Ethics — What if we just keep asking why?

[apeiron]

The question might be: is it the very poisonous nature of bigotry (highly unethical) and other anti-social anti-survival (as a species, reducing genetic diversity = bad) acts that is so dangerous, or is it a matter of what outrages us, and what does not. ~12 million vs ~21 million dead. Maybe it's all too abstract? Maybe you can't really compare monsters.

Any good scientific model of ethics would have to be able to handle despots and autocrats - they are certainly a repeating motif in human society and relatively stable (even if the despots may not last long, another one takes his place).

I think one way of answering the question may be to look at it as a build of capital. When a society become rich, relatively speaking, then those at the centre of power can either continue the system that created the wealth, or instead plunder it selfishly.

It is inevitable really that despotism will occur in a system with insufficient communication, or equilibration, across all its hierarchical levels.

A "good" system is one where the competitive~co-operative tensions are able to find a functional balance across all its scales.

In ancient Rome, for example, a meritocratic system with checks and balances at the highest levels then tumbled into tyrany. Despotism. The personal became out of balance with the social.

This is why so much attention is paid to political checks and balances on abuses of power in modern societies. The intention is to promote ethical behaviour by ensuring personal competitive actions are balanced by global social constraints.

And societies as a whole are in competition~co-operation. In the modern era, we are consciously trying to develop a planet-level social system - global free trade, the United Nations, Kyoto, Red Cross, etc. A system that allows nations to compete and yet also co-operate.

It is not going terribly well perhaps? But certainly, this is not the time for philosophers to be wringing their hands in despair at a lack of moral certitude. We have a very big problem to sort - how to design that functional world system. And so an understanding of how societies actually function - what defines ethics - is very practical knowledge.

Both moral absolutism and moral relativism are extreme positions, and both unrealistic as the do not connect with the world around us. Moral functionalism is a practical matter that is really not so hard to get to grips with.

 

[apeiron]

Have this in mind: no philosopher admits what we´ve been talking about.

I'm not sure what you mean here. There is no attempt in the philosophy of ethics to ground debate in some broader principles? What about standard texts like Spinoza's Ethics?

I would agree that you can't start with "particular truths" like murder is wrong. But general truths, like the greatest good or the golden rule, would be a normal starting point.

Maybe I'm missing the religious dimension to this debate - the attempt to find some absolute grounding in a creating god or platonic good. But I couldn't even start to take that discussion seriously.

 

[Frame Dragger]

Any good scientific model of ethics would have to be able to handle despots and autocrats - they are certainly a repeating motif in human society and relatively stable (even if the despots may not last long, another one takes his place).

Heck, Jane Goodall did that with the great apes. One silverback goes, and another comes. The size of the social unit adds complexity, but autocracy or monarchy if you will, predates humans.

 

[apeiron]

If you work in a way that assumes such basics to be instead universal primitives, then x = x is true without assuming axioms.

What else is an axiom but a universal assumed to be true for the sake of rational argument that is then justified by a model's ability to predict/control reality?

We extract the global generalisations which allow us to predict the local particulars. That is the way the mind works (ideas => impressions). And the way philosophy and science work (generals => particulars, models => measurements).

 

[apeiron]

Heck, Jane Goodall did that with the great apes. One silverback goes, and another comes. The size of the social unit adds complexity, but autocracy or monarchy if you will, predates humans.

Sorry to be pedantic, but Goodall's work was with chimps. Silverbacks are male dominant gorillas.

That is also relevant as the classic text here is Frans de Waal's Chimpanzee Politics where he described (from a zoo troop admittedly) stable alliances that can form between two and three top males.

So increasing social intelligence and increasingly complex dominance patterns. Co-operation right at the top of the tree.

Both Goodall and de Waal offer many examples of social cheating as well. A lot material to mine in the whole "Machiavellian Intelligence" literature on apes.

If your general point is that chimpanzees show the same competitive~co-operative social dynamics (or ethical choices) than I agree. We have troops that hunt co-operatively and share the food. We have troops that patrol their territories and raid their neighbours (a forthcoming BBC/Disney flick will show a patrol of male chimps comforting themselves with a group hug to increase solidarity while in the middle of enemy territory).

This is all part of naturalising ethics. Actually observing the same general dynamics at work across a wider sense of biological society.

 

[apeiron]

What makes you so sure that pursuit of a stable functional society should be the end goal of our actions? How would you even define stable and functional? There is certainly no scientific method that can be used to determine what the end goal should be. Science observes how do behave. Ethics asks how we should behave.

