Does a well functioning political system require people to be good?

[MikeNovack]

Or can a SYSTEM be devised such that it provides good, just, etc. decisions in spite of the fact that some of the people involved are evil, greedy, dishonest, etc. And might I add, or possibly simply mistaken (but because THAT a slightly different question involving error correction, maybe take up separately).

Initial thoughts?

[phyllo]

Some people are going to be bad or evil in any political system.

If there was ever a well functioning political system in the past, then it managed the bad/evil successfully.

Has there ever been such a system?

[Impenitent]

successful marriages maybe extending to initial family... more people than that usually doesn't work...

-Imp

[Immanuel Can]

Or can a SYSTEM be devised such that it provides good, just, etc. decisions in spite of the fact that some of the people involved are evil, greedy, dishonest, etc. And might I add, or possibly simply mistaken (but because THAT a slightly different question involving error correction, maybe take up separately).

Initial thoughts?

On what basis can such a system reasonably demand that people be its particular version of "good"?

[Gary Childress]

Or can a SYSTEM be devised such that it provides good, just, etc. decisions in spite of the fact that some of the people involved are evil, greedy, dishonest, etc. And might I add, or possibly simply mistaken (but because THAT a slightly different question involving error correction, maybe take up separately).

Initial thoughts?

On what basis can such a system reasonably demand that people be its particular version of "good"?

It probably depends upon what is being demanded as being "good". All nations have principles as do civic organizations like churches. It maybe cannot be avoided. The definitive question is always, "what is good?" And it's been one big controversy from the beginning. On what basis do you think a system can form a particular vision of what is "good"? Or do you think it cannot be done?

[Immanuel Can]

Or can a SYSTEM be devised such that it provides good, just, etc. decisions in spite of the fact that some of the people involved are evil, greedy, dishonest, etc. And might I add, or possibly simply mistaken (but because THAT a slightly different question involving error correction, maybe take up separately).

Initial thoughts?

On what basis can such a system reasonably demand that people be its particular version of "good"?

It probably depends upon what is being demanded as being "good".

No, that won't work, unless somehow we already know that some things one could demand are actually, objectively "good." And that's what moral subjectivism, secularism, Materialism and such insist we do not know, and they say, cannot know.

So it won't matter much what is being demanded. Whatever it is, it's going to need to be shown that the system has justification to require it of us. And I can't imagine how they're going to manage that.

On what basis do you think a system can form a particular vision of what is "good"? Or do you think it cannot be done?

Well, it's got to be more than a mere "vision." The fact that a system supports a particular "vision" of things doesn't take us even one step toward knowing whether what it advocates is "good," or toward giving us a reason to feel obligated to that "vision." The system would need to justify its demands on us -- or else all it's doing is using unjustified power to force us to comply with things it wants, things that may or may not even be good.

The Third Reich was a system, for sure. And it wanted to impose a certain "vision," for sure. But I know you're not going to say that the mere fact that it was "the system" of the time, or the mere fact that it had produced a "vision" meant that the German people were morally obligated to comply with it. But the US is also a system, and it has a vision of what it is and should become; so on what basis does the US assert that Gary has a moral obligation to do what it asks of him? Or is it not speaking to him at all in moral terms, and just forcing him to comply or go to jail? And the same question can be asked of the UK, or France, or Rwanda, or Fiji, or any place on the planet, so I'm not picking on the US.

[Gary Childress]

On what basis can such a system reasonably demand that people be its particular version of "good"?

It probably depends upon what is being demanded as being "good".

No, that won't work, unless somehow we already know that some things one could demand are actually, objectively "good." And that's what moral subjectivism, secularism, Materialism and such insist we do not know, and they say, cannot know.

So it won't matter much what is being demanded. Whatever it is, it's going to need to be shown that the system has justification to require it of us. And I can't imagine how they're going to manage that.

Unfortunately, you've set yourself an impossible criteria. Of course it depends upon what is called "good". If someone says that "good" is taking from the rich and giving to the poor, then some will object except those who, for whatever reason, think there ought to be redistribution of wealth. People disagree on what is good. That's a fact of life. It doesn't help anyone that you deny the obvious. It's stupid to say that it doesn't matter what is called "good". Of course, it does.

On what basis do you think a system can form a particular vision of what is "good"? Or do you think it cannot be done?

