[1] I believe in Capitalism, with an element of Socialism..........I believe Communism is good only in theory, however in practice, it's incompatible with how the world really works. There's ample evidence of Communist leaders, i.e. Stalin, Mao, who ended up as cruel dictators.....whenever you give the government full control of politics, social and economy, the leaders tend to become corrupt, and which is why Communism will never work....so you need a way to balance power, so that corruption is minimized.
ideally I prefer capitalism because it gives everyone incentive to work hard and earn what they've worked for...........I also prefer a capitalist system with some mild form of socialism, but not too much to the point where the government is giving free handouts to the poor, because this, too, can be problematic.....it will spoil people and deprive people of incentive to work hard, therefore people will become lazy and overly dependent on the government.
A welfare state (socialist) is good, but only to the point of guiding the unemployed back to stable economic situations........and not too excessive as to spoil them by giving them free money.
[2]
Egalitarianism - while I do believe that we are all humans and we all have the right to being treated equally by the government, I don't necessarily think that we are all "equal", in every sense of the word.
In truth, some are more superior than others.
example, in physical terms, I think Michael Jordan will kick my ass in basketball. Therefore I think he is superior -- it's simply fact, and there's no denying that.
intellectual superiority/inferiority...........there's some who are smarter, and dumber...it's reality....let's face it.
etc. etc.
but in moral terms, while I think everyone are "not equal", we still need to treat each other as if we were all equal.
Some are rich and some are poor, it's just the way life works............but I think I have a human right to be treated fairly by the government, as the government will treat a more priviledged caste/class...
Altruism
well, normally I'm pretty selfish, especially with strangers....
i.e. if a homeless guy asks me for some change, typically I'll only give him something, if I'm not "broke"....
when it comes to people I know and love, I'm more altruistic....
instinctively if my brother needs an organ, i.e. a liver, I'll voluntarily give up my spare organ....and it's not because I will benefit from it and be considered a hero or anything like that, but because as his brother, I'd commit a selfless act such as that, for him....and that to me is as altruistic as I will get.......but if a situations calls for me to choose: give up my life or my brother will die.........I will narrowly choose to save my own life...............heck...I want to live!! I don't think that's selfish.
so I'm not the most altruistic person, and I wish to improve on this..........a lot of it stems from ego self attachments.....if we can somehow withdraw from worldly lifestyle and pursue a path of hermits or mendicants, and think less of ourselves, then I think naturally this would make you more sensitive to the needs of others and thus make you more altruistic.
egoism I'm not familiar with this term....but skimming really quickly over the wiki links.....I disagree with this concept.
while I do think and agree, to some extent, that our actions are motivated by self-interest, it's all a matter of conditioning.
If you condition yourself to think less of yourself and think more of the community, then I think over time, you can achieve a level of thinking or way of perception of things, at which your actions will be motivated less by your self interest, but more in regard of the interest of the community.....I've already provided an example of how to "condition" yourself to think this way: withdraw from the materialist mentality and pursue a life of a wanderer, sustaining yourself only with minimal needs, i.e. clothes, food, etc.
example, the Buddha lived like this....also, Mahatma Gandhi.....it was reported that after he died, he only had in his possession less than two dollars!
Consequentialism
again, not familiar with the term.....
but I'll take a stab at it...
according to the definition by wiki, it says, more or less, that it is the consequence, or results of your actions, that really counts..........whatever your motives for committing that act in the first place, whether they were moral or not, is irrelevant.
I strongly disagree with this concept.
I think one example will suffice:
hypothetically, suppose I am a pedophile with the intent of committing a sex act with a minor.
however, in the process of committing this act, I somehow managed to help her escape what would have been her death...........suppose her apartment building exploded due to an accident.........had I not brought her to my home that instant, she would have died in her apartment..........according "consequentialism", my pedophillic actions resulted in her escaping her death, which turns out to be good, therefore, my action is "moral" due to the positive results, and my motives are of no value.
I think that the motive for acting, is equally as important, as the outcome of your actions. It all depends on the specific situation.
another example:
Karl Marx - he came up with a theory that aims to help the poor and improve their human condition. I think his intent is moral, and he was well-meaning.
what did Stalin do? he distorted Marx's ideas and in the end, developed Communism that turned out to be in the worse interest of the common people, due to government corruption, etc.............bad results/outcome/consequence...........therefore Marx = immoral, according to consequentialism................I argue that Marx remains moral, because he had no bad intent....it was all the fault of Stalin and all the others who distorted his message.
Utilitarianism
basically: greatest good for the greatest number of people.....again I would have to slightly disagree with this.........although it isn't as extreme as consequentialism.....
I don't think that the "ends justify the means".........and if someone was to follow the principle of utilitarianism, then there is a human tendency to defy ethics just so the outcome will benefit the greater good....
example:
embryonic stem cell research...
while I am an agnostic, I do have a respect for the views and ethics of religious people.
The religious argument is that embryos are considered human beings, and by employing research on an embryo, is synonymous to killing a human being.
The atheist argument is that embryos are just cells, therefore it is ok to use them for research...........
but since this is such a delicate topic, in which, we are dealing with "human lives", I'd have to give the religious side the benefit of the doubt.
even though I'm an agnostic and agree that embryos are "cells", I cannot simply disregard the views of the religious people, especially since in their view, a human being's life is at stake.
it's that simple..
as an agnostic, I would prefer not to have the religious people force religion on me, and likewise, I would prefer not to force agnosticism on the religious people, as well.
utilitarianism is complicated.......I think there is always an element of "sacrifice" involved, in which the person or thing being sacrificed, is rendered "expendable", in order to benefit the many..............and sometimes the "means" in getting to the goal, can be unethical or immoral......as in the above example.
even if you do not have an -ism, tell me what you believe in generally. Democratic world? Or pure monarchy? Or even theocracy.
In theory, I believe in benevolent dictatorship, but the problem with this is that it is susceptible to hereditary rule, which tends to become corrupt; or sometimes relying too much on one person who may or may not be a good leader, can also be dangerous to the interests of the state.
Monarchy can be good, but most of the time it is bad.....and as already mentioned, hereditary rule is usually a bad thing.
theocracy -- it depends what religion we're talking about. If it's some native tribal religion that worships rocks or some kind of primitive religion, then I cannot hold my theocratic rulers to a very high esteem.
theocracy can be good or bad......again, there is an element of elitism and monopoly or rule, that tends to corruption............whenever power and authority is shared by a few in control of the many, this is usually the case............and theocracy (rule of the religious elite) is not an exception.
So in the final analysis, I believe in Democracy, in theory and in practice. Although progress in decision making tends to be slow due to the often bickering of politicians, the most important aspect of democracy is that authority and power is shared between the elected officials, and in which the people themselves, the ordinary citizens, have power, i.e. to vote.
Also, corruption is "checked", because politicians are competing and making sure everyone is playing fairly according to the legal rules of politics.
And last, not even the president, is above the law, under a democracy.
sorry for the long post..
