Political systems in Star Trek

[MacLeod]

IIRC, Jaresh-Inyo was pushed into running by allies, he didn't want to. so that rules out a UK style 'party leader becomes President' type situation.

what it doesn't make clear is whether he's been elected by the populace at large or by the Council...

the reent novels assume a direct election by the populace, FWIW.

That might not be technically true, a MP could be pushed into running for leader of the party (PM if that party forms the Government) in order to keep out less desirable candiates.

Though like you say, For all we know it could be along the lines of, the populance elects officals to sit on the council who in turn elect a President from amongest them.

 

[Timo]

the nazis

Khmer Rouge

allies bombed

Milosevic

And there you have it. Every time you try to dig up examples of ultimate evil, you end up listing groups with strong moral convictions and the absolute belief that those morals are universal. And if some corner of the world doesn't understand that yet, why, it's time for a bit of a crusade...

That alone is the winning argument for moral relativism already.

That, and the fact that if you don't share a conviction, a rallying cry, a flag and a uniform with a million others, you are far less likely to do damage, no matter whether your personal beliefs are "good" or "bad".

Timo Saloniemi

 

[Edit_XYZ]

Timo

You forget, those who stopped the monsters you mentioned also had strong moral convictions (for example - genocide is evil, conquest is evil, etc), the belief these values were universal and were willing to fight defending them.

If they were moral relativists without limits - as you think they should have been -, the world would, at present, be a living hell, with no one to rise up, opposing the worst of humanity.


I ask you the same question I asked Paradon:
Would you allow a person to rape your wife and daughter because, in this person's culture, said actions are honourable and, indeed, desirable?
Would you allow such a person to kill you - or some other poor souls who cry for your help?

 

[iguana_tonante]

I say all this talk and criticism about "moral relativism" is pursued by people who have no idea what "moral relativism" means.

 

[horatio83]

The Shar of Iran wasn't that bad either, but because of the U.S. interference we allowed the Islamist extremists to come to power.

You again confuse the facts. The Shah of Iran was installed by the US in 1953 when they toppled Mossadegh and he was an autocrat, hardly much better than the mullahs.

the nazis

Khmer Rouge

allies bombed

Milosevic

And there you have it. Every time you try to dig up examples of ultimate evil, you end up listing groups with strong moral convictions and the absolute belief that those morals are universal. And if some corner of the world doesn't understand that yet, why, it's time for a bit of a crusade...

That alone is the winning argument for moral relativism already.

That, and the fact that if you don't share a conviction, a rallying cry, a flag and a uniform with a million others, you are far less likely to do damage, no matter whether your personal beliefs are "good" or "bad".

Timo Saloniemi

You put nazis and the brave people who fought against them for the sake of universal human levels one level? That's like witnessing together with another fellow that somebody gets raped or mugged and after he has broken the jaw of the thief/rapist and saved the victim you put him onto one level with the criminal.
Let me remind you that denial of assistance is a criminal offense in most Western countries.

You are not merely a postmodern relativist, you are a nihilist and thus totally unethical.

 

[Edit_XYZ]

I say all this talk and criticism about "moral relativism" is pursued by people who have no idea what "moral relativism" means.

iguana_tonante, the meaning of 'moral relativism' as discussed in this thread was defined by Timo,Paradon&co - and they keep defending their definition of 'moral relativism'.

Meaning - you're barking up the wrong tree.

 

[Paradon]

You know you make it sound like there is an easy 1, 2, 3 solution to problems as complex as cultural development of a nation. You can't just barge in and tell them what to do. They're not going to listen if you do that. that's what Timo is trying to tell you. I love it if it was easy as pie.

 

[iguana_tonante]

I say all this talk and criticism about "moral relativism" is pursued by people who have no idea what "moral relativism" means.

iguana_tonante, the meaning of 'moral relativism' as discussed in this thread was defined by Timo,Paradon&co - and they keep defending their definition of 'moral relativism'.

Meaning - you're barking up the wrong tree.

Nope. There is a stark difference between "there are no universal, meta-ethical standards of good and evil" (what Timo is saying), and "there are no personal, ethical standards of good and evil, and therefore everything goes" (what horatio83 is arguing against). In other words: saying that morality is personal rather than universal is nothing like saying there is no morality at all.

So I'd say horatio83 and yourself and the ones barking up the same (dogmatic, simplistic, or simply uninformed) tree.

 

[horatio83]

But the problem started with foreign interference.

It started with Hitler invading Poland. You can label this foreign interference, I simply label it war. And when somebody wages war against half of the world, slaughters and subjugates million of people and tries to annihilate the Jews you don't sit idly by.

I say all this talk and criticism about "moral relativism" is pursued by people who have no idea what "moral relativism" means.

iguana_tonante, the meaning of 'moral relativism' as discussed in this thread was defined by Timo,Paradon&co - and they keep defending their definition of 'moral relativism'.

Meaning - you're barking up the wrong tree.

Nope.

Yes, you are. Or prove that you aren't and enlighten us by explaining us morons what ethical relativism really means.