Well, it's got to be more than a mere "vision." The fact that a system supports a particular "vision" of things doesn't take us even one step toward knowing whether what it advocates is "good," or toward giving us a reason to feel obligated to that "vision." The system would need to justify its demands on us -- or else all it's doing is using unjustified power to force us to comply with things it wants, things that may or may not even be good.

The Third Reich was a system, for sure. And it wanted to impose a certain "vision," for sure. But I know you're not going to say that the mere fact that it was "the system" of the time, or the mere fact that it had produced a "vision" meant that the German people were morally obligated to comply with it. But the US is also a system, and it has a vision of what it is and should become; so on what basis does the US assert that Gary has a moral obligation to do what it asks of him? Or is it not speaking to him at all in moral terms, and just forcing him to comply or go to jail? And the same question can be asked of the UK, or France, or Rwanda, or Fiji, or any place on the planet, so I'm not picking on the US.

[/quote]

Unfortunately, that's all we humans have to go on is our vision of what is "good". Your vision is that it's "good" to follow God's commands. Considering the problem of identifying what are truly "God's commands" (let alone whether there is or isn't a God and what the nature of that being is), there is no way to resolve such a debate. Some things like randomly killing individuals in society are clearly non-starters because most intelligent individuals will disagree with such a proposal in part because it potentially jeopardizes EVERYONE'S safety and welfare. However, there will be disagreement over whether a person should be allowed to hoard and not share resources that s/he doesn't need and that others do. You might say that it's OK to hoard money to the point where others starve to death. Someone else might say it isn't.

You're problem, IC, is that you are setting unrealistic standards that have never been and cannot be perfectly met. You're making it impossible to achieve any kind of agreement because you want perfection that doesn't exist in this world.

[MikeNovack]

Or can a SYSTEM be devised such that it provides good, just, etc. decisions in spite of the fact that some of the people involved are evil, greedy, dishonest, etc. And might I add, or possibly simply mistaken (but because THAT a slightly different question involving error correction, maybe take up separately).

Initial thoughts?

On what basis can such a system reasonably demand that people be its particular version of "good"?

NO!!!! Please go back and re-read.

We are asking if a system can be designed so that will be good EVEN IF the people which tre its components are not.

But please also note -- I propose that a system might be bad/flawed even if the impossible were true, all the people good and well intended. In other words, all people good might not be sufficient for some systems (reject or modify to address flaw) of might function well only if all people in it good (necessary, so reject system)

For example, "democratic centralism" is flawed because it allows NO error correction. << please, NOT just The Communist Party but also The Farm Bureau >> Even with all people good and well intended there WILL sometimes be erroneous decisions. Maybe right at the time but some conditions have changed. I don't want us to go off on a tangent suggesting fixes that would allow democratic centralism to correct errors. Just pointing out that "good and well intended" not always enough.

[Immanuel Can]

It probably depends upon what is being demanded as being "good".

No, that won't work, unless somehow we already know that some things one could demand are actually, objectively "good." And that's what moral subjectivism, secularism, Materialism and such insist we do not know, and they say, cannot know.

So it won't matter much what is being demanded. Whatever it is, it's going to need to be shown that the system has justification to require it of us. And I can't imagine how they're going to manage that.

Unfortunately, you've set yourself an impossible criteria.

Not myself. The secularists, Materialists and moral subjectivists, among others. A Christian can do it, because he/she can refer to Divine authority. Absent God, the rest simply have no plausible "buck stops here" for morality. So the question "why" becomes unanswerable for them, inevitably.

And you can see it's unanswerable for them, because they can't tell you even one moral precept their ideology logically requires of them.

People disagree on what is good.

You're confusing epistemology (what people think) with ontology (what is actually the case). You can't disprove objective morality by quoting the fact that people disagree; all you can prove by that is that some people make mistakes about what morality is. And that's obviously the case.

Well, it's got to be more than a mere "vision." The fact that a system supports a particular "vision" of things doesn't take us even one step toward knowing whether what it advocates is "good," or toward giving us a reason to feel obligated to that "vision." The system would need to justify its demands on us -- or else all it's doing is using unjustified power to force us to comply with things it wants, things that may or may not even be good.

The Third Reich was a system, for sure. And it wanted to impose a certain "vision," for sure. But I know you're not going to say that the mere fact that it was "the system" of the time, or the mere fact that it had produced a "vision" meant that the German people were morally obligated to comply with it. But the US is also a system, and it has a vision of what it is and should become; so on what basis does the US assert that Gary has a moral obligation to do what it asks of him? Or is it not speaking to him at all in moral terms, and just forcing him to comply or go to jail? And the same question can be asked of the UK, or France, or Rwanda, or Fiji, or any place on the planet, so I'm not picking on the US.

