OPINION
OPINION
If 10 'Yobs' vote to kick-in the black man in a bar, does that make it right?
The point is, that democracy is nothing about being 'right', it is merely a way for people to make up their minds to action, without drawing swords, and yet, for some reason, people seem to think that being 'Democratic' is the final stage in our intellectual evolution. It is no such thing. It is a simplistic tool, that, like everything else in the world will eventually be replaced with a much better idea, and from which perspective will seem to be all the more simplistic.
The replacement for democracy will be hard to find. My father used to argue the case for 'benevolent dictatorship' and could certainly justify his case, even by citing God as a prime example of what we humans have created as an 'ideal' situation. Hmmm, I suppose the number of votes in Heaven would be kinda limited, but I am not sure I fancy this kind of ideal. It would be fine if you have an all seeing, all knowing, all loving Godhead, but rather falls down in our fragmented, divided society.
Really what is needed is a system, in which the truth can surface, quickly and without bloodshed, and quite simply, the right thing is always done. Not easy, but not impossible. It is clear to me that each of us contains a piece of the puzzle and only if the truth can be recognised, and no prejudice directed toward the origin, can all the pieces be set together.
Thus, in the above example, just a single man, would say, "No, lets not kick anyone in today", and his word would rule since it was the truth.
Ok, so in any replacement system, the source of any opinion would be unimportant. Whether from 1000 people or a 6 year old, if an opinion is right it wins the argument.
So, that clearly leaves the only problem, how do you assess whether you have the truth in front of you? How can you know the right thing at any stage?
Obviously here I am not going to advocate a vote. I have no interest whatsoever in just how many people agree with an idea, I am searching for the truth here.
Sadly, it seems that the only way of creating an unbiased opinion is to make up an expert system, or artificial device, loaded with the moral parameters which we have agreed upon as a whole. But again, how can you find such a truth? It is looking dangerously like a vote again, this time a vote on what moral guidelines are appropriate, and lets face it, any vote will introduce impurities of bias, self interest, discrimination, and in the worst cases, (mostly religious) non logical dogma.
Actually, using some kind of grand computer, we'd probably be governed a lot better already, but, that cannot be the end, using an artificial system to make your moral and political decisions is a terrible cop-out.
The search for a solution to the problem of governments choosing the 'correct' course of action, therefore relies on finding truths. Searching texts for moral truths and recognizing the truth in any possible course of action, is of course the way forward, its a shame that no-one is currently engaged in looking for it (full time).
However, while the search for the truth searching algorithm goes on, it is interesting to note how we have already improved upon democracy. We have stripped away the input identity as irrelevant. Who an idea comes from is unimportant. We have realised that political decisions should be based upon moral considerations, (and any other truths we might have to hand, scientific, sociological etc), and so we realise the search for these will make our society more functional.
Being a computer programmer the only thing I can add to the search for moral truths is computational. Just as now we simulate the weather, it may be profitable to simulate societies, with differing moral stances (every permutation possible), to see the eventual out come for those societies. The idea being that the very concept of a set of moral values was instilled in our DNA as an evolutionary way of self preservation. Hmmm, I think it is even deeper than that. Since any moral truths would hopefully include respecting organisms which would have no effect on our survival. It seems that DNA may have shown us a glimpse of the ultimate moral truth, that of, respecting 'life'.
FEEDBACK:
On June 10 1999 Nick Dewey wrote:
So far in Human society, Democracy has never existed.
It is merely an ideal which has been used in various political rallies. Even
National Socialism (Nazism) was once referred to as Democratic.
If we analyse the word "Demo-Cracy" we see that it is
divided into two parts, one referring to "people" and the other referring to
"control or rulership by".
Thus democracy has never existed.
I propose that it can exist if the people are taught about the various
forms of operation of societies and also social and political dynamics.
Psychological science should also be taught as thinking itself
is a skill that has to be learned. I believe that this is far more important
than the industrial preparation that the young in our society are given
by educational establishments.
Once the young have been educated to a sufficient level,
then their minds will already be prepared for the industrial world
as well as being able to act as an efficient moral DemoCratic unit
in perpetual ideological conflict with the rest, but with the desires
of the majority winning through.
Nick Dewey BA (Sociology)
On Saturday, August 28, 1999 Alex wrote:
Democracy on a small scale such as the blokes in a bar does not
work, as the person they intend to beat up has not submitted himself to the
democratic process. Democracy does work however, in trying to keep humans
politically equal, a state many humans have died to help achieve. Its kind
of a question of stateism and liberty. How far can a group of third party
people rule your own life? If you a happy farmer on a hillside, then the state
should do nothing to control your life. On the other hand, if you're a murderer,
and mass opinion is that murder is bad, then the majority must be right.
There are no set morals, only humanistic ones.
Pixel wrote:
Why did the black bloke in the bar have to subject himself to the democratic
process? If he had, surely he would have lost anyway (10-1). If, on the other
hand, we (the onlooking public) were involved then the issue is less clear,
perhaps we're racist, or afraid, or just don't care as long as it does not
affect us. That is democracy - the word means (as we/I understand it) that
one acts on ones own beliefs without fearing repurcussion from some
omnipresent source (the yobs are not that, I hope). Democracy is not about
a guy in a bar not being beaten up, but rather that 'public will' (which
defines 'law' in a democracy) forbids it. That thing about a farmer on a
hill - if he lives in a country then that country has a responsibility to
him aswell as the other way round.
On Tuesday, November 5, 2002 Nick Dewey wrote:
Dear Sir, Since submitting my last comment on your page back in 1999, my
views have changed drastically. Although the idea of Democracy (the people
ruling society from below and not from above) is beautiful and is always a
useful way of knocking Marxism into a cocked hat (through suggesting that
as the majority already make the decisions in society, there is no need
for a revolution), it cannot work. Experimentation (within the past two
years) has shown that individuals are more likely to obey the laws imposed
upon them and are (for instance in roleplay social experiments) less likely
to experience stress when in a lower position in society under the condition
that the basic needs of survival are fulfilled.
However, when the power and control is taken away (as it was in Pre Nazi
Germany at the dawn of the 20th century), the people lust after a non
democratic and authoritarian regime (such as the election of the Nazi
Party in Germany).This puts most liberally minded people in to a state
of dilemma. Should we support the ideals of total freedom, each and every
individual permitted to have his say in the workings of the world and
thus to allow a draconian regime to take over to fill the vacuum left
by controlling Government, or should one have an authoritarian regime
that seems, on the face of it, to have some morality that the people can
relate to? Namely, the type of society that we lucky westerners are
living in at the moment. I welcome anyone's views on the subject.
Please tell me what you thought...
|
A page from James David Chapman's website.
Located at: http://www.users.globalnet.co.uk/~jchap/ Site mirrored here at: http://www.j.chap.btinternet.co.uk |
|
|
This page last updated:
My rating for the page: 
|