The obvious counterpoint: is looking at the effects of communism on countries that implemented it not an accurate way of judging that it is an inherently broken and abusive concept?
General Consequentialism is also very typically poor on how to judge a system because it typically doesn't take a more long term analysis into effect. It doesn't take effects through time, and it also doesn't base a system as fundamentally metaphysical as politics on anything other than outcome. Materialistic Sciences can be judged consequentially, but politics can not.
Instead, most political systems need to be deontological. This is because politics has to be about making sure that the general sentiment of a governed population may have their concerns re-presented to the governing state craft, in such a way that power may shared without violating people's moral framework, and that they may live in a peaceful, healthy, and prosperous way.
Those issues can't be dealt with from a consequential analysis alone. As Dev points out in the video. Consent is deontological, and as such can't be addressed with consequentialism properly. Most moral systems are not consequentialist. In fact, there's only one that is consequentialist, and that's Utilitarianism. It's basically a Philosophy 101, week 3 topic to show why Utilitarianism is a fucking shit ethical framework.
I'm not partial to one system or another (I honestly don't know which is better), but can someone post the case in favor of the US system vs. proportional representation?
Theoretically in the US voters choose their party platform and coalitions before the election rather than the parties making that decision later, which may done by making compromises that some voters wouldn't have expected or agreed to.
You know how I know it isn't the right system?
By looking at the results.
Personal consequentialism is never a good way to determine the functionality, efficiency, stability, or utility of any system.
The obvious counterpoint: is looking at the effects of communism on countries that implemented it not an accurate way of judging that it is an inherently broken and abusive concept?
Personal Consequentialism. "Was it good for me?"
General Consequentialism is also very typically poor on how to judge a system because it typically doesn't take a more long term analysis into effect. It doesn't take effects through time, and it also doesn't base a system as fundamentally metaphysical as politics on anything other than outcome. Materialistic Sciences can be judged consequentially, but politics can not.
Instead, most political systems need to be deontological. This is because politics has to be about making sure that the general sentiment of a governed population may have their concerns re-presented to the governing state craft, in such a way that power may shared without violating people's moral framework, and that they may live in a peaceful, healthy, and prosperous way.
Those issues can't be dealt with from a consequential analysis alone. As Dev points out in the video. Consent is deontological, and as such can't be addressed with consequentialism properly. Most moral systems are not consequentialist. In fact, there's only one that is consequentialist, and that's Utilitarianism. It's basically a Philosophy 101, week 3 topic to show why Utilitarianism is a fucking shit ethical framework.
No it's the wrong system because it lets the people who outright lost the election collude to exclude the guy who won.
I'm not partial to one system or another (I honestly don't know which is better), but can someone post the case in favor of the US system vs. proportional representation?
Theoretically in the US voters choose their party platform and coalitions before the election rather than the parties making that decision later, which may done by making compromises that some voters wouldn't have expected or agreed to.