I thought it was high time I revisited my mini series on the the book by Nigel Warburton. "The basics of Philosophy"
In this case: Politics.
I have taken a while to write this compared to the other two or three articles I've done from reading Nigel's book. That's because I've been watching. The UK and US political arena's are currently very very ... interesting. So I've been watching and thinking about the points made by Nigel in his book.
Dependent on your POV The US Republican & UK Conservative Party policy's are either "get stuff done& cut the beuracratic BS" or becoming "scarily autocratic" regimes. TBH It's most likely that people are somewhere on that scale, liking some stuff and disliking other bits.
We are just over 100 days into the current POTUS tenure and now heading into a UK election. To say the situation is volatile and unpredictable is ....imo putting it mildly.
Unlike the previous articles where I go into huge detail on the terminology and sections of Nigel's book, I'm not going to do that here. But if you want to do some further reading, look at these concepts.
- Equality: Why? between whom? and with reference to what exactly?
- Democracy: Direct or Representative? Does voting work? is democracy an illusion?
- Freedom: What does this mean? how is it limited and why so? Negative freedoms?
So here is a potted guide to philosophical politics, or the philosophy of political debate, and also my thoughts on where were are at currently in the UK and US.
The basics of: Politics.
Ask anyone what the "goal" of politics is, and you might get a number of answers. It depends on precisely who's goal we are talking about. The people or the decision makers? Are they in fact the same? How do we know? Let's say we broadly mean "Society". What is the goal of politics in society? What is its purpose?
To answer that, consider what happens when politics fails. Politics "is" the art of talking, discussion and crucially, of making decisions, deals and producing outcomes. Those decisions should be - and mostly are - justified on the basis of being "in the best interests of...." and theoretically at least are reached via compromise, and mutual benefit.
So if we accept that view of politics, when this process fails the alternative is what? Insular and very protective arguments, lack of progression, frustration, removal of common purpose or its recognition, and ultimately if unchecked, war.
Tiny, Small, Medium, big, ....Biggest....
The neighbours fighting over a tree that is blocking light to one of the windows. Cats digging in next doors flower beds. The price of oil on the stock market if bought in bulk. Trade agreements, national boundaries, fishing quotas, even sovereignty. All these examples can and do have an element of political negotiation involved in their process at some level.
So politics can be thought of as negotiation for mutual benefit and thus reward, the societal goal of which is "Peace", or at the very least the "absence of war", which is not quite the same thing.
The Athenians had a very rudimentary political system where anyone could spend a day on the council for decisions. However one man who observed this was .. yes you guessed it... Socrates. He observed two things.
1) Too many people with differing needs results in no decision.
2) Those on the council for the day often didn't really know anything about the things they were to decide on, thus often made the wrong decision.
As a result society eventually comes up with a compromise. An elected representative political system. The "many" actively select "a few" to represent their interests. However this has a few holes and problems as we shall see.
So this is what we call "representative democracy". Something pretty close to what most countries run on today.
But what of the individual living in society? Sure the "absence of war" is to be applauded but there are other simple needs. Food, shelter, work and/or employment, health care, law, order and safety. There are moments in the life of a democratic system where these mean differing things to differing people, for reasons of their own morality..
For example in the present day US we have the recent legislation for same sex marriages. And the resultant religious freedom bills that have been put in place to either "protect" religious liberty and ideology, or "circumvent non discrimination legislation" dependent on ones POV. Both of these legislations are supposedly conceived via the proposers sincerely held moral and ethical judgments & beliefs, yet they are diametrically opposed, even mutually exclusive.
So what do we do here? who is right? and really, is there actually a wrong? With that in mind, It's not hard to see why Politics is so problematic for society.
It really comes down to just two words.
"Interests"
and
"morality"
Both can be "societal" or 'personal" concepts., and in each case their erroneous application causes problems:
Church and state
In the US currently one has to admit that there is a close relationship between religion and state. There is however a constitutional and legal framework for how these two institutions should be kept a reasonable distance from each other.
But why is this important? There is much talk of the first amendment and the constitutional "separation of church and state" in the US, by which one usually means the "Christian" church. However this is often miss interpreted. What is actually written suggests that congress shall:
"....make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances."
The grounds for argument here is clear.
