There are many names. Philosopher-King, bureaucrat, central planner, ruler, President, Czar, Prime Minister, Pasha, Amir al-Mu’minin, Amir al-umara, Al-Malik, Shahenshah?
The person would be supported by an educated council (of Guardians?).
The key word here is benevolent.
If that person would do things that you yourself, would have chosen, what is the immorality in that? In other words, the central technocrat is serving you and YOUR interests.
If the "benevolent and wise central technocrat" acts in paternalistic manner, then it violates the Autonomy of the others.
"In bioethics, autonomy is often contrasted with paternalism. Paternalism refers to courses of action (including decisions) that are done in the assumed interest of a person, but without or against that person’s informed consent. Beauchamp and Childress define paternalism as “the intentional overriding of one person’s known preferences or actions by another, where the person who overrides justifies the action by the goal of benefiting or avoiding harm to the person whose preferences or actions are overridden”. (Read more of this from this article: Manne Sjöstrand Stefan Eriksson Niklas Juth Gert Helgesson. Paternalism in the Name of Autonomy. The Journal of Medicine and Philosophy, Volume 38, Issue 6, December 2013, Pages 710–724.)
Sethuraman K Raman
Kindly explain why the violation of autonomy is immoral.
Autonomy is one of many important values. It is a Western concept, maybe from the 17th century. It may not be relevant.
For many citizens in many countries, autonomy is the freedom to vote, to be hungry, to starve, to be sick, to be uneducated and to be unemployed and homeless.
The social value of autonomy is unclear. I am not sure if autonomy is an Eastern value.
"For one who is dependent there is wavering; for one who is independent there is no wavering. When there is no wavering, there is tranquillity; when there is tranquillity, there is no inclination; when there is no inclination, there is no coming and going; when there is no coming and going, there is no passing away and being reborn; when there is no passing away and being reborn, there is neither here nor beyond nor in between the two. This itself is the end of suffering." [Salayatanavagga (The Book of the Six Sense Bases), Samyutta Nikaya]
"he is autonomous (svaraj) who knows the Self (atman)" --Ananda Kentish Coomaraswamy
Martin Klvana Thank you Sir. You are most kind. Mea culpa. Svaraj is translated as autonomous? Hmm Interesting. I always understood it as independence. A small difference I guess. Autonomy is a deeper concept.
Svaraj means literally self-ruling (sva-raj). Autonomous means having/making one's own laws. To rule means to control, guide, direct. Law means a rule of conduct imposed by authority.
Svaraj can be translated as self-ruling (with the emphasis on 'who is the ruler') or autonomous (with the emphasis on 'according to whose laws') or independent (without inclination---which emphasizes unwavering, uncompromising adherence to the self-imposed laws).
Martin Klvana Now that you mention it, it makes sense. It was the "independence movement" so I focused on independence, but actually it was more about self-rule. The self-rule movement would not have the same ring to it!!!!!
Martin Klvana
I am not sure I would agree with the following:
“independent (without inclination---which emphasizes unwavering, uncompromising adherence to the self-imposed laws).”
It reeks of rule-utilitarianism or deontology (Kantian, perhaps?)
Self-imposed rules of right conduct (right view, right intention, right speech, right action, right livelihood, right effort, right mindfulness, right concentration) are based on the knowledge of the origin and cessation of action (karma), on the knowledge of the origin and cessation of suffering (duhkha). Self-imposed rules of right conduct are based on the knowledge of the consequences of action.
Martin Klvana Let reflect and think about your statement. Much think about. Will respond.
A large part of the dissonance in discussions in created by the Query, "In theory, what is immoral (unethical?) - - -", which has mixed up morality (individual-personal values) and ethics (professional values). More on this (moral-ethical-legal) is discussed in my PPT set in SlideShare and also at this LINK:
https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/ethics-vs-morals-law-dr-arturo-perez
Sethuraman K Raman Taking into account your comment, may I rephrase the question as follows:
All things considered, do you have any objections to a benevolent and (wise?) central technocrat?
A Physician takes the role of "Benevolent and wise technocrat", when managing 'dependent Patients', who would like their trusted doctor to decide what's best for them. Some have named it the 'perfect angel model'. (attached table explains it better)
If this could be extrapolated to managing a society or a nation, and if vast majority of the population is 'dependent' and not autonomous, then such a benevolent and wise leader would be a blessing indeed.
The purpose of the State is to make sure that the majority of the people are in the state of coma all their sleepwa(l)king hours.
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Education