NationStates Jolt Archive

Say you were to grab yourself that fresh time machine and decide to improve the world. To do so, you grab yourself lots of very smart philosophers from throughout history and bring them into our times. You acclimatise them for a while, explain what happened since you snatched them and then let them run off into politics.

What sort of real-life party or movement would they join or support?

A few ideas here, but feel free to add your own:

Plato
Aristotle
Confucius
Thomas Hobbes
John Locke
David Hume
Jean-Jacques Russeau
Immanuel Kant
Adam Smith
J.S. Mill
Edmund Burke
Benjamin Franklin
Karl Marx

Karl Marx

The Democratic Party ;)

oh no...wait...

I bet he'd support communism!

I bet he'd support communism!
That's the question, isn't it. Marx was somehow who valued being scientific and analytical a lot (or so he said). He couldn't help but notice that his theories as such don't necessarily apply at this point - so would he do the obvious and join a Marxist fringe party, or would he do something else?

Socrates for me.

Plato
Aristotle
Confucius
Thomas Hobbes
John Locke
David Hume
Jean-Jacques Russeau
Immanuel Kant
Adam Smith
J.S. Mill
Edmund Burke
Benjamin Franklin
Karl Marx

Social Democrats (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_democracy):

Karl Marx
J.S. Mill
Jean-Jacques Rousseau

Liberal Democrats (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberal_democracy):

John Locke
Adam Smith
Immanuel Kant


Thomas Hobbes is tricky. Not familiar enough with the rest.

Socrates for me.
And what party would he join?

Probably none, he'd start throwing eggs and pies once he finds out that simply asking questions just gets you ignored these days. Hence why I left him off the list. ;)

And what party would he join?

Probably none, he'd start throwing eggs and pies once he finds out that simply asking questions just gets you ignored these days. Hence why I left him off the list. ;)

:D

I'd say his questioning style would cause a few modern political leaders to go completely insane and.... well... I'd love him for it. :p

He'd remain independent. Or in the US system, run as a third candidate ripping through the two main parties.

I, for one, would be very interested to see how Marx responds to some of his modern day fans.

Thomas Jefferson, I suppose he'd see what a mess modern politics was and either A) Lead a new revolution, or B) Shoot himself.

However as one of the people who founded the modern American politic he might be able to clarify some things.. like the second amendment.

That's the question, isn't it. Marx was somehow who valued being scientific and analytical a lot (or so he said). He couldn't help but notice that his theories as such don't necessarily apply at this point - so would he do the obvious and join a Marxist fringe party, or would he do something else?

I have this feeling that Marx would appreciate an opportunity to undo Lenin's mess.

Dr. Hobo

http://www.vgcats.com/avatars/av/hobolast.gif

no doubt they would die rather quickly due to our crazy future germs :p

also I would of lured Diogenes into my magical machine because I think he would have much to teach us about classical barrel maneuvers and their application on modern life

I would like some Descartes. Though I'm not sure politics is ready for someone of his...condition.

Click Stand;13715226']I would like some Descartes. Though I'm not sure politics is ready for someone of his...condition.

why bother when everyone just copies him anyway?

Mill would be interesting, as would Marx.

Don't know much about any of them, but will have a pop at a few:

Aristotle - would disdain party politics altogether, but cover many political issues in his popular lectures.

Thomas Hobbes - would be a staunch Unionist, meaning he'd probably be a member of the Conservative Party. Would particularly loathe Welsh/Scottish/Northern Irish nationalists, but would probably also not have a lot of truck with the new English nationalists. Would have supported the law saying you can kill someone with a cricket bat if they break into your house.

Hume - Conservative backbencher. Possibly defected to New Labour.

Mill - market wing of the Lib Dems.

Marx - I don't know. But I think he would be most interested in the effects of globalisation and global trade policies, so I wonder whether he'd be more associated with a specific movement than a national party. For example, he might be part of the anti-globalisation - though from the left, not right, perspective.

If I could offer up another two:

Adam Smith - I wonder whether he might be a free trade New Labourite. I think it'd be especially interesting to see what he thought, for example, of EU farm subsidies.

Jesus - ?

And just to add: NL, you always come up with the most interesting threads! This one was a great idea. I want to fondle your brains.

To be honest, I don't think bringing any of them back is a good idea. They were all, to one degree or another, products of their times... and the fact is that times have changed. Theory must move forward.

(In other words, I prefer not to think about which parties they would join.)

Plato would be a metrosexual political commentator. Think Graham Norton does Question Time.
Aristotle would be a front-bench conservative and economist, with a nasal twang and a propensity towards tweed jackets.
Confucious would be an advisor to the royal family, and possibly PR guy for the Liberal Democrats.
Hobbes is Jack Straw. Yep, he's already there.
Locke would be a major player in the Liberal Democrats. Probably the guy on the front bench who jeers the Government every Question Time his leader has something to say.
Hume is undoubtedly New Labour, and would probably hold the position of Home Secretary. He would be a regular on Plato's talk show.
Rousseau is a back-bench Labour rebel constantly fighting with Hobbes. His constituents often wonder why he doesn't actually do much representing, but seem happy to keep voting for him for the sake of general sanity.
Kant is a moderate and competent Tory. He's on Plato's show quite a bit too, and although he's much more likeable than Hume, he tends to shirk from controversy, much unlike...
Smith, as Shadow Chancellor, who's constantly in the news for his criticism of Labour's recent taxation initiative and seemingly total disregard for common decency.
Mill is definitely a Liberal Democrat leadership candidate. He probably was rather ambivalent about the Iraq war at the time, but is more than happy to point out its total uselessness now that its outcome is known.
Burke is a jeering back-bench Tory. Every week he seems to have a new way to insult what Labour have done so far and still phrase it as a question.
Franklin is an unspoken Labour member who just gets on with his job without caring much for party politics, but still seems to get pictured with page 3 girls left, right and centre.
Marx doesn't have anything to do with politics, and complains to his local MP about the neighbourhood Chavs.

I have this feeling that Marx would appreciate an opportunity to undo Lenin's mess.

Maybe, or be enticed by the popularity of leninism and become a leninist himself:P

Nice topic btw, thumbs up for the OP:)

Plato- He would be a great admirer of Singapore minus anything resembling demorcacy. Add some stuff from Leo Strauss.

Aristotle-Centrist

Confucius- Something resembling Christian Democracy I would expect.

Thomas Hobbes- I doubt he would care about ideology as long as economic growth and security exists. Give the masses bread and circuses if its required.

John Locke-Libertarian with a few conservative vestiges/ He wouldnt support gay marriages.

Jean-Jacques Russeau- something resembling Soheran and Loyal Opposition

Immanuel Kant-pragmatic social democrat.

Adam Smith- New Democrat

J.S. Mill-pragmatic social democrat.

Edmund Burke-whatever is closest to the staus quo

Benjamin Franklin-a moderate of some kind

Karl Marx-He seems like Chomsky to me. Someone widely read but no one listens too at the government level. He'd pretty much disparage those near and far from him in ideology. I doubt he would align himself with any group that is organized.

Plato would be a fascist. Keep in mind he was an admirer of Sparta. Also, in the Republic he advocated removing children from their homes at the age of seven and raising them communally in a kind of military/philosophy school; call it the Plato Youth.

Thomas Hobbes- I doubt he would care about ideology as long as economic growth and security exists.

I think that's more or less right.

Jean-Jacques Russeau- something resembling Soheran and Loyal Opposition

I wish--I like Rousseau a great deal--but I don't think so. Certainly Rousseau's political theory lends itself well to social anarchism, but socialism as modern socialists envision it would probably be foreign to him simply because it was the intellectual product of a rather different society.

Immanuel Kant-pragmatic social democrat.

Again, I wish, but I don't think so. Kant was sexist, racist, homophobic, sexually puritanical, opposed to social welfare programs, and supportive of things like property qualifications for voting... not to mention the fact that he comes out and says that his notion of "equality" is perfectly compatible with radical material equality (which is, in my opinion, only half-true--Rousseau's position is much more defensible here).

Karl Marx-He seems like Chomsky to me. Someone widely read but no one listens too at the government level.

No, Marx and Chomsky, as theorists, are very different--Marx was intellectually creative and interesting, while Chomsky is rather... boring.

No, Marx and Chomsky, as theorists, are very different--Marx was intellectually creative and interesting, while Chomsky is rather... boring.

