If the powers of the world agreed that matters of ethics and morals will be dealt with on a basis of purely rational decisions. This would involve all areas of our lives, education, religion, justice, social etc.
I think we would live long and prosper.
Then we would start fighting over the definition of “purely rational.”
Satan will ice skate to work.
It would not be logical to fight over that.
Its like the matrix when they tried to create a human utopia, it would fail because that isn’t how we are biologically programmed. We define our reality in part via conflict and in/out group dynamics. A wholly rational society wouldn’t work, we are just tribalistic superstitious monkeys with bigger brains.
It’d beat the current system but I would guess there would be rebellion or new forms of tribalism.
All moral and ethical views ultimately depend on value-judgments which are non-rational or pre-rational. There is no coherent, self-sufficient “purely rational” ethical system.
The problem with this is that “purely rational” is an individual assessment. From a recent thread, for instance, Bricker believes it in his best interest to control his children’s exposure to the internet with an iron fist. Others do not. In this case everyone can probably get on with their lives as no harm is being done. But to the individuals in that thread, Bricker’s actions are either “Rational,” or “Useless”/“Not Rational.” (Disclaimer: I don’t bring this up to bludgeon the poor person, but merely to show a different series of opinions on a relatively mundane topic. If I had brought up something like D vs R party platforms or climate change we’d never get out of this thread alive.)
Now, if we were to legally require Bricker’s method of internet control on all parents everywhere (ignoring the inevitable issues with technical literacy from some of the population) some would be firmly for it, others would be firmly against it, still others would be looking to exploit it and encourage it, while yet others would be looking to exploit it and discourage it. Oh, and you’d probably still have a group in the center that doesn’t care and/or doesn’t pay attention.
The politically fracture that would instantly be present on this single fairly mundane idea shows, in my opinion, the issues apparent.
At the very least, the need for two radical changes would be created:
First, we’d need to allow the majority to win. What happens now is if someone is for or against an issue and they lose, they tend to get uppity. It’s not “Damn. I really felt that was a good thing.” it’s “THOSE PEOPLE THAT VOTED AGAINST ME ARE STUPID!” At this point, we fire off an emotional investment (if we haven’t already) and we sink so far into confirmation bias that the only way to get out is for a lightning bolt from your chosen deity (or, for atheists, a crocodile chases you) that forces acceptance of the other side winning.
Second, we’d need to have reliable, central, and easy-to-access data about topics. The biggest draw back we have now is that if I go to site A and you go to site B on the internet, we can potentially come back with completely different views and evidence about the same topic. It’s exacerbated by having a rather massive set of data locations to harvest from so that you can never be sure if you are getting current information that happens to be old or old information that’s been shown false.
Unfortunately, I am pessimistic about even getting to these first two steps anytime soon. For the first part, being a jerk about what you think comes naturally to people as does ostracizing (“You don’t believe what I believe? YOU ARE AN OUTSIDER! SHUNNNNNN!”). For the second part, no matter who tries to set that sort of system up, even if it’s rock solid and reliable in the beginning, money and politics will soon be all over that like mushrooms on a log to manipulate a source of information that people find reliable enough to look at extensively.
Everyone’s definition of “logical” is different.
Even to people committing genocide, genocide seemed logical and rational.
Not so much legally enforced as much as heavily pomoted to the point where the large majority believed in it. No doubt many areas of supposed rationale would fall under the radar. An example might be the issue as to why women were expected to be virgins when they married. What would be the arguements for or against this, another issue is dealing with chronic offenders or violent individuals. For that matter entire cultures that disagreed with the accepted rationale. I would see it as worse than Hitler.
Maybe not logical, but rational, maybe.
We can certainly go a very long way in that direction.
Look how far we’ve come already! It’s called “Civilization,” and it’s the greatest thing ever!
So, sure, there’s room for improvement, and, in our lifetimes, we’ll probably see changes for the better. The U.S. will (grudgingly, and with a lot of screaming) adopt a real universal health care system.
