We are always being told that we must vote. A politician, known for his blue eyes and honesty, will look into the camera and tell us that it’s not so important if we vote for him, what matters is that we vote for someone. We must vote no matter what. And they all seem to say that.
How unselfish they are! How devoted to their noble principles! Right? They are being honest, aren’t they? Yes, as a matter of fact they are. But that is not because of their selflessness and idealism. They mean it because it is in their interest.
The leaders of a stable democracy, both the ones who are currently in office and those who formally belong to the opposition, are all integral parts of the existing order. A stable state is a united organism, and the main goal of any organism is simply to continue its existence. Therefore it’s in the interest of those who are deeply involved in its structure to keep it alive and strong.
In a stable democracy very little is ever changed from the voting booth. The political order has long since been establish, and now its purpose is mainly to uphold its static comfort. That means there is not much real confrontation. Well, seemingly the political actors quarrel among themselves, but their disagreement is never about the fundamentals of the state. They have gathered in a cozy middle ground where all really controversial issues are avoided. Therefore a vote for one of them is also a vote for them all, and they prefer this indirect support to no support at all.
So why do you want to vote? You want to have an influence on politics however small, you say. You want to use that tiny strength of yours to push the country in your favorite direction. Sorry, by voting you’re not doing that. The only thing your vote expresses is that you are generally satisfied with things as they are. Maybe you want some very minor changes, but in general you are content, and your leaders are happy to receive your confirmation. Whenever you vote, and whoever you vote for, you vote for the establishment. You vote for status quo.
Why are you making this effort? The status quo doesn’t need your support to remain. By voting you show active obedience to forces that are beyond your control. Why do you have to show your approval of the miserable state of politics? Or if you think everything is fine with the world, why do you bother to actively applaud it. Voting was supposed to show the power of the people, wasn’t it, not their submission.
True, by not voting you are not showing any great strength either and you are easily confused with those who abstain because of laziness, but at least you can keep your integrity and independence. You refuse to actively obey the forces you have to submit to anyway.
Democracy is the rule of the people, that is, the majority of the people. The winner takes it all. The minority, the losers, have lost it all, and it’s not necessary to take their interests into account. Such is democracy.
You think I’m joking? I’m not.
Keep in mind that I was only defining democracy. I didn’t state my personal moral views.
Actually, I happen to think that the interests of the minority should indeed be taken care of, but that consideration would not be included in a reasonable definition of democracy.
The word “democracy” is so full loaded with positive connotations that it is often hard to make a sober definition of it. People want to put everything they think is good into this little word. But “democracy” is not another word for good. It doesn’t include everything that might be good for a society, and sometimes it may even be an obstacle to something else that is good.
The rule of the people; what can that possibly mean? Does it mean a good government that is aiming at what is good for the people? That is probably how a country like the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea (North Korea) would define the term, and they are of course welcome to do so. But in the West “democracy” has come to mean a method of ruling. It indicates a way of arriving at decisions, but it says nothing about the quality of the decisions. A democracy can also make very bad decisions.
The people rule, that is democracy, and the more the people rule the more democratic the state is. In a direct democracy the people rule everything; they make every decision directly. Such a state would be the most democratic one imaginable, but not necessarily the best one. Most western countries have opted for an indirect democracy. Such a system is probably more effective and better suited for the modern world, but because the people rule less, it is clearly less democratic; less democratic but better.
In western countries also the indirect rule of the people has many limitations, which necessarily make them less democratic than they could have been, but which are still considered to make the government more just. The principle of separation of powers for example, is probably a wise way of organizing the government, but it does limit the influence of the people, and therefore it should be called less democratic; less democratic but better.
Protecting the interests of a minority also constitutes a limitation on the rule of the people. In order to justify it another principle is needed that actually overrules the principle of democracy.
Which principle could that be?
The meaning of words changes over time, and that is bad.
Bad?
Yes, bad.
How can you place a moral judgment on a completely natural phenomenon?
Well, disease, poverty, war and running noses are also quite natural, but we still call them bad. It would have been better if they didn’t exist. Now, a change in the language is not quite as bad as violence and disease. It usually doesn’t make any of us really miserable, and the pain it causes is rather negligible compared to other sufferings of human existence. Granted, linguistic problems are rather harmless, but we can still make value judgments within its own context.
