Philosophy Now Forum

There is great diversity in all democracies of people with different interests and desires... but could all reasonable members agree that the end motivation is a society that is ultimately better for everyone? Because given that was the end motivation, wouldn't then the collection and analysis of data from a science of need be what the politicians ultimately would be interested in seeing, learning and acting by? The question of the quality of the data set aside for the moment.

The Voice of Time wrote:There is great diversity in all democracies of people with different interests and desires... but could all reasonable members agree that the end motivation is a society that is ultimately better for everyone? Because given that was the end motivation, wouldn't then the collection and analysis of data from a science of need be what the politicians ultimately would be interested in seeing, learning and acting by? The question of the quality of the data set aside for the moment.

I think Francis Fukuyama in his essay, "The End of History" agrees with you to some extent. Fukuyama argues that history is an evolutionary process whereby liberal democracies eventually will dominate the world political landscape. This is mainly due to free market capitalism at work in a global economy.

This is not to say that every country one by one will roll over. There have been countries such as China and the Soviet Union that have in the past resisted this change and there will be countries in the future that will also resist. However, in the final analysis participating in a global economy is the only genuine option for these countries. Liberal democracy will eventually follow on from this participation.Fukuyama is generally regarded as a post-modernist political philosopher.


I can try and find you the link if you like.

ego-centric humans acting as their predicament demands? never...

putting ones faith in the innate goodness of humanity leads to utopia every single time it is tried...

history never repeats...

-Imp

Impenitent wrote:ego-centric humans acting as their predicament demands? never...

putting ones faith in the innate goodness of humanity leads to utopia every single time it is tried...

history never repeats...

-Imp

Yes I agree, Fukuyama is very Hegelian.

Impenitent wrote:ego-centric humans acting as their predicament demands? never...

putting ones faith in the innate goodness of humanity leads to utopia every single time it is tried...

history never repeats...

-Imp

Are you being sarcastic? I'm not sure what it's supposed to mean all this, it seems just like random pessimism, with no obvious purpose or meaning.

I was talking about the motivations of reasonable humans, to make things better, as it would be unreasonable that they didn't want to make things better. And I was challenging politicians in general that their interests should then lay in basing their decisions on scientific grounds of human welfare.

The only way to improve everybody's life is free-market capitalism based on people who are only interested in improving their own life.

Then: color me 'unreasonable', 'callused', 'cold', 'mean-spirited', etc.

#

"scientific grounds of human welfare"

HA!

Beyond predicting my need for water, food, and a kind of shelter, 'science' ain't got a clue what's in my best interest.

Technocrats: pffftt!

henry quirk wrote:Beyond predicting my need for water, food, and a kind of shelter, 'science' ain't got a clue what's in my best interest.

Technocrats: pffftt!

We're not talking about "interest", interests can be perverse and destructive, we're talking about "needs" in a sense that unless you've read my other topics (which I doubt you've read in detail or would remember) you wouldn't understand and may not comprehend when I say there are needs which are in-grained in the fabric of the universe itself and are inseparable from it and its content (which includes you, you are a part of the fabric of the universe, a mere piece of it). And I'm not saying they got a clue, but I'm saying they have the opportunity to get a clue so good it would amaze you, and that only your self-sheltering will be the obstacle for you to profit from it in having your needs met.

"...only your self-sheltering will be the obstacle for you to profit from it in having your needs met."

Since I, to my satisfaction, currently meet my needs and wants (on my own) independent of technocracy, I assess your view as hooey.

Certainly: there's a whole whack of weak folks, stupid folks, who must be tended to (or they, the stupid and weak, die).

Not being stupid or weak, I have no need or want for the tender and benevolent oversight of technocrats.

However, Voice, if being overseen is your bag, then have at it!

I'll no more stand in your way than I'll let you stand in mind.

#

"interests can be perverse and destructive"

Eye of the beholder...what I do may absolutely be in my best interest but exact a terrible price from those around me...in such a case: I suggest those around me self-defend as they can and like (as I do when their actions threaten to screw my pooch).

#

"you are a part of the fabric of the universe"

Obviously...

I just happen to be one of those parts that's recursive and therefore (at least partially) self-determining.

This means I get to say 'no'.

#

You, Voice, are a utopian, a communitarian, an idealist, which is to say (as I assess things), an insane person.

You would turn over your living to those who you believe 'know better': as you like.

I, however, will not relinquish myself.