We’re better off than we were a century ago. A century from now, we’ll probably have taken some significant steps toward a better society, a more rational system of allocation of goods, and a greater world-wide expression of small-d democracy.
If you read my first post, I think you’ll understand my meaning better. 
I’m a scientist. I love science. I love reason and rationality. My utopia would definitely learn more towards fact-based management than policies based on what feels right.
However, I know that fact-based management can only take us so far. Especially when it comes to dealing with novel situations. We can’t perform experiments and collect data for every single problem. Sometimes circumstances are such that we have to bold enough to come up with a quick solution–one that ultimately “feels right”. We can adjust when the facts come in.
Science shapes public policy very very slowly. The problem isn’t just those pesky politicians. Scientists are very loathe to make confident conclusions.
We’re already there. That’s pretty much been the normal state of affairs in every society throughout history, hasn’t it?
And I don’t see that it can be otherwise. Ethics addresses the choice between different possible human actions. Since we are social animals, we are affected - and sometimes profoundly affected - by one another’s ethical choices. Hence a functioning society requires a substantially shared ethic. This is acheived by inculturation and inheritance.
A society which fetishes the rational will pretend to itself that its preferred ethic is “purely rational”, since if people can persuade themselves that this is so it is easier for them to accept and embrace the socially-approved ethic.
OK, let’s give it a hypothetical try. Imagine a giant conference table with hundreds of delegates.
- What’s a logical and rational solution to the Israel/Palestinian issue that all “powers of the world” can agree with?
- What’s a logical and rational solution to the climate-change issue that all “powers of the world” can agree with?
- What’s a logical and rational approach to the Ukraine issue that all “powers of the world” can agree with?
- What’s a logical and rational solution to the nuclear-weapons issue that all “powers of the world” can agree with?
- What’s a logical and rational approach to the population-growth issue that all “powers of the world” can agree with?
- What’s a logical and rational solution to the international terrorism issue that all “powers of the world” can agree with?
- What’s a logical and rational solution to the immigration issue (to/from every country) that all “powers of the world” can agree with?
Hell, what’s a logical and rational solution to the question of what to get for lunch that all the delegates can agree with?
This prompts me to pull together some commentary from other threads where it was going OT. I agree with your comment, but I now accept that there’s a school of deontological philosophy that does try to justify morality on objectively rational grounds.
In the real world, though, it seems that we usually do agree on those value judgments, at least in the civilized world and in terms of basic outcomes, but what we don’t agree on are fundamental objective facts – which you’d think would be the easiest thing to resolve! And it’s more than just people disbelieving in science or Americans disbelieving in the lessons of other nations; I mean, when you’re willing to kill yourself in order to kill many others because Allah says so, and you know you’ll be rewarded in heaven with 72 virgins, I think arguments about moral relativity become quite moot when what you’re dealing with is clinical insanity.
I’ll play. But the OP is asking about a scenario where all powers of the world embrace rationality.
“Quite famously, we all “know” what a deal between Israel and the Palestinians needs to look like. It’s obvious. Everyone says so. The only wee obstacle is that neither side is willing to accept this obvious deal. They just aren’t. The problem isn’t agreeing on a line on a map, or a particular circumlocution in a particular document. The problem is much simpler than that, so simple that sophisticated people are embarrassed to say it outright: Two groups of people want the same piece of land. Both of them feel they have a right to it. Both of them are, for the time being, willing to fight for it. Neither is inclined to give up anything for a peace that neither side believes in.”
Carbon tax. Reasonable people can disagree on its level though. A lot of it turns on the discount rate applied.
Start with the truth, as opposed to risible deceptions.
US-USSR nuclear weapons control talks. Which we’re doing, oddly enough.
Urbanization, childhood education, empowering women to earn money.
A layered defense approach. Less security theater. Less resources devoted to it, relative to more pressing public health concerns.
More of the same. You manage illegal immigration: talk of stopping it is laughable. Incidentally, there were fewer illegal immigrants in the US in 2012 than there were in 2007. Cite.
I agree with this. It will take you up to a point though.
Buffet.