meet our newest moderator

The first thing I will say is that corrupt people are not ethical, so under an ethical government, they should be removed from positions of power.

Realise that this doesn't necessarily happen at present: All that matters is for a person to be law abiding. Ethics is not implicit in whether or not a person wields power.


As with prosecution of a civilian, a jury would be used to evaluate a governor. The majority of the jury are assumed to be ethical, and the majority carries the verdict. Corrupt individuals within the jury don't have enough weight on their own to influence a verdict.

Your MP for example, may not be an ethical person if he harbors irrational prejudices, and incites hatred/distrust in the hope of winning votes from the section of society with whom his words resonate with. He draw suspicion. We wonder what he is really about.

Anyway... a jury would consists of random citizens and be frequently rotated (as they do now), so there is no obvious means of corruption, and reduced ability for tacit collusion.

And superior to current day juries, an attempt to bribe a juror is more likely to be reported. Most jurors will be ethical jurors after all, who would see Truth and Honor in ousting such things.

 

What about majorities that are against minorities? There probably is at least one state in America where the majority thinks that being homosexual is unethical.

 

Some opinions are derivative of religious tenets, and some people will want to call those opinions 'ethics'. But this is an abuse of language. Tenets are not ethics; ethics is that which appeals to the virtues.

But it is true that some people are just not able to think ethically, and they are only able to comprehend laws, whether it is in the form of civil law, or a religious tenet. But again, it is an abuse of language to call such things ethics. Remember that lawful and good are not synonymous.

As for what the majority thinks: Remember it is the majority of the jury who carry the verdict, and not the majority of the state/nation. Juries are restricted to contain ethical people.

 

But it is juries themselves who also say who is ethic or not according to your earlier posts. This would mean that the majority could vote off the minority on grounds of their lack of ethicness(not a real word, but it sounds cool). This is a system where the majority votes itself into power from the moment it is set up, eliminating minorities first, and then subcategories of what remains until a small amount of people are left in power.

 

Well ethics are not completely blind judgments. Part of the truth virtue is transparency. An opinion that cannot be rationally justified would be a prejudice.

But I suppose if a large proportion of the state is determined to believe something, then they will oppose others who disbelieve it. And if they manage to be the majority of a jury, then they will carry the verdict. But isn't the situation of an unethical majority getting their way possible in all governments other than a totalitarian one? What mechanisms exist to prevent it happening?

Compare:

1. Does the current system prevent corrupt people coming to power?

2. Does the current system prevent new laws and political decisions being made by corrupt people?

3. Does legal pedantry with all its esoteric loopholes perform better or worse than this new system would?

4. If you can anticipate the problems with my proposed system, then are you able to resolve them without breaking it?

(If so, how? If not, why not?)

 

The problem however is that the majority does not only stop the minority from voting, it then removes minorities from itself.

Gays
Pro-choice
muslims

When you shave these off the ethical people list, you need less people for a majority, so you can vote off more

single mothers
anyone under 25
people who voted democrats under the old system.


What we get in power is not the majority, but the majority of the majority of the majority of the majority of the majority of the majority of the majority of the majority of the majority of the majority of the majority of the majority of the majority of the majority of the majority of the majority, which is in fact a bunch of asshats.

 

That sounds pessimistic and distrusting to me.

Does this unethical majority perpetually voting for itself happen at present? If not, then what mechanisms prevent it from happening? Or does it not happen because there simply isn't that much prejudice in society?

Can the unethical label of these minority groups you listed be rationally justified? How can a single mother be considered unethical when judged by the virtues? Is it dishonorable to be a single mother? Does she negatively affect others? I don't see how it can be considered unethical by any of the virtues.

 

For many cultures it is considered dishonorable to be a single mother.

It doesn't happen in todays society, because the majority does not determine who can and cannot vote(well, except convicted felons).

And it is very distrusting. I really don't trust people to choose what is best for society.