Cool, Thanks for replying.
Quote:
Originally Posted by The_Dunedan
The virtuous many should not suffer for the mistakes or idiocies of the vicious few.
|
Interesting. Certainly sounds pro-freedom. Obviously in opposition to any idea of a Nanny state (I fully concur.)
I suspect this thread is going to veer into the moral and ideological philosophy
The word that is most interesting is vicious.
My assumption is that the persons who write texts which have a negative effect must surely fit into two categories; Those who are incorrect, perhaps deluded, but nonetheless their ideas stem from a failure to reason logically (Not that this makes them lacking in virtue - or even lacking in intelligence, as some factors simply aren't foreseeable. For example, I think of Marx as a fiercely intelligent man with the best in mind, and he couldn't possibly have realized his ideas would go where they did.)
And conversely, those who write with intentions of control, or of meeting their own agendas. Is it not only this category who are vicious? It certainly seems that those who follow their ideas may be following them due to it meeting their own, similar agendas. But their must be those who are genuinely deluded, or have seen reason where there is none.
Perhaps I should expand by giving the specific example of the works of Marx. The Communist Manifesto is a text that aims to explore an alternate method of society, however, ultimately it resulted in alot of death, misery and... negativity. Now of course, this is partially due to latter interpretation and meddling by those who sought only to serve themselves, but ultimately it all rose out of an attempt to install a new set of ideas.
Would you perhaps argue that ultimately it all needed to be done? That it was essentially inevitable? Obviously quite a utilitarian view, but worth consideration. Is it a case of the deluded needing to have been proven wrong conclusively, and the propagation of the books, religious, political, theoretical, allows this to take place?
(I'd probably add that the religious is perhaps slightly less open to being proven anything, as for some of the major religions, their topic is an idea which obviously aims to transcend earthly ideas of evidence, and of course, it is impossible to prove that anything happens in the afterward.)