Seems the question revolves around societies' morals. Jesse Prinz (a
Distinguished Professor of Philosophy at the City University of New
York) writing
<https://philosophynow.org/issues/82/Morality_is_a_Culturally_Conditioned_Response>
in Philosophy Now suggests that societies do not converge on a universal
set of morals (unless driven by outside forces). Prof. Prinz goes on to
discuss moral objectivism vs moral relativism and to justify the latter.
So (it seems) what kind of state we tolerate depends on our shared and
inculcated morality.
Robert C
On 4/6/16 10:19 PM, Carl wrote:
Well, constitutions are tools of the current narrative. Consider
Article 9. It's pressed into service depending on the story various
authorities wants to reify. One can consider what's on the paper and
say oh that's pretty cool, but....
On 4/6/16 1:36 PM, gepr wrote:
It seems to me that authoritarianism can be fostered without an
organismic authority (like a king or priest class). Isn't the "rule
of law" or a constitution intended to objectify the authority? If
that's the case, then the psychological manipulation from things like
religion or capital punishment can/could eventually become
unnecessary to achieve an authoritarian state.
============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
--
Cirrillian
Web Design & Development
Santa Fe, NM
http://cirrillian.com
281-989-6272 (cell)
Member Design Corps of Santa Fe
============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