Let's say you fundamentally believe that "marriage" is between a Man and Woman (leaving aside the definitions of each for now...) Well then the constitution should not permit the passing of laws limiting your free exercise of that belief if it stems from religious conviction. So if you as a cake shop owners choose not to bake a cake for a wedding between two women? ....is that ok?
If its a"moral" viewpoint born of religion it may indeed be protected. However, what do we mean by "free exercise" exactly, and to whom does that apply? Furthermore, if you take the parts of Christian teaching that talk of "an eye for and eye" etc, and apply the same logic, can the government therefore legally prevent religious honour killings?
One cannot of course condone honour killings, and nor could we rationally argue that they be legally sanctioned. However it follows from this that if they cannot be allowed, then the cake shop owner is on dodgy ground, since the underlaying premise for each argument is the same? (freedom of religious convictions) This is why the first amendment needs to be looked at in conjunction with other laws to ascertain which of them takes precedent in a given set of circumstance. Why can't we condone honour killings? because it's murder... pretty obvious... In the case of cakes, anti discrimination legislature took precedent, via the 9th amendment:
“The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.”
in essence .. "its not about cake" or "water fountains".
It's about people, and how we interact with them. One cannot suggest that "my right" to "A" is greater than "your right" to "B" if by carrying out "A" distress or harm is caused and "B" happens to be a protected right under the 9th amendment.
Now consider the other view point. You're "for" same sex marriage. So if the government sided with the religious arguments in favour of a fixed definition of marriage, could it be said to be forcing people to conform to a religious view point ..? I suppose one would perhaps have to oblige them to marry to actually make that argument..but tis food for thought. It certainly would be awkward to explain that away in respect of the 9th amendment.
And of course we can ask in this context what is a "religion" exactly? One could interpret one's sexuality as a religion in the legal sense here, thus the government cannot block the free exercise of that? ... Of course that just becomes a can of worms, & I am deliberately stretching the point....... Jedi anyone?
I jest but you get the idea. Things are rarely clear cut. As a result it is abundantly clear that pure theological arguments of morality are not best suited to use in legal and societal terms. (unless you'd like to go back to loosing hand if accused of stealing of course?) Rule by religious theocracy is by definition exclusionary of anyone not sharing of it's founding beliefs and/or principles.
That is not to say the holding of theological beliefs is wrong. It is the application of them in a legal sense that is problematic. Which is why there must be clear boundaries between the theological and the judicial. An individual citizen in the US has the right to choose their religious belief. They do not however, have an opt out of the legislative process.
Trump's "white" House. Who's ethics are they, and in who's interest?
Yet, as I look at the US, it would seem that a fledgling theorcracy is what is being proposed. There are a high proportion of old school Christian white middle Americans with a certain world view that are populating the corridors of power at present. The rule of law, with properly seperated secular judicial review is slowly being supplanted by moral and ethical judgements based in theological tradition, which are then erroneously passed off as legal expertise & packaged as in the best interests of all, when in fact this is not the case.
 |
| Err no Jeff..Sorry... |
Traditional party lines seem to have been somewhat circumvented by the need to be White, male and "Christian" in the fundamental sense. Tis a view that sits well with the die hard separatists and those who fervently preach and believe that America belongs to "the white race". (whatever that is) whilst still going to church on Sunday. I have to wonder, will we look back at this time in history as a "knee jerk" to having had a black president? The flurry of orders that came from the pen of Trump seemed at one time to have no purpose other than to eradicate the name of Obama from the legal statute. The only way they made sense was through the lens of a white supremacist cleansing operation.
Of course there are practicing devout christians who are not of this ilk. Some may even disagree with the principles mentioned here in. Thats ok. No one is wanting to outlaw disagreement...(yet) But wilfully discriminating against your fellow human on the sure and certain belief that you're inconvertibly right? That's a whole other ball game right there, and thankfully ACLU et al seem to be doing a nice job of defending those who otherwise would have no means of reparation.
Needless to say all of this worries me. Theocracies are known for being less than forthcoming in the art of political compromise and discourse, suspicious of science and independent thought. Discouraging of education, and controlling of the public access to it, they are based on fundamental beliefs that are often mutually exclusive of competing theocracies, relying very much on the un swerving doctrine of controlled teachings.... otherwise people might start to believe the "bad hombres", or that dinosaurs actually did exist and that the earth actually rotates around the sun.
Watch this space.
But what of the UK?
I'll get to that, but I'll save it for next time...
Sarah ;-)
Part two
No comments:
Post a Comment