this post was submitted on 15 Dec 2023
633 points (92.6% liked)

Political Memes

5506 readers
1824 users here now

Welcome to politcal memes!

These are our rules:

Be civilJokes are okay, but don’t intentionally harass or disturb any member of our community. Sexism, racism and bigotry are not allowed. Good faith argumentation only. No posts discouraging people to vote or shaming people for voting.

No misinformationDon’t post any intentional misinformation. When asked by mods, provide sources for any claims you make.

Posts should be memesRandom pictures do not qualify as memes. Relevance to politics is required.

No bots, spam or self-promotionFollow instance rules, ask for your bot to be allowed on this community.

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 1 points 11 months ago (1 children)

Sure, if you want to imagine an impossibility. The reality of the matter is that those who control and own the Means of production will always act in their own self-interest, the "good men of history" idea is Utopian, and still anti-democratic.

Your argument is akin to saying if a Dictator is really nice, even if there's no democracy, it's fully ethical. The lack of ability to contest even a benevolent dictator means the foundation giving the dictator power is itself unethical, even if the way the dictator treats his subjects is ethical.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 11 months ago (1 children)

I fully believe a benevolent dictator has more capacity to be ethical than even the strongest democracy.

And it's ridiculous to argue otherwise.

In reductive terms, there is ultimately the best decision. The thing that is the best. Humans, by definition, have varying capacity, and varying experience. I can say, unequivocally, that younger me was an idiot. And the decisions I make now are much better than the decisions I made when I was younger.

In a democracy you're optimizing for the most acceptance of outcome. People of varying capacities and varying world views will argue their opinions, and results will be the closest to the middle ground that most people can live with.

So yes. If you're maximizing for ethics a single person can do that.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 11 months ago (1 children)

See, I can't agree with anything you say if you believe ends justify all means. It's pure Utopianism, and therefore can't be considered meaningful.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 11 months ago (1 children)

I guess I'm not following your thesis then. Can you say, simply, what you believe ethics are. And why democracies are inherently more ethical

[–] [email protected] 1 points 11 months ago (1 children)

Hierarchy without democratic consent and exploitation are both unethical. Simple as.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 11 months ago (1 children)

What about something like the Salem witch trials.

Everyone agreed they were witches.

There is no such thing as a witch

[–] [email protected] 1 points 11 months ago

Democratic actions aren't ethical by themselves. If the Salem witch trials were dictatorlially held by 1 dude, is your argument that it is somehow more ethical?

An action must be democratically accountable and ethical, you need both to actually be ethical.

Are you legitimately anti-democracy?