The physical strength lies in the governed
William Paley wrote in his Principles of Moral and Political Philosophy, (1785, Book VI, Chapter 2),
there is nothing in the human character which would more surprise us, than the almost universal subjugation of strength to weakness — than to see many millions of robust men, in the complete use and exercise of their faculties, and without any defect of courage, waiting upon the will of a child, a woman, a driveller, or a lunatic. And although … we suppose perhaps an extreme case; yet in all cases, even in the most popular forms of civil government, the physical strength lies in the governed. In what manner opinion thus prevails over strength, or how power, which naturally belongs to the superior force, is maintained in opposition to it; in other words, by what motives the many are induced to submit to the few, becomes an inquiry which lies at the root of almost every political speculation.
The question still remains some 200 years later. How is it that the proletariat, despite complaints and a common agreement that "this isn't right", subjugate themselves to the law-makers and wealth-controllers of their nations, when they not only help to build and maintain the proverbial prisons within which they are contained, but at the same time hold all the keys to the locks and are able to free themselves from this bondage?
Sat, 13th Sep 2008 7:55:26 +01:00
An answer to be considered is the inculcation or the improper derivation through inductive reasoning of the notions of the good and the bad as pre-existing and not as a result of an analytical process within a specific context.
Will the individual come to realize that value is also not existent outside of contextual evaluation and are they willing to "loose" the "certainty" of now for the "uncertainty" of the future?
There is more to this but I've that category to be a recurring factor.
Using