Utilitarianism

Thomas

Sorry. I was talking assuming you are german and referring to german legal system.
No need to say that, as a jurist, I believe in German-Portuguese-Italian right, and have the greatest doubts about common law.
But there we would be back in the utilitarianist issues, and I think we both made clear what our point of views are.

0 Replies

Oh what a great thread! I was about to post one very similar to it.

my contribution: I am a great beliver in Bentham and utilit. Because its realistic. becuase its today's pragmatic world. One example - the democratic voting system - the majority population's leader and choice become the leader of the country. why? because the majority wanted it. The minority suffer. yes well. But that's the reality of today's world.

harsh, cruel, I know. But true.

0 Replies

I have a contrary view. I think it's more realistic to respect everyone as of equal value, and non-sacrificable because they are not objects. Hurting a person so that the majority could be happy is not something I find ethical.

Quote:

One example - the democratic voting system - the majority population's leader and choice become the leader of the country. why? because the majority wanted it. The minority suffer. yes well. But that's the reality of today's world.

Ah, but we have regional representation. It's not like the majority of votes will win it, it's the majority of seats.

Democracy with regarding to the majority risk, as Aristotle puts it, to be degenerated into 'Mob Rule.' The Nazi was an example of this.

0 Replies

Ray wrote:

Ah, but we have regional representation. It's not like the majority of votes will win it, it's the majority of seats.

Are you in America or Australia? (Sorry, I'm just not sure of the voting system in the US.)

0 Replies

Canada.

0 Replies

Whoops.

Me idiot. I'm not sure how their voting system works there. I was looking at more of the australian context. Sorry. Embarrassed

0 Replies

Ray wrote:

I have a contrary view. I think it's more realistic to respect everyone as of equal value, and non-sacrificable because they are not objects. Hurting a person so that the majority could be happy is not something I find ethical.

I know. Its a shame (and note, the minority argument is one of the biggest criticisms against bentham.) But in my case (note my name) I follow reality, and today's world is no one cares for the little guys except other little guys. Ethics doesn't play a part anymore.

0 Replies

No probs, I don't know how the Australian system works as well, so it's interesting to read that. Very Happy

Without ideal, there is no progress. What reality is, is beyond your control, but what is in your power is your action and your beliefs.
Without a person to stand up for what is right, who will?

Remember, one can argue that the Divine Rights of Kings are practical, that the Aristocratic systems are pragmatic, that slavery is pragmatic. We could do a lot of things that are pragmatic, but we choose not to.

Without ideals, there is no humanity.

0 Replies

No probs, I don't know how the Australian system works as well, so it's interesting to read that. Very Happy

Without ideal, there is no progress. What reality is, is beyond your control, but what is in your power is your action and your beliefs.
Without a person to stand up for what is right, who will?

Remember, one can argue that the Divine Rights of Kings are practical, that the Aristocratic systems are pragmatic, that slavery is pragmatic. We could do a lot of things that are pragmatic, but we choose not to.

Without ideals, there is no humanity.

0 Replies

Ray wrote:

No probs, I don't know how the Australian system works as well, so it's interesting to read that.

Without ideal, there is no progress. What reality is, is beyond your control, but what is in your power is your action and your beliefs.
Without a person to stand up for what is right, who will?

Remember, one can argue that the Divine Rights of Kings are practical, that the Aristocratic systems are pragmatic, that slavery is pragmatic. We could do a lot of things that are pragmatic, but we choose not to.

Without ideals, there is no humanity.

Maybe its just me - I'm too much of a pessimist...

0 Replies

Ray wrote:

Without ideal, there is no progress. What reality is, is beyond your control, but what is in your power is your action and your beliefs.
Without a person to stand up for what is right, who will?

and you're very optimistic!! Great! Very Happy

But then the question arises - yeah, it is within our power, our actions and beliefs - and what do we apply them to? What do the majority, the dominating apply them to?

Themselves. In australia, the current ruling party (Liberal-Coalition) take full power of the senate on 1st July (effectively rendering it a rubber stamp in the process of validating legislation) and what have they done already? Passed a million laws that help them (more taxes on the poor, less on the rich and those who deserve more taxes) - and the minority have given up on them. Only Labour (ironically, the party I support) have opposed the tax changes and they are at it alone. Those who hate the tax laws have given up. Its this world, these facts that make me so depressed about ethics and morals and helping the little people. There is no more.

0 Replies

I understand Pragmatic, that those in power are mostly corrupted. That's why Plato suggested that in an ideal political system, the one leading the country would be required to be poor (that's actually not a pretty bad idea Laughing

).

I just think that what the state of reality is at the present, may be a call for action. :wink:

0 Replies

Ray wrote:

I understand Pragmatic, that those in power are mostly corrupted. That's why Plato suggested that in an ideal political system, the one leading the country would be required to be poor (that's actually not a pretty bad idea ).

I'd like that too. It would be interesting to have the poor at the lead for a change. Marx would approve.

Ray wrote:

I just think that what the state of reality is at the present, may be a call for action. :wink:

a call for action - but would there be action for the action? At this point in time, highly unlikely.

0 Replies

Quote:

I'd like that too. It would be interesting to have the poor at the lead for a change. Marx would approve.

Yep, too bad Marx was an anarchist, and an extremist.

Quote:

a call for action - but would there be action for the action? At this point in time, highly unlikely.

Maybe, but inaction does not help anything to suffice.
BTW, are we talking about the legal system here?

0 Replies

Ray wrote:

Maybe, but inaction does not help anything to suffice.
BTW, are we talking about the legal system here?

Uhhh, seems to have digressed into soceity generally. Shocked

Is that ok with you?

0 Replies

Ray

Quote:

That's why Plato suggested that in an ideal political system, the one leading the country would be required to be poor (that's actually not a pretty bad idea)

According to the Republic, they were required not only to be poor: they could have no private property. Even the meals must be eaten in public. As Plato says, they only owned their bodies (and even this with severe restrictions, like the rules of marriage).

Ray, in your opinion, how much politicians would remain, if this conditions were implemented?

0 Replies

Quote:

Ray, in your opinion, how much politicians would remain, if this conditions were implemented?

val, I was joking. Very Happy

As I was referring only to the part of being poor, I think that it might be a good idea to have the income of the politicians lowered(not poor income), as this would perhaps sift out those who are really running because they want to help the country or if they are only running because they want more money and influence.

Also, I think that in today's democratic system, the ones who can win an election must have money for their campaign, and to get the support of some businesses. I don't like this convention.

0 Replies

ray

I agree with you. And my example in the previous reply was not a refutation, by the contrary: if politicians only intention is to serve the community - and not use it - why not follow Plato's idea?

0 Replies

Quote:

I agree with you. And my example in the previous reply was not a refutation, by the contrary: if politicians only intention is to serve the community - and not use it - why not follow Plato's idea?

Okay.

I guess money controls the world nowadays...

0 Replies

Ray wrote:

I guess money controls the world nowadays...

Its the way of the realistic world today. Confused

0 Replies

Utilitarianism

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know