Political Philosophy and Ethics discussion

I have opened this topic as a result of some interest expressed in this group regarding utilitarian philosophy. See, for example, posts 132 and 138-40 of the Electoral College topic.

Yes! Count me as a fan of John Stuart Mill. I like this branch of his thought.

When over-used, it can become authoritarian; it can deny individual happiness. That's a concern, but otherwise I see a lot of good in Utilitarianism as political philosophy.

One odious alternative to utilitarianism, is rampant individualism such as capitalism fosters; too much 'freedom of opportunity' which allows powerful plutocrats and dictators to rise.

I'd rather see an end to this constant stream of power-mad megalomaniacs than bend-over-backward to ensure John Q. Public can continually chase his bourgeois American Dream (chicken in every pot, car in every garage). The trouble is, he never wants to stop there; he always wants to join a bunch of elitists and run the whole show.

Feliks wrote: "I'd rather see an end to this constant stream of power-mad megalomaniacs than bend-over-backward to ensure John Q. Public can continually chase their bourgeois American Dream (chicken in every pot, car in every garage). "

But if the great majority desire(s) those materialist things, isn't that, by definition, the "greatest good for the greatest number"? Or should philosopher-kings decide what is "the greatest good" for the hoi polloi? That is the question of Plato's Republic.

re: #3

Well. But does it have to be a philosopher king who questions what is best for a people? From my own career in hands-on-policy-applying government agencies I can affirm to anyone that 'greatest good' is usually the ethic underpinning decision-making which affects the public.

It may or may not be announced as such; and sometimes it is not effectively carried out; but usually all the analysis supports this style of progress; and usually all the committee-meetings wind up cleaving to it. Perhaps if only by dint of it being the most defensible.

My point here is that today's professional fields 'call the turn'. Scientists and engineers, legal and medical consensus governs progress today. Or, they should. Politicians certainly don't know... and the man-in-the-street either, he doesn't always know what is good-for-them.

An example of what does not work, comes from that notorious libertarian crony of mine. I've mentioned him before. Typically, he advances (to me) a website called 'NumbersUSA.com' which he claims shows what's really going on behind immigration issues. I point out to him that statistics from this data-purveyor has been shown to be erroneous. His reply is, "there's still millions of people in this country who feel a certain way about immigration whether or not this specific data is bad". At which my eyes pop out of their sockets. I remind him that, "we don't resort to mob rule in this country. Just because 'people want things' doesn't mean its right or wise or sane."

Re-reading the remarks raised by Robert and yourself (Alan) in the Electoral College thread, naturally I make haste to aver that I'm not in favor of utilitarianism when it encroaches on individual rights as set forth in so many instances in our own US Constitution.

Perhaps I should state it this way: utilitarianism looks really good in higher-level government policies such as economics, health, environment, food; etc.

And curiously, it also seems to work best in more minute scenarios such as 'desert island survival' (thought-experiments).

Doesn't a small group of people invariably follow utilitarianism when put under any kind of pressure? Isn't that a pretty sterling recommendation?

Feliks wrote (#3): "My point here is that today's professional fields 'call the turn'. Scientists and engineers, legal and medical consensus governs progress today. Or, they should. Politicians certainly don't know... and the man-in-the-street either, he doesn't always know what is good-for-them."

Your elites are the modern-day equivalent of Plato's philosopher-kings. Your view is profoundly undemocratic. I say this not as a criticism but as a fact. As for myself, I remain agnostic regarding such issues. After I finish my book on ethics, I will return to political philosophy and attempt to arrive at some conclusions about what, to me, are still open questions.

Feliks wrote (#5): "And curiously, it also seems to work best in more minute scenarios such as 'desert island survival' (thought-experiments).

Doesn't a small group of people invariably follow utilitarianism when put under any kind of pressure? Isn't that a pretty sterling recommendation?"

Depends on whether you ask Hobbes or Rousseau.

In my experience, the smaller the group the more tyrannical it is. I have found this especially true in representing local governments and condominium/townhouse associations in litigation (compare Madison's Federalist No. 10), not to mention my observations in elementary and secondary school (think Lord of the Flies).

Alan wrote: "Your elites are the modern-day equivalent of Plato's philosopher-kings. Your view is profoundly undemocratic...."

