Of course, but those assumptions were not “methodology, reason and rationality”, and we would say also not “ethical”. Fact is, I would wager they too fully understood that their systems weren’t ethical stricto sensu, which is why they turned themselves into pretzels trying to justify them rationally and, mostly, failed abysmally.
On the other hand, we *can *prove scientifically that a king and a cack-handed peasant are both able to e.g. feel pleasure and pain to the same degree, require roughly the same amount of bread per diem and so forth. Same about a white man vs. a black man. And on that basis, there is rational ground to say “let’s chillax and hold out on the systemic buttfucking of the ones for the benefit of the others, yeah ?”. That doesn’t require much emotional investment that I can see.
The discussion seems pointless to me, which is why I was bowing out, but I’ll answer this one. My preferred methodology is what so obviously works best…that is, democracy where people are free to choose based on science, logic, reason and sometimes emotion. IOW, it’s not a construct, but instead is organic to human nature which incorporates all of these things.
Your assumption is that well being is a goal that everyone agrees on and is rational, and logical and innate. I disagree that everyone believes this, and I disagree that someone basing things without emotion and solely on logic and reason would necessarily agree that well being is something that needs to be maintained and nurtured. Since the OP says that this discussion isn’t about being emotionless and that ‘feelies’ doesn’t mean what it seems obvious to me it meant, then I really have nothing further to contribute to the discussion, since it’s apparent that I don’t get what this discussion is even about.
Sounds like you agree more than disagree with the rest of us.
I don’t know if I would say “everyone” agrees, but pretty much everyone does, and I think it unfair to characterize that as a mere assumption. I’ve yet to meet a person who does not want well being. If any do come forth we could give their opinions rational consideration based on any logic, science or emotion they might present, though that might not be much consideration.
Could you provide some examples of logical people who don’t value well being?
I think it’s about reason, science and secular morals, and how it would compare to religious type morals based on obedience and fiat.
Well, simple math tells me that the fewer people there are to divide up finite resources, the more of those resources I get. I just have to make sure that My Tribe is the one with the best weapons. As an American and a Westerner, I’m feeling pretty good about that right now…
What part of reasonable and rational from the OP are you failing to understand? I would be happy to hear you make a case for a better goal, reasonably and rationally. You can do that right here and now.
Value judgements should be based on facts. Science helps us determine those facts. So science certainly assists with value judgements. Or do you disagree?
Your logic tells you that a smaller tribe is better for survival than a larger tribe? Why did your logic tell you to stay with the tribe in the first place?
Like this statement alludes, it depends on the degree that reason and rationality were embraced. Is it above all else? Is it only guidance coupled to the human condition?
For instance, it’s reasonable and rational to stop sickle cell anemia by killing everyone that is a carrier at birth. Just as it’s reasonable and rational to kill everyone who doesn’t have a genetic resistance to HIV at birth.
But how far could we take this reasoning? What if in 550 years (50 years after this all becomes standard operating fare per the OP) we found out (through properly scientific papers and study, not just some Internet 6.0 Meme) that those of Han Chinese descent were carriers of a genetic disease that caused Alzheimer’s in non-carriers. Wouldn’t it be reasonable to kill all non-carriers on earth to prevent the disease from spreading? (The Han are one of the numerically dominant ethnicities on earth, so it wouldn’t make sense to genocide that ethnic group versus all the others)
Genocide, therefore, would be reasonable and rational. But most people, in my opinion, worth their salt today would consider this terrible or even monstrous.
So if the leaders were guided by reason and rationality, would you, as a non-Han, consider this course acceptable? Would you revolt for self-preservation? It’s not rational, but it would be standard for humanity. Or would you line up for the suicide booth?
So the debate, How would the world be different if we woke up one fine century to discover that our leaders and governments are run on rational, science based ideals with careful thought towards logical governing instead of government by “the Feelies”
I said in my first post that such leaders would be voted out very quickly, and I’ve been posting reasons why since. I’m guessing the OP thought he had a no-brainer, but it just ain’t so.
And by removing a source of caloric overload I’ve saved our population from the evils of obesity (and I don’t really like chocolate…)! The logic works, man!
But you’ve narrowed your focus too much. Quality of life is just as important as quantity, and why kind of quality are you going to have without Belgian chocolates?
I’ve noticed that in this thread. People seem to be taking the ‘rational’ thing to a ridiculous extreme. There are many different things that need to be considered in an issue, not just the end goal.
Er, no. These solutions might be rational on a certain very extreme level, but they are not reasonable.
I took the OPs meaning not to be ‘What would happen if we were all Turing machines’, but ‘What would happen if reason and logic was the dominant force in government & politics instead of bullshit and yelling like it is now’. In my view it means not politicizing issues like global warming and instead evaluating them on their scientific merits and acting accordingly. It means that creationism would have been laughed out of court long ago. It means leaders not standing up in front of their constituents not knowing a damn thing about what they’re talking about and not spending most of the time lying through teeth. It also means leaders making decisions based more on reason and logic and what would actually be better for people and less on religious views and personal biases and what would be better for their wallet.
But I do think John Mace is basically right. Without a similar change in everyone else this simply wouldn’t work.