Who were the first statists?

Originally posted by JS357
This link argues that Gilgamesh was a historical figure and was the first statist. Although he has a rather extreme view of what statism is; it appears that Mr. G was an adherent of "I am the state."

http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig6/case1.html

Gilgamesh was ~ 2500 BCE. Sparta's heyday was about 450 BCE and Plato came a little later.

Originally posted by finnegan
Why not the Persian Empire, the Egyptians, the Chinese,...?

Popper thought Plato was at the root of the notion that there is a possible future that would offer a perfect society and that politics should be directed to this ideal objective to the exclusion of other considerations. In particular, individual rights and needs are subordinate to the common g ...[text shortened]... se Plato was a friend to tyrants and an enemy to democracy. The parallels are sublime, Whodey.

Plato's might have been the first unconstrained vision.

Originally posted by kevcvs57
How would you be utilitarian without that danger would you be utilitarian lite.
Any utilitarian philosopher who does not address the question of his philosophies ultimate logic is either in denial or being disingenuous.

I am not anti utilitarian on principle I am only pointing out that the road to hell can be paved with good intentions.

How would you be utilitarian without that danger would you be utilitarian lite.
Any utilitarian philosopher who does not address the question of his philosophies ultimate logic is either in denial or being disingenuous.

Well, as long as it's you claiming this is the "ultimate logic", and no actual utilitarians, I think we'll be safe.

I am not anti utilitarian on principle I am only pointing out that the road to hell can be paved with good intentions.

Can't disagree with that. But you actually got utilitarianism's main flaw wrong. The main issue is that the utility function is extremely hard if not impossible to calculate, so the philosophy remains very subjective, prone to errors in any attempt to calculate the utility function, and a rough guideline at best. Still, probably a better guideline than most, if not all, other moral philosophies.

Originally posted by KazetNagorra
[b]How would you be utilitarian without that danger would you be utilitarian lite.
Any utilitarian philosopher who does not address the question of his philosophies ultimate logic is either in denial or being disingenuous.

Well, as long as it's you claiming this is the "ultimate logic", and no actual utilitarians, I think we'll be safe.

I ...[text shortened]... best. Still, probably a better guideline than most, if not all, other moral philosophies.

Well the first principle as I have said is 'The greatest good for the greatest number' if moral philosophy cannot extrapolate from that principle to a potential for the abuse of any identifiable minority within the utilitarian society then we will have to hope moral philosophers do not get involved in anything to complicated. Without understanding that the Utilitarian morality model is a complete departure from the traditional model based on parameters like 'do unto others' etc then we cannot really gauge it's potential for positive or negative outcomes.

However I do not agree that I have 'got Utilitarianism's main flaw wrong' I believe it's main flaw is it's first principle, what you describe is the impossibility of marrying that principle to morality and consequently the attainment of human happiness within a moral system based upon that principle.

Originally posted by kevcvs57
Well the first principle as I have said is 'The greatest good for the greatest number' if moral philosophy cannot extrapolate from that principle to a potential for the abuse of any identifiable minority within the utilitarian society then we will have to hope moral philosophers do not get involved in anything to complicated. Without understanding that the ...[text shortened]... tly the attainment of human happiness within a moral system based upon that principle.

So can you outline a scenario where the collective benefits from the "abuse" of a minority?

By the way, there are also brands of utilitarianism that seek to minimize suffering rather than maximize utility (though that may amount to the same thing).

Originally posted by KazetNagorra
So can you outline a scenario where the collective benefits from the "abuse" of a minority?

By the way, there are also brands of utilitarianism that seek to minimize suffering rather than maximize utility (though that may amount to the same thing).

Originally posted by KazetNagorra
So can you outline a scenario where the collective benefits from the "abuse" of a minority?

Slavery?

By the way, there are also brands of utilitarianism that seek to minimize suffering rather than maximize utility (though that may amount to the same thing).

Well that is fair enough, to some degree a democracy like the US could be seen as utilitarian with the constitution defending the potential victims of the 'first principle'. I have no problem with utilitarian ideals as long as they are harnessed to some mechanism which can act as a check or balance to that principle. Basically when I see the phrase 'The greatest good for the greatest number' I get nervous on behalf of those that will make up the lesser number.

Originally posted by kevcvs57
Originally posted by KazetNagorra
[b]So can you outline a scenario where the collective benefits from the "abuse" of a minority?

Slavery?

By the way, there are also brands of utilitarianism that seek to minimize suffering rather than maximize utility (though that may amount to the same thing).