 

[Edit_XYZ]

You know you make it sound like there is an easy 1, 2, 3 solution to problems as complex as cultural development of a nation. You can't just barge in and tell them what to do. They're not going to listen if you do that. that's what Timo is trying to tell you. I love it if it was easy as pie.

As said:
Moral relativism - I agree one should have such a view, but ONLY to a point.
After said point, you betray your own morals by having such a view - tolerating everything, simply because said behaviour is permisible by the perpetrator's morals. And you are being suicidal.

Shall I understand that you want to retract your statement about defending your family and your implicit admission that moral relativism has limits even for you?

I say all this talk and criticism about "moral relativism" is pursued by people who have no idea what "moral relativism" means.

iguana_tonante, the meaning of 'moral relativism' as discussed in this thread was defined by Timo,Paradon&co - and they keep defending their definition of 'moral relativism'.

Meaning - you're barking up the wrong tree.

Nope.

You do realise you're reacting like a 5 year old, yes?

 

[Paradon]

You know...Iran before the Shah was very tolerable of differnt views, at least much more so than today. I'm saying we keep making things worse by getting involve in the cultural development of other nations. Think about with whom you are going to replace all those you've overthrow? Another extremist? I may not agree with it, but it's nothing I can do about it. It's not my country.

 

[Edit_XYZ]

Paradon

Stop it with your attempted distractions and answer my questions.

I'm asking you whether or not there are limits to your moral relativism, not about your irrelevant selective view of history.

 

[Paradon]

Yes, there is. I think you need to accept that sometimes there are something that is out of your control.

 

[Edit_XYZ]

There is a stark difference between "there are no universal, meta-ethical standards of good and evil" (what Timo is saying), and "there are no personal, ethical standards of good and evil, and therefore everything goes" (what horatio83 is arguing against). In other words: saying that morality is personal rather than universal is nothing like saying there is no morality at all.

So I'd say horatio83 and yourself and the ones barking up the same (dogmatic, simplistic, or simply uninformed) tree.

And this addition to your post shows you're the one who either has no problem employing straw-men or who can't read properly a thread, mr. 5 year old.

What Paradon&co are saying is - there are no universal standards of good or evil; therefore, eveyone is right and should be allowed to do as he likes, provided he believes his actions to be morally right. And you must let him do as he likes.

 

[horatio83]

You know...Iran before the Shah was very tolerable of differnt views, at least much more so than today. I'm saying we keep making things worse by getting involve in the cultural development of other nations. Think about with whom you are going to replace all those you've overthrow? Another extremist? I may not agree with it, but it's nothing I can do about it. It's not my country.

I totally agree with you that Operation Ajax was wrong, a country should not replace a democratically elected leader with an autocratic thug.
I have no problem with the other way around, because of you Americans we Germans have been able to establish a democracy after fascism.

 

[horatio83]

There is a stark difference between "there are no universal, meta-ethical standards of good and evil" (what Timo is saying), and "there are no personal, ethical standards of good and evil, and therefore everything goes" (what horatio83 is arguing against). In other words: saying that morality is personal rather than universal is nothing like saying there is no morality at all.

So I'd say horatio83 and yourself and the ones barking up the same (dogmatic, simplistic, or simply uninformed) tree.

And you're the one who either has no problem employing straw-men or who can't read properly a thread, mr. 5 year old.

What Paradon&co are saying is - there are no universal standards of good or evil; therefore, eveyone is right and should be allowed to do as he likes, provided he believes his actions to be morally right. And you must let him do as he likes.

Indeed. I think the lizard does not understand the difference between ethics and morals.
Morality is personal, it is like saying "I live mongamously or I eat no meat because I don't wanna hurt animals". Ethics are social, they are e.g. incarnated (neither perfectly nor totally) in laws or taboos (incest, torture).

We only talk about the latter here, personal morals are not an issue of public debate precisely because they are personal.

 

[trek_futurist]

All too often people use extreme examples as an excuse for why we should be intolerant of other cultures.

It begins with 'would you let someone rape your wife and children' to 'their economy is horrible, american capitalism is the only valid system of governance'-Which, unfortunately is used as a rallying cry for 'bringing democracy' to other nations (apparently 'democracy' must result in the death of half a million of another nations citizens, which is an equally acceptable sacrifice, according to those who espouse such actions. And here we are, talking about 'hitler' and "stalin'. Oh how little we learn from history).

It's a very tricky line that they cross with little warning. But terms such as 'fascism' should be taken with a grain of salt, considering how every system shares a measure of it. Modern day american corporate capitalism is quite the fascism, perfect, neat and sanctioned by the legislative branch of government (in other words, they made it legal to create an economy based on extreme demarcation using classic capitalist notions, re-framed by corporate models).

Point being, don't cry 'fascism' when looking at other cultures till you can see those fascist aspects of your own which apparently fly right under your personal radar screens (oh how convenient).

 

[Edit_XYZ]

All too often people use extreme examples as an excuse for why we should be intolerant of other cultures.

