A question about 'maturity'.
In order to be able to talk about matters of ethics or the 'good' as Plato would say, is there a prerequisite that one be 'mature'?
I ask because there seems to be a leader in the office of the United States, that has everything that would testify that he is mature; yet, his behavior does not indicate that he is 'mature'.
Do we need a 'maturity' test to be implemented in positions of power and social governance? Plato thought so, in terms of mandating that only people past a certain age could handle positions of power and control.
What's your opinion?
I ask because there seems to be a leader in the office of the United States, that has everything that would testify that he is mature; yet, his behavior does not indicate that he is 'mature'.
Do we need a 'maturity' test to be implemented in positions of power and social governance? Plato thought so, in terms of mandating that only people past a certain age could handle positions of power and control.
What's your opinion?
Comments (51)
As for Plato's notion that a age is good indicator of wisdom? Trump is 71, is that old enough?
Yes, well, I certainly don't see it that way, even though I am (heterosexual) and married and have children. I'm surprised the moderators haven't deleted your post yet. They are not generally tolerant of such incendiary statements. I actually enjoy interacting civilly with people whose opinions I find distasteful, but that is not the consensus among moderators on the forum.
Unfortunately for you and those like you, when Lincoln said "of the People, by the People, and for the People" he included those you consider garbage.
Requirements to run for President of the US:
Those seem reasonable to me. Let the voters, or "garbage" as some call them, decide on qualifications and maturity.
Unless they decide to vote in a way you disapprove of. Most problems are subjective. You should be careful when limiting power to a select few in case their ideals don't align with yours and you find yourself without the power to oppose them.
Hey man. Relax with the ad hominem. I’m calling uninformed votes garbage, not people. Sheesh.
If you think we can have rational social choice on the back of money-manipulated ignorance, then why are we failing utterly to address any of our most serious problems?
I don’t know what just voter qualification would look like, but I’d be most concerned to ensure it doesn’t reinforce inequalities. Not sure that’s possible, so maybe the current system is indeed the best one. On the other hand, I don’t think an open mind holds anything sacred, whether the founders and eminent statesmen believed it or not.
- if I may politely differ with you, sir.
"Uninformed votes" - Assertion.
"Our most serious problems" - What you consider the most serious problems may not be what the rest of society considers the most serious problems.
"reinforce inequalities." - Clarification needed. Are you talking about equality of outcome or equality of opportunity and how is that relevant to an Electorate Qualification?
The difference is that some people accumulate wisdom and maturity, and some people don't. Trump belongs in the category of people who haven't, so far, accumulated a whole lot of wisdom or maturity.
“Uniformed votes” should not be controversial. Unless you largely approve of the political climate and direction of the country, it’s hard to see how you believe our electorate is well informed.
“Serious problems” might just as easily be “problems”, since I’m not convinced we’re getting much of anything right. But if you don’t think fiscal solvency, clean and plentiful water, affordable energy or environmental sustainability are serious issues, I have nothing left to say.
I’m not foolish enough to pursue equality of outcome. That would require much more severe inequalities. I’m a Rawls man. I’m for equality of opportunity. Trouble with voter qualifications is that they would likely benefit the educated more than the uneducated, and we know the spectrum of education overwhelmingly reflects social inequality.
Hear, hear
Well, it was in no way an ad hominem attack. Not even an insult. What it was was an intentionally misleading characterization of your position intended to be provocative. [s]Disrespect[/s] Contempt for those who disagree with us is what got us in this place we find ourselves in. I'm very liberal. The fact that so many of my liberal friends have attitudes similar to yours infuriates me.
I don't know what your politics is. It doesn't matter. I believe in government with the consent of the governed, not by the will of some chosen group.
Okay. I respect that. I think my political views are essential, though. I don’t think voter restrictions necessarily conflict with popular sovereignty. Anyone can vote, just not before meeting certain standards of literacy and critical thinking. Disadvantaged groups would qualify for robust government support around educational goals.