Whatever works well according to its purpose is good, what works bad is bad, and in between there is a continuum of quality assessments.
The purpose of language is communication. Therefore, what makes a language work well as a means of communication is good, and what makes communication more difficult is bad.
When words change their meaning, it makes communication more difficult.
The speakers of a language are able to understand each other and exchange ideas because they have a common understanding of what the words mean. Over time many words change their meaning, but for one word it doesn’t happen all at once. It is a gradual and very slow process. It starts when people for some reason break out of the linguistic convention and start using a word differently. That may happen out of pure ignorance, carelessness and sometimes deliberately. When only one person makes a mistake, it only impedes the conversation that one person is having, but sometimes mistakes catch on and spread. A group of people then has a different understanding of a word than the majority of the population, and that makes it more difficult for that group to communicate with the rest.
Of course, when it’s only a matter of a single word, it doesn’t have a dramatic effect, but at any time in the life of a language there are many words floating around in this limbo. For some words the mistaken definition is short lived, but in other cases the mistakes linger. Then there is a remaining uncertainty among the users of the language about what the words mean. That obviously is an obstacle to effective communication and that again causes stress and, well, a mild suffering.
The language itself, a living organism, cures this illness in the course of time. That happens in to ways, and both solutions cure the “suffering” of the language, so both are good solutions. Either the mistaken definition will disappear or the mistake will become so common that it will defeat the original definition and replace it. In the latter case the mistake is no longer a mistake, but has become correct.
This illustrates how language changes take place. One convention (language) is replaced by another, and again there is agreement and harmony in the linguistic community. However, until that happens, it is a mistake and it causes trouble for the users of the language.
Language is convention, and one definition is in principle as good as any other as long as there is agreement. By replacing one definition with another nothing is in fact achieved; the language has neither become better or worse. But before the replacement is completed there is confusion, uncertainty and lack of convention, and the language works less effectively. It is a worse language.
Therefore, don’t condone the linguistic chaos around you by calling it a natural process. It is a painful process, and it is bad.
This post was a response to
To a proud Canadian
http://brandonbeasley.ca/2013/07/06/softly-glowing-hearts/
The love of your country is not unconditional, you say. You love it because it “is an excellent country in which to live, due to its quality of life, form of government, culture, and so on.”
What would you then say to a person who comes from a country with a low quality of life and a miserable form of government, but who still says he loves his country. Is he misguided?
In all countries of the world patriotism is encouraged, but most of them fall short of Canadian standards. There are patriots everywhere. Countries soaked in misery, war and corrupt government are no less likely be crowded by nationalists. Sometimes nationalism actually thrives under such conditions. Surely those people would also be able to come up with reasons for the pride of their country. They may point to its natural beauty, its proud history, its courageous people, its arts and customs or any number of things. The list is potentially endless, and of course any country has qualities. Nature is beautiful anywhere, there must be some achievements in a long history, any culture has necessarily produced something etc. That means it’s always possible to find something to praise and be proud of if you are pressed for an answer.
Since those “reasons” for pride and love of your country can be produced anyway, I suspect that they only pop up when you start looking for them. Delightful words are needed for the speeches on national day and soldiers and citizens need encouragement. Patriotism as a sentiment without any concrete content probably comes first. Children at a very early age are often taught to love their country, and they are actually able to grasp that sentiment long before they are capable of understanding rational arguments. Flags are waved and songs are sung and feelings are thus generated.
Are you sure your feelings didn’t start like that, Canadian? You had a feeling of love for Canada, maybe even before you really understood what Canada was. Possibly it was only later, as you grew up, that you supplemented your sentiments with rational arguments.
Can rational arguments really be the main reasons for someone’s patriotism?
We are all small human beings. Each one of us is not so important in this huge world, and therefore we feel the need to be a part of something bigger, something that can make us bigger. Then we associate our country with ourselves, and we grow. We want to be something; we want to be proud of ourselves, and therefore we are proud of our country. It’s psychologically understandable, but it’s not rational.
Identity. I have never understood that word. That is, as it stands by itself as a pure dictionary definition, the meaning is clear enough, but when people pronounce that word, throw it around and decorate themselves with it, I can no longer follow.
