Philosophy Now Forum

Regimes are just individuals with bigger sticks, so individual agents ought be held accountable.

henry quirk wrote: ↑Fri Jan 03, 2020 9:58 pm "Regimes are more than the sum of the individuals who directly administer them."

If everyone runnin' the regime dies, does the regime continue?

No.

#

"Regimes are institutionalised so individuals who are dealing with regimes deal with institutions as well as individuals."

What are institutions? What are institutions comprised of?

#

"Accountability as if individuals have Free Will is a relative matter."

Since individuals are free wills (are self-directing, are self-responsible), accountability isn't all all that relative, or fluid, or negate-able.

#

"The more liberal the regime the more the causes of the individual's crimes are considered."

Are we talkin' about regime leaders or those livin' under a regime?

Belinda wrote: ↑Sat Jan 04, 2020 11:39 am

henry quirk wrote: ↑Fri Jan 03, 2020 9:58 pm "Regimes are more than the sum of the individuals who directly administer them."

If everyone runnin' the regime dies, does the regime continue?

No.

#

"Regimes are institutionalised so individuals who are dealing with regimes deal with institutions as well as individuals."

What are institutions? What are institutions comprised of?

#

"Accountability as if individuals have Free Will is a relative matter."

Since individuals are free wills (are self-directing, are self-responsible), accountability isn't all all that relative, or fluid, or negate-able.

#

"The more liberal the regime the more the causes of the individual's crimes are considered."

Are we talkin' about regime leaders or those livin' under a regime?

Human institutions often become established to such an extent that individuals can be churned up and devastated in the interests of the institution. Recently events in the Roman Catholic Church have illustrated how senior individuals have covered up wrong doings of individuals so to conserve the reputation of the RC Church.

I expect, Henry, you are not so naive as not to suspect governments of cover-ups which endanger or destroy some individual for the sake of conserving the government or supreme ruler?

Belinda wrote: ↑Mon Jan 06, 2020 12:54 am Well maybe instead of 'regimes' I really mean established institutions and ideologies are more than the sum of the individuals who cling to them.

An ideology exists in a person's head, is cleaved to, enacted by, was conceived by, a person or persons.

When a powerful clique holds a common ideology the individuals all too often have the skills to persuade or even coerce less powerful people.

E.G. The Nazi Party. The Stalinist Party. ISIS. The Roman Catholic Church. The Presbyterian 'Wee Free' Church. Slave owning capitalists. Mafia.

There are people, Henry, who are so powerless they can be bossed around by members of an ideological

Not everybody is as able as yourself to be free of poverty or ignorance.

Some ideas are bad ideas which are bad partly because they can attach to people's hearts and minds. Parents know this as do you.

I expect you agree ends don't justify means.

Because all situations are workable, in the spirit of philosophy and under Golden Rule authority I must decline personal inquiries

uwot wrote: ↑Tue Dec 31, 2019 8:00 am (Immanuel Cant and Skulltor had a tiff)
Help me out here, Mr Can; I can't work out which of you two is which.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Mon Jan 06, 2020 4:49 pm

Because all situations are workable, in the spirit of philosophy and under Golden Rule authority I must decline personal inquiries

It's not really a "personal" inquiry, Walker. Rather, it's a question about the particular philosophy for which you are already publicly advocating. I can't imagine why what is manifest by implication should have to remain secret by declaration. It amounts to refusing to say what one really means, that's all.

As for "The Golden Rule," I think honesty requires us to realize that it's not nearly universal (Randians, Nihilists, Libertarians, Nietzscheans, as well as every proponent of any kind of tribalism deny it), and manifestly does not summarize the totality of morality (some moral precepts from some traditions go beyond it). So I don't think it is actually "workable" for a whole lot of people, even though I would personally say it's right for me and you, provided we don't merely stop there.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Mon Jan 06, 2020 4:49 pm

Because all situations are workable, in the spirit of philosophy and under Golden Rule authority I must decline personal inquiries

It's not really a "personal" inquiry, Walker. Rather, it's a question about the particular philosophy for which you are already publicly advocating. I can't imagine why what is manifest by implication should have to remain secret by declaration. It amounts to refusing to say what one really means, that's all.

As for "The Golden Rule," I think honesty requires us to realize that it's not nearly universal (Randians, Nihilists, Libertarians, Nietzscheans, as well as every proponent of any kind of tribalism deny it), and manifestly does not summarize the totality of morality (some moral precepts from some traditions go beyond it). So I don't think it is actually "workable" for a whole lot of people, even though I would personally say it's right for me and you, provided we don't merely stop there.

IC wrote:You're a Hindu?

Quirk's Golden Rule: Leave me be, or else.