The best we seem to be able do is resort to inductive inference - murder is wrong because a lot of people accept that it's wrong. But ethics by popular vote doesn't seem too satisfying either.

This is why I find this debate over ethics interesting. It is another classic example of the failure of monadic reductionism.

The presumption behind ethical dilemmas is the lack of a constraining context - a wider world that can give meaning to local actions.

If it is presumed that ethical choices come from inside a person, and are thus "freely chosen, freely willed", then there indeed seems to be no reason to favour one choice over another choice.

Unless a person looks inside and feel they find god, or platonic good, or turtles all the way down rational argument. That is, a continuation of the fallacy of monadic reductionism - the endless search for the an ever smaller scale, or ever more interior, foundation on which truth can finally stand.

The systems view says that what is primary is dynamic process. Which presumes things in interaction. And two things in interaction is as reduced as you can get (reductionism - or generalisation - is not bad, just over-simplification).

So now attention can be switched to the question of what is actually the dynamic in question on which the system is founded.

In social systems, it is the interactions between the individual and the group. In ecology, species and environments. In thermodynamics, dissipative structures and entropic gradients.

Always there is event and context, the local action and the global constraints.

 

[Kajahtava]

What else is an axiom but a universal assumed to be true for the sake of rational argument that is then justified by a model's ability to predict/control reality?

That's what's called a dogma.

Though axioms and dogmata are formally the same, they carry a different meaning. An axiom is not implied to be universally true by the author, it may simply be 'for sake of argument', or indeed, used to prove a contradiction.

In fact, the reductio ad absurdum technique of proving is proving that X is true (proving that ¬X is false) by not proving ¬¬X from the other axioms, but rather proving one of the other axioms false from ¬X in conjunction wit the other axioms.

¬X is introduced as an axiom then and most logics have been proven for that:

{¬X,B,C,D ... } |- ¬Y

is aequivalent to
{Y,B,C,D ... } |- X

We prove the former, which leads to the latter, thus we can use it to prove that X is true in our axiom scheme {Y,B,C,D ...} by showing that introducing the negation to it is able to prove one of the axioms false (a contradiction).

Edit: this relies on the assumption that {Y,B,C,D ... } is not inconsistent itself though, but that doesn't matter for the reductio ad absurdm. Because if it is inconsistent the principle of explosition dictates that all statements are theorems, including X and ¬X so what we aim to prove is proven by default then.

¬X is then formally an axiom, but not a dogma. It is never claimed by the author to be universally, more often, claimed to be universally false.

However, that was beyond my argument, my argument was in response to your claim that you must make axioms to prove.

This is true, but even fundamental rules which all people live and swear by are axioms. For instance:

{x, x->y} |- y

Modus ponens, if x is true, and x implies y; y is a theorem.

That's an axiom, we can state that axiom, then we end up with:

(X |- x) |- (x in X)

If x is a theorem in X, then x is true in X.

But we already used theorem here, but it still goes on and on, you never hit a bottom.

So, you can either say that such fundamental tautologies as x = x, or the modens ponens are simply always true and not axioms, else you can't speak of logic any more (debatable position), which implies that you do NOT need to assume any thing at all to prove truth, as x = x is always true.

Or you can call them axioms too, and that means you can never formally prove any thing at all. As your your rules of proving from your axioms are also axioms.

We extract the global generalisations which allow us to predict the local particulars. That is the way the mind works (ideas => impressions). And the way philosophy and science work (generals => particulars, models => measurements).

Logic works a bit more abstract I suppose.

'You only understand a concept as soon as you can write it down in lambda calculus.'

 

[Frame Dragger]

So, you can either say that such fundamental tautologies as x = x, or the modens ponens are simply always true and not axioms, else you can't speak of logic any more (debatable position), which implies that you do NOT need to assume any thing at all to prove truth, as x = x is always true.

Hmmm, that sounds a lot like a description of a Solopist.

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

I covered this already in stressing that the functional equilbrium balance of a system depends on a healthy stability~plasticity - the ability to make adaptive change without creating catastrophic failure. This is a well known fact of learning alorithms in neural nets for example. And it is what people meant by "edge of chaos" back in the 80s.

And we can see this just from genetics. Constrained variation. The genome is designed to replicate a species with just the right amount of variance to allow continuous adaptive learning.

So "ethically" a human society does need social innovation as well as social conservatism to keep moving along.

