The power of humankind to achieve great things relies squarely on our ability to divide labour. For this reason, mathematicians are not typically tasked to do needle work, after all a proper tailor would be much better with such a needle. However, this does not just apply to the production of physical objects, to turn it on it's head: a tailor is not asked to prove mathematical theorems, after all, a mathematician is much better at maths and the production of mathematical ideas. Likewise, we trust economists to determine the best fiscal policy. Obviously, there isn't perfect consensus, but why is it trusted to the mathematicians and tailors to decide which idea is correct. I'm not preaching a totalitarian technocracy but why bother asking people to vote whether they want austerity or investment? The only merit in such would be to ask the people to vote on questions of morality. Is the burden of ethical decisions best left the the majority perhaps?
Although, even in this sphere, some people know better. After all we have philosophers and ethicists who can attempt to determine the best possible morality frameworks. At worst (and realistically) they can at least improve on the logic behind our decisions. But again, I'm preaching a government with an "Ethical Oversight Committee", which is a scary idea by most standards (maybe better if we called it Minimoral). I feel I've not got anywhere at all with this, although, I don't think the exercise is a pointless one. It just seems there is a better solution than letting people make decisions they (we) know nothing about. The people really in power are the ones that shape our (the publics) ethical and economic ideas. Do we really want to let the media and our teachers shape our future?
PS: I really want that to be a rhetorical question, not me planting the answer "no" in your brain with a literary device.
No comments:
Post a Comment