Cool. I'm not the only one who thinks that Chomsky is dull compared to Marx. :)

They'd all be too busy drinking, as the boys from MPFC have told us.

Socrates strikes me more as the type to run as an independent.

Hard to say. Marx is simple enough, but Hume and Descartes, I could only guess. And of course Plato might be a bit hesitant to try his hand at politics again. :p

John Rawls, anyone? He'd be a social democrat.

John Rawls, anyone? He'd be a social democrat.

John Rawls is too modern for this thread. He only died in 2002. :)

http://images.wikia.com/uncyclopedia/images/b/b9/Communist_party.png
Sorry, couldn't resist ;).

Plato would be a fascist. Keep in mind he was an admirer of Sparta. Also, in the Republic he advocated removing children from their homes at the age of seven and raising them communally in a kind of military/philosophy school; call it the Plato Youth.

Is anyone else here thinking of another group VERY similar to that? During WW2? Proof that plato was a Nazi! :p

http://images.wikia.com/uncyclopedia/images/b/b9/Communist_party.png
Sorry, couldn't resist ;).



Is anyone else here thinking of another group VERY similar to that? During WW2? Proof that plato was a Nazi! :p
Yeah Sparta was very much proto-fascist, it was the first state to actually use eugenics (albeit a rather primitive type) to create a 'master race', keeping in mind that the Spartan 'equals' only made up about 10% of the population, the rest being Messenian helots (slaves), that's of course how the military society was sustained, because while the Spartan elites were training all the time or abroad fighting, the slaves harvested food etc.

To be honest, I don't think bringing any of them back is a good idea. They were all, to one degree or another, products of their times... and the fact is that times have changed. Theory must move forward.

^ This.

The only way it would work is to take those philosophers when they're still young. Perhaps as teens or undergrads.

Once they've got really set in to building their theories, it seems not far off vandalism of their work to pull them out of their time. Not worth it for what they could contribute now.

But I'll play a little bit. Socrates would LOVE our modern drugs. I doubt he'd want shit to do with modern politics, but once he'd learnt a language which isn't effectively extinct, he'd post a blue streak on an internet forum.

Considering that most of the classical philosophers disliked politics back in the old days and didn't involve themselves in it, well not directly anyways, I see no reason for them to suddenly change their additudes. Especially when the political power of an individual seems to have diminished over time. Futher more I dislike the idea of applying modern terms, such as fascist, to people who died, and lived, hundreds of years before these terms and the ideas associated with them were coined.

For example, I have always thought that Plato placed more importance in the wellbeing of an individual than the wellbeing of society.

Cool. I'm not the only one who thinks that Chomsky is dull compared to Marx. :)

NO WAY CHOMSKY IS TEH MAN!!11!111!

I know he doesn't bring delirium to his audience like Hitler did,
but he surely is a calm rational voice. No wonder he doesn't have a pop fan club.

Considering that most of the classical philosophers disliked politics back in the old days and didn't involve themselves in it, well not directly anyways, I see no reason for them to suddenly change their additudes. Especially when the political power of an individual seems to have diminished over time.

Good stuff.

The bigness of the modern world (both in real terms, population, and in perception terms, awareness of other systems of thought) would be quite destructive of the self-worth of anyone from before (say) the nineteenth century. Perhaps philosophers (having strong minds) would fare better than the average person, but it would still be pretty disorienting.

Considering that most of the classical philosophers disliked politics back in the old days and didn't involve themselves in it, well not directly anyways, I see no reason for them to suddenly change their additudes. Especially when the political power of an individual seems to have diminished over time. Futher more I dislike the idea of applying modern terms, such as fascist, to people who died, and lived, hundreds of years before these terms and the ideas associated with them were coined.

For example, I have always thought that Plato placed more importance in the wellbeing of an individual than the wellbeing of society.

Plato was involved in politics; he was sort of the Karl Rove of Sicily back in the day. As to applying modern terms to the long dead, the nature of the thread requires it, and since you are posting here, you must have found the idea somewhat interesting. It's only an exercise in amusement anyway. As to your last remark, I can only disagree with you; the fact that his magnum opus was a description of an ideal (in his opinion) society seems to show an emphasis on society rather than the individual. Socrates, perhaps, cared more about the individual, and Plato may have lost his way after he died; that's always been my opinion, anyway. Just an opinion, of course, and opinions are like assholes; everybody has one.

Anyway, it's too late, and I'm too drunk, for me to possibly be awake still. I'm going to drink lots of water and go to bed.

Am I the only one to notice that most of those in the list would be fascist? I mean most are very authoritarian and most are nationalistic.

Plato, Kant, Hobbes would be the high priests among those.

Am I the only one to notice that most of those in the list would be fascist? I mean most are very authoritarian and most are nationalistic.

Plato, Kant, Hobbes would be the high priests among those.

You should take under consideration the enviroment which they lived in. They might were considered radical back then.

Come to think of it, most of them would experience a tremendous culture shock and go nuts or become ultra reactionary.

Plato, Kant, Hobbes would be the high priests among those.

What do you find "fascist" about Kant?

Conservative (in some respects), yes. Fascist, no. Among other things, he hated warmongering and was a major advocate of international law. Kant's ethics are universalist and cosmopolitan--almost quintessentially so.

Hell, Kant lived in an autocratic, militaristic state... and wrote about the moral obligation to form a peaceful confederation of constitutional republics.

Edit: Also, people wonder about the seriousness of Plato's political recommendations in the Republic, and Hobbes' foremost concern was political order and stability--which, at least in recent times, Western liberal democracies have managed considerably better than fascist dictatorships.

You should take under consideration the enviroment which they lived in.

While you're quite right, it's interesting to see which philosophers managed to break though the limits of their times.

Jeremy Bentham, for instance, wrote an essay advocating the decriminalization of sodomy back in the eighteenth century, when it was punishable by the death penalty... and some of the arguments he uses are surprisingly reminiscent of those used by the modern gay rights movement. And we still haven't gotten around to recognizing his point about animal rights.

Yes, Kant's ethics was universalist. But as with all ethics systems pertaining to the absolute, how long would it have been before you try to impose them onto others, as your "duty".

As for the Republic, Plato hasn't written much to rebuke it.

And don't get me started with Hobbes. He is every absolutist monarch's wet dream.

Yes, Kant's ethics was universalist. But as with all ethics systems pertaining to the absolute, how long would it have been before you try to impose them onto others, as your "duty".

Actually, Kant argues that moral duty, by its very nature, cannot be imposed upon anyone--you can make people obey through fear, but you can't make them do what is right because it is right, so such obedience has no intrinsic worth.

Law, for Kant, is about securing to everyone that which is rightfully theirs--making each person's freedom consistent with everyone else's. Not about imposing morality on everyone.

As for the Republic, Plato hasn't written much to rebuke it.

Plato didn't write anything where he said "This is what I think", so I'm not sure exactly what it is he'd have to rebuke.

I've never said Kant himself would do anything of the sort. It's just what happens after a while to all systems of ethics that claim to be universal. People do stupid things they think the figurehead would approve of. Happened with Christians, Muslims, Nazis etc. etc.

As for the Republic, apart from the fact that the narrative voice is that of Socrates, it's pretty much "I think this, don't you agree?"/"yes master, enlighten us". Which is why I find the form of the dialogues very irritating. "I think" is probably the most (ab)used phrase in the book. That would probably indicate some sort of belief in what he was writing., in my mind.

Plato's society would probably be an elitist piece of crap, having us all look after the 'philosopher kings', whilst they all sit on their arses 'contemplating the forms'.

Jesus - ?

Republican, obviously. :p

But I'll play a little bit. Socrates would LOVE our modern drugs. I doubt he'd want shit to do with modern politics, but once he'd learnt a language which isn't effectively extinct, he'd post a blue streak on an internet forum.

actually, given his complaints against reliance on the written word to communicate (well, according to what plato wrote...), i wonder what he would make of the internet at all.

actually, given his complaints against reliance on the written word to communicate (well, according to what plato wrote...), i wonder what he would make of the internet at all.

The ability to question everthing? I'd say he'd love what it could do. Dunno about him and pr0n though. Wasn't aware of his tastes....

The ability to question everthing? I'd say he'd love what it could do. Dunno about him and pr0n though. Wasn't aware of his tastes....
Didn't he have a wife? Not that that means anything, though.

I've never said Kant himself would do anything of the sort.

Yes, you did. You said he would be a "high priest" of fascism.

It's just what happens after a while to all systems of ethics that claim to be universal.