Studying a really long-run society like Confucian China would be a good example. Confucianism was an ethical systems consciously designed to promote stability, and also allowing a controlled degree of meritocracy through the imperial exam system.

Another way of talking about stability~plasticity I have also mentioned. And that is competition~co-operation.

Functional societies, like all persistent systems, balance these two sources of action in their "ethical" systems. You want individuals to strive at the personal level and cohere at the group level.

It is this apparent conflict between individual desires and group needs that is the basis over much debate about what is "right". It is feeling that a choice must be made, and then not being able to decide which is foundational, competition or co-operation, that perhaps makes the "philosophical" throw up their hands and say there just is no axiomatic ground on which to decide the question.

Again, the systems view specifies that dichotomies are fundamental. So what is ethical/functional for a system must be an equilbrium balance of two complementary and synergistic actions. Competition and co-operation is one way of putting it. Stability and plasticity is another.

You still seem to not address how we find what is or is not ethical. You are describing a system and how we can set the reference frame to analyze it. Analysis though does not necessarily lead to useful predictions of ethical behavior. Outside of certain broad constraints we can not determine what will or will not necessarily be ethical tomorrow. The criminals of today may be the champions of social progress tomorrow. We do not know.

I do not entirely disagree with the way you are looking at this but you seem to be concluding a sort of ethical realism where I can only see relativism and this where my disagreement comes in.

 

[Kajahtava]

Hmmm, that sounds a lot like a description of a Solopist.

"What is this 'exist' you speak of? and how can a mind satisfy that property, also, what is a 'mind'?"

It's the description of a formalist, a person who does not believe in conceptual reasoning and defines logical symbols purely by their behaviour.

 

[apeiron]

That's what's called a dogma.

No, dogma is what we call beliefs that are not tested against reality. Precisely the opposite of what I said.

 

[Kajahtava]

No, dogma is what we call beliefs that are not tested against reality. Precisely the opposite of what I said.

That's the meaning it acquired later on because the Bible and the Qur'ān called their truths 'dogmata'. Perfect used to just mean 'completed' you know, hence 'perfect tense'. In those times 'Thou shalt not kill.', was self-evident truth.

There is no logical formal difference between an axiom and a dogma, in fact, there is no difference between an axiom and a theorem. ZF/C traditionally has the axiom of empty set, even though the axiom is not independent from the rest and can be proven from the other axioms. It's just a semantic.

Theorem: That which is provably true from your other theorems.
Axiom: That which you state is a theorem for sake of argument, as a theorem is automatically a theorem, it is provably true by default. Or a theorem with the semantics of being a 'starting point', even though in some cases it can be proven from the other theorems.
Dogma: an axiom with the semantics that the other does not only hold it to be true for sake of argument, but also reflect upon reality, often a self-evident truth.

For instance, in ZFC, a lot of mathematicians would state all canonical axioms with the semantics of being theorems. However a lot would call the final Axiom of Choice simply an axiom made for sake of argument and its dogmatic status is quite disputed but it is invariably included because many useful proofs rely on it.

In more abstract formalisms, like my very favourite lambda calculus, all things are axioms, because lambda calculus carries little 'meaning' to it.

 

[apeiron]

You still seem to not address how we find what is or is not ethical. You are describing a system and how we can set the reference frame to analyze it. Analysis though does not necessarily lead to useful predictions of ethical behavior. Outside of certain broad constraints we can not determine what will or will not necessarily be ethical tomorrow. The criminals of today may be the champions of social progress tomorrow. We do not know.

It is a fair point that we would want precise and particular predictions from a "good" model of anything.

Which was why I mentioned game theory as an example of a zero-sum (equilibrium) analysis of the choice to co-operate or compete. This is an example of actual computable optimal outcomes.

So what could we say about your criminals/champions? Well, to the extent that futures are unpredictable, we could not tell in advance. As with genetics, the future can only be vaguely anticipated. So both biological and social systems would want to generate sufficient variety to allow adaptive change. And that variety could be "random". So social tolerance for varied views, verging on the marginal, would be a healthy thing long term.

Of course it is usually the case that those who start the revolutions (the starry-eyed criminals) rarely then survive the more traditional power struggles that follow them (the cold-eyed functionaries).

 

[apeiron]

That's the meaning it acquired later on because the Bible and the Qur'ān called their truths 'dogmata'.

Though axioms and dogmata are formally the same, they carry a different meaning. An axiom is not implied to be universally true by the author, it may simply be 'for sake of argument', or indeed, used to prove a contradiction.

