Philosophy Discussion Forums | A Humans-Only Club for Open-Minded Discussion & Debate

[Sushan]

...any attempt to qualify something, should set up a measurable criteria to do so. Anyone could replicate the measurement and at least we can talk objectively about the distance from the point of reference.

Why on Earth would we wish to discuss a topic like this "objectively"? I think it's pretty clear to all of us that the 'greatness' of a country is not suited to that kind of scrutiny. It's a human value judgement. As such, we're probably lucky that it's even intelligible!

Even most bizarre topics have formulas. Several years back I saw a formula that help women to choose their high heels, what a great formula! . So, even this topic can be objectively assesed if such a formula was there. Since there is none we are able to discuss about this, for and against.

[Sushan]

Why on Earth would we wish to discuss a topic like this "objectively"?

Is it because one would like to have an opinion that is more than one's personal, subjective, visceral, point of view, making it a rational subject of discussion instead of mere exhortation to share one's gut-felt beliefs?

Only the subjective matters can be subjected to argument. Anyone can choose not to accept objective facts as well, like people who still believe in the earth being flat. And also I think people love to argue, prove their points, and be superior among the peers. That pleasure will be lost if everything had objective measures.

[Count Lucanor]

Why on Earth would we wish to discuss a topic like this "objectively"?

Is it because one would like to have an opinion that is more than one's personal, subjective, visceral, point of view, making it a rational subject of discussion instead of mere exhortation to share one's gut-felt beliefs?

Only the subjective matters can be subjected to argument. Anyone can choose not to accept objective facts as well, like people who still believe in the earth being flat. And also I think people love to argue, prove their points, and be superior among the peers. That pleasure will be lost if everything had objective measures.

Nah, objective truth has such a lovely architecture.

[Good_Egg]

What is the actual need of an objective way to measure the greatness of a country? I see none.

If you mean that there is no need to know whether France is a greater country than Italy, for example, then I agree.

But it seems to me that if the government of France wants to increase the pride which the French feel for France - the belief among the French that France is great - it will be more successful if it has a clearer idea of what values they want France to embody.

An inter-subjective idea rather than an objective one...

[Pattern-chaser]

I think such an objective formula, as you suggested, is better to consider ongoing facts and to decide whether a country is great or not.

Why do we strive so hard for objectivity and certainty, especially in matters, such as this one, where neither objectivity nor certainty is possible?

"What makes a country great?" is a question that calls for a value judgement. Value judgements cannot be codified, as far as I am aware. So there will be no "formula", I don't think.

[Pattern-chaser]

Objective measures are necessary to avoid arguments. If there was an objective measure this author may not have a cause to even write his book, and America may not have been divided based on what Trump said. If there was an objective score either he would have been accepted or merely rejected. All the arguments are occurred due to the uncertainty.

I'm sorry, but this resembles the "if only..." thinking of the Objectivist. If we were Objective, if we had certainty, then many arguments would be avoidable. Yes, of course this is true. It's more (and less!) than true: it's just stating the obvious. But it is make-believe.

In our real lives, in the real world, there is little or no certainty available/accessible to us. We need to deal with the world as we find it, and the world we find is filled with uncertainty, which will lead to disagreement in some cases. To fall back on "it would all be alright if we were only certain" is to run away from the problem, instead of facing it, I think.

[gad-fly]

What is greatness actually with regard to a country? Is it its history, current status, GDP, people, economy, politics, or something else? Or is this merely a word used to discriminate countries and their people? Or is greatness merely an illusion?

Is it . . .? Yes, everything. Great is a general adjective to compliment. Is it a word to discriminate? Someone hunting for demon would say that. Is it an illusion? To say that is a delusion to escape from facing reality.

If its a general complement, those who disagree can say not great. Complements are used not only to complement, but to discriminate as well. We do not say great to everyone or everything, and that means the ones that are not mentioned are not so great, and that is a piece of discrimination.

You may be insinuating 'compliment' with 'discrimination'. "My father is great" is a statement, especially on Father's Day. It is never meant to degrade other fathers.

Why not say: Fathers are great? Because that is a different statement, and because I know few other fathers to make that statement.

[Sculptor1]

Q: What makes a Country Great?7

A: Not having a leader like Trump.
A: one in which the government truly serves the wishes of the people.
A: One which accepts that the Will of the people is Law.

Few countries come near these criteria. Iceland is close.

[Ecurb]

Q: What makes a Country Great?7

A: Not having a leader like Trump.
A: one in which the government truly serves the wishes of the people.
A: One which accepts that the Will of the people is Law.

Few countries come near these criteria. Iceland is close.

I'll go along with #1, but what if the "wishes of the people" include electing "President Trump"? Or the "will of the people" involves concentration camps and invasions? The will of the people is not reliable. Guarantees of certain individual rights that cannot be denied by the "will (whims?) of the people" are also important criteria.