What about those who advance a universal ethic of pacifism? Or of tolerance? Or of freedom?

People do stupid things they think the figurehead would approve of.

Where does "figurehead" come in anywhere?

Happened with Christians, Muslims, Nazis etc. etc.

And the ideology that comes to mind as most prominently rejecting a universal moral discourse to solve political problems--Marxism--didn't turn out too well either.

Any idea can be abused. That's the nature of the world.

As for the Republic, apart from the fact that the narrative voice is that of Socrates, it's pretty much "I think this, don't you agree?"/"yes master, enlighten us".

No, there's some interesting debate mixed in... but more importantly, the dialogue form shows that Plato is recounting a conversation in a particular context, with characters who say things for their own reasons, ones that may not always be obvious. He's not directly stating his analysis; the immediate meaning is "This person says this here", not "This is true."

Anything we get out of them with respect to Plato's view is thus an interpretation, and in a non-trivial sense.

actually, given his complaints against reliance on the written word to communicate (well, according to what plato wrote...), i wonder what he would make of the internet at all.

i'm thinking specifically of part of phaedrus (http://www.gutenberg.org/dirs/etext99/phdrs10.txt), btw:

SOCRATES:But when they came to letters, This, said Theuth, will make the Egyptians wiser and give them better memories; it is a specific both for the memory and for the wit. Thamus replied: O most ingenious Theuth, the parent or inventor of an art is not always the best judge of the utility or inutility of his own inventions to the users of them. And in this instance, you who are the father of letters, from a paternal love of your own children have been led to attribute to them a quality which they cannot have; for this discovery of yours will create forgetfulness in the learners' souls, because they will not use their memories; they will trust to the external written characters and not remember of themselves. The specific which you have discovered is an aid not to memory, but to reminiscence, and you give your disciples not truth, but only the semblance of truth; they will be hearers of many things and will have learned nothing; they will appear to be omniscient and will generally know nothing; they will be tiresome company, having the show of wisdom without the reality.

...

SOCRATES: I cannot help feeling, Phaedrus, that writing is unfortunately like painting; for the creations of the painter have the attitude of life, and yet if you ask them a question they preserve a solemn silence. And the same may be said of speeches. You would imagine that they had intelligence, but if you want to know anything and put a question to one of them, the speaker always gives one unvarying answer. And when they have been once written down they are tumbled about anywhere among those who may or may not understand them, and know not to whom they should reply, to whom not: and, if they are maltreated or abused, they have no parent to protect them; and they cannot protect or defend themselves.

...

SOCRATES: And can we suppose that he who knows the just and good and honourable has less understanding, than the husbandman, about his own seeds?

PHAEDRUS: Certainly not.

SOCRATES: Then he will not seriously incline to 'write' his thoughts 'in water' with pen and ink, sowing words which can neither speak for themselves nor teach the truth adequately to others?

PHAEDRUS: No, that is not likely.

SOCRATES: No, that is not likely--in the garden of letters he will sow and plant, but only for the sake of recreation and amusement; he will write them down as memorials to be treasured against the forgetfulness of old age, by himself, or by any other old man who is treading the same path. He will rejoice in beholding their tender growth; and while others are refreshing their souls with banqueting and the like, this will be the pastime in which his days are spent.

PHAEDRUS: A pastime, Socrates, as noble as the other is ignoble, the pastime of a man who can be amused by serious talk, and can discourse merrily about justice and the like.

SOCRATES: True, Phaedrus. But nobler far is the serious pursuit of the dialectician, who, finding a congenial soul, by the help of science sows and plants therein words which are able to help themselves and him who planted them, and are not unfruitful, but have in them a seed which others brought up in different soils render immortal, making the possessors of it happy to the utmost extent of human happiness.

...

SOCRATES: That whether Lysias or any other writer that ever was or will be, whether private man or statesman, proposes laws and so becomes the author of a political treatise, fancying that there is any great certainty and clearness in his performance, the fact of his so writing is only a disgrace to him, whatever men may say. For not to know the nature of justice and injustice, and good and evil, and not to be able to distinguish the dream from the reality, cannot in truth be otherwise than disgraceful to him, even though he have the applause of the whole world.

Oh dear...

Where does "figurehead" come in anywhere?

Here v

Yes, you did. You said he would be a "high priest" of fascism.

A leader in a fascist structure need not be a fascist himself.

What about those who advance a universal ethic of pacifism? Or of tolerance? Or of freedom?

Like Christians, in the crusades? Or like America in liberating Iraq, Vietnam etc.?

And the ideology that comes to mind as most prominently rejecting a universal moral discourse to solve political problems--Marxism--didn't turn out too well either.

Two wrongs...

Any idea can be abused. That's the nature of the world.

Of course. Your point?

No, there's some interesting debate mixed in... but more importantly, the dialogue form shows that Plato is recounting a conversation in a particular context, with characters who say things for their own reasons, ones that may not always be obvious. He's not directly stating his analysis; the immediate meaning is "This person says this here", not "This is true."

Anything we get out of them with respect to Plato's view is thus an interpretation, and in a non-trivial sense.

If you want to be strict about it, yes. But then you can't say anything about Plato or his beliefs. It is, however, a reasonable assumption that a philosopher writes because he believes what he says and wants to pass it on. Otherwise, even invoking him in this thread is absurd.

Jeremy Bentham.
Utilitarianism, i wonder where that would lie. democractic centrist is my guess.

A leader in a fascist structure need not be a fascist himself.

Let's have the whole quote:

"Am I the only one to notice that most of those in the list would be fascist? I mean most are very authoritarian and most are nationalistic.

Plato, Kant, Hobbes would be the high priests among those."

Stop being dishonest.

In any case, Kant wouldn't be a leader of a fascist movement either, especially if he were not himself a fascist--do you know what he thought about lying?

Like Christians, in the crusades?

Pacifism? Tolerance? Freedom? In what way were the Crusades connected to any of those things?

Or like America in liberating Iraq, Vietnam etc.?

A much better example, but not clear-cut either. Is it obvious that the problems with the war on Iraq had anything to do with universal ethics? I don't think so--it's not that Hussein wasn't evil, or that democracy isn't a good thing, it's the fact that we slaughtered hundreds of thousands of people, created a massive humanitarian crisis, and weren't and aren't particularly interested in freedom and self-determination for the Iraqis in the first place.

Furthermore, I'm not sure how you have standing to criticize the US government's actions if you deny universal ethics. Why would they listen to you and your morality? What about the Iraqis and Vietnamese? Without universal ethics, what right did/do they have to insist that the US government stop wreaking destruction in their countries?

Of course. Your point?

That you can't criticize philosophers for having ideas that can be abused if every idea can be abused. You might as well say that no one should advance any ideas at all.

If you want to be strict about it, yes. But then you can't say anything about Plato or his beliefs.

That's not what I said. I said that anything anyone does say is an interpretation. Not an unambiguous extraction from the text.

The point is that, with Plato, it's much more difficult to come up with a "plain meaning" that we can accept in the absence of other evidence. The only plain meaning in Plato is that certain characters say certain things.

It is, however, a reasonable assumption that a philosopher writes because he believes what he says and wants to pass it on.

Right, but what is he saying and what does he want to pass on?

The point is that, with Plato, it's much more difficult to come up with a "plain meaning" that we can accept in the absence of other evidence. The only plain meaning in Plato is that certain characters say certain things.

especially because in certain dialogues he literally ends things with a recognition that the arguments in it didn't work out after all - like in lysis.

Let's have the whole quote:

"Am I the only one to notice that most of those in the list would be fascist? I mean most are very authoritarian and most are nationalistic.

Plato, Kant, Hobbes would be the high priests among those."

Stop being dishonest.

Dishonest how? I simply said that fascism would be the closest match with a modern political movement.

In any case, Kant wouldn't be a leader of a fascist movement either, especially if he were not himself a fascist--do you know what he thought about lying?

How is lying intrinsic to fascism? Fascism is a merger of political and corporate power with strong authoritarian tendencies. Nationalism is usually on top, though not always.

Pacifism? Tolerance? Freedom? In what way were the Crusades connected to any of those things?

Pacifism and Tolerance are the tenets of the Christian faith, but because of a blind worship of the figureheads (Jesus and the Pope) they were ignored to further the political aims of the Pope even as he was preaching them.

Freedom is a tenet of America, and it often seeks to spread this through force, even if this is inconsistent with the very tenet.

