Philosophy Now Forum

It's entirely possible for all individuals to actively attempt to choose progressive and harmless options and yet the system as a whole produce evil (counter-productive, harmful, regressive, unsustainable, etc.) If the system does not actively pursue validation of it's legitimacy it is almost guaranteed to fall to chaos over time by weight of that difference. Individual intents are not sufficient for group morality. There must be a solid framework of understanding within which the moral fabric is woven.

How pray tell would a system "actively pursue validation of its legitimacy"?

[quote="Terrapin Station" post_id=495505 time=1612972006 user_id=12582]
How pray tell would a system "actively pursue validation of its legitimacy"?
[/quote]

Well, for instance, if someone with a natural interest in the validity of the State says "You're not legitimate because x." it should have a ready validation or be ready to produce one. Assumptions, bureaucratic accretion, and legal fictions are all at minimum insufficient and typically are facially counter-productive to both truth and the justice for which that truth is a prerequisite.

This also raises the necessity of every law having both an explicit intent and a review date upon which they can be challenged.

tweed

-Imp

Advocate wrote: ↑Wed Feb 10, 2021 4:53 pm

Terrapin Station wrote: ↑Wed Feb 10, 2021 4:46 pm How pray tell would a system "actively pursue validation of its legitimacy"?

Well, for instance, if someone with a natural interest in the validity of the State says "You're not legitimate because x." it should have a ready validation or be ready to produce one. Assumptions, bureaucratic accretion, and legal fictions are all at minimum insufficient and typically are facially counter-productive to both truth and the justice for which that truth is a prerequisite.

This also raises the necessity of every law having both an explicit intent and a review date upon which they can be challenged.

How does the system make a statement?

Advocate wrote: ↑Wed Feb 10, 2021 4:43 pm If the system does not actively pursue validation of it's legitimacy it is almost guaranteed to fall to chaos over time by weight of that difference. Individual intents are not sufficient for group morality.

That's the standard angle of attack.

You can delegitimise absolutely anything you dislike by assuming an absolutely-skeptical position about justifications.
Justify that 2+2=4. I bet you can't!!!

You can't justify anything. Questioning legitimacy is step 1 to deconstruction.

And now lets go back to playing the game of pretending that we can justify things - Philosophy ... *waves magic wand of forgetfulness*

That's why rule No.1 of PR/optics/marketing is "don't piss off the mob".

Advocate wrote: ↑Wed Feb 10, 2021 4:43 pm It's entirely possible for all individuals to actively attempt to choose progressive and harmless options and yet the system as a whole produce evil (counter-productive, harmful, regressive, unsustainable, etc.)

Isn’t a system made up of all its individual parts?

If ALL the individuals in a system choose progressive options, wouldn’t the system choose the same as well?

[quote=commonsense post_id=495947 time=1613170177 user_id=14610]
[quote=Advocate post_id=495502 time=1612971806 user_id=15238]
It's entirely possible for all individuals to actively attempt to choose progressive and harmless options and yet the system as a whole produce evil (counter-productive, harmful, regressive, unsustainable, etc.)
[/quote]

Isn’t a system made up of all its individual parts?

If ALL the individuals in a system choose progressive options, wouldn’t the system choose the same as well?
[/quote]

Ever hear of "everyone's thinking it but no one's saying it"? The intelligence of a system is more then the sum of is parts, even if that means more inefficient.

If everyone is thinking something but no one is saying it, then everyone is in agreement anyway. Perhaps the system has an intelligence that is greater than the system’s components, but being opposite to the constituent’s thinking implies that the system can think independently, even in the absence, of individual thinking. That’s a bit much, however if cogent support of this independence were brought forward, the matter might merit reconsideration.