17 May 12
1 edit
Who are the first historical statists? I think on the top of the list would have to be Plato. In Plato's Republic, he outlines the "perfect" society written about 380 BC. It was a model for a "true and healthy" society. The city provided for only the most basic needs of its citizens. Each individual accepts his or her position within the society for the good of the society since all of his needs are met. There is no competition among those in this society because the City is perfectly just. An aristrocratic ruling class of philosophers called the "Gaurdians" rule wisely and guide the City via centralized planning. These gaurdians tell the people via their wisdom when or if they should have children and by who, promote eugenics, euthanasia, with ongoing indoctrination of the masses to maintain a "just society". The individual happiness is secondary to the "good" of this society. In fact, there is no private property and children are immediatly taken from their parents and children live communally so as to take away any strife that may occur with family interests overriding that of the society.
To his credit, Plato later abandon his utopian society as he cited it to be impossible to put in place and or even maintain, but it is unclear whether he believed its various manifestations were undesirable. The odd thing here is that his teacher, Socrates, was considered a threat to the Athenian government for his unrelenting and provocative questioning of its institutions and morality. However, such questioning would have almost certainly led to the death of Socrates in Plato's utopia.
So did Plato influence statists to come? Clearly we can see examples of his statism in governments of the past and present. Or should we simply see the early manifestations of statism as a natural reaction to attempt to control human behavoir that produces undesirable problems as well as the attempt to try and control their surroundings for the same reason?
17 May 12
Originally posted by whodeyActually I think there was another writer - I'm trying to track down his name - he was the uncle (through his mother) of Nicanor, a Greek general. If I recall correctly he was reported to have written about stuff like children immediately being taken from their parents at birth, in a book that came out a month before Plato's, although the book is lost now. So you may be wrong about Plato.
Who are the first historical statists?
17 May 12
Originally posted by kevcvs57Plato's ideas could be more accurately described as fascist than utilitarian.
Plato sounds like a utilitarian in his wish subjugate the wishes/rights of the individual to the supposed benefit of the state/community.
I am not sure of my time lines but was this before the Spartans developed their militaristic state along these lines?
17 May 12
2 edits
Originally posted by whodeyWhy not the Persian Empire, the Egyptians, the Chinese,...?
Who are the first historical statists? I think on the top of the list would have to be Plato. In Plato's Republic, he outlines the "perfect" society written about 380 BC. It was a model for a "true and healthy" society. The city provided for only the most basic needs of its citizens. Each individual accepts his or her position within the society for the ms as well as the attempt to try and control their surroundings for the same reason?
Popper thought Plato was at the root of the notion that there is a possible future that would offer a perfect society and that politics should be directed to this ideal objective to the exclusion of other considerations. In particular, individual rights and needs are subordinate to the common good as defined in this ideal image of the future.
So for example, imagine that in your particular utopia there is no state and everyone lives their private lives without interference, pursuing their own ends and maybe those of their family and maybe their friends and allies. Anything that gets in the way of this stateless ideal is opposed on principle. The evident needs of people too vulnerable to meet their own needs without support, or the evident ability of other people to exercise excessive power in their own selfish interests at the expense of those around them, are not considered sufficient grounds to interfere with their individual responsibility and freedom. Often it seems that responsibility is something to throw at the weak (poverty is your own fault, ill health is your own fault) and freedom is something for the strong - a curious imbalance.
The insistence on an ideal quickly degenerates into something quite nasty. This is discounted as a short term transitional problem pending the millenium when perfect freedom prevails. The ideal is so alluring that the reality is ignored. Objections are batted aside as stupid distractions.
Like Plato's ideal state, of course, this vision lacks credibility and there is no obvious path from here to there. Capitalism would collapse without the modern state and all its apparatus. The US is not any old state - it is a capitalist one! Even Whodey, who thought the state should stay out of marriage, degenerated to arguing that divorce would require a judge and some rules.
Like Plato's Republic, it is soon evident that among the many people who would hate to live in such a utopia would be Plato, just as Whodey would almost certainly discover that his vision was not a utopia but a dystopia. In each case it only works if you get to be the top guy with the most power, and sadly, Plato was no more elgible for such a status than Whodey would seem to be. Big visions - tiny imaginations. Both are good examples of people who follow a foolish bright idea to its impractical conclusions without blinking because they are not interested in changing their minds along the way.
Of course Plato was a friend to tyrants and an enemy to democracy. The parallels are sublime, Whodey.
17 May 12
Originally posted by KazetNagorra'the greatest good for the greatest number' that gives you a lot of scope for abusing the individual.
