Role of Intellectual Institutions Guiding Citizens on Ideas As Fit for Purpose
10 Pages Posted: 27 Jul 2018
Date Written: July 6, 2018
Humanity manages all situations based on the ideas it chooses to apply. The quality of management of any situation depending on the quality of the ideas applied, described as ideas fit for purpose of living. It follows that ideas selected offer ‘best’ results, with ‘best’ being defined by moral, ethical and social justice considerations.
All major factors influencing humanity today are created by humanity. Psychology, society, our structuring of our physical environment all determined by our choice of ideas we apply. The ideas we apply defined as the design specification for the situation. All design specifications are ideas of choice applied to manage the situation to which they apply. It follows that mental health, mental illness, education, intelligence, talent development, organization design and operation, social justice, distributive fairness, poverty, inequality, culture, race, law and legal structure, etc., are managed according to the design specifications we apply.
Reason defined as the process for selection of the ‘best’ ideas, those most fit for purpose of living. Situations are complex and necessarily involve complex ideas. It is appropriate to hold identified social institutions with the requisite intellectual skills to account for advising and guiding citizens on ideas to apply to any complex situation.
This paper argues that modern intellectual (academic) institutions are best suited to the role of providing advice on ideas best fit for purpose of living. To be accepted as a designated ‘advisory intellectual institution’ the institution must accept the duty of care to citizens called the strategic humanist purpose when warranting ideas as fit for purpose of living. Further, that the duty of care is legally enforceable, just as is quality of any product offered by any commercial organization.
The duty of care is vested in the institution, not in individual academics who have full freedom of speech. The institution (via the President or Vice Chancellor) authorizes the presentation of an individual academic if and only if the institution warrants to the citizens it serves, that the ideas are the ‘best’ ideas fully fit for purpose of living. In the absence of institutional support, the individual academic may offer what they please within law but may not associate the institution with said offering.
It is proposed that the legality of the duty of care be tested by a “trial” conducted by two teams from within Harvard Law, before three Judges, who will decide on the case: Harvard University as an institution had an intrinsic duty of care to American citizens in allowing adoption of Freudian psychology and with the failure of Freudian psychology Harvard failed in that duty of care.
Keywords: social development, role of academe, modern ideological development, development of a stable plural society
JEL Classification: I30, I20, I23, I25
Suggested Citation: Suggested Citation