NationStates Jolt Archive

I have been doing a little reading for my A-level politics class and when I came to the subject of democracy, it got me thinking...

Is democracy moral?

*Rule by the 51 percent is still an injustice on the 49 percent...
*Some people's opinions are worth more than others, should not they be able to cast more votes than those who are say, illiterate?
*Democracy does not seem to encourage growth and change since the 'party' system always ends up turning to a system of mass catchment, ideology and policy is lost in favour of popularity....

I admit, democracy is a hell of a lot better than some systems, but I am sure there are still better...

What are your thoughts, I am just curious to see how this political and philosophical debate plays out. Please stay on topic...

I have been doing a little reading for my A-level politics class and when I came to the subject of democracy, it got me thinking...

Is democracy moral?

It's as moral as the majority.

*Rule by the 51 percent is still an injustice on the 49 percent...
*Some people's opinions are worth more than others, should not they be able to cast more votes than those who are say, illiterate?
*Democracy does not seem to encourage growth and change since the 'party' system always ends up turning to a system of mass catchment, ideology and policy is lost in favour of popularity....

Unfortunatly, that's what you get for a Majority Rules. If you let everyone do as they will, you get Anarchy.

I admit, democracy is a hell of a lot better than some systems, but I am sure there are still better...

What are your thoughts, I am just curious to see how this political and philosophical debate plays out. Please stay on topic...
Any Idea on what might be better than Democracy? Just curious.

My problem with democracy:

Someone can get elected, with the best intentions of changing things for the better. The problem is, the best policy is not necessarily the most popular policy, so if he/she goes ahead with it, he loses votes. And if he loses votes, then he might lose the next election, so he can't can't change things. So he has to moderate his policies and sacrifice part of his integrity, just to stay in a position where he can change things. But he's not changing things the way he thinks he, should, because if he does, then he loses power. But he can stay in power in order to do the right thing, by doing the not-so-right thing. But then he misses the opportunity to do what he really wants to do...oh no, I've gone cross-eyed.

Democracy should be the largest part, but not the only part of a political system, which is why I'm worried about what they will replace the House of Lords with, and whether it will just end up as the Commons' puppy dog. And why I'd rather have a monarch than President Tony, even though that's not perfect.

I

*Rule by the 51 percent is still an injustice on the 49 percent...
*Some people's opinions are worth more than others, should not they be able to cast more votes than those who are say, illiterate?
*Democracy does not seem to encourage growth and change since the 'party' system always ends up turning to a system of mass catchment, ideology and policy is lost in favour of popularity....
.

And there lies the problem. The democracies in existence are not true democracies.

Is democracy, real democracy moral, ofcourse. The problem is that it is impossible to run a true democracy. How do you possibly account for every single person. Democracy is not rule by the majority, but that is how they tend to work. You also end up getting problems where democracies attempt to compensate for this and create tyrannies of the minority.

Well, there are many different forms of democracy, some better than this rather inadequate system we have in place throughout the US, UK and the world.
Of all the possible systems I have encountered, I quite like a democracy whereby ballots worth is proportionate to education. A person with a doctorate would have around say 5 votes while a person with no education whatsoever would have 1 vote. Wisdom cannot come by a show of hands that are each worth equal measure.
This is a way of ensuring that the learned, have a greater say in the running of the country without the country becoming a technocratic dictatorship. The number of votes from the lesser educated would still outnumber those from the higher educated but this system would give the higher educated more power while keeping some level of accountability...
It also encourages people to higher education....

Well, there are many different forms of democracy, some better than this rather inadequate system we have in place throughout the US, UK and the world.
Of all the possible systems I have encountered, I quite like a democracy whereby ballots worth is proportionate to education. A person with a doctorate would have around say 5 votes while a person with no education whatsoever would have 1 vote. Wisdom cannot come by a show of hands that are each worth equal measure.
This is a way of ensuring that the learned, have a greater say in the running of the country without the country becoming a technocratic dictatorship. The number of votes from the lesser educated would still outnumber those from the higher educated but this system would give the higher educated more power....
It also encourages people to higher education....The problem is that you are placing Intelligence over Wisdom. Basically Richard Nixon over Edith Bunker. Richard Nixon was smart. He was intelligent but not wise. got into alot of trouble for his actions. Edith Bunker (All in the Family, for those who are unfortunate to have missed this classic series) was not bright. but her words of wisdom often showed people the better way not seen with intelligence.

