The Issue Is Not Precedence Between the Prosperity of the Whole and the Benefits to Individuals
In the previous article, I mentioned an idea of 'prioritizing the prosperity of the whole of human species or the whole of life forms.
That expression requires a clarification. Over what do you prioritize the prosperity of the whole of human species?
The usual connotation will be 'over the benefits to individuals'. But that's not what I mean. What I mean is 'prioritizing the prosperity of the whole of human species over the degradation of it'.
Hmm, . . . after all, a question as whether we should prioritize the prosperity of the whole over the benefits to individuals or we should prioritize the benefits to individuals over the prosperity of the whole is nonsense, for if we prioritize the benefits to individuals over the prosperity of the whole, the benefits to which individual should we prioritize?
There are multiple individuals, and they have exclusive demands. Otherwise, there won't be any necessity for considerations. There are conflicts of interests, and we can't equally prioritize the benefits to all the individuals at the same time. So, the benefits to which individual should we prioritize? That's the question. Unless we answer the question, we aren't saying anything meaningful.
Well, there may be a person who answers, "Which individual? I, of course."
Ah, a 'I First' fellow . . .. He or she prioritizes the benefits to himself or herself over everything else. That's another option, but there is not any bit of fairness in it.
Unfair? Yes, according to our definition of fairness. However, letting everyone pursue only his or her own benefits has a kind of equality.
It's a kind of equality in which someone who has vested interests has decisive advantages not based on his or her potential or endeavors. It will bring a world in which truthfulness doesn't matter; lying for one's advantage is the norm. It's not our option, if it's someone else's, is it?
It isn't. . . . However, we will have to admit that that's a matter of ideology. Although there is doubt about whether a 'I First' fellow really understands consequences of his or her adoption of the 'I First' principle, we can't logically deny the 'I First' principle.
We admit that. Anyway, we don't adopt 'I First' principle, and a principle as 'prioritizing the benefits to individuals over the prosperity of the whole' doesn't give us any direction in solving conflicts between the benefits to an individual and the benefits to another individual.
It certainly doesn't.
So, after all, there is no option but we make decisions based on what is best for the whole.
I think, that's a sound reasoning.
What Is the Prosperity of the Whole of Human Species, in Our Opinion
I want to clarify some things to prevent misunderstandings.
OK.
First, being good for the whole doesn't mean being good for a group of people in power.
Ah, a frequently seen perversion.
Those in power demand sacrifices from all the other people in the pretext that those sacrifices are good for the whole, but while most of people are just suffering, how is the situation good for the whole? It's just good for those in power!
The state power isn't the whole; the state of people is the whole.
Second, I don't measure goodness for the whole by the number of people who are happy.
Ah, so-called the greatest happiness of the greatest number of people principle. There seem to be some Earthians who advocate that principle.
I don't buy such a principle. Quite sadly, the majority of people are happy doing unfair acts. I hope I'm wrong, but based on my observations, I can't have much hope in my being wrong.
For example, a group of people tries to decide who will clean a toilet every day. If a man is picked up by a reason (for example, he is weak in whatever meaning, an introvert, or just unpopular among them by whatever reason), it's likely that the majority will vote for that he should clean the toilet forever.
A poor fellow . . .
All of the group except one may be very happy. However, that's a very despicable, deeply disgusting, quite deplorable, . . .
Reprehensible?
terribly reprehensible, . . .
Contemptible?
outrageously contemptible, . . .
Base, lamentable, and flagitious?
awfully base, extremely lamentable, and dreadfully flagitious act!
Ah, I notice that there are some Earthians who think that majority votes justify anything.
Fairness has to be always maintained! The majoritarian rule isn't a permission to do unfair acts!
Even on the Bias planet, there is an idea that there are some natural human rights. Natural human rights can't be overridden by human contrivances such as majority votes. The right to be treated fairly will be one of natural human rights, but it's doubtful how much real influence that idea has on Earthian affairs.
The majority vote is something to be used when a group choose one from some fair options. While there are fair options, why should an unfair option even be considered for a majority vote? The majority vote isn't, should never be, a tool to inflict something unfair to someone!
OK. Relax. Take some deep breaths.
. . . . . . OK. Anyway, that's the reality of the greatest happiness of the greatest number of people principle.
Then, state what's the prosperity of the whole, in your opinion.
For me, the prosperity of human species is for them to near truths and to do fair acts.
Hmm.
How Is Our Principle Different from Totalitarianism?
Here, let's clarify how our principle is different from totalitarianism.
First, totalitarianism enforces an ideology conceived by someone to all the people of the state, but we aren't enforcing our principles to anybody. Did we say that someone who doesn't agree with our ideology should be gagged, incarcerated, or executed?
No, we didn't.
Did we threaten to kill someone who said something we didn't like?
No, we didn't.
Did we say that someone who said something we didn't like should die?
Of course, we didn't.
We are just expressing what are our principles.
All right.
Second, totalitarianism won't admit or remedy inconsistencies of its policies, but we are saying that anything has to be consistent, and if any inconsistency is found, the hypotheses system has to be modified to regain consistency.
A major problem of totalitarianism is the rigidity of its ideologies. They deny any existence of faults in their ideologies. That seems to come from a characteristic that totalitarianism enforces its ideologies to people: for it to enforce, it has to claim that there is no fault in its ideologies.
That difference is primal. Our primal policy is the continual modification of the hypotheses system based on the necessity of consistency. Totalitarianism is directly against that policy.
Some people tend to react sloppily. When they see harms of totalitarianism, they think, "Ideologies are bad." . . . That isn't so. Not having any ideology is just being a beast. Not improving ideologies is bad.
The problem of totalitarianism isn't prioritizing the whole, but not admitting various opinions on what is good for the whole and not admitting existences of faults in its once-fixed ideologies. After all, as always, terms are sloppy. Totalitarianism is in fact 'forcing once-fixed ideology and refusing to improve the ideology'-ism.