I’m sure that still sounds suspicious, but what value is there in a dysfunctional system, fair or otherwise? Even our cherished freedom of speech has been hemmed in by the obvious need for certain restrictions. Same with firearms.
"“Uniformed votes” should not be controversial. Unless you largely approve of the political climate and direction of the country, it’s hard to see how you believe our electorate is well informed." -
Assuming voters are misinformed because you're not happy with the current political climate is wrong. They may be perfectly informed, but just do not agree with you.
"“Serious problems” might just as easily be “problems”, since I’m not convinced we’re getting much of anything right. But if you don’t think fiscal solvency, clean and plentiful water, affordable energy or environmental sustainability are serious issues, I have nothing left to say." -
The quote i used was "Most serious problems". Sure those things are serious problems. I'm just saying that some people may not think they are the Most serious problems. Different perspectives = different priorities.
You last point is a good one. We already have a qualifier based on education/"wisdom levels: minimum age of 18. Personally I think that is enough but perhaps it could be raised to 20 or something with the right justification.
I’ve been reluctant to humor these rather captious objections, but I’ll try again.
Either the current political climate/direction/regime/whatever is right and justified or it is not. Just like frogs are amphibious or they are not. When I claim ppl who don’t agree frogs are amphibious are ill informed, you don’t say “disagreeing with you doesn’t make them ill informed”, for two reasons: (i) that’s clearly not my justification for calling people ill informed, and (ii) it’s not a controversial issue between us. If you think people are well informed, please state your case, else let’s please move on.
I can list 20 major issues, and we may disagree about how to rank them; but if we agree they’re all badly managed, then it follows that we agree that the most serious problems are badly managed. Our priorities are irrelevant.
On a much lighter note, your point about voter age restrictions is excellent. I think the logic is very comparable.
You are aware, are you not, that this has been implemented in the US in the past to keep black people from voting in the south? Here's a link to a post in a previous discussion that's relevant.
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/156647
Yes, of course. Are you suggesting any policy putting restrictions on voter eligibility is tantamount to Jim Crow?
The state of the current political climate and the biology of frogs are not comparable. You can objectively prove frogs are amphibious, but I am afraid you cannot claim that the political climate/direction/regime/whatever is wrong objectively because that claim is based on your personal beliefs, priorities and perspective; i.e your opinion. Furthermore, you cannot take away people's right to vote simply because you don't agree with the way they are voting, whatever the cause. Being ill informed is the weakest excuse for this.
"I’ve been reluctant to humor these rather captious objections, but I’ll try again." - Loose the condescending tone, its unbecoming of you.
We can’t have rational political debate without assuming some stance or another is objectively true. I pointed out “true or not” applies to both equally as a logical property they share being subjects of rational debate.
Again, my argument is not that I don’t like how people are voting. My argument is the current system is a failure. I could be wrong, so I’m happy to debate it, but it is a matter of objective fact that either it’s failing or it’s not failing.
Not being condescending, I promise. I just honestly don’t see the merit in these questions. No offense, I find them disingenuous.
Yes, of course, in a close election a few votes may determine the outcome -- but we don't know who those few votes belonged to, or at what time on the day of voting they were cast.
In legislatures, the votes of the representatives are shown on a board (or computer screen) as they are cast. In that situation where there are only a few voters, maybe less than 100 and where their votes are public, we can see who voted, how, and when -- and if they changed their mind at the last minute. But that doesn't apply to secret ballots.
I don’t know whether I believe it makes no difference whether the electorate is, overall, better informed; but thanks for the constructive participation.
To all, I’m aware I’m making very provocative suggestions, but let’s please argue the question dispassionately. I’m a liberty-loving American with a healthy distaste for bigotry just like the rest of you. Maybe I’m dead wrong on this, so just listen to what I’m saying and help me correct the error. I think it’s disingenuous to go on about Trump voters (or whomever) and then pretend the same electorate is a reliable source of policy.