The point was, even such values, when held to be absolute, will be spread through violence because, unconsciously, for humans, the means justifies the means. Kant may have argued against it until his mouth was dry, if his followers thought that Kant was absolutely right, then they would be willing to force others to see the light. This always happens throughout history.

A much better example, but not clear-cut either. Is it obvious that the problems with the war on Iraq had anything to do with universal ethics? I don't think so--it's not that Hussein wasn't evil, or that democracy isn't a good thing, it's the fact that we slaughtered hundreds of thousands of people, created a massive humanitarian crisis, and weren't and aren't particularly interested in freedom and self-determination for the Iraqis in the first place.

But it is how it was justified to the American people and the world. Any principles, no matter how pacifist, will be abandoned in the guise of supporting them, for political ends. Why can't Kant's pacifism be ignored in the guise of spreading it, along with the notions of duty etc.?

Furthermore, I'm not sure how you have standing to criticize the US government's actions if you deny universal ethics. Why would they listen to you and your morality? What about the Iraqis and Vietnamese? Without universal ethics, what right did/do they have to insist that the US government stop wreaking destruction in their countries?

Simple. I hold it to what it preaches. Not to my beliefs, not to anything anyone claims to be universal. I simply note on the inconsistency with the very ideals it seeks to glorify.

That you can't criticize philosophers for having ideas that can be abused if every idea can be abused. You might as well say that no one should advance any ideas at all.

Nor did I. I was merely recognising the shape that said abuse is most likely to take.

That's not what I said. I said that anything anyone does say is an interpretation. Not an unambiguous extraction from the text.

The point is that, with Plato, it's much more difficult to come up with a "plain meaning" that we can accept in the absence of other evidence. The only plain meaning in Plato is that certain characters say certain things.

Sure. So do we keep him in the discussion with the ideas commonly attributed to him or ditch him altogether?

Right, but what is he saying and what does he want to pass on?

See above.

Ach, you guys can go sully yourselves with political parties.

Epicurus and I are off to the woods to smoke a joint.

Ach, you guys can go sully yourselves with political parties.

Epicurus and I are off to the woods to smoke a joint.

bah, me and diogenes are gonna do a barrel roll

no doubt they would die rather quickly due to our crazy future germs :p

No no, those are space aliens. An honest mistake, I'm sure. :)

Say you were to grab yourself that fresh time machine and decide to improve the world. To do so, you grab yourself lots of very smart philosophers from throughout history and bring them into our times. You acclimatise them for a while, explain what happened since you snatched them and then let them run off into politics.

What sort of real-life party or movement would they join or support?

A few ideas here, but feel free to add your own:

Plato
Aristotle
Confucius
Thomas Hobbes
John Locke
David Hume
Jean-Jacques Russeau
Immanuel Kant
Adam Smith
J.S. Mill
Edmund Burke
Benjamin Franklin
Karl Marx
It's hard to tell, because in addition to having important opinions, all of these men were also very smart. I only say this because I don't think any of them would be an ideologue, and they may actually have different ideas in a different world.
So, in other words, I don't know enough about these philosophers or political parties to create a list of any value.

Dishonest how? I simply said that fascism would be the closest match with a modern political movement.

Yes, and when I explained to you why you were wrong, you suggested that you actually meant something quite different.

How is lying intrinsic to fascism?

The point is not that lying is intrinsic to fascism, the point is that lying is intrinsic to leading a fascist movement when one is not oneself a fascist.

I have already reviewed the reasons that Kant would not himself be a fascist, but you have seen fit to ignore them for this distraction about the potential for abuse all ideas have.

Pacifism and Tolerance are the tenets of the Christian faith, but because of a blind worship of the figureheads (Jesus and the Pope)

Right, and again, what does universal ethics have to do with blind worship of figureheads?

Freedom is a tenet of America, and it often seeks to spread this through force, even if this is inconsistent with the very tenet.

So should we abandon freedom? Or should we try to actually live up to it?

The point was, even such values, when held to be absolute, will be spread through violence because, unconsciously, for humans, the means justifies the means.

Should we have no ends, then?

Insofar as that's a "point", it still doesn't tell me anything. What do you advise? What's your alternative? Do you have values that can't be used to justify abuses? Should we just not have values? If we don't have values, how can be condemn abuses in the first place?

Doesn't your very condemnation of violent force imply a moral standard you think can be legitimately applied to others?

Why can't Kant's pacifism

Kant was not a pacifist. Pacifism was just an example of a universal ethic that does not justify violence and imperialism.

be ignored in the guise of spreading it, along with the notions of duty etc.?

Well, people can choose to ignore anything if they want to, but you shouldn't hold the originator of an idea responsible for what people do when they ignore it.

Simple. I hold it to what it preaches.

So you do think the US government should live up to its ideals of freedom? And that your hypothetical followers of Kant should actually pay attention to his moral arguments about ends and means?

But then, why bother making your argument? What's your point?

Edit: Furthermore, if consistency is your only standard, it is your system, not Kant's, that would lend itself best to the tyrant: all he need believe is "I believe that it is right to rule over others by force for my personal benefit" and his actions are perfectly consistent. Kant's ethics, on the other hand, even assuming substantial intellectual dishonesty, would probably cause him some real trouble.

I was merely recognising the shape that said abuse is most likely to take.

Your original statement in no sense suggested that you viewed it as "abuse." Quite the contrary.

Sure. So do we keep him in the discussion with the ideas commonly attributed to him or ditch him altogether?

Are these the only alternatives? My point was that there are interpretations of Plato that understand his political point quite differently from "We should all live under philosopher-kings."

Yes, and when I explained to you why you were wrong, you suggested that you actually meant something quite different.

Mhmm. Well this would be pointless to debate further. You have obviously made your mind about what to believe, and your opinions of me are of no consequence.

The point is not that lying is intrinsic to fascism, the point is that lying is intrinsic to leading a fascist movement when one is not oneself a fascist.

One needs not be a monarchist to be an absolute monarch, and one needs not be a fascist to be in a position of leadership in a fascist movement/government.

I have already reviewed the reasons that Kant would not himself be a fascist, but you have seen fit to ignore them for this distraction about the potential for abuse all ideas have.

Mkay, so what is, in your opinion the closest match of modern political stance for Kant? He may not be a bona-fide fascist but that's what would suit his views closest.

Right, and again, what does universal ethics have to do with blind worship of figureheads?

If your truth is the absolute truth, then it is justifiable to spread it by whatever means. If a figurehead implies that it should be spread by certain means then you find it almost your duty to do so, as instructed.

So should we abandon freedom? Or should we try to actually live up to it?

That is your choice. Personally I quite like freedom, so I would prefer you sticked with it, but my preference is not of any ethical value for you.

Should we have no ends, then?

Insofar as that's a "point", it still doesn't tell me anything. What do you advise? What's your alternative? Do you have values that can't be used to justify abuses? Should we just not have values? If we don't have values, how can be condemn abuses in the first place?

Doesn't your very condemnation of violent force imply a moral standard you think can be legitimately applied to others?

I acknowledge values because they exist. I also observe that they differ. I simply prefer people sticking to the values they preach. If two systems of values crash, then you have a cultural conflict, and both are justified to defend themselves.


Kant was not a pacifist. Pacifism was just an example of a universal ethic that does not justify violence and imperialism.

Well there was the categorical imperative "do not kill", but nevermind.

Well, people can choose to ignore anything if they want to, but you shouldn't hold the originator of an idea responsible for what people do when they ignore it.

My point that universal systems of ethics have this tendency of pushing themselves onto others by any means, including means which conflict with the system itself. My critique was in relation to universals. And if in all cases a universal system leads to such abuses, then it is fair to comment on the originator of the idea.


So you do think the US government should live up to its ideals of freedom? And that your hypothetical followers of Kant should actually pay attention to his moral arguments about ends and means?

But then, why bother making your argument? What's your point?

My point is that universal systems of ethics impose themselves on others, and in the case of Christianity, of American Liberalism and in the case of my hypothetical Kantians, in direct contradiction to their tenets.

Edit: Furthermore, if consistency is your only standard, it is your system, not Kant's, that would lend itself best to the tyrant: all he need believe is "I believe that it is right to rule over others by force for my personal benefit" and his actions are perfectly consistent. Kant's ethics, on the other hand, even assuming substantial intellectual dishonesty, would probably cause him some real trouble.

My philosophy is of no consequence in this thread. The thread is about what political stance would certain philosopher be most likely to take.

