Relativism

Jump to: navigation, search
Revision as of 22 January 2011 at 02:34.
The [/w/index.php?title=Forum:The_most_righteous_people_and_government_to_support&offset=20110122023429&lqt_mustshow=920 highlighted comment] was created in this revision.

Nice idea and noble aim in principle, but a flawed question to be asking.

Your main problem lies - and this is the main criticism of living by the Golden Rule - with the fact that what someone regards as "most benevolently righteous" will vary from person to person and place to place. Ergo you can conclude that such a thing would be impossible. Even if you satisfied a majority, you'd still dissatisfy a minority - or even actively oppress a minority! There is no way to objectively say what would form a righteous and benevolent government because the criteria that you use to assess it are still ultimately subjective. For instance, would you prefer a society where one person has a happiness of 10 and another has a happiness of 1 (arbitrary scales for illustration purposes) or a society where two people both have a happiness of 3. There are arguments in favour of both but no true test showing which is actually better. Thus one person may prefer the former and another the latter. Someone is going to be disappointed and not view your regime as benevolent or righteous.

Your only practical solution to this would be to split society into increasingly smaller groups whereby everyone in a group has a similar view and is governed only by the laws they view as benevolent. Eventually this would reduce everyone to living in a society of one, probably simulated to their idea of utopia. However, with the lack of conflict or friction, the desire to strive and improve is removed. Such a place may not be the most desirable place to live because it would remove this key aspect of human motivation. Indeed, going by the relativity of the definitions and the varied opinions involved, a regime that is the "most" benevolent and righteous might not be considered as the most benevolent and righteous.

    Scarlet A.pnggnostic01:23, 22 January 2011

    But the question asked the most "benevolently righteous regime possible", not the most benevolent regime period. The most benevolently righteous regime possible (MBRRP) would necessarily be a compromise between differing notions about its nature, I think.

      Picon small.pngLiquid Blue01:44, 22 January 2011
       

      "However, with the lack of conflict or friction, the desire to strive and improve is removed" They could ask others to give them such and/or ask the system to limit their powers, including modifying their memories (possibly temporarily, like 4000 years or so) that they have them, so that they can conflict and strive in a number of virtual worlds all they like.

        Sen (talk)02:34, 22 January 2011
         
        Personal tools
        Namespaces

        Variants
        Actions
        Navigation
        Community
        Tools
        support