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.