.

Given a BIG PROBLEM, and given a powerful core group who were willing to make a play for a coup d'état dictatorship, and given a sufficiently dissatisfied military, we could end up with a dictatorship. It probably won't look like Nazi Germany, the USSR or Cuba. I would expect it to have a distinctly American flavor (which is deep-fat-fried).

the Philosopher King concerns himself with what is true. He collects up all the information and then makes the right choice. — PhilCF

A lot of philosophers believe that the discovery of new knowledge is the result of a rational procedure.

That is why they fail to discover it. Reason is limited to verifying that the knowledge conclusion necessarily follows from its justification. Reason by itself cannot discover what conclusion to make nor what evidence would support such conclusion. That is the prerogative of other unknown, mental faculties.

Why and how did Einstein manage to write his seminal 1905 paper that propelled him to fame? We do not know. It is certainly not the result of reasoning or any other purely mechanical procedure, such as "He collects up all the information and then makes the right choice".

It is a mistake to believe that humanity would be characterized by reason, which is merely a mechanical procedure that machines can carry out too. Humanity is characterized by other unknown mental faculties that allow it to discover new knowledge.

Therefore, "collecting information and making the right choice" is a very, very weak principle. This kind of mechanical procedures do not allow for changing the ball game. That is also, absolutely not how Einstein discovered special relativity in 1905. It is rather how the software controlling a robot in a factory steers the details of the production of new widgets.

An economic downturn followed by a hot war with China?

It would open the door, but whether the US goes through it would depend on how badly people are suffering.

Of course, wars tend to end economic downturns -- unless the "hot war" is really, really hot -- but then there wouldn't be anybody left.

Something bad: A very severe west coast earthquake (the BIG ONE) during a year when agricultural production falls precipitously (drought, heavy rain, late frost, insects, disease--all quite possible) Maybe a pandemic following a really big natural disaster. Maybe a huge and sudden influx of people from Mexico, Central America, and Northern South America caused by Global Warming and a pandemic (perfect timing). Let's say that whatever the huge crisis is, the Federal Government proves unable to mount a response. Part of the population is desperate; part of the population is deeply resentful; everybody is angry and looking for someone to blame. People on the west coast (maybe 25 million) are in bad shape. Lots of people are very worried.

A group within the military, perhaps possibly, comes forward and seizes the government. Let's say they actually prove somewhat adept at dealing with the crises. Voila! a dictatorship.

Or maybe somebody like Trump, only more evil. Much more evil. (It's not that I love Donald, or anything like that. I just don't think he's spent the last 25 years planning, plotting, and preparing to take over the government and become a dictator. Hitler and Mussolini worked at it for quite a while. Trump is an asshole but he's too self-absorbed to make a good dictator.

Satisfaction probably means a less extensive form of happiness. If you have happiness, you also have satisfaction or satisfaction may lead to happiness. In either case happiness is the highest good.


A sense of completion is probably also an ingredient of happiness.
The concrete expression of happiness differs from person to person, but in general terms it may be the same. One person gets a sense of self-fulfillment from his stamp collection and another one gets it from playing football. We can still say that their happiness has the same content, namely self-fulfillment.

A good government would take into account the specific needs of its specific people and that would be reflected in the laws. However, the laws and policies of a state may not depend on any particular system of government. A system of government regulates the decision making process, not the decisions themselves. Now, you may make the argument that democracy is always more likely to produce the right tailor made laws, or if monarchy is your favorite you may attribute that ability to a monarchy. What an individually unique people needs is individually unique laws, the system of government, for example democracy, is just a tool. Maybe any system of government could fit a given country if only its policy was good.