Governance excluding morality
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
11-02-2014, 11:53 PM
RE: Governance excluding morality
(15-12-2013 04:08 AM)Chippy Wrote:  Towards the goal of stability and sustainability I would want to have a mixed-model healthcare system like we do in Australia as well as a small welfare state as a safety net.
Regarding stability of society I feel that some level of welfare state as well as available education is necessary, otherwise eventually the poor will get desperate and will overthrow the government with use of violence.

(15-12-2013 04:08 AM)Chippy Wrote:  I am troubled by the possibility of cruelty to animals. Your scheme would apparently permit cruelty to one's own animals as that wouldn't impact on the state's goals of sustainability/stability/security.
Yes, this system caters only to things that impact the stability of human society. So it very much leaves defenseless entities such as unborn humans and non human animals unprotected unless someone wants to stand up and put their own lives at risk on behalf of these defenseless entities.
With regards to non human animals:
1. "inhuman" farming practices such as Sow crates and caged chickens.
People know about these practices and society isn't devolving into violence and revolution. The pigs and chickens are having miserable and painful lives due to the actions of humans.
Answer: If this is an issue for you then you could take measures to educate people as to the plight of these animals. This campaign might be costly so you may need to find like minded people to join in your cause. Maybe create an organisation that sanctions companies products where those companies operate according to a defined standard. You could then put a trademark symbol on those products so that people could choose to buy them in preference to the products created via "inhumane" practices.
2. Preservation of species.
Species may go extinct via environmental reasons or by over exploitation by people.
This may become a matter of economics, if we plunder a species into extinction then we can no longer have a lucrative industry based on that species. It is in societies and the government's interest to preserve and develop lucrative industry
It might be a matter of tourism (also economics) if these unique species sets apart your country from others.
However it might be a futile effort to try and save a species that cannot survive given the climate and environment of today (increased temperature, introduction of mammals, particularly rodents and humans), thus it might be in the best interests to let a species go extinct.
3. Mass exploitation of animals
Some people love to gamble on horses and dogs (racing) or dogs and chickens (fighting). Some corporations require experimentation on rats, mice, rabbits etc
Some people love to keep pets and have them locked up and confined (dogs, birds).
Answer: If this is an issue for you then you could take measures to educate people as to the plight of these animals...
4. Cruelty
Some people believe that certain animals taste better if killed in certain ways, e.g. boiling crayfish alive etc
Some people get angry and take it out on animals
Some people get thrills from harming animals
Some people are just negligent or indifferent
Here things get more complex and hence more interesting.
Will torturing of animals cause instability within society?
I think it probably would. An observer seeing an animal getting tortured may feel so compelled to intervene that they would put themselves in harms way and use violence to defend the animal. How often would this happen? How would such behavior escalate into a human death or into feuds or gang wars?
Also we need to take into account how the courts are to deal with the "observer" who intervened on behalf of an animal and thus physically assaulted the animal's torturer. Would the court only see the crime of assault or would they take into account the defense of the tortured animal? We also need to account for how strongly compelled an observer would be to violently intervene. I personally would probably be pretty strongly compelled especially if the torturer was small and unarmed. If they had guns and knives then I would walk away. Empathy and emotions do not dictate what s right and what is wrong so we have to be careful here with regards to the dangers of implementing into law an emotive morality. However we also need to understand human behavior and what compels an otherwise reasonable and placid person into acting violently. For the stability of society such behavioral responses need to be recognised and mitigated e.g. by outlawing cruelty to animals.

(15-12-2013 04:08 AM)Chippy Wrote:  Also, what about spousal and child abuse. One could argue that so long as they happen behind closed doors they don't affect anyone else. Again that would disturb me.
Spouses have parents, siblings, cousins, friends etc. All of these people are affected and may be incited into violent behavior to protect the spouse. Spousal abuse even behind closed doors can cause social instability.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: