Takes as a starting point Aristotle's cross-tabulation of forms of government, which combines the size of the governing body (one, few, many) with the purpose of the governing (in the governors' interest or in the interest of all). Among the six possible combinations, the discussion rules out those which are unrealistic &/or undesirable. This exclusionary process selects two governmental forms for comparison: government by experts (the equivalent of Aristotle's "aristocracy," ie, government of few in the interest of all) & democracy. The comparison counts both intrinsic & instrumental value of these governmental forms. Expert government's instrumental & intrinsic values are circumscribed. Democracy's instrumental value is overrated. The intrinsic value of democracy is theoretical equality of its citizens to influence their government. While this equality may be flawed in practice, no alternative form of government seems better than democracy. 18 References. Adapted from the source document.
The article argues that Aristotelian virtue ethics & deliberative democratic theory can beneficially be considered to have a shared normative structure. The review is conducted as a comparative idea analysis, through which the respective perspectives are reconstructed. The first reconstruction, that of the Aristotelian virtue ethics, is led by three dimensions of relevance to ethical theory. These dimensions are, although indirectly, also guiding the reconstruction of the second theory, i.e. the deliberative democratic theory. The conclusion we reach is that the theories, be it with different emphasis, generally share a common view in relation to all three of the aforementioned dimensions, as well as regarding the value of deliberation. They both have a dialectical or structured approach regarding ontological basics. Both of them also motivate their main values with intrinsic as well as instrumental reasons. In addition, they share a mainly particularistic conviction, as they believe that the values are determined through a deliberative process. The concluding remarks stress the need for further & ongoing discussions on the relationship between theories of ethics & theories of democracy. 33 References. Adapted from the source document.
In Karl Popper's famous book, The Open Society and Its Enemies, appears the formulation social engineering. That is an unfortunate wording. There is nothing mechanical in Popper's political strategy. The keywords are rather piece-meal & trial & error. It is even possible to characterize Popper as -- up to a point -- anti-rationalistic. His warning that we should not think too much of our knowledge of the functioning of the social world & of our ability to make forecasts, reminds one of what a critic of the French Revolution like Edmund Burke had to say. We should start with the delivered institutions, diagnose what is working badly &, aware of possible error, try to improve it. That said, one is not surprised of meeting a strain of antipolitics in Popper's philosophy. Although Popper welcomes measures to clear away suffering & distress, it is uncertain how he would balance his negative utilitarianism against individual freedom. He is distrustful of political power. The idea that democracy gives the people the instrument of governing is an illusion. Democracy's point is to make it possible to dismiss a government (notice the parallel with his methodology, a government is a kind of hypothesis, the election an opportunity for falsification.) However, it is not Popper's political philosophy in a substantial meaning that makes him worth studying, but his theory of the critical discourse, a theory that is very relevant for a reformistic political strategy. The idea of the Popperian discourse is not to get the parties closer emotionally, not to reach a compromise, not even to convince, but for me to listen to & learn from the criticism of my hypotheses. People with divergent standpoints should not be kept out of the discourse, they should be welcomed. Popper admires Greek culture up to Socrates & he emphasizes its openness to influences from other cultures along the shores of the Mediterranean. That is in keeping with Popper's antinationalism. Nationalism fattens stupidity & is often the cause of devastating violence. In his later works Popper regularly uses an evolutionary model & his theory of language is no exception. He sets forth how the development of describing, language's third function besides expressing & warning, created the possibility of storytelling. Now, stories can be true & false, & that makes language's fourth function necessary, the function of argumentation, of proving or disproving of what has been said. Lying, however, is a wonderful invention. To lie, to say what is not, but could be true, is a nursery for fantasy & creativeness. 33 References. Adapted from the source document.