Unfortunately, that's all we humans have to go on is our vision of what is "good". Your vision is that it's "good" to follow God's commands.[/quote] Actually, I didn't invent it at all. It belongs to God.

Considering the problem of identifying what are truly "God's commands" (let alone whether there is or isn't a God and what the nature of that being is), there is no way to resolve such a debate.

I think that's not the case. I think any honest seeker will find God, and in fact, God promises the same. There just aren't enough honest seekers around, perhaps. People prefer to pretend they can't find anything out...because they don't want to be responsible to find anything out. That's lazy, but it's pretty common.

You might say that it's OK to hoard money to the point where others starve to death.

Why would I say that? I don't think that, at all.

I don't suppose you imagine the next Marxist regime is going to take money from Bezos, Soros and Fink and hand it to you, do you? That's not how those regimes work, or have ever worked. No, you get to starve, and the Marxist elites get to live well. That's how it really goes. And that's been true every time.

[Immanuel Can]

Or can a SYSTEM be devised such that it provides good, just, etc. decisions in spite of the fact that some of the people involved are evil, greedy, dishonest, etc. And might I add, or possibly simply mistaken (but because THAT a slightly different question involving error correction, maybe take up separately).

Initial thoughts?

On what basis can such a system reasonably demand that people be its particular version of "good"?

NO!!!! Please go back and re-read.

We are asking if a system can be designed so that will be good EVEN IF the people which tre its components are not.

I did read. I'm asking a relevant question. You ask about "a system...that will be good." What do you mean by "good"? Where are you getting your particular version of "good" from, in that statement?

But please also note -- I propose that a system might be bad/flawed

Same problem: from what do you derive the idea of "badness"? What are the criteria you're imagining? How do you detect that "badness"? Or "flawed" in comparison to what?

[MikeNovack]

Not myself. The secularists, Materialists and moral subjectivists, among others. A Christian can do it, because he/she can refer to Divine authority. Absent God, the rest simply have no plausible "buck stops here" for morality. So the question "why" becomes unanswerable for them, inevitably.

[/quote]

IC, in works of philosophy from before say 50 BCE you see no discussions of morality? You say they couldn't because they had nothing to base their moral concepts on before the word from God of the Christians.

It is OK for you to argue they were WRONG, the bases of their morality INVALID, because only morality coming from your Christian God is valid. But that is VERY different from saying that they had no bases. Of which they might have been just as certain as your belief in Christian God.

[Gary Childress]

No, that won't work, unless somehow we already know that some things one could demand are actually, objectively "good." And that's what moral subjectivism, secularism, Materialism and such insist we do not know, and they say, cannot know.

So it won't matter much what is being demanded. Whatever it is, it's going to need to be shown that the system has justification to require it of us. And I can't imagine how they're going to manage that.

Unfortunately, you've set yourself an impossible criteria.

Not myself. The secularists, Materialists and moral subjectivists, among others. A Christian can do it, because he/she can refer to Divine authority. Absent God, the rest simply have no plausible "buck stops here" for morality. So the question "why" becomes unanswerable for them, inevitably.

And you can see it's unanswerable for them, because they can't tell you even one moral precept their ideology logically requires of them.

People disagree on what is good.

You're confusing epistemology (what people think) with ontology (what is actually the case). You can't disprove objective morality by quoting the fact that people disagree; all you can prove by that is that some people make mistakes about what morality is. And that's obviously the case.

Well, it's got to be more than a mere "vision." The fact that a system supports a particular "vision" of things doesn't take us even one step toward knowing whether what it advocates is "good," or toward giving us a reason to feel obligated to that "vision." The system would need to justify its demands on us -- or else all it's doing is using unjustified power to force us to comply with things it wants, things that may or may not even be good.

The Third Reich was a system, for sure. And it wanted to impose a certain "vision," for sure. But I know you're not going to say that the mere fact that it was "the system" of the time, or the mere fact that it had produced a "vision" meant that the German people were morally obligated to comply with it. But the US is also a system, and it has a vision of what it is and should become; so on what basis does the US assert that Gary has a moral obligation to do what it asks of him? Or is it not speaking to him at all in moral terms, and just forcing him to comply or go to jail? And the same question can be asked of the UK, or France, or Rwanda, or Fiji, or any place on the planet, so I'm not picking on the US.

