Ethical Philosophy Selector

[Violet]

It is my place to decide for myself the truths of this world.

'my place'? Why indeed is it your place? Perhaps it is the society's place? The King's place? Your wife's place? God's place?

What is this 'my place'... and why is it any more your 'place' than the 'place' of society's, a leader's, a 'significant other's, or a God's?

It is not my place to decide yours or anyone's other than my own.

Or is it? Why is it not as much your place as it is mine?

We live in a society that dictates our standard of living but what place do they really hold in deciding what works best for us all.

A rather strong place... considering that a society is built up of a large number of individuals. Is that not more important than the single individual you are?

There are a number of different ways to see the world... "the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few, or the self"... "the needs of the important few outweigh the the needs of the worthless many, or the selfish self"... "the needs of the self outweigh the needs of those who aren't you". These are three very common (and very distinct ways to view the world. Which are you?

Majority Rule with Minority Rights is a flawed system.

Not so. It is a very efficient system... if nothing else.

Just as much the social contract theory that governs our very society today.

See above.

When you implement the spoils system into a government and punish those of a lesser standard is it okay.

Sure. Why not?

Our government uses these very things to implement a trickle down system that feeds poor who in turn feed the wealthy.

Which government? Why not equalize the poorest poor and the richest rich if you are concerned that people will starve?

But why can we not do for ourselves instead of having someone else to provide for us.

Because of a thing called specialization. Are you really qualified to amputate a leg? Are you more qualified than the leg doctor, who has devoted his life to the study of the leg? As you are not... tell me then: would you rather amputate the leg yourself... or let him do it?

There is a second part to this as well. It is called management... it means you will have a specific job (or jobs) to complete so that others can focus on different things... this is very similar to an assembly line, but it encompasses the entire economy. Together, properly managed specialization's among the population will result in 1: more efficiency, 2: more familiarity with jobs (and hence by experience people get can 'better' over time at their job), 3: a social stratification as the more important or difficult jobs are considered worthy of more respect and payment than 'lesser' jobs.

When we lose the ability to provide for ourselves we lose our voice in this government and they decide everything for us.

We do not. I think your senators (Assuming you are an 'indirect democracy' or 'republic' in some form) are perfect evidence for this in and of themselves. Further, we can make our voices 'heard' perfectly well when we're starving and homeless... ever tried holding up a sign, or writing an email on a public computer at your local library (or the like)?

We must still possess some ability to do for ourselves or we will lose out on what we desire most: Freedom.

Why would we lose this? Many city dwellers do not in fact have this ability of the moment... are you suggesting that they aren't "free"?

And then... why is this "freedom" so important to you? We are not "free" to rape, pillage, and murder our way through the land. This is a restriction on our freedom. Is that such a bad thing, I wonder?