Well that is fair enough, to some degree a ...[text shortened]... the greatest number' I get nervous on behalf of those that will make up the lesser number.[/b]

Slavery? But slavery incurs a great cost on the slaves for only a minor benefit to the slave owner. Also, the tasks that slaves do can be done by employees whose rights are respected as well.

Originally posted by KazetNagorra
Slavery? But slavery incurs a great cost on the slaves for only a minor benefit to the slave owner. Also, the tasks that slaves do can be done by employees whose rights are respected as well.

It's a utilitarian thing the happiness of the slaves (lesser number) is subordinate, if your raising a technical objection based on slavery being inefficient then that is another debate but the list of scenarios is probably as endless as your technical objections, but I would argue that you were being obtuse.

We could debate this until the cows come home but either you can see the dangers inherent in Utilitarianism's first principle or you cannot. As I have said there is nothing wrong with importing utilitarian based policies into a host political system with checks and balances built into it but in it's pure form it has the potential to become the tyranny of the majority.

Originally posted by kevcvs57
It's a utilitarian thing the happiness of the slaves (lesser number) is subordinate, if your raising a technical objection based on slavery being inefficient then that is another debate but the list of scenarios is probably as endless as your technical objections, but I would argue that you were being obtuse.

We could debate this until the cows come home ...[text shortened]... ilt into it but in it's pure form it has the potential to become the tyranny of the majority.

Could this objection be neutralised by rephrasing it as "the greatest sum total of happiness in society" rather than "the greatest good of the greatest number"? By this logic, one could contend that the degree of suffering endured by the slaves is so intense that it overwhelms the relatively modest increase in happiness that accrues to the slave owners.

Still, I basically agree with you. The theory is awkward until one adds the proviso, "As long as individual rights are not infringed".

Originally posted by Teinosuke
Could this objection be neutralised by rephrasing it as "the greatest sum total of happiness in society" rather than "the greatest good of the greatest number"? By this logic, one could contend that the degree of suffering endured by the slaves is so intense that it overwhelms the relatively modest increase in happiness that accrues to the slave owners.
...[text shortened]... y is awkward until one adds the proviso, "As long as individual rights are not infringed".

Yes the inherent pitfalls of the Ist principle could be avoided by utilising a weighted points system which would raise the value of negative outcomes which may be visited on the losers in regard to any particular policy proposed under the first principle.

Or as I mentioned earlier, a constitutional arrangement that protected everybody in a system that utilised the Ist principle as a guiding template when developing policies.

The principle of 'The Greatest Good For The Greatest Number' is in itself a legitimate goal, the problems arise when it becomes an all powerful dogmatic mantra.

Originally posted by kevcvs57
Yes the inherent pitfalls of the Ist principle could be avoided by utilising a weighted points system which would raise the value of negative outcomes which may be visited on the losers in regard to any particular policy proposed under the first principle.

Or as I mentioned earlier, a constitutional arrangement that protected everybody in a system that ...[text shortened]... itself a legitimate goal, the problems arise when it becomes an all powerful dogmatic mantra.

A better formulation, as I suggested, might be "The Greatest Harm Prevention For the Greatest Number of People". From that viewpoint, the protection of human rights follows naturally.

Originally posted by KazetNagorra
Slavery? But slavery incurs a great cost on the slaves for only a minor benefit to the slave owner. Also, the tasks that slaves do can be done by employees whose rights are respected as well.

Yet slavery was the norm all over the planet pre enlightenment.

Originally posted by KazetNagorra
A better formulation, as I suggested, might be "The Greatest Harm Prevention For the Greatest Number of People". From that viewpoint, the protection of human rights follows naturally.

That is the formulation of America's Constitution, a document limiting government and establishing "negative rights".

Originally posted by normbenign
Yet slavery was the norm all over the planet pre enlightenment.

Yes, indeed. I don't think many utilitarians look back to the pre-enlightenment era for a well-working moral code. That would be the Natural Law-fetishists.

That is the formulation of America's Constitution, a document limiting government and establishing "negative rights".

The US constitution is compatible with utilitarianism, I would say, though it's certainly not a utilitarian document.

Originally posted by KazetNagorra
The US constitution is compatible with utilitarianism, I would say, though it's certainly not a utilitarian document.[/b]

Indeed. In fact, the Constitution was pretty revolutionary historically if you ask me. What I can't figure out are those who claim it to be outdated, when all of these progressives who claim its outdated seem to be expousing many of the same Platonic principles of statism that is as old as dirt, yet they are the "progressives"?