The problem is that you are placing Intelligence over Wisdom. Basically Richard Nixon over Edith Bunker. Richard Nixon was smart. He was intelligent but not wise. got into alot of trouble for his actions. Edith Bunker (All in the Family, for those who are unfortunate to have missed this classic series) was not bright. but her words of wisdom often showed people the better way not seen with intelligence.

Maybe, but perhaps more often than not, intelligence and education are complimentary with wisdom....

I have been doing a little reading for my A-level politics class and when I came to the subject of democracy, it got me thinking...

Is democracy moral?

*Rule by the 51 percent is still an injustice on the 49 percent...
*Some people's opinions are worth more than others, should not they be able to cast more votes than those who are say, illiterate?
*Democracy does not seem to encourage growth and change since the 'party' system always ends up turning to a system of mass catchment, ideology and policy is lost in favour of popularity....

I admit, democracy is a hell of a lot better than some systems, but I am sure there are still better...

What are your thoughts, I am just curious to see how this political and philosophical debate plays out. Please stay on topic...
depend on how you claim democracy.
in USA the domocracy is only 2 Parties, and the goverment can do almost everything, without think on minority.
in israel, for exemple, if 12% from the votes go to some party, she will get 12% from the seats in parlament, and this mind the minorities had much power, because the goverment need to get more than half of the men in the parlament for succes in the vote.
and there is more democracies.
all of them has advantges and bad thing, but in the end: this is the most morality thing we could have.

It also encourages people to higher education....

You see, this is another area where the British Gov miss the point completely. Yes, we need to encourage people from poorer backgrounds to consider university, but they're not encouraging other people to consider other options either, and are putting across the message that higher education is the only worthwhile career choice. They refuse to accept, despite record drop-out rates, that higher education isn't right for everyone; it's disrespectful to people who find success through other skills.

Slightly off the point, but it does bring us back to your argument - just because someone is intelligent doesn't mean they understand your needs better than you do. Equally, just because someone has chosen not to acquire as many pieces of paper as they can, it does not necessarily follow that they are any less intelligent than anybody else. Everybody has the right to an equal choice of who represents them in Government, because everybody is affected equally by the Government's policies.

Aristotle would love you.

Well, there are many different forms of democracy, some better than this rather inadequate system we have in place throughout the US, UK and the world.
Of all the possible systems I have encountered, I quite like a democracy whereby ballots worth is proportionate to education. A person with a doctorate would have around say 5 votes while a person with no education whatsoever would have 1 vote. Wisdom cannot come by a show of hands that are each worth equal measure.
This is a way of ensuring that the learned, have a greater say in the running of the country without the country becoming a technocratic dictatorship. The number of votes from the lesser educated would still outnumber those from the higher educated but this system would give the higher educated more power while keeping some level of accountability...
It also encourages people to higher education....

However, how is that moral? You denote intelligence by degree when degree denotes knowledge. Intelligence is the ability to apply that knowledge. There are alot of idiots with PH.Ds, J.Ds and the like, that is the most depressing thing you learn while obtaining them, trust me.

Besides, degrees are diverse. You can't expect an ethnic studies major to comprehend the economics of policy more than the a person with a descent HS education, nor can you expect a chemist to understand the social issues underlying policy more than the average person with a decent HS education.

How do people working towards higher degrees pan out? How about professional experience, which classes can not duplicate?

because everybody is affected equally by the Government's policies.

But they are not; some benefit, some do not.
The inherent injustice of all democracy, hell, all government is apparent...

The rules governing democracy are only as just as those who apply, follow and/or enforce them. Even the best intentioned democracy can be harmfull to both its citizens and its land.

More than 50% of hte people ignore the proper functionings of the democratic process, basic marco economic principlas, not to mention the intricacies of international, environmental or other politics.

THe general public usually just wants what is most beneficial for them. if they ignore the consequences of their choices, they should not be able to choose. it is a matter of "democratic responsibility".

When I am sick, I do not tell the doctor what to do. When I have trouble with the law, I do not tell the lawyer how to defend me. When I need my car repaired, I do not tell the mechanic how to fix it, when I invest my hard earned money, I trust my banker. Society is made of a number of professionals whom we pay to fix our problems. We trust the doctor to cure us, the lawyer to get us aquitted, and the mechanic to fix our cars, and bankers to fructify your assets.

In much the same way, we should trust a limited group of professional politologues. We pay them to make the choices we can't make by ourselves, and trust them to rule the nation according to our best interrest.