So which way is it? It is quite clear what I meant by axiom. Why call it dogma if the two words are formally the same in your eyes? Why call it dogma if the meaning is different (and not what I meant by axiom)?

You are trying so hard to be clever here that you are just tripping yourself up.

 

[Kajahtava]

So which way is it? It is quite clear what I meant by axiom. Why call it dogma if the two words are formally the same in your eyes? Why call it dogma if the meaning is different (and not what I meant by axiom)?

Because there's a difference between formally the same and semantics.

Formally, a circular reasoning is no error as I said before. Formally, addition is a function and there is no real difference between a function and a relation, but we call them differently to convey different semantics.

You however said that the semantics of an axiom was that they are proven true beyond all reasonable doubt, that's hardly true, at least not in logic. That's the semantics of a dogma. Axioms often go as far as things in specifying programming languages which are completely abstracted from the real world, and lambda calculus as I said.

 

[Phrak]

The Euthyphro Dilemma...

This is a false dichotomy. You are given three items: "good", "moral" and "God".
You are asked, "is good>God, or is moral>God?"

I should add that the second "horn" is an emotional plea. Not that there's anything wrong with that, only that we should recognize that the argument is no longer rational.

 

[apeiron]

You however said that the semantics of an axiom was that they are proven true beyond all reasonable doubt

Nothing like what I said. Look up Rosen's modelling relations approach some day.

 

[DanP]

Obeying ethics norms is nothing but conformity. We all know the power of conformity (Asch experiments, 1950s). We conform to normative social influences because we want to fit in, we do not want to face social rejection.

There exist mounting evidence that social rejection hurts, and it hurts much the way as physical pain. see Eisenberger, Lieberman & Williams (2003);Esienberger&Lieberman(2004).

In self discrepancy theory (Higgins 1987), the "self" is composed by 3 distinct elements:
real self (what you think you are), ought self (what the society thinks you should be), ideal self (what you think you should be). Discrepancies between real self and ought self, such as not obeying social norms, are causing anxiety. (Higgins, Bond, Klein&Strauman 1986). It is probably a defense mechanism indicating us not to persist in certain behaviors, and to alert us of the possibility of social rejection. Interestingly, discrepancies between real self and ideal self are causing sadness, not anxiety.

So what is ethics ? Social norms. Obeying ethic rules is conformity to the society.

A prediction about evolution of ethics ? They change when social norms change. Sometimes much faster than it appears. 60 years ago we would not allow a women to do something like an abortion. It was not "ethical". Today it is.

There is nothing divine in individual humans. We don't know the "good from the bad". We just conform to the hive.

 

[Kajahtava]

Nothing like what I said. Look up Rosen's modelling relations approach some day.

Fair enough, then I was mistaken.

However, at least in logic, the difference in semantics is that an axiom is just assumed true for sake of argument. And a dogma is also seen by the author as being actually true, without a proof thereof.

Of course, formalists and nihilists/scepticists do not believe that things can be true on their own without a proof thereof from other assumed truths.

 

[DanP]

In ancient Rome, for example, a meritocratic system with checks and balances at the highest levels then tumbled into tyrany. Despotism. The personal became out of balance with the social.

Are you sure of this ? After all Lucius Cornelius Sulla's dictatorship was seen by many as required to save the state from the many wrongs of a paradoxical republic. And interestingly enough in 81 BC Sulla restored power to republic institutions, renounced his position as dictator, and proceeded to live a more or less normal life without any direct political power (save for the first year after the event, when he was elected in the office of consul ) until his death in 78 BC. He was never hunted and accused of stealing the liberty of the citizens, a conviction never sought for his many terrible crimes he did in the name of efficiency of the state.

Similar things happened with Julius Cesar several decades later. The man who single-handed destroyed the Roman republic , and set in motion a chain of events who caused the birth of the Roman Empire, was considered by many the man who saved the roman state from itself, from the inefficiency of republican offices, from the callosity of the man who where in the administrative apparatus of the republic.

Which brings me to a question. Is sometimes dictatorship necessary ? Will the citizens easily renounce the illusion of freedom and some of their rights to consolidate the state ?

One can argue that shifting the government form from a republic to an empire was required for the further evolution and stability of the state run by Rome. A shift which allowed Rome (later in tandem with Constantinople, after the state broke in Western and Eastern roman empire )to run the Mediterranean world for another 500 years. And in effect, protect civilization.

