/lit/ - Literature

I'm sick of this meme. While the Melian Dialogue does deal with the question of justice and power, it by no means meant to be a statement that 'might makes right' or 'BTFOing moralfags'. The relationship between power and justice in the text is tied with questions of autonomy and necessity. To put it briefly, power is needed for a city to gain autonomy over their actions. And autonomy is needed for any action to be considered just or unjust, because questions of justice, blame, culpability, morality, and virtue are only relevant to those whose actions and decisions are voluntary. In the Melian Dialogue we’re presented with a major power imbalance between Athens and Melos, a point that the Athenian envoy makes clear to be integral to the discussion (when Melos suggests they withdraw and settle matters on equal footing). The famous quote
>you understand as well as we do that in the human sphere judgements about justice are relevant only between those with equal power to enforce it, and the possibilities are defined by what the strong do and what the weak accept (more famous translation: since you know as well as we do that right, as the world goes, is only in question between equals in power, the strong do what they may, the weak suffer what they must)
Is simply a continuation of this point about autonomy and justice: Melos does not have the power to define the terms of the discussion, so they must cede to the Athenian’s demands; the Athenians have the power to decide the confines of the dialogue, and they choose to ground it in interests and dismiss appeals to justice. If power gives a city the autonomy to pursue justice, it also gives them the autonomy to ignore it. Which the Melians acknowledge in the very reply
>and we are forced to speak in terms of advantage since you have just established that expediency as opposed to justice is the basis for discussion
Only between equals, where neither side has such a preponderance of power to define the outcome of a debate regardless of what is said, are arguments of justice ultimately convincing. It isn’t a point that the Athenians actions are just, but that they have the power to ‘do what they may’, while the Melians are subject to necessity and ‘suffer what they must’. Neither suppose that in forcing this rule for the discussion the Athenians are somehow now defining interests to be morality and their interests as what is just. Or that in dismissing justice as the topic of discussion that justice no longer exists.
It is more complex than that, and despite their overtures to the contrary, the Athenians here actually are at least somewhat motivated by justice. But for a TLDR this is all you really have to know. I will explain the connection of justice and power (especially the Athenian view) more fully but it’ll be a long read—if you choose to read any more it is your own choice, so don’t bitch at me for it being too long.

>>16473672
The advocacy of technocracy demonstrates a fundamental misunderstanding of politics. Politics is and will always be a moral endeavour. To reduce politics to mere administration isn't the progression of politics, but its annihilation. It is the spirit of the economist who sees men as mere numbers to be measured and manipulated—an autistic view of mankind unfitting of political matters.
Politics deals with the normative concerns of society. What does a chemist know of justice? or a doctor of equality? what insights into the human character does an engineer uniquely posses? None which stem from their occupation. The problems of politics are not technical problems.
Perhaps instead you mean the department of commerce should be run by economists, and the department of health by doctors? This is the logic of a child. The proper administration of these sectors is a skill entirely separate from being able to perform the jobs being administrated. But, you may further add, they have an understanding of the sector through their previous occupation, so they will know the specifics of the problems at hand. If you had any knowledge of politics you would realise that such people are already consulted on the technical aspects of policy, which dissolves any advantage the technocrat may have. If not experts in this sense, then experts in what? experts in politics and administration? Isn't that precisely the system and problem we already have?
Perhaps then it is not the administration, but the vote that is the problem. The vote only selects for the most popular, and not the best, right? But every system has its own selection pressures. Replace the democratic spectacle with bureaucratic shuffle, and the politician with the mandarin. We should not suppose this system any better at recruiting the competent, no matter if that is construed as something as low as the best bean-counter. Rather the sycophantic and immoral. So you take away the vote, and instead of being beholden to the whims of the people they are beholden to the whims of bureaucrats and party chiefs. Rather than have discretion to act curtailed and shaped by the beliefs of the people, you have the iron cage of regulation and personal connections. You retard the polities character, erode all safeguards against arbitrary coercion, and provide fertile ground and ready-made tools for tyrants. As you clearly lack even a basic political education, i will suggest you look up how Stalin gained power of the Politburo to discover the fate of your utopia. You reduce politics to mere administration and destroy any possibility of moral discretion. Implementation of policy is the least part of politics, yet the part you want to raise highest while gaining not even that.
Technocracy is the system wished for by fools, staffed by knaves, and run by tyrants. Know that if you ever attempted to put your system into practice, i would be the first to pick up a gun and scatter your brain across the pavement.