Ok, Democracy. Now What?

I hope I have been able to convince you that a Democracy is the ideal form of government. If we make societal decisions according to societal happiness we need to know if the people are going to be happy with each decision we make. The only way to do this is to ask the people... in other words, take a vote.

Capitalism or Socialism? "Conservative" or "Liberal"?

Frankly, it doesn't matter. I see each of these systems as a means to an end. A tool that may (or may not) maximize our happiness. I know it would be convenient for our ethical system to mindlessly determine the way our government should work in absolute terms but that's not reality. We will have to think through each decision and how it impacts societal happiness. There is no room for being intellectually lazy in a democracy.
I think we can still take a look at the strengths and weaknesses of each system and make some generalizations from a utilitarian point of view:

	Capitalism	Socialism
Strengths	High Economic Efficiency Encourages Property Stewardship	Ensures Equality of Opportunity Allows for Collective Action
Weaknesses	Reduces Equality of Opportunity Prevents Collective Action	Clunky/Reactive Economy Discourages Property Stewardship

Economic Efficiency. Pure capitalism excels at maximizing GDP and ensures the largest sum total of wealth is generated for a given society (albeit poorly distributed wealth). It utilizes the self interest built into human nature to accomplish this.

Equality of Opportunity. Socialism ensures that everyone has the same chance to do well in life as everyone else. Capitalism, by contrast, tends to make is easy for the rich to get richer and makes it hard for the poor to get the jump start they need to make a good wage.

Property Stewardship. Capitalism, again taking advantage of selfish human nature, ensures there is a steward for everything (i.e. the owner). Homes, cars, land and property of any kind need to be maintained or taken care of. Socialism doesn't naturally ensure this maintenance gets done. We humans tend not to take good care of things if we don't have a vested interest in them.

Collective Action. Imagine a meteor large enough to extinguish human kind is on a collision course with Earth. Preventing the meteor from landing would require extensive resources from humanity. In a capitalistic society, a charitable fund would have to be established to pay for the effort and many people would fail to contribute thinking "someone else will do it". In a socialistic society, however, the government could acquire whatever resource it needed to ensure Earth's safety.
Simply put, some projects have necessarily public consequences and are only successfully if everyone cooperates. Full societal cooperation is only realistically achievable through socialization and/or regulation.

• Global warming & carbon emissions
• Water table monitoring and action
• Meteor monitoring and action
• Pollution of natural resources
• Over-harvesting prevention (deforestation, game hunting, fishing)
• Etc, etc, etc.

Some Generalizations & Conclusions

Informed voting is a moral imperative. If only a few vote, then a democracy becomes a functional oligarchy. If everyone votes but does so uninformed, we have a society that makes poor decisions. In order to maximize societal happiness, you need to be an informed voter. Voting in an informed way, then, is a moral virtue. Don't throw away your voice through whim or silence.

Education is the most important thing to socialize. Having an informed voter-base is essential to the core of a properly functioning democracy. And you cannot be informed without at least a basic education. Without an informed voter-base, decisions can be made haphazardly. Equal and easy access to education, then, is a necessary democratic backbone. This alone justifies public (socialized) education to me.

Lean to Capitalism in times of scarcity. Capitalism is very good at being efficient with whatever limited natural resources an economy has to work with. I think this is a good starting point for gauging how capitalistic or socialistic our society should be. In times of scarcity, we should socialize and regulate less. In times of plenty, we should socialize and regulate more. I am suggesting that there is not only a balance between socialism and capitalism, but that it is a moving target. Something to think about as you head to the polls.

Ethics to Politics

How to Choose a Party

Political parties are generally formed based on feelings about specific social/government issues. Should the government do X? Should it stay out of Y? Should the government tax more or less... spend more or less? But should we really be forming political positions based on feelings? I don't think so. The stakes are too high. We need to really think these things through.

Think about the sentence:
What government should do needs to be figured out.
The word "should" is a reference to ethics.
The phrase "figured out" is a reference to epistemology.

You see, the right system of government is built based upon a specific epistemology and ethical framework. In general, we can see where we might land on political issues depending on where we have landed in the  epistemological and ethical departments. Consider the following table:

System	Evidentialism	Philosophical Skepticism	Authoritarianism
Objective Egoism	Democratic Capitalism	Individualist Anarchism	Dictatorial Capitalism
Objective Altruism	Democratic Socialism	Collectivist Anarchism	Dictatorial Socialism
Utilitarianism	Democracy	Anarchism	Dictatorship

Now, I know that Egoists can advocate Socialism and Evidentialists can advocate a Dictatorship but those positions would be cognitively dissonant with one another. The table above attempts to estimate where someone would probably land if they thought about how their philosophical views affect their political views.