Not sure how this analogy is supportable. Modern nations must run with bureaucracies. Bureaucracies are certainly steered by public input in many ways--but at the same time, by the latest science and engineering. By 'best practices'.

Average citizens cooperate to some extent in the decision-making; but can not ultimately be consulted for their expertise on hydroelectric dams. They have none. If matters were left to them, loss of life would ensue. Or, environmental disaster; or environmental injustice. Thus, principles of 'greater good' necessarily come into play.

I don't see any connection --in any of this--to despotism. It's simple realism; and if there's anything unwholesome about it then certainly a lot of people are guilty.

Specific areas of society such as medicine, law, or transportation must be governed by experts in these fields; this is not to say they are 'elite'. Not unless knowledge itself is elite.

Alan wrote: "In my experience, the smaller the group the more tyrannical it is...."

Perhaps you mean a small body isolated within a larger body; or passing laws for that larger body. But deserted-island or jungle-survival scenarios (unanimous group decision-making) have been studied at length in the field of psychology. There's nothing particularly undemocratic about it. When an isolated band of humans must struggle for resources; 'greatest good' quickly comes to the fore.

I've yet to hear a single criticism against it, either in this forum or anywhere else. In practical terms it is 'what works'. It proves itself out, either in primitive timeperiods or in our own era. What other method makes any sense but to preserve as many lives as possible?

I agree that smaller governments are the more worrisome; we discussed that in the 'Totalitarianism' conversation. Although what you say here seems not to jibe with what I recall of your position during that chat...

Alan wrote: "But if the great majority desire(s) those materialist things, isn't that, by definition, the "greatest good for the greatest number"? Or should philosopher-kings decide what is "the greatest good" for the hoi polloi? That is the question of Plato's Republic...."

The 'majority' follows a lot of unsavory urges and misguided desires; mobs are driven by sundry appetites and compulsions that civil society can not condone. Any glance backward at the pre-modern era shows how 'well' people govern themselves if left to themselves. Not well at all. A "hands-off" democracy falls apart without law, order, science, and even religion.

Harkening back to politics, (socialism vs capitalism); there's no 'need' for anyone to become a billionaire. That is a 'luxury' rather than a need. Such notions arrived with the industrial revolution; but societies flourished for centuries prior... without being the worse off because extravagance and greed were held in check.

Not sure where on earth a 'pure democracy' has ever been located but if it means ...well, 'sortition'? Lack of responsible, knowledgeable people in charge? I sure don't want to entrust my life to it.

Re #8: I see now that you are referring to highly technical matters as distinguished from wise governance generally. So perhaps it's not a good analogy. Indeed, I regard the career federal bureaucracy (what Trump calls the "Deep State") the best part of the government at present. Confucius would understand.

I didn't say anything about "despotic rule." In fact, Plato made it perfectly clear in the Republic and elsewhere (for example, the Seventh Letter) that despotic rule ("tyranny") was the worst form of government.

Re #9: I'm not familiar with the studies to which you refer. We may be talking about two different things.

I don't recall any discrepancy between what I have written here and in the "Totalitarianism" topic. Since you brought it up, please specify to what you are referring.

Re #10: I pretty much agree with you, though I'm not too sure about the religion part—especially if it means government religion. There have been too many bloodbaths in the name of religion throughout human history, especially in Europe and even in the Americas (particularly in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries). Rousseau loved Geneva and spoke highly of Geneva's favorite son, Calvin, but Calvin—the chief theocrat of that city during the sixteenth century—was responsible for the burning at the stake of Servetus on the sole basis of the latter's disagreement with Calvin on theological doctrine, and Calvin also had other people executed and persecuted on the basis of their religious differences with him. Enough already! We don't need to go back to that. Madison pointed out in Federalist No. 10 that one of the advantages of government over larger territories is that local religious factions cannot so easily tyrannize over religious dissenters. He knew whereof he spoke, having witnessed firsthand the Anglican persecution and imprisonment of Baptist preachers in Virginia when he was young. I detail that history, as well as the bloody history of the seventeenth-century Massachusetts Bay theocracy, in my book on Roger Williams.