Your original statement in no sense suggested that you viewed it as "abuse." Quite the contrary.

Mhmm. Same as point one. You read what you want into my statements, and frankly, I don't care either way.

Are these the only alternatives? My point was that there are interpretations of Plato that understand his political point quite differently from "We should all live under philosopher-kings."

Your point is irrelevant. We could speculate until we grow old, and we'd never be any the wiser. Such speculation does not lead to any better understanding of Plato, so we either chose to take Plato at face value until we know for sure what he meant, or just drop him from this conversation.

Mkay, so what is, in your opinion the closest match of modern political stance for Kant? He may not be a bona-fide fascist but that's what would suit his views closest.
What's the reasoning behind this?

Kant wrote rather a lot on the admirable quality of questioning authority, how we should renounce an "immature" dependence on authority, and praised the courage needed to make decisions based on one's own reasoning.

Moreover, he argued extensively for institutions of society to be regulated by reason, to constantly protect freedom and ensure justice. Kant believed strongly in egalitarianism, and noted that the authority of any legitimate government rests with the rational, and free, consent of the governed; any legislation of the state should conform with the general will.

Hardly fascist in nature.

We could speculate until we grow old, and we'd never be any the wiser. Such speculation does not lead to any better understanding of Plato, so we either chose to take Plato at face value until we know for sure what he meant, or just drop him from this conversation.
On the contrary, discussion and informed speculation on the meaning of philosophical texts is an essential part of studying philosophy. Debate over the meaning of The Republic and other of Plato's works is far from fruitless; for we can gain new understanding, and new enquiries of thought, by examining newly proposed themes in thinkers' works.

Just take a look at the re-examination of Marx's early works, and how the new interpretations challenged the dogmatic 'old school' Marxists and Marxist-Leninists, for a great example of how re-evaluation of an author's works can profoundly change how we think of said author's theories.

You have obviously made your mind about what to believe

Come on, I'm open to a good argument.

Do you have any?

Mkay, so what is, in your opinion the closest match of modern political stance for Kant?

Hard to say. Unlike you, I haven't suggested that it's possible to take political views developed in the context of late eighteenth century Europe and simply transplant them into the early twenty-first century.

He may not be a bona-fide fascist but that's what would suit his views closest.

No, it simply wouldn't. Not even close. I don't know where you get this idea; you haven't given it any credible support at all. Kant's moral theory is one of equality, freedom, and reason, none of which are particularly respected by fascism. His political theory at times fails to live up to its own standards, but not as drastically as that.

If your truth is the absolute truth, then it is justifiable to spread it by whatever means.

That simply doesn't follow. "This is true" does not imply "You are entitled to persecute people until they agree with you."

If a figurehead implies that it should be spread by certain means then you find it almost your duty to do so, as instructed.

Only if you have a duty to obey this "figurehead" in the first place.

I acknowledge values because they exist.

So do all values tend towards fascism?

Well there was the categorical imperative "do not kill", but nevermind.

Kant certainly opposed murder, but he was willing to accept that war was justified at times... as an unfortunate consequence of the condition of injustice that is lawless relations between nations.

Why do I get the impression that you have never read any of Kant's political works?

My point that universal systems of ethics have this tendency of pushing themselves onto others by any means, including means which conflict with the system itself.

But you haven't told us how this makes them different from anything else. If any idea can play a justificatory role for tyranny, why are you so particularly concerned with universalist ethics? If you think universalist ethics is particularly useful for this purpose, you should give a reason why.

And if in all cases a universal system leads to such abuses,

But as an empirical claim that's not true. For example, there are people who advocate a universal ethic of pacifism, but I don't see them committing any such abuses. (Don't mention Christianity. Mainstream Christianity, whatever Jesus said, hasn't been pacifistic for a very long time.)

My philosophy is of no consequence in this thread.

Yes, it is. Unless you think that everyone is a closet fascist, you need to draw a line: you need to explain why certain ideas tend toward fascist oppression, and why others don't.

You read what you want into my statements, and frankly, I don't care either way.

In other words, you were wrong and don't want to admit it.

We could speculate until we grow old, and we'd never be any the wiser. Such speculation does not lead to any better understanding of Plato,

What makes you say that? Why are you so convinced that we cannot examine texts more closely, and find evidence for particular interpretations?

so we either chose to take Plato at face value until we know for sure what he meant

For Plato, there is no "face value." We've been over this already.

I wish--I like Rousseau a great deal--but I don't think so. Certainly Rousseau's political theory lends itself well to social anarchism, but socialism as modern socialists envision it would probably be foreign to him simply because it was the intellectual product of a rather different society.

Again, I wish, but I don't think so. Kant was sexist, racist, homophobic, sexually puritanical, opposed to social welfare programs, and supportive of things like property qualifications for voting... not to mention the fact that he comes out and says that his notion of "equality" is perfectly compatible with radical material equality (which is, in my opinion, only half-true--Rousseau's position is much more defensible here).

All true. I was assuming that they adapted to modern realities and contemporary politics with unreasonable swiftness and ease. This is after all purely hypothetical. One could assume that seeing modern society they would all adopt totalitarian politics because of how bizarre and strange humanity is now. Women as equals, openly gay couples, Negro politicians, rampant sexuality, non-laboring children, the obese, ect.

No, Marx and Chomsky, as theorists, are very different--Marx was intellectually creative and interesting, while Chomsky is rather... boring.

True. I meant more in the fact that Chomsky is involved in fringe politics. His policies are highly unlikely to be adopted.

All true. I was assuming that they adapted to modern realities and contemporary politics with unreasonable swiftness and ease. This is after all purely hypothetical.

Well, if you mean to suggest that the best application of the basic theories of Kant and Rousseau to modern realities can be found within the broad framework of democratic left-wing movements, you'll get no disagreement from me.

But I think that's a little too abstract for this thread, insofar as it involves a critical examination of their views rather than a simple projection of them into the future. There are moral positions advocated in Kant's work that are rather difficult to defend in Kantian terms... but they're still his positions.

:)

Well, if you mean to suggest that the best application of the basic theories of Kant and Rousseau to modern realities can be found within the broad framework of democratic left-wing movements, you'll get no disagreement from me.

But I think that's a little too abstract for this thread, insofar as it involves a critical examination of their views rather than a simple projection of them into the future. There are moral positions advocated in Kant's work that are rather difficult to defend in Kantian terms... but they're still his positions.

:)

I meant if they philosophers looked critically at their own work and adapted them to modern times. Naturally, if they actually came to the future they would all experience extreme culture shock along with the despair of having all they know and love being long dead.

Come on, I'm open to a good argument.

Do you have any?

You obviously aren't. You pick whatever you fancy from a statement, interpret it however you want, then drill on.

Hard to say. Unlike you, I haven't suggested that it's possible to take political views developed in the context of late eighteenth century Europe and simply transplant them into the early twenty-first century.

You do realise that was the point of the thread yes? I didn't say it is possible, this is a "what if it were possible" thread. Get your context straight, or leave.

No, it simply wouldn't. Not even close. I don't know where you get this idea; you haven't given it any credible support at all. Kant's moral theory is one of equality, freedom, and reason, none of which are particularly respected by fascism. His political theory at times fails to live up to its own standards, but not as drastically as that.

So what would it be closer to then?


That simply doesn't follow. "This is true" does not imply "You are entitled to persecute people until they agree with you."

Of course not. Though historically this is what happens. This shouldn't be the case but it is.


Only if you have a duty to obey this "figurehead" in the first place.

Uhm, no. Symbolic/soft power.


So do all values tend towards fascism?

I was referring to the authoritarianism characteristic of these people. Where did you extrapolate the "all" from?


Kant certainly opposed murder, but he was willing to accept that war was justified at times... as an unfortunate consequence of the condition of injustice that is lawless relations between nations.

And this opposes my point how? "You shouldn't kill, but if my definition of justice isn't the case in society you may" is exactly the reason why I oppose self-claimed "universal values".

Why do I get the impression that you have never read any of Kant's political works?

We only did the ethical stuff in school.


But you haven't told us how this makes them different from anything else. If any idea can play a justificatory role for tyranny, why are you so particularly concerned with universalist ethics? If you think universalist ethics is particularly useful for this purpose, you should give a reason why.

The reasons are historical. I have mentioned them, you simply chose to ignore them.