Yes, although I'll word it a bit more carefully - I believe that instigation of qualification restrictions on voting will inevitably be used as a mechanism to institutionalize discrimination on the basis of race, class, and ethnicity. Emphasis on "inevitably."
Yes, but your argument is based on the premises I have objected too. Unless you can demonstrate these premises are true, then that invalidates your conclusion of "The System Is A Failure". Considering that you are proposing taking away peoples rights, these points are very important indeed.
You can hold the opinion that the political system is inadequate, there is nothing wrong with that. But you must acknowledge that this is your opinion and that other people may have a different one. That is to say, just because the system is failing you does not mean it is failing everyone and taking away people's rights based on that is the first step on a slippery slope towards authoritarianism.
No offence taken then. I am not the most eloquent nor well educated person on the internet and I tend to be quite stubborn. The merit in these questions is simply so I can explore your point of view so I can better understand the perspectives of others.
That is a fair point. You’re probably right.
Gotcha. Excuse me for being impatient. But to be clear, I don’t want to take away anyone’s rights. Just like owning firearms and speaking your mind, I’m suggesting sensible boundaries.
Little known fact, @Bitter Crank actually is the most eloquent and well educated person on the internet. He can help you out if you need it.
Not at all, you are being very patient.
"I’m suggesting sensible boundaries." - Unfortunately those boundaries will expand to exclude some people in society that would otherwise have those rights whether or not it is what you intend.
Indeed, I have conversed with @Bitter Crank before. A charming fellow as are you all.
"So how do we fix the errant course of politics?"
My main contention with the current political climate is that it encourages tribalism with the awful "Two Party Elections". I think we need to promote a new set of economic, social and political principals that inspires people to take agency over there own lives rather then allowing the state to dictate it for them.
For example: rather then incentivize people to work towards building a huge conglomerate we should encourage them to build networks of smaller companies that collaborate together to function like a massive corporation. That way, more people will be in a position to acquire production capital without compromising the free market and the generation of wealth. In short, people should strive to acquire the means of production themselves rather then relying on capitalist elites to provide it for them. This will also have the added benefit of encouraging people to build companies that last, rather then the current model of building them to liquidate them.
This is not necessarily relevant to politics but with a new way of thinking in economics we can bring the agency of people back and remind them that they have the power to make changes.
Yes, it is disingenuous. But...
I believe that it has been demonstrated by political scientists that people don't vote rationally -- not the erudite college professor nor the high school drop out trailer trash.
What? That can't be true!"
When people have pencil in hand and the ballot before them, there is a very strong tendency for emotional-driven voting to take precedence over rational voting. What people tell pollsters is more likely to be a rational (or rationalized) statement not represented in their actual voting.
Personal example: In 1980 Minnesota's November ballot had a referendum question on gambling. It may have been to allow betting on horse racing. I have long been opposed to gambling, and think that things like lotteries amount to a kind of regressive tax. I am risk averse when it comes to games of chance, and I avoid casinos.
Despite all that, I voted for the referendum item on the basis of emotion. I remember feeling that I wanted to vote for the more socially sophisticated position. That feeling really didn't surface until the moment I voted (partly because I hadn't really thought much about it, one way or the other).
People did or did not vote for Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton for similarly emotional reasons which may not have been entertained prior to entering the ballot box. I was appalled that Donald Trump had been nominated, and was horrified that he might be elected. None the less, I wasn't happy with Clinton either. I did not vote for Trump, but I wanted to vote against Hillary. (Minnesota was securely in Hillary's pocket.) It was pure small-minded emotion at play in choosing to vote for a down ballot candidate.
My guess is that many Trump voters acted out of similarly non-rational motivation--motivation they need not be embarrassed for following, at least on the basis of how most people make important decisions.
Do you not think this is the influence of the two party system? Everyone had other choices, they just assume voting for them would be redundant. However, if everyone that felt like you voted for a third party it may have had a positive impact on the future of politics if not the results themselves?