Aristotle would love you.

However, how is that moral? You denote intelligence by degree when degree denotes knowledge. Intelligence is the ability to apply that knowledge. There are alot of idiots with PH.Ds, J.Ds and the like, that is the most depressing thing you learn while obtaining them, trust me.

Besides, degrees are diverse. You can't expect an ethnic studies major to comprehend the economics of policy more than the a person with a descent HS education, nor can you expect a chemist to understand the social issues underlying policy more than the average person with a decent HS education.

How do people working towards higher degrees pan out? How about professional experience, which classes can not duplicate?

I am not saying my system was perfect either, none is. And my example was perhaps a little too vague.
You are right; my father is a scientist, he never got a Ph.D but he works with some who did, many below him in the company. My father is a lot better at his job than people who got the higher qualification and he often regards some of his colleagues as a little foolish.
Now, my use of degree status as an example was perhaps too generalised, perhaps one would have to find a better way to measure intelligence.....

Maybe, but perhaps more often than not, intelligence and education are complimentary with wisdom....not necessarily. You can have one without the other. the question is which do you value more... (Don't answer...it will really drag this thread off course.)

But they are not; some benefit, some do not.
The inherent injustice of all democracy, hell, all government is apparent...

I didn't say they are all affected in the same way, I said they are all affected equally. The fact is that most people vote for policies that they think will benefit them, so excluding the poor (and, let's face it, reducing the vote of the uneducated effectively excludes the poor) will only ever result in more policies that favour the rich.

Everybody will be affected to an equal extent. But they will be affected differently.

Democracy is the worst form of goverment, with the exception of all others.
It was Churchil that said (something) like this, and I believe he is right. Though one can point many, many flaws at current democracies, at least with these systems we can bring some accountability to the Politicians. In other systems without democracy, generaly the ones in points of authority are simply.. unaccountable, they cant be taken away from power, etc. And in this, they make the flaws of democracy seem light.

First off, what is moral? Morals are completely subjective. A dire evil to one person, might be the epitome of sainthood to another. There is no rigid measurement of morality, it is something each of us measures by our own personal value system.

As such, as JuNii has pointed out, any democracy is only as "moral" as it's majority and their values.

Portu Cale brings up a tired old quote from the Great Orator himself, but I've never been too certain how I regard that quote. Let me pose this question, is a corrupt democracy better than a dictatorship lead by someone who honestly cares about his or her people?

Again, circumstances and personal values can cloud this issue.

if a country is ruled by one single person and that person is a good ruler, he/she cares about the people and creates a system that works good, that is the ultimate system of goverment.

The problem is that there needs to be a whay to remove a bad ruler without forcing the ruler to think about getting reelected and he/she needs good council.

If the ruler had a few experts not connected to any other organisation and with a broad total knowledge who only said all the positive and negative points of wiev and then let the ruler decide what to do (every expert put forward his/her positive and negative things)

This board of councilors will have the power to force the ruler to abdicate if some 75% thinks the ruler is not suited to rule

if a country is ruled by one single person and that person is a good ruler, he/she cares about the people and creates a system that works good, that is the ultimate system of goverment.

The problem is that there needs to be a whay to remove a bad ruler without forcing the ruler to think about getting reelected and he/she needs good council.

If the ruler had a few experts not connected to any other organisation and with a broad total knowledge who only said all the positive and negative points of wiev and then let the ruler decide what to do (every expert put forward his/her positive and negative things)

This board of councilors will have the power to force the ruler to abdicate if some 75% thinks the ruler is not suited to ruleThat's allotta "if"s

I have been doing a little reading for my A-level politics class and when I came to the subject of democracy, it got me thinking...

Is democracy moral?

*Rule by the 51 percent is still an injustice on the 49 percent...
*Some people's opinions are worth more than others, should not they be able to cast more votes than those who are say, illiterate?
*Democracy does not seem to encourage growth and change since the 'party' system always ends up turning to a system of mass catchment, ideology and policy is lost in favour of popularity....

I admit, democracy is a hell of a lot better than some systems, but I am sure there are still better...

What are your thoughts, I am just curious to see how this political and philosophical debate plays out. Please stay on topic...


That's why democracy functions best with safeguards.

You are assuming that a simple majority can give an unlimted grant of power to an individual, or small group of individuals, for a limited period. The inherent danger of this system has long been recognized - for example the Federalist papers speak to the issue of the tyranny of the majority.