As I said in my first post in this thread:
"Moral relativism - I agree one should have such a view, but ONLY to a point.
After said point, you betray your own morals by having such a view - tolerating everything, simply because said behaviour is permisible by the perpetrator's morals. And you are being suicidal."

Where Paradon&co - and, apparently, you - are severely mistaking is embracing moral relativism without limits - which is as dangerous, if not more dangerous, than not embracing it at all.

 

[horatio83]

All too often people use extreme examples as an excuse for why we should be intolerant of other cultures.

It begins with 'would you let someone rape your wife and children' to 'their economy is horrible, american capitalism is the only valid system of governance'-Which, unfortunately is used as a rallying cry for 'bringing democracy' to other nations (apparently 'democracy' must result in the death of half a million of another nations citizens, which is an equally acceptable sacrifice, according to those who espouse such actions. And here we are, talking about 'hitler' and "stalin'. Oh how little we learn from history).

It's a very tricky line that they cross with little warning. But terms such as 'fascism' should be taken with a grain of salt, considering how every system shares a measure of it. Modern day american corporate capitalism is quite the fascism, perfect, neat and sanctioned by the legislative branch of government (in other words, they made it legal to create an economy based on extreme demarcation using classic capitalist notions, re-framed by corporate models).

Point being, don't cry 'fascism' when looking at other cultures till you can see those fascist aspects of your own which apparently fly right under your personal radar screens (oh how convenient).

First of all, being a German citizen I think I have the right to talk about fascism. It has been, and sadly still is to some degree, part of my culture.
Second, I appreciate your point about corporate capitalism resembling fascism with a democratic face or, as Wolin has called it, inverted totalitarianism. While we Western folks should be ruthlessly self-critical and not impose our social model upon the whole world (Remember how this turned out when the Russians followed our advice and privatized their industries without having first established decent rules that prevent arising oligarchs from basically enriching themselves via stealing public property.) we should also be proud about the enlightenment tradition.
When the young folks in the Arab world went onto the streets this spring our governments reacted cynically but we citizens should have recognized that their demands are universal demands, inspired by European enlightenment. Doesn't mean that they should go the same way we did, it merely means that we all share certain basic values, that they are the basis for worldwide solidarity and that fighting for these values is important.

On the right there is capitalism without democracy (what you described) and reactionary Islamophobia. On the left there is postmodern relativism and human rights universalism. The current debate seems to be between these two last poles and I am a dogmatic advocate of universality.
To quote Sokal: I confess that I'm an unabashed Old Leftist who never quite understood how deconstruction was supposed to help the working class. And I'm a stodgy old scientist who believes, naively, that there exists an external world, that there exist objective truths about that world, and that my job is to discover some of them.

 

[iguana_tonante]

Or prove that you aren't and enlighten us by explaining us morons what ethical relativism really means.

I just did. Now prove us that you can use the multiquote feature.

You do realise you're reacting like a 5 year old, yes?

Do you realize I've given this discussion all the time it's worth? Which is very little, given the hysterical arguments that are so generously used in it.

There is a stark difference between "there are no universal, meta-ethical standards of good and evil" (what Timo is saying), and "there are no personal, ethical standards of good and evil, and therefore everything goes" (what horatio83 is arguing against). In other words: saying that morality is personal rather than universal is nothing like saying there is no morality at all.

So I'd say horatio83 and yourself and the ones barking up the same (dogmatic, simplistic, or simply uninformed) tree.

And this addition to your post shows you're the one who either has no problem employing straw-men or who can't read properly a thread, mr. 5 year old.

For someone who paints his opponents in a debate as nazi, necrophiliac, thief-rapists, you seems oddly unaware of your own straw men. But please, surprise me.

What Paradon&co are saying is - there are no universal standards of good or evil; therefore, eveyone is right and should be allowed to do as he likes, provided he believes his actions to be morally right. And you must let him do as he likes.

Uh, to quote myself, nope. First of all, there is no "Paradon&co". Posters are individuals, and they make individual arguments. I understand it might be difficult to differentiate among them when you are busy painting people as nazi, necrophiliac, thief-rapists, but there you go. I was supporting Timo's arguments, not Paradon's

Indeed. I think the lizard does not understand the difference between ethics and morals.
Morality is personal, it is like saying "I live mongamously or I eat no meat because I don't wanna hurt animals". Ethics are social, they are e.g. incarnated (neither perfectly nor totally) in laws or taboos (incest, torture).

Lulz. Such dogmatic definitions might be comfortable and even useful when first learning about this kind of stuff, but a more nuanced approach is required as soon as you try to apply them in real life. Your definition of "morals" and "ethics" is far for being the only possible one. For example, one of the most common definition is that morality is the ability to know right from wrong, and ethics is the philosophy of dealing with such questions. Nothing to do with "personal" vs. "social". So I would respectfully suggest to leave your smug at the door, lest you want to sound like a fool for claiming in such definitive terms what is easily proven to be false.

We only talk about the latter here, personal morals are not an issue of public debate precisely because they are personal.

Since when? Personal morals are very much an issue of public debate, because actions are informed by them. Otherwise, intent would not be an issue when dealing with objectionable actions, which is patently false.