Compos Mentis

Systems and Selection

This will probably be more brief than is usual for me, but only because I really should be sleeping now instead of typing. I get that a lot here. No one understands that it is much more important to finish the book I am currently reading instead of, say, eating dinner before the cafeteria closes.
Anyway. The honors program here has a seminar on Tuesday nights, and it was there that this train of thought hit me. I had considered this before, though without outside evidence, and I actually believe that nobody has stated this as a rule before. So let me put forth the Tribolet Principle (patent pending):
Any system that someone claims ought to be in place (and therefore is not already in place) will not be inherently superior to any present system if the only improving factor is that it will be more morally acceptable. That is, saying a theoretical system will be better because it is more moral than the one in place is fallacious and false. The basic idea that is behind this is that systems, in themselves, are amoral: that is, neither good nor bad. I do admit that some systems are easier to corrupt than others and so become immoral. But the theoretical system is amoral essentially because it has no people in it. Until we get a way to accurately simulate every person's behavior, every moral discussion involving systems is overlooking some aspect of human nature. As such, the theoretical systems are not describing people and so are not moral one way or another.
The examples are plentiful, though perhaps the most obvious is communism. Theoretically, communism seems to be a very morally acceptable philosophy. As it turns out, it is just easily corrupted. More to the real point, my principle refers to laws and minor changes in a current political system. To argue for a law because it would promote moral behavior is useless because it is the implementation and actions of the individuals involved that the moral aspect begins and ends, and not in the creation of laws at all. I remember learning about, in psychology, the riddle of the pharmacy: would you break a law in order to serve a higher good, i.e. save someone's life? I believe my principle explains that paradox.
patent pending, patent pending, patent pending.

(I'm adding this later to clarify what I mean by system: the above post is too vague on the subject and has led to confusion)
The easiest example of system that applies to the Tribolet Principle is a political system, obviously. But I've found more broad applications, such as economic systems and the rules thereof, and even ecclesiastical systems and their rules. So any definition has to be more general than a political system.
I've found that the systems that the Principle can be applied have to be dealing with people rather than facts or objects, and have to exert some amount of control over the actions of the people who live under that system. Otherwise the system cannot have moral consequences. So the Principle only works for systems that shape some aspect of moral behavior, even if that is not the primary aspect of the system. If I talk about this again, and I probably will, I will call these systems moral systems.

posted by Emmett @ 23:05