4 ms·

I agree that there are no universal morals. I propose this solution: we let everyone follow his own morals as much as possible, and when it's impossible for eve

by comicjk 13y ago

I agree that there are no universal morals. I propose this solution: we let everyone follow his own morals as much as possible, and when it's impossible for everyone to be satisfied on a given point, we vote on it. Constitutional democracy is not a denial that people have different morals - it's based on that fact.

chrischen 13y ago
Constitutional democracy only works if the whole population agrees to the moral and practical superiority of freedom of choice and equality of opportunity. And then it is allowed to function. It doesn't happen naturally without conscious human intervention. Naturally, if society was a crude free-for-all, we'd have things that resemble Somalia, or the Mexican drug cartels, or North Korea (along with things like The United States). In these examples of political structures, we have the most powerful taking control of whatever they can take control of. Then they hold it there with whatever means they can for as long as they can. Democracy is like this but all the people say "hey, let's try giving everyone the same amount of power so we can normalize this game called life and control this experiment for longer-term goals." Basically I'm saying that power supersedes even democracy oh the moral pyramid. There is one level even beyond democracy and here you'll find it in the company of authoritarianism, communism, etc. Power is at the top level of this pyramid. It is based on survival of the fittest. Power is the only universal moral because it is a fundamental law of nature. Democracy is not a fundamental law of nature. It is a construct of a specific subgroup of humans. It was conceived and designed to achieve a specific goal. And because there is a goal, and all goals are different, it is a subjective end. Therefore democracy is arbitrary and subjective—not a universal moral. As much as you'd like to believe in inalienable rights, if I have a gun to your head, you can bet I can alienate your "natural" rights. Yes, you'll always have the choice of death or obedience, but once you're dead, you're irrelevant. But if you have a bigger gun, then I can no longer "alienate" your rights! You can "alienate" mine! That's power. Democracy is abstracted into laws which are ultimately enforced with power (guns, police... head) Because of this, democracy is not fundamental. It is human-designed construct and therefore it is not a universal thing. Another way to think of it is like this: we have a 10 x 10 grid and we have 100 people. Democracy assigns each person a square. Power lets people take whatever squares they can defend. The end result of these two philosophies will look different, but democracy was specifically designed to artificially treat each person as equal so we can achieve the end goal of giving people a chance to succeed. Supposedly this will help society be better off, but this goal is still an arbitrary goal (though most people would agree on this) and democracy is just the means. The natural outcome is to give spaces to those who can defend it. If you can't defend the space, you don't deserve to own it. Democracy is human manipulation of this system to try to achieve better results. I will fully disclose that I am a firm supporter of democracy (because of the way it normalizes society), but I want to make it clear that it's because it's the best method so far, not because it's inherently right.
- comicjk 13y ago
  I agree that force is real and that legal equality is an ideal - this is the best argument I know of for a broad interpretation of the right to bear arms. But the fact that democracy is not a state of nature is hardly an argument against it. "The most workable system we have" is all it usually claims to be. Incidentally, why would you think that a universal moral ideal would be something that happens by itself? Isn't it abundantly clear that humans never fulfil any of their ideals?
  - chrischen 13y ago
    I think you didn't fully understand my argument. I never argued, in my reply to you or others, that democracy is undesirable. > Incidentally, why would you think that a universal moral ideal would be something that happens by itself? Isn't it abundantly clear that humans never fulfil any of their ideals? Legal equality isn't an ideal. It's not something we strive for because we already have it. A universal moral has to be something that happens automatically because otherwise (like democracy) it can only happen with human intervention. And if it requires human intervention, it is no longer universal. It is an artificial construct of man. And like all things men create, it's subjective and designed to serve the specific goals of its creator. A system like a free-for-all survival of the fittest is universal because it was not created by man to serve a purpose—it just is. Therefore it is universal because everything in the universe abides by it, whereas democracy is only abided by those who subscribe to it voluntarily. Freedom is not free. Democracy is not free and it requires upkeep. Basically those who have power have used it to provide equal power to those under its jurisdiction. But it is made possible by the more universal law of power, and without the benevolent power holders we wouldn't have a free equal (under the law) society in the West.

