The value of a state
serve the best interests of the people and can only make decisions which remain within the parameters of their duty. Kant, with his universal maxim (universalizability), also provides a similar decision- making algorithm, which is useful because the maxims avoid prejudice and cannot be changed to fit a situation: they are constants, almost like a constitution, which the United Kingdom does not have. Another possibility is consequentialist decision-making, where the consequences are the most important. Here, the means are not important, as long as the end is beneficial. There are infinite of these algorithms and ultimately formulae for making decisions, but hardly any of them give any direct moral guidance. Morality is essentially relative, as over time morality changes dramatically, and, in a digital age, across a matter of weeks. This simple fact ultimately renders any such decision-making systemobsolete, and that is why we have a government that takes on the responsibility of making these decisions morally, and, because humans aren’t perfect, some of the decisions made are not necessarily the most moral ones. Given the discussion in the paragraph above, what is the worth in creating the front of a democratic system, which claims to take ideas from even the lowest echelons of society? And claims that all the decisions made are sensible ones working towards the collective good? In Plato’s Republic , he talks about his ideal polis : a perfect society where everyone works to create the most effective community, by specializing in a certain area. He also talks about a philosopher king, who is the wisest and most intelligent, and can therefore solely make the best decisions for the polis ; this would also mean that there is no unnecessary time put into deliberating or discussing the validity of a decision. However, some people would argue that this infringes on our free will, and that we should be allowed some say in our politics. However, Plato’s reality is not too far from our political system. Firstly, in the current systemof government, the average person has very little influence over policy-making, as participatory democracy in the UK is very thinly spread, so people have little direct influence. However, people can increase their involvement, which could be beneficial, as only people who are passionate are heard. H owever, it also means that people whose political views aren’t necessarily the most politically correct can advertise themselves. Secondly, and arguably more importantly, what is the value of our freedom, and do we really have any? A determinist would argue that there is merely an illusion of free will, that we are trains on a track, but that the tracks are invisible, and the decision-making power we think we have is merely the view to the left and right of the tracks. If this is true then it doesn’t matter what we do, the outcome will always be the same; all the decisions we make are pre-programmed; all the decisions we make can be predicted. Therefore, it follows that any system of government we have can be as totalitarian as it wants, as it would always be that way. Justice in society is key and gives any state its value. Some argue that the UK has a well-functioning judicial system and that justice is almost always served. One counter-argument is the number of run- ins we have with the law that actually go to court: hardly any do, because insurance companies, for example, don’t want to pay the fees for a lawyer; people also don’t want to take the risk of losing, so they settle out of court. There is so little trust in the system of justice that people avoid it at all costs. Just as on the high seas, in court you are in god’s hands. This prompts the question: if our system is so broken, what’s the point in having it? In la Follette’s view, the justice system must be morally justified; it must act as a deterrent, serve to retribute and reform, and can only justifiably deprive someone of liberty. But, because the judicial system is seen as being inconsistent, many would question whether, without reform, it can fulfil any of the tasks outlined above. Then there is the issue of law enforcement: in lots of countries there is the misconception that it is there to preserve the safety of the government and
182
Made with FlippingBook - Online catalogs