• aidan@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    Medicine has a clear goal- politics do not. That is one of many reasons that good governance should not be looked for only in academia. A really simple example, if I run for senate should I campaign on policies that help my state but cause diffuse harm nationally or should I campaign on policies that may cause specific harm to my state but are good nationally? I’m not asking which you would win with, I’m asking which is being a good senator? Should I respect the will of their constituents if it conflicts with my personal morality? If I’m a member of group which feels underrepresented in or betrayed by higher-level academia should members of that group vote in a member of academia regardless? Even within a technocracy, ignoring voters, there still has to be aligned goals with the “gatekeepers” to be included in the technocracy- otherwise they will see your conclusions and deem you wrong, unfit. People can be fully informed, acting in 100% good faith, and equally intelligent and still disagree on moral principles and therefore will strongly differ in conclusions.

    • rusticus@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      “Medicine has a clear goal - politics do not. “

      This has got to be the dumbest reply and rationalization I’ve ever heard. They are both professions. And best served by educated professionals. You think there’s no subjectivity in medicine? lol.

      • aidan@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        I think medicine has a goal of health of a patient. That is generally clearly defined. Of course there is ambiguity over proper treatment, but generally for majority of medicine there is clear goals.

        • rusticus@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          I think politician has a goal of health of a nation. FTFY.

          Your argument is stupid. Stop making yourself look the same.

          • aidan@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            Why does health of a nation matter? I don’t agree. And what does health of a nation mean?

            I’d prefer a politician who let’s a nation collapse but greatly improves the quality of life of many. (Like what Gorbachev could’ve been.)

            • rusticus@lemm.ee
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              Lol. I’m sure you would agree that improving the quality of life of many is improving the health of a nation. QED.

                • rusticus@lemm.ee
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  Medicine has a clear goal- politics do not. That is one of many reasons that good governance should not be looked for only in academia.

                  To get back to the point of this discussion, your contention is literally the dumbest point I’ve heard in a long time. Politicians are professionals just like doctors. Education is important.

                  • aidan@lemmy.world
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    arrow-down
                    2
                    ·
                    1 year ago

                    Politicians are not professionals like doctors, they are supposed to represent voters views, not be subject experts.