But as an empirical claim that's not true. For example, there are people who advocate a universal ethic of pacifism, but I don't see them committing any such abuses. (Don't mention Christianity. Mainstream Christianity, whatever Jesus said, hasn't been pacifistic for a very long time.)

Like?


Yes, it is. Unless you think that everyone is a closet fascist, you need to draw a line: you need to explain why certain ideas tend toward fascist oppression, and why others don't.

You've obviously lost track of what this thread is about. Which is why we are having this absurd debate. Read the OP, contribute to that if you have anything to contribute, and stop wanking over this thread.


In other words, you were wrong and don't want to admit it.

In other words you are wrong and I'd be foolish to even try to get you to admit it.


What makes you say that? Why are you so convinced that we cannot examine texts more closely, and find evidence for particular interpretations?

Oh enlighten us with this esoteric knowledge, oh master. If you have something useful to add please do. Otherwise don't talk out of your arse.

For Plato, there is no "face value." We've been over this already.

Because you say so?

Naturally, if they actually came to the future they would all experience extreme culture shock along with the despair of having all they know and love being long dead.

True. All the more reason to leave them back in the past, where they belong... and develop their ideas as seems fit, even if doing so leads us to places they might have found disgusting.

What's the reasoning behind this?

Kant wrote rather a lot on the admirable quality of questioning authority, how we should renounce an "immature" dependence on authority, and praised the courage needed to make decisions based on one's own reasoning.

Moreover, he argued extensively for institutions of society to be regulated by reason, to constantly protect freedom and ensure justice. Kant believed strongly in egalitarianism, and noted that the authority of any legitimate government rests with the rational, and free, consent of the governed; any legislation of the state should conform with the general will.

Hardly fascist in nature.

And your proposed modern political movement for Kant is?


On the contrary, discussion and informed speculation on the meaning of philosophical texts is an essential part of studying philosophy. Debate over the meaning of The Republic and other of Plato's works is far from fruitless; for we can gain new understanding, and new enquiries of thought, by examining newly proposed themes in thinkers' works.

Just take a look at the re-examination of Marx's early works, and how the new interpretations challenged the dogmatic 'old school' Marxists and Marxist-Leninists, for a great example of how re-evaluation of an author's works can profoundly change how we think of said author's theories.

If you wrote a philosophical treatise, would you argue what you want to argue or would you write metaphors? To my knowledge Plato isn't one of the "lyrical" philosophers (like, say Nietzsche).

Oh enlighten us with this esoteric knowledge, oh master. If you have something useful to add please do. Otherwise don't talk out of your arse.
What's the beef?

As I've said before (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13716853&postcount=61), re-examination of philosophical texts shouldn't be dismissed. Especially those works that have been translated in different ways over the years, such as Plato's works.

True. All the more reason to leave them back in the past, where they belong... and develop their ideas as seems fit, even if doing so leads us to places they might have found disgusting.

This I agree with.

There are many things that were incredibly progressive for the time in many of these philosophers' works (like the status of guardian women in the Republic), but in the overall context of our society they are still backwards, particularly regarding political freedoms etc.

I guessed that fascism is the closest thing they would be in the present. To speculate how their views would evolve as they learnt the lessons of history we have, since their deaths is, in my view, slightly beyond the scope of this thread.

What's the beef?

As I've said before (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13716853&postcount=61), re-examination of philosophical texts shouldn't be dismissed. Especially those works that have been translated in different ways over the years, such as Plato's works.

Do you have a translation of the Republic that doesn't involve an authoritarian caste system?

I don't dismiss the value of philosophical debate, but if you bring up the point, it needs to apply to what we are discussing here. Plato's political leanings, as indicated by his work.

And your proposed modern political movement for Kant is?
I'm not entirely sure, though it certainly wouldn't be fascism.

Any political movement Kant would subscribe to, if he would at all, would be one (following on from his political writings) committed to equality, individualism, republicanism, and assertive of both the universality of morals and of the ability to improve society and its institutions.

He was, broadly, a classic Liberal.

If you wrote a philosophical treatise, would you argue what you want to argue or would you write metaphors? To my knowledge Plato isn't one of the "lyrical" philosophers (like, say Nietzsche).
Still, there are ambiguities in both the text and the translation of Plato's works; ambiguities which deserve to be discussed, evaluated and re-appraised.

Even those 'systematic' philosophers who attempt to describe a whole system of philosophy which would explain and describe the world around them in an empirical manner, often use rather woolly and unhelpful language. John Locke is a notable example of this.

Do you have a translation of the Republic that doesn't involve an authoritarian caste system?
No, but there are large ambiguities in the language of The Republic which can be interpreted quite differently, with great ramifications.

See here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Republic_%28Plato%29#Reception_and_interpretation) and here (http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/plato-ethics-politics/) for many different interpretations.

You do realise that was the point of the thread yes?

Yes, I do. I'm not objecting to you doing so, I'm objecting to you demanding that I do so when I point out that your particular choice is an awful one.

So what would it be closer to then?

How do you measure political "distance"? He would have major breaks with most of the parties and positions that come to mind.

Uhm, no. Symbolic/soft power.

So how does universal ethics tend toward "symbolic/soft power"? Come on, actually justify your statements. This grows tiresome.

I was referring to the authoritarianism characteristic of these people.

So where is Kant's authoritarianism? Tell me.

And this opposes my point how? "You shouldn't kill, but if my definition of justice isn't the case in society you may" is exactly the reason why I oppose self-claimed "universal values".

That's not what Kant says at all. In fact, Kant thought people should obey the law and not rebel, not even against an unjust authority... he thought reform, while morally obligatory, was only acceptable through legal means.

He thinks war (in a few limited circumstances) can be justified, but only between nations... and only because there is no political authority, just or unjust, that rules over nations and can resolve disputes through laws rather than leaving it to force.

We only did the ethical stuff in school.

So why exactly are you advancing an argument about something you know nothing about, when at least two people who do know something about the subject have directly contradicted you?

Of course, with a basic understanding of Kant's ethics, you still wouldn't conclude fascism from them... not even remotely.

The reasons are historical. I have mentioned them, you simply chose to ignore them.

You have mentioned a few cases where universalist ethics have been used to justify abuses. Of course, this doesn't tell us much, because universal ethics is, in general, the language of justification as such: it can be used to justify abuses, but also everything else under the sun.

And the exceptions, where movements don't use moral discourse to discuss resolutions to political problems, are hardly better... as I illustrated with my example of Marxism.

Like?

Any number of minority Christian denominations, for instance... which may be socially authoritarian in their own ways, but are not violent or coercive towards others.

You've obviously lost track of what this thread is about.

No, I haven't. I know very well what this thread is about.

I'm just (still) waiting for you to deliver something better than evasions and sophistry when it comes to justifying your claims... claims quite relevant to this thread.

Yes, I do. I'm not objecting to you doing so, I'm objecting to you demanding that I do so when I point out that your particular choice is an awful one.[quote]

Awful is relative. I want to know to what you relate my choice.

[quote]How do you measure political "distance"? He would have major breaks with most of the parties and positions that come to mind.

Of course. So if you had to pick a position (which is what the thread is about) what would it be?

So how does universal ethics tend toward "symbolic/soft power"? Come on, actually justify your statements. This grows tiresome.

Are you familiar with the concept of "spiritual leader"? Or "role model"?

I am growing tiresome? You're the one arguing something that has nothing to do with thread.


So where is Kant's authoritarianism? Tell me.

You took that out of context. I was referring to most (i.e. some as opposed to all) people in that list.

But his ethical system, with "duty" does reek of that.

That's not what Kant says at all. In fact, Kant thought people should obey the law and not rebel, not even against an unjust authority... he thought reform, while morally obligatory, was only acceptable through legal means.

Fascism is not at all incompatible with the rule of law. Quite the contrary.

So why exactly are you advancing an argument about something you know nothing about, when at least two people who do know something about the subject have directly contradicted you?

I expressed an opinion. You made an argument out of it.

Of course, with a basic understanding of Kant's ethics, you still wouldn't conclude fascism from them... not even remotely.

Again, if you don't want to play by the rules of the OP why are you in this thread in the first place? No, I wouldn't conclude fascism, but if I had to conclude anything, that's what I'm inclined towards.

The fact that we would never realistically get into the situation which the OP hypothesizes, is irrelevant. I offered an opinion, in the frame provided by the thread. If you want to criticise that, do so according to the same rules, so at least we are arguing in the same language.