Yes, you’re quite right. It’s well known in decision theory and behavioral economics that people systematically fail normative standards of rationality. Indeed, accepting a post-hoc rationalization such as you might find in polls as causally explanatory is referred to as “the fundamental attribution error”. Still, one wants to avoid complete subjectivism in the political process. I’m not sure how to square the facts with the needs.
Agree, the two party system is an impediment
Btw, bravo on the honesty. I live in CA where it makes the least difference how I vote. I’m thankful, actually, because it spared me the dilemma.
The course of politics has always been errant. It is unlikely failure will be catastrophic. I grew up during an era when failure really would have been catastrophic. People forget how fortunate people in the US are. We're one of the few areas that have never known cycles of war for hundreds or thousands of years.
The estimate of dead in the Syrian Civil War is between 300,000 and 500,000. I think that's between 2011 and now. That's out of a population of about 20 million. I just looked it up - about 3,600 Americans have been killed by terrorists since 1995. 2,900 of those were on September 11, 2001. Our population is about 340,000,000.
What's the solution. I'm not very good with politics. How about support politicians who will work for compromise. Be supportive of compromise even when it means giving up something important to you. Don't be contemptuous of people who disagree with you. Stop whining about Donald Trump. I didn't vote for him and I think he's doing a bad job, but he's the President. I remember how Obama's opponents treated him for the eight years he was in office and I swore I wouldn't do the same when things turned. Impeachment would be a terrible thing for the county.
All very tolerant and laudable, but I’m thinking of worse catastrophe than conventional war or even genocide. Population explosion and mismanagement of resources and waste will be much worse. And I’m not being hyperbolic. The sheer mathematics are staggering. None of that is preventable without rational social choice. The situation is more critical than ever, I think.
I would say it was more of an alley with not much focus on Trump, but very well. It’s perhaps a bit past time to return to the main topic.
I don't know, I think Trump is just one of the demagogues of our time that has a childlike mentality or as some have called him a 'manchild'. One feels helpless when confronted with the prospect of having such a fool govern the country.
C'est la vie?
Je pense que non. Vous est fou.
Oh la la
As it is, there is, in a sense, only ONE party, and that's the party of the status quo to which most Republicans and Democrats belong.
However, parliamentary systems do not solve all problems either. Look at Italy.
Let's see, that's either "crazy like a lobster" or "crazy like an eggplant." My French is rusty.
Tu n'as pas besoin de moi. Tu n'as besoin de personne. Vous êtes Americans.
Mon français vient de l'école de Google Traduction.
Another thing is there's a paradox in democracy. It's supposed to be about the people (everyone) and is specifically designed to thwart the would-be dictator but, oddly, there's a president/prime minister/chancellor vested with immense powers.
Looks to me like a 100 year dictatorship is being replaced by a series of 6 year totalitarian regimes.
Yes, there's wisdom in that. With a time limit the damage can be controlled but the point is what's the difference between getting beaten up by 1 guy and by six different guys?
The question of maturity is moot because it doesn't apply to any form of government.
I agree about the disingenuousness of dismissing Trump voters as morons or fools. When people actually vote, that is, pencil in hand and ballot before them, they make emotional decisions. Everybody -- college professor and trailer trash alike.
Personal example: Back in 1978 or 1980 Minnesota had a referendum item on betting. I have been, and am, officially against gambling. I don't like to gamble, I think lotteries amount to an extremely regressive tax, and when it comes to gambling, I am personally risk averse.
Regardless of what my "thinking" was on the matter, I voted to approve the referendum. Why? Some sort of emotional pull towards avoiding "squareness" or "over religiousness" or something like that determined my vote.
Emotional factors came into play in the last presidential election too. People who would normally have voted for Hilary Clinton (based on how they responded to polls, how they had previously discussed the candidates, etc.) were swayed in the voting booth by emotions. I was too. I would normally have voted for the Democrat, and I think Clinton would have made a significantly more competent president than Trump, but I just didn't want to vote for her.