Bhutan, after prioritizing happiness, now faces an existential crisis

> Every one of the popular modern phrases and ideals is a dodge in order to shirk the problem of what is good. We are fond of talking about “liberty”; that, as we talk of it, is a dodge to avoid discussing what is good. We are fond of talking about “progress”; that is a dodge to avoid discussing what is good. We are fond of talking about “education”; that is a dodge to avoid discussing what is good. The modern man says, “Let us leave all these arbitrary standards and embrace liberty.” This is, logically rendered, “Let us not decide what is good, but let it be considered good not to decide it.” He says, “Away with your old moral formulae; I am for progress.” This, logically stated, means, “Let us not settle what is good; but let us settle whether we are getting more of it.” He says, “Neither in religion nor morality, my friend, lie the hopes of the race, but in education.” This, clearly expressed, means, “We cannot decide what is good, but let us give it to our children.”

replies(2): >>42172976 #>>42173087 #

lucianbr ◴[18 Nov 24 15:17 UTC] No.42173087{4}[source]▶

>>42172890 #

I think people who say education is the solution to democracy, or in particular to the people voting someone the spearker does not like, mean "educate more people to believe what I believe".

It's clearly a good solution from the perspective of that speaker - more people would vote the same way they do, so the "right" people would get elected, "right" policies would happen and so on.

Meh, if this avoiding the "definition of good" is really the problem, then the likes of Putin and Xi and Trump will fix us. They clearly think they know exactly what's good for everyone, and are willing to do most anything to achieve it. Doubtful they will make the world a better place, but who knows. I guess we'll find out.

replies(1): >>42173143 #

mdp2021 ◴[18 Nov 24 15:21 UTC] No.42173143{5}[source]▶

>>42173087 #

No, it is the very hard obvious fact that empowering the ignorant (with power over the rest) is a very bad idea.

replies(2): >>42173192 #>>42174272 #

1. lucianbr ◴[18 Nov 24 15:24 UTC] No.42173192{6}[source]▶

>>42173143 #

Clearly not everyone agrees with your opinion. Calling it "very hard obvious fact" changes nothing. Maybe add some caps, see if that helps.

Are you not worried in any way about needing to answer everything with "no"? Is this a discussion or are we here to be told by you what the truth is?

replies(1): >>42173443 #

2. mdp2021 ◴[18 Nov 24 15:44 UTC] No.42173443[source]▶

>>42173192 (TP) #

It is not an opinion: you do not choose it among alternatives. You have to look at it and see. "Giving the ignorant power over the rest is dangerous". Try to argue the opposite, you'll probably have to go into quite some effort to produce some good arguments.

> Are you not worried in any way about needing to answer everything with "no"?

No, I trust you with understanding the sense. (It's not a need, it just works in formulation.)

replies(1): >>42173551 #

3. lucianbr ◴[18 Nov 24 15:54 UTC] No.42173551[source]▶

>>42173443 #

> You have to look at it and see.

And your vision is perfect, while everyone else's is flawed? How lucky for you. No need to present arguments, just let us know what you see, and that what you see is the "very hard obvious truth".

Have a little self-awareness man.

replies(1): >>42173746 #

4. mdp2021 ◴[18 Nov 24 16:10 UTC] No.42173746{3}[source]▶

>>42173551 #

> How lucky for you

Yes, surely it is a very good position - but it's not just plain luck, it comes from lots of training.

> No need to present arguments

The argument is there, you missed it: "If you do not find X a «hard obvious fact», try arguing for the opposite".

↑