You have mentioned a few cases where universalist ethics have been used to justify abuses. Of course, this doesn't tell us much, because universal ethics is, in general, the language of justification as such: it can be used to justify abuses, but also everything else under the sun.

And the exceptions, where movements don't use moral discourse to discuss resolutions to political problems, are hardly better... as I illustrated with my example of Marxism.

But we were discussing universalist ethics, not the alternatives. Marxism has no relevance in this debate. And also, what else it is used to justify is irrelevant. Because we were talking about the abuses.

Any number of minority Christian denominations, for instance... which may be socially authoritarian in their own ways, but are not violent or coercive towards others.

Any of historical/political significance?

No, I haven't. I know very well what this thread is about.

I'm just (still) waiting for you to deliver something better than evasions and sophistry when it comes to justifying your claims... claims quite relevant to this thread.

I have. I do apologise if in your eyes it's no more than sophistry.

Confucius would support the Chinese CP, KMT, Vietnamese CP, and the Japanese LDP. Not sure which Korean political party he would support. He would also be supportive of the Bermese junta.

But his ethical system, with "duty" does reek of that.
How, necessarily?

Neither a general use of therm duty, not positing that there is an objective moral code, necessitates authoritarianism.

Any of historical/political significance?
The Quakers, the Diggers, the Levellers, the Ranters, to name but a few.

How, necessarily?

Neither a general use of therm duty, not positing that there is an objective moral code, necessitates authoritarianism.

Granted. But I never claimed this is more than an opinion, which makes it quite stupid to argue, considering we would never know either way.

The Quakers, the Diggers, the Levellers, the Ranters, to name but a few.

You mean the abolishing of slavery isn't imposing one's morality onto others?

The question was a pacifist et al. group, of political significance which didn't march their values on others.

Granted. But I never claimed this is more than an opinion, which makes it quite stupid to argue, considering we would never know either way.
Why is it stupid to argue? Stating something is 'only' an opinion doesn't get you out from others criticising said opinion. I believe your opinion is wrong, and I think it would do you good to re-examine some of the faulty beliefs you seem to hold surrounding Kant and objectivist ethics which lead up to your opinion.

Nothing stupid about it.

You mean the abolishing of slavery isn't imposing one's morality onto others?

The question was a pacifist et al. group, of political significance which didn't march their values on others.
Moving the goalposts somewhat, aren't we?

You were asking, I believe, for the names of politically or historically significant Christian movements which followed a pacifist ethical system. The four above are such movements.

Awful is relative.

Not necessarily. It's possible that all the answers to a question can be awful. In this case, there are better and worse answers... it's just that none of them are particularly good, and yours is particularly bad.

Of course. So if you had to pick a position (which is what the thread is about) what would it be?

I don't have to pick a position, and I see no reason why I should.

Are you familiar with the concept of "spiritual leader"? Or "role model"?

Yes. What about them?

You took that out of context. I was referring to most (i.e. some as opposed to all) people in that list.

And by mentioning Plato, Kant, and Hobbes as "high priests" among that group, you included them as representative examples... indeed, particularly representative examples.

Your meaning was quite clear.

But his ethical system, with "duty" does reek of that.

No, it doesn't--not when our "duty" is to respect our own freedom and that of others.

Fascism is not at all incompatible with the rule of law. Quite the contrary.

With the "rule of law" as a political principle? Yes, it does. Fascism prides itself in arbitrary power: it came to power with the help of extensive vigilantism, for instance. And it willfully violated international norms and conventions.

I expressed an opinion. You made an argument out of it.

I contested it. You could have conceded the point. You could have admitted your lack of knowledge and withdrawn. You could have ignored my reply. Instead, you chose to defend your position.

No, I wouldn't conclude fascism, but if I had to conclude anything, that's what I'm inclined towards.

Why? Does the word "duty" offend your sensibilities so much?

The fact that we would never realistically get into the situation which the OP hypothesizes, is irrelevant.

Indeed it is. My point is not that the hypothetical is unrealistic, but simply that political realities now and then are so distinct that it is difficult to say where someone with Kant's views would end up.

If you want to criticise that, do so according to the same rules,

I am. Again, I am not contesting the "realism" of the hypothetical. I am contesting the appropriateness of your choice.

But we were discussing universalist ethics, not the alternatives. Marxism has no relevance in this debate. And also, what else it is used to justify is irrelevant. Because we were talking about the abuses.

*sigh*

If you want to assert that a particular philosophical framework has a certain effect, you need to show that this effect is particular to that framework--at least insofar as it cannot be explained equally or better by other causes.

The unpleasant fact is that every ideal and every ideology that comes to mind can be abused... and those that haven't been mostly haven't been because they simply haven't played enough of a role in reality. My point is that universalistic ethics are no different from anything else in this respect. There's nothing special about them that causes abuses.

bah, me and diogenes are gonna do a barrel roll

Just be sure it isn't Epictetus's barrel you're rolling. That could be trouble. :p

Moving the goalposts somewhat, aren't we?

You were asking, I believe, for the names of politically or historically significant Christian movements which followed a pacifist ethical system. The four above are such movements.

No. That was in the context, and the line of argument. I wasn't moving the goal posts at all. All those things were mentioned earlier.

Not necessarily. It's possible that all the answers to a question can be awful. In this case, there are better and worse answers... it's just that none of them are particularly good, and yours is particularly bad.

Mkay, but you have yet to offer a less "particularly bad" alternative.

I don't have to pick a position, and I see no reason why I should.

Oh I like this. Let's just pick an argument with someone, completely unrelated to the thread.

Yes. What about them?

Smooth. Now you are wilfully ignoring an argument.

And by mentioning Plato, Kant, and Hobbes as "high priests" among that group, you included them as representative examples... indeed, particularly representative examples.

Your meaning was quite clear.

Yes, yet, as always, conveniently misinterpreted by you.

No, it doesn't--not when our "duty" is to respect our own freedom and that of others.

In principle yes. I have already argued what happens in practice. But again, you obviously simply do not care, and continue to drill on in the same manner.

With the "rule of law" as a political principle? Yes, it does. Fascism prides itself in arbitrary power: it came to power with the help of extensive vigilantism, for instance. And it willfully violated international norms and conventions.

This is just bollocks.

I contested it. You could have conceded the point. You could have admitted your lack of knowledge and withdrawn. You could have ignored my reply. Instead, you chose to defend your position.

Would you deny me my position?

Why? Does the word "duty" offend your sensibilities so much?

Yeah. It does. Your point?

Indeed it is. My point is not that the hypothetical is unrealistic, but simply that political realities now and then are so distinct that it is difficult to say where someone with Kant's views would end up.

And I agreed with you from the beginning on this. I was simply playing to the rules of the OP. If you don't want to, fine, but you don't exactly have a moral highground to pick whichever person you fancy and bollock them for their choice, because none is particularly appropriate.

I am. Again, I am not contesting the "realism" of the hypothetical. I am contesting the appropriateness of your choice.

Again, in relation to what. If none are appropriate, then why pick mine out and argue against it, because it doesn't fit your tastes. Does "fascism" offend your tastes so much?

*sigh*

If you want to assert that a particular philosophical framework has a certain effect, you need to show that this effect is particular to that framework--at least insofar as it cannot be explained equally or better by other causes.

The unpleasant fact is that every ideal and every ideology that comes to mind can be abused... and those that haven't been mostly haven't been because they simply haven't played enough of a role in reality. My point is that universalistic ethics are no different from anything else in this respect. There's nothing special about them that causes abuses.

What's special about universalist ethics is that because it holds the only truth, then all means towards that truth are justified. And this is reinforced historically.


This argument is getting stupid. It's like you being a liberal and someone asking you whether you are a fascist or a communist, and you must answer. Then I get to bollock you till the end of time for your choice. Given this, I shall, henceforth, ignore you. No hard feelings, but you have contributed nothing that the OP asked for, and I see no reason why I should play ball if you don't even want to touch the ball.

For what it's worth:

Mkay, but you have yet to offer a less "particularly bad" alternative.

Christian Democrat. Hell, any political affiliation that respected basic liberal principles, instead of explicitly rejecting and ignoring them, would have been better.

What's special about universalist ethics is that because it holds the only truth, then all means towards that truth are justified.

As you've explained, this has nothing to do with the logical content of universalist ethics, but rather with what happens when they are put into practice. The trouble is, you haven't shown that there is anything special about universalist ethics when put into practice.

True, plenty of atrocities have been committed by people who believe in universalist ethics... and plenty of atrocities have been committed by people who don't.

