Division of Ideas: Is and ought to be

To wrap up this in a nice (hopefully) trilogy, I finish on a philosophical note. Why do we bother sticking with democracy when it may not even be the most effective method? I light-heartedly said in the introduction that an ethical oversight committee is a spooky thought, however it belies the more serious note: there's just something right about democracy that is missing from technocracy. I don't want to delve particularly deeply into the basic philosophical rights and wrongs of democracy but the fact remains that a population without a feeling of autonomy is a deeply unhappy and rebellious one. Maybe a clever government which gave the illusion of freedom would provide the greatest possible total happiness but I still don't like the idea (interestingly Asimov touches on this topic a few times in his short stories about the three laws). What the reality is and what we think ought to be are distinct questions, yes one informs the other but we cannot move freely between the two.

On the same theme, perhaps the splitting of is/ought is key to an effective governance. Some questions are descriptive: are humans significantly affecting the earth's climate? The answer to this question has nothing to do with ideology or morality. The question: "what should we do about the answer to the first question?" Is answerable only with a system of morality combined with some evidence. Striving toward a system where experts answer the first question and a properly informed general public answer the second is probably the least worst realistic option.

Further Reading: A better explantion of is-ought comes from Hume

Division of Ideas: Introduction

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.