'A Scientist’s Plea for Democracy' Bertrand Russell - Summary
– Puipuia Hlondo
In his essay, ‘A Scientist’s Plea for
Democracy’, Bertrand Russell discusses the advantage of Democracy with compare
to Dictatorship.According to him, The Liberal tradition was greatly importance
for human welfare. and for maintaining public order permits.
Since the ancient Greek times, there has
been a controversy between these two views as to the best form of government.
These two forms of government are that of the authority to make a decision and
that of discussion followed by a majority decision.
Where the way of authority is
adopted, certain opinions are announced by wise and good.But those who denies
are subjected to penalties. In Christian country, men were burnt for
questioning the official interpretation of the Bible. For, Muslim countries, it
was very rash to throw doubt on any part of the Koran.
But on the view of science influence a
different view of true beliefs. Science had developed a method of controlled
observation interpreted by careful reasoning, which, where it is applicable,
has led to general agreement among competent people. When controversies occur
on scientific matters, they decided sooner or later by proof with evidence, not
by burning or liquidating those who had different opinion.
Science and Democracy are closely
related according to him. They give special importance or high value on free
discussion as opposed to authority.In dictatorship, despotism or oligarchy is
easily established, for authority in matters of opinion is naturally combined
with authority in practical affairs.
But in democracy, any man is free to
hold opinion he likes and the only penalty is his opinion is that of being
thought a fool. As a result of free discussion all who are capable of forming a
judgement have come to agree, and their authority is not enforced but based on
reason.
At the basis of all other advantages,
scientific democracy accepted doctrines because there is no restriction in discussion;
they have emerged as the most likely to be true.Whereas under a dictatorship,
doctrines are accepted either they are traditional or convenient for the
holders of power.
From this difference a multitude of
consequences flow. When the official opinion is not the one that would result
from free discussion, free discussion has to be prohibited and intelligent
thinking has to be discouraged. The government, therefore, has an interested in
inculcating/planting stupidity.
Where there is no free discussion, it
is impossible to point out the surrendering of general interest of power
holders, so that they soon become able to practice with cruelties and injustices.But
in a free community, it would be quickly stopped by the universal indignation
that they arouse.
According to him, the greatest
advantages of democracy is depends upon popular support not on the men who have
come to the top or wise.The power holders know that they cannot retain their
position if they are guilty of more than one of injustice.
Democracy provides freedom and this
atmosphere of freedom that progress can long be maintained, even in military
technique. For the authorities, new opinions are almost always distasteful. But
where new opinions are prevent from being expressed, communities turn into
bone. They cannot move forward. He expected those countries which preserve
scientific and intellectual freedom will be more efficient in war than
dictatorship countries.
Dictatorship not only tends to
repetition opinion and prevents intellectual and technical progress; it also
tends to generate dishonesty in experts. He stands for freedom and democracy on
human welfare. Free discussion produce tolerant spirit and it tends to prevent
from war,where Dictatorship encourages ruthlessness and cruelty.
Comments
Post a Comment