We all know what is the result of the fall of Roman Empire. Almost 800 years of plateaus (some would even say regress) in the raise of western civilization, the dark ages. In effect, the needs of social are sometimes protected by dictatorship.

 

[apeiron]

Are you sure of this ? After all Lucius Cornelius Sulla's dictatorship was seen by many as required to save the state from the many wrongs of a paradoxical republic.

I was thinking more of the post-Caesar era, when short-serving dictators like Sulla were replaced by hereditary emperors who claimed even the status of gods.

One can argue that shifting the government form from a republic to an empire was required for the further evolution and stability of the state run by Rome.

And to the degree it worked, it would be an ethical system then. But really it seems more likely that the roman system had built up such a momentum that even weak leadership could not derail it immediately.

So there was sufficient ethics built into the fabric that it took the empire a long time to actually fall.

 

[DanP]

But really it seems more likely that the roman system had built up such a momentum that even weak leadership could not derail it immediately.

Well, the issue with this view is the fact that there where a large number of emperors who actually strengthened the Roman state. Not all where mad like some of the ones from the Julio-Claudian dynasty (Nero, Caligula for example). There seems to be an alternate of weak rules and strong rules who greatly enhanced the power of the roman state. Augustus Cesar, Hadrian, Cocceius Nerva, Marcus Ulpius Traianus, Marucs Aurelius, Gaius Aurelius Valerius Diocletianus are just several examples. Those strengthened the state power and the Roman domination in Mediterranean to unprecedented heights. The timleline between Traian and Marcus Aurelius seen maybe the greatest influence of Roman state ever.

Much Later, it was the genius of Aurelian who allowed the Roman Empire to regains strength after two decades of revolts and serious loos of territory due to breakways.

I really don't see how the momentum gained by the Republic sustained the empire for another ~500 years. Roman state seen his maximal height much later. Many of it;s emperors where extremely powerful political figures, who actively improved Rome's influence.

 

[apeiron]

I really don't see how the momentum gained by the Republic sustained the empire for another ~500 years. Roman state seen his maximal height much later. Many of it;s emperors where extremely powerful political figures, who actively improved Rome's influence.

Well, 300 years. And yes some emperors were more interested in perpetuating empire than others. But how does this bear on the argument that "ethical" is defined in practice in terms of the wider success of the social system's design?

Doesn't it bear out this point to be discussing which emperors had the greater interests of the empire at heart, which lost sight of this and pursued personal desires?

 

[DanP]

Well, 300 years. And yes some emperors were more interested in perpetuating empire than others. But how does this bear on the argument that "ethical" is defined in practice in terms of the wider success of the social system's design?

It prompts out two things:

- that what tend to see today as a tyrannical state might have been essential for civilization. We tend to see dictatorships unethical, but what if there are moments in time when they are required ?

- that many ethics norms are not universal, but they operate on a in-group / out-group basis. I am sure that many slaves in the roman empire didn't shared the ethics of their masters.

ADD: I said 500 years , since I counted Rome a big influence till it's fall in 476, despite the fact the western empire was clearly on decline.

 

[apeiron]

It prompts out two things:

- that what tend to see today as a tyrannical state might have been essential for civilization. We tend to see dictatorships unethical, but what if there are moments in time when they are required ?

- that many ethics norms are not universal, but they operate on a in-group / out-group basis. I am sure that many slaves in the roman empire didn't shared the ethics of their masters.

ADD: I said 500 years , since I counted Rome a big influence till it's fall in 476, despite the fact the western empire was clearly on decline.

If you check back, I mentioned the post-Caesar period as an example of this...

Any good scientific model of ethics would have to be able to handle despots and autocrats - they are certainly a repeating motif in human society and relatively stable (even if the despots may not last long, another one takes his place).

So I was not saying that tyrany was an unethical political system in itself for some reason. I was saying we would see ethics as reflecting what was personally, and generally, "good for the system" in some functional sense. And if tyrany is functional, then we would expect to find its global values being reflected also locally in the individual psychology.

Take another example. East Germany. A quite functional society so far as communism went. The values of the whole became reflected somewhat in the values of the part. The Stasi had a huge network of informers. So these informers would either think a) informing was good and ethical behaviour, or b) believe it was wrong and only be doing it under coercion.

The key that I have been stressing is that there is a natural dichotomy between the upper and lower levels of a hierarchical system. The higher or global scale constrains, the lower or local scale constructs.