The word is derived from the Latin “idem”, which means “the same”, and the adjective “identical” in fact means “the same”. You may say: “Those two objects are identical” meaning “they are the same”. That is, they are in fact one and the same object.
“Obama is identical to the president of the United States” meaning “Obama and the president of the United States is the same person.” Using the noun “identity” may prove a bit more difficult, but not necessarily. “Obama’s identity is the president of the United States.” (Awkward but correct) “The identity of the thief was proven” > “John was the thief” > “John and the thief was the same person.”
It thus seems that establishing an identity means to describe the same in another way, and that appears to be a pretty straight forward procedure. It is a matter of fact and verifiable (or potentially verifiable). I can understand a fact.
But often when the word is used, I just can’t catch its meaning. Apparently the speaker is not talking about facts, but about feelings. This is my identity, someone states: I’m an American or I’m a Frenchman. I’m a flying Dutchman, a Mohican or a Spartan. He is allowed to say that, and no one should dare to press him for proof. Well, if he is American or French, he could produce his passport, but that would be a tangible fact which is usually irrelevant for his outburst of feeling. If someone says he is a Zulu, we are supposed to accept it as an emotional expression of identity even if neither he nor his ancestors have ever set foot in Africa.
What does identity mean, then?
Two people who are almost identical, two identical twins, if you like, may be said to have completely different identities based on some whimsical personal choice. But then the word “identity” becomes meaningless.
Originally asking for the identity of something meant asking about what something really is. Now it doesn’t even indicate what something seems to be or hardly even a psychological fact. You can pick and choose your identity and it would be rude to question your choice. What is it then?
Identity has no meaning, it seems.
The discussion based on http://evolvedlove.wordpress.com/2013/05/28/so-morality/ continues:
Have I misunderstood you completely? You are searching for a simple moral principle that the entire world could agree on. Do you mean explicitly agree (that’s what I first thought) or do you mean that they would agree if they could understand their own true opinions or your sound arguments or some universal reason that is not yet accessible to them?
“You have the right to do as you wish, so long as you don’t hinder the right of others to do the same.” Obviously many people don’t explicitly agree with that (I for one). Many people think that homosexuality is wrong (well, I don’t) and most people think it’s ok to force you to wear a seatbelt (I do too).
(I’m confused about what you may find confusing about my seatbelt comment. “You have the right NOT to wear a seatbelt…” Most people think you should wear a seatbelt, don’t they, and if you really don’t want to, they think the law should force you to do it anyway.)
“many people don’t believe killing in war to be murder, doesn’t mean that it ceases to be murder” You are right. Moral truths are what they are regardless of what people think. But again, I thought you were searching for a statement that people would explicitly agree on, that is a statement that people would think to be true. Are you rather looking for an objective truth? (Or what you personally think is the objective truth?) “You have the right to do as you wish, so long as…” might be an objective moral truth and I’m sure you can come up with a lot of good arguments in its favor, but how can you say that many people, most people and even the entire world would agree? They would certainly not explicitly agree (maybe because they are in denial or whatever), but are you rather saying that they would agree if they could understand your arguments? In the latter case, your moral principle is just like any other moral principle. It may be the truth, but people need to be rationally persuaded to agree. There are many belief systems in the world, and most of them run counter to the maxim “you can do as you wish, so long as…”
I thought I understood your point when I first read your post, but now I am confused. Maybe you could develop your idea in another blog entry?
The military takes over in Egypt. A president who was democratically elected just one year ago, has been overthrown.
Shocking! don’t you think? You condemn it strongly, don’t you?
You, the voices of the West, are always guardians of noble principles when events like these occur, so it should be a simple matter for you to criticize this clear violation of your own clear rules. On other occasions, democracy seems to be sacred. Usually it is the one law that can never be overruled, but now that is not the case.
The editorial columns in the West are now busy drawing a complicated picture to the confusion of their readers. Mursi, the president of Egypt, was the country’s first democratically elected head of state. It’s only been twelve months since he replaced a despotic and unpopular regime, but that is not what we are being reminded of in our neutral press. Mursi has despotic tendencies himself, it is said. He ignores the opposition, we are told, and above all, the economy has become much worse. Therefore he deserves to be overthrown, and by the same token those hypocritical democratic principles of the West are overthrown.
