In regard to the morality of dictatorships, it's interesting to think about them from the perspective of whether the means justifies the ends...
If a dictator has imposed extreme regulations on a country that completely restrict citizen choice and freedom, but such regulations produce a positive outcome, can the means in which the ends are achieved be justified?
For example say a dictator removed all access to unhealthy foods, subsidised all healthy foods and forced every citizen to participate in government exercise classes (very extreme so this is obviously in theory), but the end result was a populace with lower mortality rates and lower rates of chronic diseases, would the means justify the end?
Some would say freedom of choice to make unhealthy or healthy decisions is more important and that people should be free to make those choices even if it means they die younger or develop chronic diseases. Others would agree that restrictions on the individual to achieve a greater collective good are worth it and just.
What does everyone else think?
Olivia - good questions, but do we have good examples of this?
ReplyDeleteThese issues played out in the 20th century in the context of economic development: what restrictions on people's liberty were justified in order to develop economically a country? For example, many governments prevented workers form unionizing, repressed labor movements, etc. (See, e.g., South Korea under Park). Are these restrictions justified? Or are they only justified if they lead to actual economic development? (And not if the country remains poor)