Main Page Contact Register Log In


How is it different from saying that the best way of governing a country is to have small subset of its population - the "enlightened ones" dictate the rules? Is it moral to have a small subset of countries decide what's moral for everyone?






> How is it different from saying that the best way of governing a country is to have small subset of its population - the "enlightened ones" dictate the rules?

It's not philosophically different. It's (debatably) different pragmatically, in terms of the risks of the "enlightened ones" being mistaken or self-serving, or producing negative-sum conflict.

In any case, I'd argue that having morality dictated by the "enlightened ones" is exactly what the "Living Document" theory of the Constitution amounts to. So far I'm mostly happy with the results despite have meta-level misgivings.
67%
Silent Cal
stars0
Replies (0)


Usually in such views it doesn't make sense that one would "decide what is moral". instead morality is seen as either relatively immutable or otherwise very wildy shared value. The mandate of the "chosen" would be limited to the shared values and they could not pass extra-moral decisions. In practise however weight of moral arguments in the decision making is somewhat lacking compared to how it is supposed to work in theory.

The argument applies equally even if the selection process would be more democratic. Ie the vote should pass moral decisions and withhold form doing extra-moral decisions. That way it isn't about the process of decision making directly althought the most straigthforward way to honor it is to select particularly moral individuals to do the decison making.

When labeling your opponents as immoral robs them of political power suddenly accusations of vices start flying around much more.
58%
Fwiffo
stars0
Replies (0)