Unfortunately, that's all we humans have to go on is our vision of what is "good". Your vision is that it's "good" to follow God's commands.

Actually, I didn't invent it at all. It belongs to God.

Considering the problem of identifying what are truly "God's commands" (let alone whether there is or isn't a God and what the nature of that being is), there is no way to resolve such a debate.

I think that's not the case. I think any honest seeker will find God, and in fact, God promises the same. There just aren't enough honest seekers around, perhaps. People prefer to pretend they can't find anything out...because they don't want to be responsible to find anything out. That's lazy, but it's pretty common.

You might say that it's OK to hoard money to the point where others starve to death.

Why would I say that? I don't think that, at all.

I don't suppose you imagine the next Marxist regime is going to take money from Bezos, Soros and Fink and hand it to you, do you? That's not how those regimes work, or have ever worked. No, you get to starve, and the Marxist elites get to live well. That's how it really goes. And that's been true every time.
[/quote]

Apologies for all the formatting mayhem. This is my reply:

Why don't you just concentrate on what you think and not what you think secularists think? I've stated that morality is not cut and dried. It's not chiseled in stone what is moral and what is not, although, some things seem more clearly right or wrong than others. There are grey areas and exceptions that make morality difficult to consistently delineate. If you don't believe that then you live in la la land as far as I'm concerned. We can stop talking now if you want.

If you think socialism is wrong and capitalism is right, then you think it's OK for people to be capitalists and control the means of production and you think ordinary people have no possible claim to the capitalist's wealth if they are in desperate need. Is that correct?

[Immanuel Can]

Not myself. The secularists, Materialists and moral subjectivists, among others. A Christian can do it, because he/she can refer to Divine authority. Absent God, the rest simply have no plausible "buck stops here" for morality. So the question "why" becomes unanswerable for them, inevitably.

IC, in works of philosophy from before say 50 BCE you see no discussions of morality?

Actually, many parts of the Bible, including the 10 Commandments, but also including a whole lot of other moral stuff, dates from around 1500-1000 BC. But even before the moral truth was written down, it was still the moral truth. Don't make Gary's mistake of thinking that epistemology tells us about ontology.

In point of fact, the Bible talks about such people. It says that they still had a God-given conscience, and had moral information they can read from the natural world, as well. See Romans 1, for example. And they are held responsible for what they knew, not what they could not have known. But they, like us, are responsible. And we are not they. We have very detailed moral information from God, and we still ignore it. So never mind the guy from 50 BC...how are WE going to answer for ourselves?

[Gary Childress]

Not myself. The secularists, Materialists and moral subjectivists, among others. A Christian can do it, because he/she can refer to Divine authority. Absent God, the rest simply have no plausible "buck stops here" for morality. So the question "why" becomes unanswerable for them, inevitably.

IC, in works of philosophy from before say 50 BCE you see no discussions of morality?

Actually, many parts of the Bible, including the 10 Commandments, but also including a whole lot of other moral stuff, dates from around 1500-1000 BC. But even before the moral truth was written down, it was still the moral truth. Don't make Gary's mistake of thinking that epistemology tells us about ontology.

In point of fact, the Bible talks about such people. It says that they still had a God-given conscience, and had moral information they can read from the natural world, as well. See Romans 1, for example. And they are held responsible for what they knew, not what they could not have known. But they, like us, are responsible. And we are not they. We have very detailed moral information from God, and we still ignore it. So never mind the guy from 50 BC...how are WE going to answer for ourselves?

God please spare me from this idiot above!!!!

[Immanuel Can]

Why don't you just concentrate on what you think and not what you think secularists think?

Because I'm not talking about secularists as people. I'm talking about what secularism, as a worldview, can or cannot rationalize. I'm using logic. That's what we do here, Gary.

If you think socialism is wrong and capitalism is right, then you think it's OK for people to be capitalists and control the means of production and you think ordinary people have no possible claim to the capitalist's wealth if they are in desperate need. Is that correct?[/color]

I don't believe in this bogeyman of yours, Gary...this "Capitalism." It's a Marxist invention, actually, if you check the etymology. Its first appearance happens just before the writings of Marx. I think it's complete nonsense. Nobody has an ideology of "capital."

So that's not even a sensible question. Maybe you can rephrase.