Really? What's utilitarianism's "ultimate logic"?
Theoretically you could have weekly lotteries to see who gets chopped up for spare parts, i.e perfectly healthy individual gets surgically cannibalized in order to save/improve the lives of 10 people, hard to argue against on utilitarian principles.
17 May 12
Originally posted by kevcvs57Not that much scope, since people generally dislike abuse, even if it's others being abused.
'the greatest good for the greatest number' that gives you a lot of scope for abusing the individual.
Theoretically you could have weekly lotteries to see who gets chopped up for spare parts, i.e perfectly healthy individual gets surgically cannibalized in order to save/improve the lives of 10 people, hard to argue against on utilitarian principles.
It would be quite easy to argue against such a thing based on utilitarian principles. For example, the societal unrest caused by such lotteries might do greater damage than the benefits. Also, it's probably not the optimal solution since simply making organ donations after death mandatory would most likely provide enough organs, so there would not be much gain from the newly harvested ones.
17 May 12
Originally posted by KazetNagorraI would not argue for the death lottery either, but that is the 'ultimate logic' of utilitarianism. I suspect that is why we have never had a Utilitarian society, it has never been much more than a theoretical exercise. I first came across it as a straw man in moral philosophy course.
Not that much scope, since people generally dislike abuse, even if it's others being abused.
It would be quite easy to argue against such a thing based on utilitarian principles. For example, the societal unrest caused by such lotteries might do greater damage than the benefits. Also, it's probably not the optimal solution since simply making organ d ...[text shortened]... t likely provide enough organs, so there would not be much gain from the newly harvested ones.
I think utilitarian concepts are by their nature amoral, I still maintain anyone who commits themselves to its logic could end up advocating policies such as involuntary euthanasia and mass sterilization if it was calculated as the 'greatest good for the greatest number'.
17 May 12
Originally posted by kevcvs57A concept cannot be amoral, though an outcome may be. I actually don't know any utilitarian philosopher who argued for mass sterillization or murder, so I'm not convinced there is a significant danger that this is a possible outcome of the application of utilitarian principles.
I would not argue for the death lottery either, but that is the 'ultimate logic' of utilitarianism. I suspect that is why we have never had a Utilitarian society, it has never been much more than a theoretical exercise. I first came across it as a straw man in moral philosophy course.
I think utilitarian concepts are by their nature amoral, I still maint ...[text shortened]... and mass sterilization if it was calculated as the 'greatest good for the greatest number'.
17 May 12
Originally posted by KazetNagorraI have seen a pretty good alternative in a Harvard lecture on YouTube. This was not to sacrifice a healthy individual for spare parts, but to take people who cannot survive without transplanted organs, and select the one with the optimal remaining organs to sacrifice their remaining, limited and unpleasant life in order to donate organs to others that will thus survive.
Not that much scope, since people generally dislike abuse, even if it's others being abused.
It would be quite easy to argue against such a thing based on utilitarian principles. For example, the societal unrest caused by such lotteries might do greater damage than the benefits. Also, it's probably not the optimal solution since simply making organ d ...[text shortened]... t likely provide enough organs, so there would not be much gain from the newly harvested ones.
I only mention this in passing. I don't advocate it of course. I agree that compulsory (or even better managed voluntary) donation post-mortem would either meet all need or vastly reduce the shortage, with other options (like growing organs) now viable to fill the gap.
17 May 12
Originally posted by KazetNagorraHow would you be utilitarian without that danger would you be utilitarian lite.
A concept cannot be amoral, though an outcome may be. I actually don't know any utilitarian philosopher who argued for mass sterillization or murder, so I'm not convinced there is a significant danger that this is a possible outcome of the application of utilitarian principles.
Any utilitarian philosopher who does not address the question of his philosophies ultimate logic is either in denial or being disingenuous.
I am not anti utilitarian on principle I am only pointing out that the road to hell can be paved with good intentions.
- Joined
- 29 Dec 08
- Moves
- 6788
17 May 12
Originally posted by whodeyThis link argues that Gilgamesh was a historical figure and was the first statist. Although he has a rather extreme view of what statism is; it appears that Mr. G was an adherent of "I am the state."
Who are the first historical statists? I think on the top of the list would have to be Plato. In Plato's Republic, he outlines the "perfect" society written about 380 BC. It was a model for a "true and healthy" society. The city provided for only the most basic needs of its citizens. Each individual accepts his or her position within the society for the ...[text shortened]... ms as well as the attempt to try and control their surroundings for the same reason?
http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig6/case1.html