In social system terms, we can capture this essential dichotomy in terms of competition~co-operation. And then the next step in the argument is that these "conflicting" impulses are actually synergistic if the system is designed right (if as a whole it is to persist with "stability" - or rather show resilience and adaptive learning).

Furthermore, the forces of competition and co-operation will be equilibrated over all scales of the system, from top to bottom. So look at a "good" system at any scale, the individual, the family, the group, the district, the nation, and you will find a balance between the bottom-up competitive actions and the top-down constraints on action which we mean by co-operation.

So this is a detailed framework of analysis - a systems perspective.

You may be able to say more about how this fits with the actual story of ancient Rome.

I think one of the outcomes suggested by my own analyis is that people at all levels in an ethical (ie: functional) society would hold the same values. So we don't need leaders more virtuous than their subjects, but nor do we want them to be less.

A social system in which there is such an imbalance in ethical behaviour would be building in tensions. With corrupt or otherwise "overly competitive" leaders, the only way to maintain system stability would be to increase the downward constraints. Co-operation with the system's goals would become forced rather than "freely" given. A feedback loop would be set up where the only solution to rising discontent would be increasing levels of constraint (gulags, secret police, slavery). Eventually something would have to give.

But anyway, the particular ethical system that is right for a particular social system at a particular time could be considered variable (within reason).

What could be the basis for a universal scientific measurement would be a general systems property such as a sharing of the same values from bottom to top (as this shows tensions in the system have been equilbrated, promoting long term stability).

 

[baywax]

In science, if we did that we would arrive to experience. Laws work because they make good predictions and that´s all there is to it. In Mathematics if we kept asking why we would arrive to axioms.

But what about ethics? It´s not based on axioms or experience. Then, what is it based on? If there´s nothing in the bottom then it´s just ungrounded.

If it´s based on our moral intuitions then ethics is useless because:

1) different people have different moral intuitions;

2) if ethics is based on our moral intuitions, then we don´t need ethics. We´d be better off following our moral intuitions directly instead of worrying about philosophy.

What are your thoughts on this?

Its a tough one. In some cultures they shoot a lame horse. In others they shoot and eat the lame horse. In others they put the horse out to pasture and visit it often. In others... there is no horse.

But it is the ethic that harmonizes efficiently with natural law that will stick around the longest. For example the ethic of not marrying your brother or sister. Eventually that practice is eliminated by the extinction of the family practicing it because the genetic make up of the group becomes weaker over time.

 

[Frame Dragger]

Are you sure of this ? After all Lucius Cornelius Sulla's dictatorship was seen by many as required to save the state from the many wrongs of a paradoxical republic. And interestingly enough in 81 BC Sulla restored power to republic institutions, renounced his position as dictator, and proceeded to live a more or less normal life without any direct political power (save for the first year after the event, when he was elected in the office of consul ) until his death in 78 BC. He was never hunted and accused of stealing the liberty of the citizens, a conviction never sought for his many terrible crimes he did in the name of efficiency of the state.

Similar things happened with Julius Cesar several decades later. The man who single-handed destroyed the Roman republic , and set in motion a chain of events who caused the birth of the Roman Empire, was considered by many the man who saved the roman state from itself, from the inefficiency of republican offices, from the callosity of the man who where in the administrative apparatus of the republic.

Which brings me to a question. Is sometimes dictatorship necessary ? Will the citizens easily renounce the illusion of freedom and some of their rights to consolidate the state ?

One can argue that shifting the government form from a republic to an empire was required for the further evolution and stability of the state run by Rome. A shift which allowed Rome (later in tandem with Constantinople, after the state broke in Western and Eastern roman empire )to run the Mediterranean world for another 500 years. And in effect, protect civilization.

We all know what is the result of the fall of Roman Empire. Almost 800 years of plateaus (some would even say regress) in the raise of western civilization, the dark ages. In effect, the needs of social are sometimes protected by dictatorship.

...And people love Ronald Reagan, George W. Bush... etc. People are gullible idiots who write history books.

 

[Kajahtava]

Point is though, that dictator in the Roman Republic was a different thing. I was a position the Senate could vote to a person rei gerundae causā*. This was a position for six months, in which the dictator ('he who tells what must be done') was essentially impetuous, he could do whatever he wanted and not be held responsible, he was the law, the senate and the people. He could put people to death without trial, including political enemies, so this was an extreme measurement taken in times of great peril. Afterwards, after those six months, the senate could again appoint a dictator if the matter was not dealt with, which would usually be another.

