←back to thread

271 points nradov | 2 comments | | HN request time: 0s | source
Show context
andai ◴[] No.42172596[source]
King thinks democracy is a great idea. Everyone rejects it. King institutes it anyway.

Wait a second...

replies(3): >>42172684 #>>42172769 #>>42172854 #
jollofricepeas ◴[] No.42172684[source]
The people could vote the same person or party in representing the interests of the king and his family. Dictators can be democratically elected.

The real question is how do you protect people from themselves?

replies(4): >>42172842 #>>42172919 #>>42173118 #>>42173564 #
mdp2021 ◴[] No.42172842[source]
> how do you protect people from themselves

Education.

replies(2): >>42172890 #>>42173801 #
flanked-evergl ◴[] No.42172890{3}[source]
> 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 #
mdp2021 ◴[] No.42172976{4}[source]
No, it is just that that one was not the context to discuss the details of sought education. That one did not go into specifics does not mean the specifics are not available in good amount.
replies(1): >>42183240 #
flanked-evergl ◴[] No.42183240{5}[source]
I would rather have someone "uneducated" than "educated" with wrong values. And I would much rather not fund "education" of people with values that are entirely antithetical to my own.
replies(1): >>42184531 #
mdp2021 ◴[] No.42184531{6}[source]
Of course for "education" I certainly did not mean "indoctrination".

In an education system people are taught to think, and given intellectual keys, and material for thought. The values imparted are the natural ones, consequential (e.g. "work, or no results") - not factioneries.

replies(1): >>42192309 #
1. flanked-evergl ◴[] No.42192309{7}[source]
If you are imparting values, you are, in fact, indoctrinating — and I don't mind as long as it's strictly indoctrinating my values.

There is no rational process for deriving values and morality from first principles. Science is about what is, not about what should be. Democracy therefore can't be derived from facts of nature alone. You can only reason from true things to other true things, not from nothing to something. There is no reasoning your way from physics to how a state ought to be run.

replies(1): >>42197404 #
2. mdp2021 ◴[] No.42197404[source]
No: indoctrinating was meant to mean "acritical instillation of ideas", and acritical instillation has no part in Education. Values are transmitted in a communication that shows their worth. I repeat: they will be shown.

Your mention of sharing the same ideas or not was already clear before, and it does not matter, because beliefs are lowly things hence not part of this game. You are talking about arbitrary ideas taken as "values" - no, those were not in topic.

You are clearly taking 'education' with a meaning that is completely different from the one intended.

Repeating: «In an education system people are taught to think, and given intellectual keys, and material for thought». The educated will assess, being enabled to an ability of properly assessing. This also means: there is no "doctrine", the educated has its own judgement. Whatever is doctrinal has no part in education, but for material for dissection.

And yes, there are «process[es] for [in some way] deriving values and morality from first principles». As explicitly mentioned before, students for example will be shown that results come from well spent effort: that "well spent effort" is a value. They may be brought to experience that persistence enables them towards results: that grit is a value. That such quality requires resisting cheap gratification: that control is a value. They will receive the information of ancient wisdom, from Gilgamesh on, through Aesop and on, and on, and on, and they will have the nourishment to form the basis of wisdom. It is very clear in some twisted behaviour that some people never met very basic ideas, that instead in some cultures correctly are told to children very early. You give people facts, they will learn from them - wisdom very much included.

(I will not discuss about Science for brevity, and I do not know why you would bring "Democracy" to the table.)

But anyway, the discussion over values was not original in the discussion, it was proposed. The original point was: people empowered to take decisions can make bad decisions, with catastrophic results. How do you protect people from people: you educate them, so that they can take better decisions through better intellectual qualities, hence better judgement.