82,853
edits
World peace: Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
no edit summary
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary Tags: Mobile edit Mobile web edit |
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary Tags: Mobile edit Mobile web edit |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{a|devil|{{image|World peace|png|It’s a battle.}}}}The problem with theories of justice is they don’t bear close examination. Collective ones run into the problem “who gets to decide, and what’s to stop ''them'' tilting the scales, and what of people who legitimately | {{a|devil|{{image|World peace|png|It’s a battle.}}}}The problem with theories of justice is they don’t bear close examination. | ||
Collective ones run into the problem “who gets to decide, and what’s to stop ''them'' tilting the scales, and what of people who legitimately disagree?” | |||
Individualistic ones are fine until we have to interact with each other — over the course of human history, we’ve tended to do that a lot — whereupon they all run into the same basic conundrum: what to do when ''my'' expression of my own personal freedom interferes with ''yours''. | |||
These lead to strands of philosophy one may characterise as basically ''Hobbesian'' (pessimistic) or ''[[Adam Smith|Smithian]]'' (optimistic) in grappling with the proposition that there are finite resources, unlimited demands on them, but in any case when gathered together humans are a fundamentally argumentative bunch, and this is a necessary condition of society (Hobbes) and a desirable one (Smith). | These lead to strands of philosophy one may characterise as basically ''Hobbesian'' (pessimistic) or ''[[Adam Smith|Smithian]]'' (optimistic) in grappling with the proposition that there are finite resources, unlimited demands on them, but in any case when gathered together humans are a fundamentally argumentative bunch, and this is a necessary condition of society (Hobbes) and a desirable one (Smith). | ||