Obviously, they chose people that were not extremely power hungry, and so often, the dictators resigned their position before the six months when the matter was dealt with. And not doing so is crippling to one's political career.

Caesar however lead an army against the senate, and demanded to be Dictator in Perpetuum. Dictator into perpetuity, he was granted the rights of dictator until his very death. That is why he was called a dictator, but it was a completely different position, he just enjoyed the same unlimited rights and transformed the Roman Republic, into the Roman Empire. All the other Dictators headed a republic.

After his death, his successors took the title of Imperator, which basically means 'commander' which was not formally a dictator title without any limit to the term, it just meant they could do whatever the **** they wanted.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_dictator

* 'On cause of the case be dealt with', I'm using the Latin text here because the genitive gerundive and ablative of means make it pretty much untranslatable.

 

[Frame Dragger]

Point is though, that dictator in the Roman Republic was a different thing. I was a position the Senate could vote to a person rei gerundae causā*. This was a position for six months, in which the dictator ('he who tells what must be done') was essentially impetuous, he could do whatever he wanted and not be held responsible, he was the law, the senate and the people. He could put people to death without trial, including political enemies, so this was an extreme measurement taken in times of great peril. Afterwards, after those six months, the senate could again appoint a dictator if the matter was not dealt with, which would usually be another.

Obviously, they chose people that were not extremely power hungry, and so often, the dictators resigned their position before the six months when the matter was dealt with. And not doing so is crippling to one's political career.

Caesar however lead an army against the senate, and demanded to be Dictator in Perpetuum. Dictator into perpetuity, he was granted the rights of dictator until his very death. That is why he was called a dictator, but it was a completely different position, he just enjoyed the same unlimited rights and transformed the Roman Republic, into the Roman Empire. All the other Dictators headed a republic.

After his death, his successors took the title of Imperator, which basically means 'commander' which was not formally a dictator title without any limit to the term, it just meant they could do whatever the **** they wanted.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_dictator

* 'On cause of the case be dealt with', I'm using the Latin text here because the genitive gerundive and ablative of means make it pretty much untranslatable.

It's ok, I took 4 years of Latin Granted... that was... a long time ago. Hmmm... O or M S T, Mus Tis, Nt...Yep, some of it is still there.

I take your point, but keep in mind that those people had a history of dictatorship (by any other name) prior to the "rise" of that period. Not to mention, that 6 month policy was as much for survival among rivals as anything else.

Caesar was also not just "Declaring" himself Dictator in Perpetuum, he was INCREDIBLY successful as a general and was given a fait accompli by the senate: Leave your armies, as all do, at the Rubicon despite your desire for more power. Caesar had enough men at his command loyal and popular acclaim, and THEN he revolted.

He wasn't granted rights, he took them and held them by force of arms and vicious politicking, until his assasination. History may gloss over some details on Wikipedia (doubt it though), but the granularity of the time was IMMENSE. A lot was happening at that time of expansion for Rome.

 

[baywax]

It's ok, I took 4 years of Latin Granted... that was... a long time ago. Hmmm... O or M S T, Mus Tis, Nt...Yep, some of it is still there.

I take your point, but keep in mind that those people had a history of dictatorship (by any other name) prior to the "rise" of that period. Not to mention, that 6 month policy was as much for survival among rivals as anything else.

Caesar was also not just "Declaring" himself Dictator in Perpetuum, he was INCREDIBLY successful as a general and was given a fait accompli by the senate: Leave your armies, as all do, at the Rubicon despite your desire for more power. Caesar had enough men at his command loyal and popular acclaim, and THEN he revolted.

He wasn't granted rights, he took them and held them by force of arms and vicious politicking, until his assasination. History may gloss over some details on Wikipedia (doubt it though), but the granularity of the time was IMMENSE. A lot was happening at that time of expansion for Rome.

The 500,000 slaves led by Spartacus (the Thracian slave and gladiator who led a revolt against Rome in 73, but eventually was defeated by Crassus in 71 and crucified) certainly would beg to differ with regard to the efficiency of the Roman Empire or its Republic.

 

[Frame Dragger]

The 500,000 slaves led by Spartacus (the Thracian slave and gladiator who led a revolt against Rome in 73, but eventually was defeated by Crassus in 71 and crucified) certainly would beg to differ with regard to the efficiency of the Roman Empire or its Republic.

Who said it was efficient or not? That said, as they conquered a HUGE territory, invented concrete, and founded Londinium... Maybe they managed despite inefficiencies? Besides, slave labour can be highly efficient for a time, it's just morally wrong by most (and my) standards.

