= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
simplicio comments on Surface syllogisms and the sin-based model of causation - Less Wrong
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
= 783df68a0f980790206b9ea87794c5b6)
Loading…= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
Powered by Reddit
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d)
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
Comments (49)
Umm.... government is government. To describe it unqualifiedly as a "mindless amoral bureaucracy" is ultra-simplistic, no matter what economic views you hold. Suppose I were to call every oil CEO a heartless robber baron?
Otherwise I more or less agree with you.
"Mindless amoral bureaucracy" is making a descriptive claim, not just name calling. It is contrast to a popular yet naive model of the "government" as a agent which acts according to some explicit goal or moral prerogative.
Do you actually think it's true, though? Don't get me wrong, I don't think of the government as a single unified actor with a clear agenda, and yet it's certainly true that subsets of government act like agents with explicit goals.
For example, the ruling Liberal Party of Canada legalized gay marriage a few years ago. This was based on the moral convictions of its members and their explicit goals for Canadian society... you would be hard pressed to call it amoral or mindless.
I've no doubt that government sometimes fits that description, but not always - not by a long shot. The comment also makes me wonder whom Aurini does consider mindful and moral, but I will end the speculation there.
I find it easier to understand the actions of governments (and to a lesser extent most individuals who achieve high levels of power) as amoral, responding to the influences of people they govern because it is necessary to remain in power. I would attribute the moral virtue of the Canadian society to the Canadian society itself and not to the government. The government merely processes the influence of the people, the money and the power and outputs decisions.
I find this model far more apt than a modeling a government as a moral agent.
Okay, but I can give you a counterexample. Desegregation in the US happened in the teeth of much contemporary popular support for segregation, and without any salient financial motive.
I can see how your model might be a better first approximation in most cases, though, than a 'moral agent' model.
That is a good example (accepting for the sake of the discussion the premises based on US history that I am not excessively interested in). It is evidence that the individual leaders are other than amoral power maximizers and somewhat weaker evidence that the government could be usefully modeled as a moral agent.