Most democracies - US included - function with constitutional safeguards to prevent 51% inflicting their untrammeled will on the other 49%.

For example, in the US we stagger elections, split the legislature, executive and judicial branch - and indeed as a further safeguard the Judicial branch is not even elected but appointed. Additionally the consitution serves to limit the power of the federal government and the scope of its powers as well as providing the ordinary citizen with a series of entrenched rights that the government cannot easily take away.

A further safeguard is the division of power between the several states and the federal government. The states are granted powers that the federal government is not and vice versa.

As such, a simple majority is quite limited in what it can accomplish in respect of the well-being of the other 49%. Before things can radically change as sustained effort is needed over quite a long period. Also, even that is insufficient to modify the text of the Consitution. To do that requires an a large supermajority spread across the entire country.

With these safeguards, the effect of a simple majority on the others is safely limited. So no problem

or as Newt Gingritch (sp) once said to a university class... This government works by not working. It's impossible to get things done when the government works right. this is to ensure that no one person can take over.

"Is democracy moral?"

What defines morality? Your morals are just as "subjective" (i.e. culturally prescribed/defined) as anyone else's

What is democracy anyway? Most of the countries in the world that call themselves democracies do not follow democratic principles - the US being a prime example. Is voting for one of 2 candidates really anything to hold up as the ultimate form of government and civil existance? It isn't a "democracy" where anyone has a chance of being heard and elected, it is closely linked to corporate interest and personal wealth.

In the past a monarchy was seen as the "best/superior" way of governing people, there have been all kinds of approaches, with each one believing themselves to be the best and often that other countries should follow their example. The present view of democracy is also the same, with the assumption of it being superior simply because it is the form of government we live under in modern times (and we regard ourselves as so "advanced" these days).

"Is democracy moral" - define what was originally meant by democracy; look into the cultural and historical context behind the formation of this idea; question what "morality" is taken to mean, it's modern origins, changes through time and assumptions (also the idea of superior or "natural" morals - both discredited). I'd say the question itself if loaded with assumptions - democracy as superior to other political ideologies and the assumption that morality is objective and defined. I'd recommend that you read some introductions to cultural/social anthropology :)

That's allotta "if"s

yes, as far as i know noone has that system, so it is only speculations and then it has to be a lot of if's because it is only speculations

Well, there are many different forms of democracy, some better than this rather inadequate system we have in place throughout the US, UK and the world.
Of all the possible systems I have encountered, I quite like a democracy whereby ballots worth is proportionate to education. A person with a doctorate would have around say 5 votes while a person with no education whatsoever would have 1 vote. Wisdom cannot come by a show of hands that are each worth equal measure.
This is a way of ensuring that the learned, have a greater say in the running of the country without the country becoming a technocratic dictatorship. The number of votes from the lesser educated would still outnumber those from the higher educated but this system would give the higher educated more power while keeping some level of accountability...
It also encourages people to higher education....
This is no different than any of the restrictions on slaves to vote. You are just using a different system of oppression. As has been said before, democracy is not a good system of government, it's just 8 times better than anything else. As a constitutionally limited democratic republic the US is actually quite well off.

I can not accept that people here suggest a society where those with academic education get five times the votes of others, the point of the democracy is that you by voting agree to live with other people and respect their views, and not stop them from a word in the debate. Do unto others... how would you like to be without votes, and what would prevent some people intelligent enough to realise that they have ultimate power to use it for their own purposes?
We cannot agree in so many issues despite our professors, could an easy alexander cut really be bad then?
I do not really care about democreacy and voting as long as I have constitutional liberty, my vote doesn't matter anyway and so does everybody elses in that case.

I am ethical (note, not moral, I even have some myself) nihilist, give me a reason to care about how my society develops... So if you plan to give perfect freedom to everyone by morals, what will you do for such individuals?
I think we all know that the most EFFICTIVE (I find good a too vague term) order of society would be a country with the most eager fanatism, nationalism or fundamentalism, where a council of young motivated teenagers select their own representant, young people are easy to brainwash and motivated. As long as the citizens of that country share the feelings (or feel bad for the lack thereof) such a country would have the most effetice ruling (take a look at ancient Egypt for example).

Finally, as long as the 51% don't attempt to violate the constitutional liberty of the 49, then everything is in order. The 49 can still convince the 51 about what they do is wrong, an opportunity they wouldn't get in a dictatorship.