[GE Morton]

Q: What makes a Country Great?7

A: Not having a leader like Trump.
A: one in which the government truly serves the wishes of the people.
A: One which accepts that the Will of the people is Law.

The wishes of which people? If the country is comprised of more than one person, those wishes will be diverse, incommensurable, incompatible, and probably antagonistic.

Are you speaking of the "Will" of majorities? That has produced slavery, witch-burning laws, Jim Crow laws, anti-gay (sodomy) laws, Bolshevikism, fascism, and countless other oppressions over the last few centuries. Democracy doesn't have a good track record.

[Sculptor1]

Q: What makes a Country Great?7

A: Not having a leader like Trump.
A: one in which the government truly serves the wishes of the people.
A: One which accepts that the Will of the people is Law.

Few countries come near these criteria. Iceland is close.

I'll go along with #1, but what if the "wishes of the people" include electing "President Trump"?

That is a poor claim. If you take into account a few basic facts.
1) Trump polled fewer votes than Hilary Clinton, 3 million fewer.
2) The broken system of US elections only offers two people, with very little difference between them as President in such a large population.
3) This is reflected in the shocking turnout for most elections. Trump received the keys to the kingdom with draconian powers yet only around 24% of the people cast their ballots for him.
4) There is a far more fundamental problem here. The entire agenda of the country is run by a tiny minority of media Moghuls who manufacture consent, and control candidacy. One hopes that social media might mitigate against this, but that too now is attracting serious controls.

So nah the will of the people was never to chose any President ever in office.

Or the "will of the people" involves concentration camps and invasions? The will of the people is not reliable. Guarantees of certain individual rights that cannot be denied by the "will (whims?) of the people" are also important criteria.

People are better than you think
But what of it?
Would you prefer a tyrant to build the camps and invoke invasions or allow people to join a war at their own choice?
In a true democracy compulsory conscription would be impossible

[Sushan]

If you are a digital nomad or a nomad capitalist, then economic opportunities in the local economy do not matter.

Therefore, the greatness of a country primarily depends on the extent to which:

(1) the country leaves you, your private life, your income, and your money alone.

(2) the country, or rather the city, has basic utilities such as electricity, running water, and internet.

Hence, most countries outside the West are great.

Even China and Russia score relatively well compared to the West. A place like Mogadishu (Somalia) could nowadays already be more attractive to live in than New York. Cheaper and better!

What you are describing can be claimed as 'a great place to live', and I totally agree with you. And there are many countries that are better than America when lliving conditions are taken into consideration. Yet, many people outside America look up to America with an idea like 'the land of promising'. I think a country should have something more than merely having good living conditions fot people to have such a feeling.

[Ecurb]

Q: What makes a Country Great?7

A: Not having a leader like Trump.
A: one in which the government truly serves the wishes of the people.
A: One which accepts that the Will of the people is Law.

Few countries come near these criteria. Iceland is close.

I'll go along with #1, but what if the "wishes of the people" include electing "President Trump"?

That is a poor claim. If you take into account a few basic facts.
1) Trump polled fewer votes than Hilary Clinton, 3 million fewer.
2) The broken system of US elections only offers two people, with very little difference between them as President in such a large population.
3) This is reflected in the shocking turnout for most elections. Trump received the keys to the kingdom with draconian powers yet only around 24% of the people cast their ballots for him.
4) There is a far more fundamental problem here. The entire agenda of the country is run by a tiny minority of media Moghuls who manufacture consent, and control candidacy. One hopes that social media might mitigate against this, but that too now is attracting serious controls.

So nah the will of the people was never to chose any President ever in office.

Or the "will of the people" involves concentration camps and invasions? The will of the people is not reliable. Guarantees of certain individual rights that cannot be denied by the "will (whims?) of the people" are also important criteria.

People are better than you think
But what of it?
Would you prefer a tyrant to build the camps and invoke invasions or allow people to join a war at their own choice?
In a true democracy compulsory conscription would be impossible

The guarantees of liberty in the U.S. Constitution are not perfect, of course. They did not prevent slavery or Jim Crow. The Second Amendment is controversial. Still, Bills of Rights may protect people from a tyranny of the majority. Wasn't Socrates condemned to death by the majority?

Individual rights are more important than majority rule (although they do not extend to refusing to pay taxes of which one disapproves, ala GE).

[GE Morton]

Individual rights are more important than majority rule (although they do not extend to refusing to pay taxes of which one disapproves, ala GE).

Not if those individual rights are defined/determined by majority rule, as you seem to think.

[Ecurb]

Individual rights are more important than majority rule (although they do not extend to refusing to pay taxes of which one disapproves, ala GE).

Not if those individual rights are defined/determined by majority rule, as you seem to think.

That is not what I think at all, as you should be well aware after our endless discussions. Most rights are "culturally constituted" which differs from "majority rule" in that the fickle whims of the majority are checked by tradition. Your infatuation with "common law" should help you understand this point.