The Table Explained

Evidentialism leads to Democracy. Evidentialists agree that no individual has a monopoly on truth. Just like science works using a peer review process, so does government function with a democratic voting process. Evidence has to be checked and cross-checked.

Philosophical Skepticism leads to Anarchy. Since knowledge about what the government should (or should not) do is impossible, the government shouldn't do anything. Since subjective feelings guide the philosophical skeptic, everyone should just do what they want.

Authoritarianism leads to Dictatorship. Placing your guide to reality on a person (or a book) instead of evidence naturally leads to a government that is structured that way. Weather that arbitrarily selected guide is a king (monarchy), a small group of elite (oligarchy), or a holy book (theocracy) each is still a form of dictatorship.

Egoism leads to Capitalism. This connection should be easy to see. Egoism values self interest. Capitalism is a system that values and is driven by self interest.

Altruism leads to Socialism. Rejecting yourself in favor of others naturally leads to the rejection of private property. Holding a good for yourself (privately) is principally selfish. The only system based on these principles is Socialism.

Utilitarianism is Capitalist/Socialist neutral. A Utilitarian isn't concern with the Capitalism/Socialism dichotomy. He just wants a system that makes the broadest number of people happy. Sometimes that might mean a capitalistic approach. Other times it may mean a socialistic approach. The framework we choose for each government related question is based on happiness outcomes, not on the intrinsic focus of the system.

It should be clear now that I think any good government starts with a foundation of democracy. I hope you think that too.

Objecting about Objectivity

Why Objectivity Matters

Someone might ask why an ethical system needs to be objective. The answer comes in the form of another question: "Why come up with an ethical system in the first place?" The answer is so that we can make moral judgement and evaluate behavior according to a moral standard. In a subjective ethical system, the only person in a position to evaluate one's behavior is himself. If we want to evaluate someone else's behavior in a social society, we need an objective ethical system.

What About Objective Forms of Egoism & Altruism?

This is great question! Egoism & Altruism as defined in the previous post are subjective. However, there is a way to define them that objectifies them. Consider the following table:

System	Subjective Form	Objective Form
Egoism	Pursue happiness for myself.	Pursue happiness for myself AND allow others to do the same.
Altruism	Pursue happiness for others.	Pursue happiness for others AND graciously accept altruism from others.
Utilitarianism	N/A	Pursue happiness for all men including yourself.

If we eliminate the two subjective systems we are still left with three candidate ethical systems. How do we justify our selection given that all three systems are useful and objective? Just ask yourself something basic:
"Who's happiness is more valuable? Mine? Or yours?"
The objective answer is that our happiness is equally valuable. Only Utilitarianism recognizes this reality. The other two systems irrationally focus on one which is actually equal in value to the other.

Why Not Objective Egoism?

Objectivism is the most prominent philosophy that defends Objective Egoism (even though they define it in subjective terms). Advocates of Objective Egoism will attack Utilitarianism claiming that considering the happiness of all equally places an impossible burden on everyone. However, considering all men equally does not mean influencing all men equally. The fact is that we are closer to certain people more than others. We can affect change in certain lives more than others. We are finite and limited. Utilitarianism can and should be applied in the context of this fact of reality.
We humans spend a vast majority of our time taking care of our own needs and wants. Is this compatible with Utilitarianism? I say "absolutely yes!" The happiness of everyone is (generally) most efficiently maximized by having each individual look after their own needs and wants. Who else is better suited to fulfill your needs and desires than you? For most of us, the answer is no one. In this sense, a kind of secondary egoism plays a significant role in a well designed utilitarian philosophy.
Even though Utilitarianism and Objective Egoism are fundamentally different, they agree on a great deal when it comes time for practical application.

Why Not Objective Altruism?

Objective Altruists will try to attack Utilitarianism and Objective Egoism claiming that they lead to selfishness, which is "intrinsically bad". They will often reach this conclusion because they feel that selfishness is just bad. Not only is this appeal to emotion fallacious, it's also generally untrue.
It turns out that, if you use your moral intuitions as a guide, selfishness can easily play a positive role. We feed ourselves, think for ourselves, protect ourselves from harm, and enjoy our lives. These things are all selfish and they all seem good to our moral intuitions.

Why Utilitarianism

Again, I want to suggest that my happiness is equal in value to any other normal human being on this planet. This fact is what brings us to Utilitarianism instead of other ethical systems.