EDIT: Why on Earth would you feel the need to tell ANYONE who Spartacus was, given the fame of the movie? Even a teenager should know who he was, and what he did if not in such detail.

 

[Kajahtava]

It's ok, I took 4 years of Latin Granted... that was... a long time ago. Hmmm... O or M S T, Mus Tis, Nt...Yep, some of it is still there.

I didn't, I just looked at a Latin text one day and was like 'Wow, I can read this.', a couple of months later I began to spot grammatical errors. Now it's become my life's mission to correct metal bands on their dubious grammar. AD MAJOREM SATHANAS GLORIAM, ahahah. AD LVX TENEBRAE.

I take your point, but keep in mind that those people had a history of dictatorship (by any other name) prior to the "rise" of that period. Not to mention, that 6 month policy was as much for survival among rivals as anything else.

Caesar was also not just "Declaring" himself Dictator in Perpetuum, he was INCREDIBLY successful as a general and was given a fait accompli by the senate: Leave your armies, as all do, at the Rubicon despite your desire for more power. Caesar had enough men at his command loyal and popular acclaim, and THEN he revolted.

Well yeah, he was a populist. But I'm just explaining the position of dictator and that the other's didn't cease it. And that he just was dictator, but then till death.

He wasn't granted rights, he took them and held them by force of arms and vicious politicking, until his assasination. History may gloss over some details on Wikipedia (doubt it though), but the granularity of the time was IMMENSE. A lot was happening at that time of expansion for Rome.

Sure, he was popular and had loyal men, he's credited as a brilliant strategic mind.

However, the one thing that always goes wrong with this, even if you have a theoretical benevolent leader, is that sooner or later, that leader will die, and then you have a power vacuum that some one, oftenso less benevolent, will jump into.

 

[Frame Dragger]

I didn't, I just looked at a Latin text one day and was like 'Wow, I can read this.', a couple of months later I began to spot grammatical errors. Now it's become my life's mission to correct metal bands on their dubious grammar. AD MAJOREM SATHANAS GLORIAM, ahahah. AD LVX TENEBRAE.

Well yeah, he was a populist. But I'm just explaining the position of dictator and that the other's didn't cease it. And that he just was dictator, but then till death.

Sure, he was popular and had loyal men, he's credited as a brilliant strategic mind.

However, the one thing that always goes wrong with this, even if you have a theoretical benevolent leader, is that sooner or later, that leader will die, and then you have a power vacuum that some one, oftenso less benevolent, will jump into.

Oh yeah... that last point especially is right on the money. Caligula springs to mind *wince*.

 

[DanP]

Point is though, that dictator in the Roman Republic was a different thing. I was a position the Senate could vote to a person rei gerundae causā*. This was a position for six months, in which the dictator ('he who tells what must be done') was essentially impetuous, he could do whatever he wanted and not be held responsible, he was the law, the senate and the people. He could put people to death without trial, including political enemies, so this was an extreme measurement taken in times of great peril. Afterwards, after those six months, the senate could again appoint a dictator if the matter was not dealt with, which would usually be another.

Obviously, they chose people that were not extremely power hungry, and so often, the dictators resigned their position before the six months when the matter was dealt with. And not doing so is crippling to one's political career.

Caesar however lead an army against the senate, and demanded to be Dictator in Perpetuum. Dictator into perpetuity, he was granted the rights of dictator until his very death. That is why he was called a dictator, but it was a completely different position, he just enjoyed the same unlimited rights and transformed the Roman Republic, into the Roman Empire. All the other Dictators headed a republic.

You should pay a little more attention to what happened in fact during the Sulla / Marius civil war, and carefully consider if anyone "choose" Sulla for dictatorship. Whatever you have read on internet offered only a cursory glance on the period. You should study it thoroughly.

 

[DanP]

He wasn't granted rights, he took them and held them by force of arms and vicious politicking, until his assasination. History may gloss over some details on Wikipedia (doubt it though), but the granularity of the time was IMMENSE. A lot was happening at that time of expansion for Rome.

This is more or less what Sulla did. At the height at his power, the Senate couldn't grant/refuse him anything. In fact ,after he won the civil war, nobody in the republic was in the position to refuse him anything. His political opponents where mostly destroyed during the civil war and what was left of them labeled "enemy of the sate" and executed soon after. Conservative estimates say he killed ~1500 persons from the senator and equites classes to consolidate his rule.

Another fact is that his dictatorship was with no time limits.