jueves, 22 de noviembre de 2007

Is the state justified?

Limberg Chero S.

Justifying the state is one of the big problems. Particularly I believe in the utilitarian way to explain it.

The premises of utilitarianism operate if they have the accurate concept as mentioned Wolff (2006). I will try to justify each of them according to the author and thinking them according my concept of “boiling republics”, like I believe, have to be called republics that are around me in South America.

The first premise says that the best society is one in which happiness is maximized. This premise has an entire arsenal of arguments according with and against with it. Within the first we find that if we do not see the body as a whole could not say maximization, because –we suppose- in a lot of cases, individual actions would require breaking the law, and the action of breaking the law originates lower levels of welfare in the long-term.

So, I say that this first premise of utilitarianism can be understood if utility is seen as a present value (resorted to financial theory) of all values (each one maximized). This is an effort unconventional because it is not easy to discriminate what acts are in favor and what are against this "maximization" as a sum of “all people utility”, and “all times utility” moved to the present. My thesis is that although it is unclear what is maximized at all, we know that assets make possible a better State in the future are those that are based on the best current structure. Without miss in the details, I can say that a democratic state -understood like quantitative consensus of several intelligences- is much more successful than others. In South America, this is an issue that should be taken into account because the greater common good is debated today, but this debate ignores if the theory you use is correct respect a consensus to clarify that " present value maximized” or contrary, give this to the free will of a State that instead of representing the response to the state of nature, lets you abandoned at it (Venezuela, for example). The moral values or loading counter example no longer have sustain when the starting point is raised within the reality.

The second premise, linked to the previous one, says that the state promotes happiness better than the other State of nature. In this regard, we know that the best situations achievable with the State -in the utilitarist meaning- but we can not say that reach de happiness unless we put a prerequisite to the role of policy makers.

The alternative between State and State of nature as a dichotomy is interesting because it provides us the basis for identifying the actual real States. In the case of Latin America, while our work from the political philosophy is to say how should be a government, in our region should also speak this with the mission of forming the concept and keeping it alive because it is not easy to make State only as obligation. We need this powerful idea: If we have not state, something that we do not wanted will keep his domain every day in many poor areas of Latin America.

Is it justified? From a utilitarian point of view and militant state: Yes!

No hay comentarios: