I've been thinking a bit on this subject recently. I reckon it is far more important than some of the other topics that are going aroun (mostly is EU > US?).
It concerns a topic named social control.
But what is social control?
"Social control refers to social mechanisms that regulate individual and group behavior, in terms of greater sanctions and rewards. It may also designate the processes of informal social control such as custom and formal social control such as law of deviant behavior which falls beyond the bounds set by social norms. Social control is present in all societies, if only in the control mechanisms used to prevent its establishment in anarchic situations." -- Wikipedia
However, it is quite obvious that the best way to do so is via the use of fear
Don't tell me this doesn't exist. Almost every single political policy has used social control VIA fear to keep their citizens in check. To stop them asking the questions that they don't want asked. To keep them supporting the cause. To keep the money flowing.
Let me give you a few anecdotal examples.
Australia, 1949. After leading Australia through its most dangerous period yet (WWII), the Labour government is in crisis. It is quite clear that they were going to lose the election that year. And they did - to Robert Menzies.
How?
Through fear of communism. From 1946 - 1949 election, Menzies had attacked the Labour government by being pro-socialist and pro-communist (It didn't help that the 1949 coal strike all but confirmed this argument). Of course, this was not true - Labour was certainly left-leaning, but my no means did they call for violent communist action that the USSR and China had/were going through.
Menzies stayed in power unril 1966 - when he retired. His ENTIRE election campaigns throughout the 15 years had been based on fear of communism. This way, he kept the people under his control. The Liberal party, following Menzies example, used Communism as an election-winner until 1972 - when Gough Whitlam took over. By now, the communist fear was starting to dissipate, and the Vietnam War hadn't gone down too well recently. But - How had they campaigned in that election?
Well, A TV advertisement in 1974 for the Liberal party shows it all:
"Australia is at the crossroads. On the left we have the non competitive, un Australian socialistic Labour party..."
By now the ploy had failed. Why? People no longer feared the communists as much. They wanted more than a government that would protect them against a dying threat.
More examples:
The company Dow Corning was driven out of business and forced to pain 3.2 billion dollars. Lawyers became very rich.
Over what? Breast implants.
'Studies' showed that they caused cancer and other diseases. Fear skyrocketed. Money was pocketed.
Three years later, another study shows that they DO NOT CAUSE ANY DISEASE. But nobody cared. The fear was gone - the money had been given.
Another one.
25 billion has been spent on clearing up 'phone line cancer'. No threat. Everybody went crazy with fear, and meanwhile, the governments sat on their backsides while the more important questions weren't being asked.
So, MY question is:
Is fear used for social control ethical? Is it reasonable? Why?
It concerns a topic named social control.
But what is social control?
"Social control refers to social mechanisms that regulate individual and group behavior, in terms of greater sanctions and rewards. It may also designate the processes of informal social control such as custom and formal social control such as law of deviant behavior which falls beyond the bounds set by social norms. Social control is present in all societies, if only in the control mechanisms used to prevent its establishment in anarchic situations." -- Wikipedia
However, it is quite obvious that the best way to do so is via the use of fear
Don't tell me this doesn't exist. Almost every single political policy has used social control VIA fear to keep their citizens in check. To stop them asking the questions that they don't want asked. To keep them supporting the cause. To keep the money flowing.
Let me give you a few anecdotal examples.
Australia, 1949. After leading Australia through its most dangerous period yet (WWII), the Labour government is in crisis. It is quite clear that they were going to lose the election that year. And they did - to Robert Menzies.
How?
Through fear of communism. From 1946 - 1949 election, Menzies had attacked the Labour government by being pro-socialist and pro-communist (It didn't help that the 1949 coal strike all but confirmed this argument). Of course, this was not true - Labour was certainly left-leaning, but my no means did they call for violent communist action that the USSR and China had/were going through.
Menzies stayed in power unril 1966 - when he retired. His ENTIRE election campaigns throughout the 15 years had been based on fear of communism. This way, he kept the people under his control. The Liberal party, following Menzies example, used Communism as an election-winner until 1972 - when Gough Whitlam took over. By now, the communist fear was starting to dissipate, and the Vietnam War hadn't gone down too well recently. But - How had they campaigned in that election?
Well, A TV advertisement in 1974 for the Liberal party shows it all:
"Australia is at the crossroads. On the left we have the non competitive, un Australian socialistic Labour party..."
By now the ploy had failed. Why? People no longer feared the communists as much. They wanted more than a government that would protect them against a dying threat.
More examples:
The company Dow Corning was driven out of business and forced to pain 3.2 billion dollars. Lawyers became very rich.
Over what? Breast implants.
'Studies' showed that they caused cancer and other diseases. Fear skyrocketed. Money was pocketed.
Three years later, another study shows that they DO NOT CAUSE ANY DISEASE. But nobody cared. The fear was gone - the money had been given.
Another one.
25 billion has been spent on clearing up 'phone line cancer'. No threat. Everybody went crazy with fear, and meanwhile, the governments sat on their backsides while the more important questions weren't being asked.
So, MY question is:
Is fear used for social control ethical? Is it reasonable? Why?
The paradox is only a conflict between reality and your feeling what reality ought to be.
~ Richard Feynman
~ Richard Feynman