by comicjk 13y ago

chrischen 13y ago

Constitutional democracy only works if the whole population agrees to the moral and practical superiority of freedom of choice and equality of opportunity. And then it is allowed to function. It doesn't happen naturally without conscious human intervention. Naturally, if society was a crude free-for-all, we'd have things that resemble Somalia, or the Mexican drug cartels, or North Korea (along with things like The United States). In these examples of political structures, we have the most powerful taking control of whatever they can take control of. Then they hold it there with whatever means they can for as long as they can. Democracy is like this but all the people say "hey, let's try giving everyone the same amount of power so we can normalize this game called life and control this experiment for longer-term goals." Basically I'm saying that power supersedes even democracy oh the moral pyramid. There is one level even beyond democracy and here you'll find it in the company of authoritarianism, communism, etc. Power is at the top level of this pyramid. It is based on survival of the fittest. Power is the only universal moral because it is a fundamental law of nature. Democracy is not a fundamental law of nature. It is a construct of a specific subgroup of humans. It was conceived and designed to achieve a specific goal. And because there is a goal, and all goals are different, it is a subjective end. Therefore democracy is arbitrary and subjective—not a universal moral. As much as you'd like to believe in inalienable rights, if I have a gun to your head, you can bet I can alienate your "natural" rights. Yes, you'll always have the choice of death or obedience, but once you're dead, you're irrelevant. But if you have a bigger gun, then I can no longer "alienate" your rights! You can "alienate" mine! That's power. Democracy is abstracted into laws which are ultimately enforced with power (guns, police... head) Because of this, democracy is not fundamental. It is human-designed construct and therefore it is not a universal thing. Another way to think of it is like this: we have a 10 x 10 grid and we have 100 people. Democracy assigns each person a square. Power lets people take whatever squares they can defend. The end result of these two philosophies will look different, but democracy was specifically designed to artificially treat each person as equal so we can achieve the end goal of giving people a chance to succeed. Supposedly this will help society be better off, but this goal is still an arbitrary goal (though most people would agree on this) and democracy is just the means. The natural outcome is to give spaces to those who can defend it. If you can't defend the space, you don't deserve to own it. Democracy is human manipulation of this system to try to achieve better results. I will fully disclose that I am a firm supporter of democracy (because of the way it normalizes society), but I want to make it clear that it's because it's the best method so far, not because it's inherently right.

comicjk 13y ago
I agree that force is real and that legal equality is an ideal - this is the best argument I know of for a broad interpretation of the right to bear arms. But the fact that democracy is not a state of nature is hardly an argument against it. "The most workable system we have" is all it usually claims to be. Incidentally, why would you think that a universal moral ideal would be something that happens by itself? Isn't it abundantly clear that humans never fulfil any of their ideals?
- chrischen 13y ago
  I think you didn't fully understand my argument. I never argued, in my reply to you or others, that democracy is undesirable. > Incidentally, why would you think that a universal moral ideal would be something that happens by itself? Isn't it abundantly clear that humans never fulfil any of their ideals? Legal equality isn't an ideal. It's not something we strive for because we already have it. A universal moral has to be something that happens automatically because otherwise (like democracy) it can only happen with human intervention. And if it requires human intervention, it is no longer universal. It is an artificial construct of man. And like all things men create, it's subjective and designed to serve the specific goals of its creator. A system like a free-for-all survival of the fittest is universal because it was not created by man to serve a purpose—it just is. Therefore it is universal because everything in the universe abides by it, whereas democracy is only abided by those who subscribe to it voluntarily. Freedom is not free. Democracy is not free and it requires upkeep. Basically those who have power have used it to provide equal power to those under its jurisdiction. But it is made possible by the more universal law of power, and without the benevolent power holders we wouldn't have a free equal (under the law) society in the West.