Every legal system, government system, ideal or religion can be perfect however the people who implementing it or in control is the one who is flaw. E.g. communism, it a perfect system if the one who is in control really work for the society however look what happen to Russia and China, a group of selfish people exploiting the pooor. Religion, if use for the better of society, can save millions of souls however if use for the worse like incitment of religious war could cause death of millions too. Too many religious leader involve in politic that they should not such as the Pope and the Buddhism leader in Taiwan. Whatever perfect ideals, religion, system will always be tinted as the human who use them is flaw themselves already.
This is show in the movie of Minority Report by Tom Cruise and in real life of how religion can be misuse, ideal can be misuse, law can be misuse etc.
2007-04-26 16:12:39 · 6 answers · asked by lakaria_2000 5 in Arts & Humanities ➔ Philosophy
Some answer I got is unsatisfactory, if you cannot answer my question please kindly do not attempt to reply
2007-04-26 16:29:13 · update #1
I start to get some real good answer, thanks and hope to get more.
2007-04-26 17:48:00 · update #2
It sounds good at first. The problem is that you need perfect leadership. In short, you need a perfect god or the Christian concept of GOD. Such a leader would not have the problems you observe. Such a leader would know everything and always do what is best never making a mistake.
What is the solution? We cannot get a perfect leader. We can get a system with redundancy and back-up plans. That is what the United States' system of government attempts. As a system gets more complicated, the tendency for errors and failure increases. The need for back-up protocols increases. On the other extreme, with too simple a system if one leader is knocked out then you lose most of your system.
In the end, we are still imperfect beings doing the best we can. You are right, but we have nothing better with which to work. My personal preference is a system where individuals have more freedom and decision making abilities. That coupled with the idea of neighborhoods, friendship and love makes for a mutually beneficial relationship. "You scratch my back while I scratch yours." Too bad we're a little greedy with getting our own back scratched first and most.
2007-04-26 16:41:09 · answer #1 · answered by Jack 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Intent is a BIG deal when it comes to this stuff. You need to remember that for ideas like communism, these ideas are usually incepted by one person or a small group of people, and these people honestly have a compassionate intent for their fellow citizens to make the best system they can to help everyone. It is never (or rarely) those same people who lead the system, and those who are placed into power, well you simply don't know where their intent lies. Those who seek power rarely are those who should have it as most people enjoy being better then everyone. These sorts of people like having t he upper hand, wielding the power to do more then the "average" person. They want to be better and elite, and as long as those people are the ones who get into seats of power, governments will eventually break.
What is required (in my opinion) to break this sort or tyranny is a more genuine effort at helping others in every person in the society. When there are more ethics and morals and social norms that support helping people instead of taking advantage of them (unlike today...) there will naturally be more people who are altruistic, and those are the ones who will feel compelled to fill the seat of power, they won't yearn for it.
You are right, the flaw is human, but isn't nothing rational growth will not fix. The trouble is getting people to be rational and abandon long clung-on-to
delusions, such as the delusion of stability. Just about everyone in the western world loves stability, but life is anything but. Society, technology, and people all never stop changing, and until we learn that we must change with it, we are going to be in a lot of hurt.
2007-04-26 16:51:24 · answer #2 · answered by neuralzen 3 · 1⤊ 0⤋
The system is only going to be as perfect as the people who designed it are......
There is always the possibility that human error may flaw a system, but resilient people can make changes so that that system will do what it is designed to do. The problem, on a grander scale, is what changes will be made to the system and why? To speed it up? To make it more versatile? To narrow the range of success? To encompass or leave out more people?
A "pure" system is for one purpose only. Having said that, it cannot be perfect for everyone...... So, you cannot have a perfect system that works for everyone unless everyone is an identical replica.....
2007-04-26 16:50:58 · answer #3 · answered by Patricia D 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋
The system is perfect, the flaw is human.
This is a flawed statement in my opinion. The system exists in the human society and to serve/better human lives. If the system didn't anticipate and incorporate human variables, how can it be called a perfect system?
A perfect system must be resilient enough to anticipate, incorporate, and recover from participants varying behaviors.
Are human the flaw? You have to go back to the definition of perfect. What is a perfect human? One with no flaw? Is that really a perfect human when human are the ones with emotions and variable reactions to the same stimuli?
By the way, where is the question in this?
2007-04-26 16:19:12 · answer #4 · answered by tkquestion 7 · 0⤊ 1⤋
I understand your point here.... But the thought process involved with it itself is flawed! Sorry.
No system or process created by human beings can be perfect because its origins, basis, foundation as you point out is flawed.
Human beings are inherently flawed by design! Anything which comes from them is as well.
2007-04-26 17:33:57 · answer #5 · answered by Izen G 5 · 1⤊ 0⤋
who created what you call the "system"? your statement is contradictory.
0
2007-04-26 16:26:28 · answer #6 · answered by arha 2 · 0⤊ 1⤋