Socrates and Plato opposed sortition for the reasons you mention. Since the demos (the Athenian people) tended to equate democracy with sortition for most executive functions and direct (nonrepresentative) democracy for legislative purposes, they considered Socrates (and likely Plato) to be undemocratic (one of the reasons why they executed Socrates). Indeed, "democracy" was a dirty word for most of the US founders, as they associated it with Athenian direct democracy (opposed in Madison's Federalist No. 10) and sortition. Of course, we have at least one strong advocate of sortition in this group, and I wouldn't be surprised if we hear from him on that subject (which also has its own separate topic in this forum).

Another stray thought.

If the principles of utilitarianism successfully predate the principles of democracy by perhaps 50,000 years of human evolution, can they truly be gainsaid? If this fundamental of small-band survival kept the human race intact on this planet until the Athenian Empire finally appeared on the scene...and if it should someday return (if current-day civilization collapses due to war, etc); which then, is the more robust? It might even be asked which of the two, is more of an ideal state?

Just musing aloud.

Feliks, could you please identify/cite the studies you reference in your posts 9 and 12? Thanks.

My apologies for not seeing this post for such a long time. I'll try to come up with some better reference than what I am now about to offer; but off-the-top-of-my-head right now, I can only contribute the following:

Post #9 draws on basic first-year social science textbooks I crammed for Cultural Anthropology 101, Sociology 101, and Psychology 101 all the way back in freshman undergrad. Any college psychology textbook should describe group decision-making in terms of 'models'. I don't remember what each model might have been named but the topic itself should be a 'section' in any such work. I do recall in my psych course, students were asked to test this 'live'. We were split up into groups of 4-5 and given survival scenarios to sift through; we were given roles to play. I've gone through the same thing in my workplace during EEO training. I've also seen this paradigm trotted out in guidance counseling offices; career counseling offices. Not Meyers-Briggs tests but similar batteries which try to assess leaders/followers.

Post #12: I need to muse on this one a little bit since one of my undergrad majors was Archaeology. I haven't had any arch textbooks on my shelf in a long time. But that's where I would probably have first come across it. A term you would want to search on is the 'Upper Paleolithic Era'.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Upper_P...
Or, 'hunter-gatherer' societies:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hunter-...
Not the Neolithic which can be characterized by agriculture and fixed settlements; and built structures. The Upper Paleolithic (between 50,000 and 12,000 yrs ago) is when social groups developed to a level most people today, sorely under-rate. The Altamira caves in Spain and the Lascaux caves in France are rich testament to the hidden sophistication. Study of early language (though I'm sure you have no time for it) can also surprise one. In any case, modern anthropology + sociology do much to establish that the principles of tribal life are largely similar, whether we find such tribes in the 1700s, the 1800s, the 1900s, or 37,000 yrs ago.

I'll keep your request for specific citations in mind over the next few weeks. Maybe I can do better.

Feliks wrote: "I'll keep your request for specific citations in mind over the next few weeks. Maybe I can do better."

Don't worry about it. It's hard for me to focus right now on a matter that is over two years old (I just don't have time). Perhaps the question is resolved by the fact that you are talking about primitive societies of long ago, whereas I was referring to contemporary local governments in the United States. It's apples and oranges. I have direct experience with small, local governments from my decades of law practice (I often represented them). I doubt they have anything in common with hunter-gatherer societies of many millennia ago.

I wasn't aware until today that the father of John Stuart Mill was also a philosopher. James Mill, was a Scottish economist and historian with a tilt towards Ricardo.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Mill

A less laudatory aspect of his career, was his unflinching advocacy of British imperialism. But in passing, note the remarkable education of his son, young John Stuart Mill:

"At the age of three he was taught Greek. By the age of eight, he had read Aesop's Fables, Xenophon's Anabasis, and the whole of Herodotus, and was acquainted with Lucian, Diogenes Laërtius, Isocrates and six dialogues of Plato. He had also read a great deal of history in English and had been taught arithmetic, physics and astronomy."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_St...

Feliks wrote: "I wasn't aware until today that the father of John Stuart Mill was also a philosopher. James Mill, was a Scottish economist and historian with a tilt towards Ricardo.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/..."

For a detailed account of John Stuart Mill's education, see his Autobiography, which I last read when I was a teenager.

I discuss John Stuart Mill’s views on utilitarianism on pages 22–25 of my book Reason and Human Ethics. These pages are in Chapter 1 of the book, which (along with Chapter 2 and some of the front matter) is reproduced at https://www.academia.edu/82835731/Exc....