Why is the government unsympathetic compared to the individual?
Many have told me that governments are incapable of making sympathetic decisions because - although they are composed of humans - the government isn't human and only weighs benefits and costs compared to individuals. So do you think individuals can be more cruel and unsympathetic or the government? Is human nature worse than group nature, when group nature is considered as less humane?
Comments (9)
I think it is a spectrum for both terms so it highly depends who you are referring to and the situation you are applying it to.
I further think the distinction between human (individual?) nature vs group nature is incomplete. We know of lynch mobs as well as secular governments they aren't the same thing. Especially in cases of cruel barbaric murder the government often takes a more charitable view regarding the punishment of the perpetrator (prison instead of death sentence or revenge torture) then a mob or maybe certain individuals would take.
Law 1. It is in the best interest of someone in power to remain in power, and if they can't leave the position with a good or better standing.
Law 2. If it is in the best remain in power you must make the decision that keeps you in power.
The rest of the laws are specific to the structure of power.
Only individual human beings have executive agency. Institutions such as governments, colleges, churches, corporations, etc. can not have, do not have executive agency. Only human beings can act. (Well, animals can act too, but let's set that aside.)
So I work for the government. I administer a relief program. You think you need help. I have to go by the regulations (which various humans beings wrote and passed into law). According to the rules, you do not qualify for help. I say "No." "NEXT!"
Am I being cruel? No. I can only follow the rules. Is the Government being cruel? No. The Government can't be any such thing. Were the people who wrote the rules cruel? That might be the case. Maybe they didn't want to help people like you. Or maybe, nobody is being cruel and you, unfortunately, don't happen to fit the requirements.
I believe it is possible that the people that constitute a Government organisation are possibly more unethical and psychopathic than your average human. There have been studies of personality traits in different fields of employment that show marked differences in different fields of employment.
Also it seems politicians often have a different educational background than the majority of the a country especially in Britain, with a class divide.
But if this is not the case you could say that they are representative of general human flaws.
But I feel they have the power to make more positive decisions than they do. It could be that politicians want to get elected so they appeal to the lowest common denominator to get ahead.
Overall I think politicians are capable of causing more harm than one individual.
We will have to see what her legacies. I am not sure how representative she is. She certainly seems well meaning.
I think politicians that promote liberal and progressive causes still leave their countries with similar problems after they leave office such as successive governments in the US and the continuing huge prison population and poverty.
These institution are usually run on a hierarchy with certain people within the institution having more power and responsibility. It is not like a headless chicken.
Also there can be collective responsibility within an organisation based on who did what and who voted for what or neglected a responsibility etc.