Note: Well since you did put forward a position, I guess I'll reply.

For what it's worth:
Christian Democrat. Hell, any political affiliation that respected basic liberal principles, instead of explicitly rejecting and ignoring them, would have been better.

Now wouldn't it be easy to just start calling bollocks on that?

For example I could say that the concept of categorical imperatives is completely incompatible with democracy. These things aren't up for debate. They just are. And I could go on and on on this single theme, while you could argue "well what other political movement has the principles of equality before law etc. etc.?".
But such a debate would be as pointless as the one we've already had.

As you've explained, this has nothing to do with the logical content of universalist ethics, but rather with what happens when they are put into practice. The trouble is, you haven't shown that there is anything special about universalist ethics when put into practice.

True, plenty of atrocities have been committed by people who believe in universalist ethics... and plenty of atrocities have been committed by people who don't.

The point is that universalist ethics leads to such abuse in spite of their content, while the rest, usually due to their content. Again probably just me being anally retentive about consistency.

For example I could say that the concept of categorical imperatives is completely incompatible with democracy.

Kant certainly didn't think so--not "democracy" in the sense of sovereignty being invested with the people, anyway. Indeed, he argued that the categorical imperatives required this element in politics.

These things aren't up for debate.

No, they aren't... but what do they mean, politically? That's the important question.

Kant's categorical imperatives, and much of his political theory, are influenced very much by Rousseau. For him, law in a just society stems from the sovereignty of the people, such that any law the people obey is one they give themselves.

Autonomy is, after all, the central theme of Kantian ethics, and the foundational element of the categorical imperatives.

They just are.

Yes... and because "they just are", we are morally obliged to seek (through lawful means) a society organized rightly, that is, one where laws proceed from the united will of the people.

The point is that universalist ethics leads to such abuse in spite of their content, while the rest, usually due to their content.

Marxism wasn't about totalitarianism any more than Christianity is about waging war.

Autonomy is, after all, the central theme of Kantian ethics, and the foundational element of the categorical imperatives.


That with a belief in life after death and a belief in God.

NO WAY CHOMSKY IS TEH MAN!!11!111!

I know he doesn't bring delirium to his audience like Hitler did,
but he surely is a calm rational voice. No wonder he doesn't have a pop fan club.

I'm not really concerned with popular opinion of Chomsky any more than I am with popular opinion of Marx. And I'm definitely not a fan of Marxist political ideals any more than I am of Chomsky's ideals.

But calm, rational voice? I'm a bit iffy on that. I'll support John Rawls in that category.

That with a belief in life after death and a belief in God.

Not the way autonomy is. The respect for autonomy, in oneself and in others, is what the categorical imperatives are.

God and the immortality of the soul are elements Kant argues are necessarily bound up with moral thinking... but they don't really have much bearing on the substance and content of moral duties.

God and the immortality of the soul are elements Kant argues are necessarily bound up with moral thinking... but they don't really have much bearing on the substance and content of moral duties.

But Kant does describe it as perverse to follow the categorical imperative if there is no summon bonum, which raises problems for atheists who follow the categorical imperative.

But calm, rational voice? I'm a bit iffy on that.

It's not so unjustified. Chomsky's commentary is a lot more reserved than a lot of other leftist commentators. That's one of the reasons it's so uninteresting--his analysis is unoriginal and repetitive.

I'll support John Rawls in that category.

I don't like Rawls. At all. And A Theory of Justice is horrendously dull. "Calm", yes, "rational", in some respects, but interesting or convincing? Not really.

As a thinker, I actually like Robert Nozick more... even though Anarchy, State, and Utopia was completely wrong about basically everything. :)

("The Zigzag of Politics", on the other hand, is wonderful.)

But Kant does describe it as perverse to follow the categorical imperative if there is no summon bonum,

Yes, but I see no real reason to accept this as true. Reality may simply be fundamentally unjust.

Edit: And if it is, that has no bearing on "ought."

which raises problems for atheists who follow the categorical imperative.

Kant said lots of things that most thinkers these days aren't inclined to accept, regardless of whether or not they agree with the categorical imperatives.

Yes, but I see no real reason to accept this as true. Reality may simply be fundamentally unjust.


So then why follow the categorical imperative?


Kant said lots of things that most thinkers these days aren't inclined to accept, regardless of whether or not they agree with the categorical imperatives.

Just out of interest, do you believe in the categorical imperative?

So then why follow the categorical imperative?

The reason for complying with the categorical imperative is not the summum bonum, and Kant does not claim it is. He claims (on my rather unclear understanding) something closer to that the idea of moral goodness necessarily resulting from the categorical imperative is meaningless and empty without the summum bonum.

The reason for following the categorical imperative is the recognition of the moral (rational) importance of autonomy.

Just out of interest, do you believe in the categorical imperative?

After a fashion, yes.

The reason for complying with the categorical imperative is not the summum bonum, and Kant does not claim it is. He claims (on my rather unclear understanding) something closer to that the idea of moral goodness necessarily resulting from the categorical imperative is meaningless and empty without the summum bonum.


I know he doesn't say himself that the summon bonum is the reason to follow it, rather he deduces that because the categorical imperative does exist then there must be an after life. However, you can't get away from the fact that even though if it's not an intention of Kant for it to be required, it seems that it is if the imperative is going to have any meaning.


The reason for following the categorical imperative is the recognition of the moral (rational) importance of autonomy.


Can you elaborate?

If you ask me, Machiavelli should have been on that list of famous philosophers.

It's not so unjustified. Chomsky's commentary is a lot more reserved than a lot of other leftist commentators. That's one of the reasons it's so uninteresting--his analysis is unoriginal and repetitive.

Fair point. The calm bit is probably fairly accurate.

I don't like Rawls. At all. And A Theory of Justice is horrendously dull. "Calm", yes, "rational", in some respects, but interesting or convincing? Not really.

See, when I read A Theory of Justice in college, I found it somewhat interesting, but not convincing.

As a thinker, I actually like Robert Nozick more... even though Anarchy, State, and Utopia was completely wrong about basically everything. :)

("The Zigzag of Politics", on the other hand, is wonderful.)

Somehow I'm not surprised that you think Anarchy, State, and Utopia is wrong about basically everything. :p

I thought it had a lot of problems, myself, but I doubt it was for the same reasons that you do.

However, you can't get away from the fact that even though if it's not an intention of Kant for it to be required, it seems that it is if the imperative is going to have any meaning.

Why? The connection of morality to happiness seems more an artifact of the religious Christian morality by which Kant was influenced than a necessary component of the categorical imperative itself.

Can you elaborate?

It's all in the Groundwork, just out of order. :)

A will determined by reason is one that is not determined by heteronomous inclination. Think "is/ought" and you'll get the idea: if we are acting according to inclination, we are suggesting that what is right is a consequence what we happen to desire, and that does not rationally follow.

Such a will, therefore, must seek independent principles of action that apply to a will as such... and that is the same as to say that they must apply universally.

See, when I read A Theory of Justice in college, I found it somewhat interesting, but not convincing.

I don't find anything interesting unless, in some respects, it is also convincing.

Nozick is wrong in (virtually) all his conclusions, but he convincingly attacks "end-state" theories in a way that, I think, ultimately undermines his own. And he challenges the distinction between labor and its product in a way that, to mount an effective response, requires leftists to provide a counter-framework of entitlement... something not difficult to do, but which egalitarian distributional schemes often fail to consider.

Somehow I'm not surprised that you think Anarchy, State, and Utopia is wrong about basically everything. :p

In its conclusions, but not always in its arguments.

I thought it had a lot of problems, myself, but I doubt it was for the same reasons that you do.

With some reservations as to the increasing off-topicness of this line of discussion, I'd like to hear them.

With some reservations as to the increasing off-topicness of this line of discussion, I'd like to hear them.

If you want to start a thread on modern political theory, we could certainly discuss it there.

Nietsche - Libertarian/Republican - I doubt very much he would have anything to do with fascists; he wasn't first-rate, but he was neither vicious nor stupid.

If you want to start a thread on modern political theory, we could certainly discuss it there.

Done. (http://forums4.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=557389)

(Have I ever mentioned how much I hate creating threads? And how clumsy I am in doing so?)

Nietsche - Libertarian/Republican - I doubt very much he would have anything to do with fascists; he wasn't first-rate, but he was neither vicious nor stupid.

I don't think Nieztsche has much of a place at all in modern politics. He was too much of an individualist.