Only one year, and he has already proven himself unworthy. No, it didn’t even take that long. He had hardly entered his office when critique and condemnation started pouring over him from the Western sky. They, the West, never liked Mursi and his Muslim brotherhood, and then objective principles become less important.
Why don’t they like him? Because he doesn’t belong to them. His party is not in line with mainstream American and European political parties, and his policies are potential threats to the ideal world order where everybody is obedient consumers of American goods.
There are other rebels in this world as well, and some of them also have popularly elected governments. But no matter how democratically elected they are, they are being condemned for their lack of democracy. Then there are obedient states which fall far short of elementary democratic standards, but still they are rarely criticized. Egypt under Mubarak used to be such a country. We were rarely told that it was not a democracy. It didn’t have to be because it was obedient to the West.
Has it now become such a country again? Will Egypt again be undemocratic but obedient? Time to celebrate then?
”There is only one simple moral principle that literally the entire world could live by: you have the right to do as you wish, so long as you don’t hinder the rights of others to do the same.”http://evolvedlove.wordpress.com/2013/05/28/so-morality/
No, I don’t think that’s quite what you want to say. As it now stands, it could produce a sentence like this:
You have the right not to wear a seatbelt, so long as (by doing that) you don’t hinder the rights of others to do the same.
Obviously the entire world would not agree on something like that.
I think what you want to say is something like this:
Everybody can agree that it is wrong to do something that, as a consequence, takes away the right of others to do as they wish.
Supposedly that would create the hierarchy of wrongs that you are looking for. It includes some acts that everyone can agree to condemn (like murder) and leaves out the acts which people disagree about (like homosexuality or wearing a seatbelt).
Now let’s see if you are right. Is there really a minimum of wrongs that everyone would agree to call wrongs, and if there are, does this phrase include all these wrongs and these wrongs only?
Well, maybe everyone would agree that murder is wrong. But then, what is murder? Most people probably think that killing someone in a war is not murder. Anyway, what we call it is not so important, but let’s put it through the test. When soldier A kills soldier B during a war, does that as a consequence take away soldier B’s right to do as he wishes? Obviously it does. He is dead and can no longer do as he wishes. But does everybody agree that soldier A did something wrong. Of course not. They would defend him for example by pointing out that he was fighting for a perfectly just cause whereas the dead soldier was not. That be as it may, they would evaluate the act by using an entirely different moral standard than the one you are suggesting.
I’m sure you could find many other examples of acts which as a result take away a person’s right to do as he wishes, but which people would still justify.
I suspect a certain confusion of language here. You set out in the search for a universal morality, but then you immediately limit it by using the term “right”. “Right” is a legal term and works best in a legal context, but you have already made it clear that law and morality is not the same. Quite possibly, your maxim might be a good principle for a country’s legislation (the laws of a society can’t be perfect anyway), but it is very insufficient as a guideline for personal conduct.
You mention some examples of actions which don’t hinder the rights of others, like doing drugs and not wearing a seatbelt. So I have the right to do drugs? A moral right or a legal right? We are talking about morality, so you mean a moral right, don’t you? Then let’s skip the confusing legal language and translate it like this: It’s not morally wrong for me to do drugs. Well, I happen to disagree. In my opinion, it is morally wrong to do drugs, but I need another moral principle to support that claim.
There must be other morally objectionable actions besides those which limit other people. It must also be wrong to damage oneself. True, it may not be a good idea for a society to limit strictly personal conduct, but actions that only involve oneself may also be very immoral. It may not be illegal to knock your own head with a hammer, but I’d say it’s still very wrong to do it. Not only would it be stupid, but also, in my opinion, it would literally be morally wrong. To make that claim I suggest a principle like this: An action is wrong if it hurts others or oneself.
This I would deduce from an Aristotelian principle of virtue stating that an object or an organism is good if it fulfils its own purpose. That is in fact also the way we ordinarily call something good. A good car is a car that works like a car is supposed to work. Also a human being is by nature meant to work in a certain way, and if one goes against its nature, that is if one hurts a human being, one does something that is not good, that is immoral. You yourself are just as much a part of nature as any other organism, and therefore it’s just as wrong to hurt yourself.
A Bear - Poles Apart 