Topics in Moral and Political PhilosophyDemocracy

What is Democracy?

Democracy is a method of decision making in which the

authorization to exercise power must arise from the

collective decisions of the members of the group who are

governed by that power (J. Cohen).

NB: “governed by” ≠ “affected by”

justifying authority ≠ justifying influence

Instrumental arguments for DemocracyJS Mill: Democracy is better than non-democratic forms of collective decision making becausea) decision-makers are forced to take into account the

interests, and opinions of most members of society. b) it’s more reliable in tracking correct decisions because it

relies on many sources of information and of critical assessment of laws and policies.

c) because it improves the character of citizens by encouraging them to:

- exercise their autonomy (they are encouraged to affirm their rights and interests, and to think carefully about what they want to achieve and what is important to them)

- listen to others, take into considerations the interests, and justify their preferences to them, of others

- think in terms of the common good

Objections to the instrumental account I

Plato: Democratic societies are dominated by those who are good at winning the

elections, rather than by those who have the required expertise to make good

decisions.

To win office politicians must appeal to people's sense of what is right, but most

people do not have the time, talents and information required to think well

about difficult political issues.

Hobbes: since no one ever makes a significant difference to the outcomes of

decision making, there is a sense of lack of responsibility for outcomes. Citizens

do not take their role seriously and politicians merely attempt to manipulate

them to gain more power. This negatively affect the quality of democratic

decisions.

Objections to the instrumental account II

Citizens are not sufficiently informed about politics and

sufficiently motivated to achieve the best outcomes.

↓

Powerful minorities can take advantage of this to control the

decision making progress (by influencing the behaviour of

politicians) bending it to their own purposes, while spreading

the costs to the collectivity.

Non-consequentialist formulation of instrumentalism

The exercise of power of X over Y can only be justified by

appealing to the protection of Y’s interests and rights.

Political can only be justified by appealing to the quality of

outcomes of the decision making process (Richard Arneson).

Non-instrumental arguments for democracy: Self-Government

Democracy is valuable because it extends the ideal of moral autonomy (we

should be master of our own life) to the domain of collective decision making.

Our life is deeply affected by collective political decisions.

Only if each person has an equal voice in the process will each have control

over the decisions taken.

Democracy is required by the ideal of self-government independently of the

value of the outcomes .

Why? We have a right to do wrong (within limits)

Non-instrumental arguments for democracy: Public Justification

Laws and policies are legitimate when they are publicly justified to the citizens of the community, i.e. defended on the basis of mutually acceptable reasons.

By taking part in democratic deliberation we respect each others as equals. We acknowledge that we cannot impose our conception of the good on those who would reasonable reject them.

Objections to public justification

1) How should we deal with persistent disagreement?

Possible Replies: • public justification only requires a weak form of consensus (we

might agree on the reasons that are publicly acceptable but disagree on how they should be interpreted, on their weight etc.)

• “reasonable consensus” does not imply actual consensus

2) Why should we aim to ensure that political decisions are grounded in principles that everyone can reasonably accept, instead of proposing laws and policies on the basis of controversial conceptions of the good (Rawls)?

Replies to 2)

Epistemological argument: there is no valid justification independent of what people (NB: reasonable people) believe.

Moral argument: we fail to respect the reasons held by the other members of society if we impose on them policies that they cannot accept, given their reasonable views.

Democratic argument: One does not genuinely treat others as equals if one insists on imposing principles on them that they cannot reasonably accept, even if this imposition takes place against the background of egalitarian decision making processes.

ProblemsEpistemological argument: beliefs can be justified for us even if they are not compatible

with the political beliefs we currently hold, provided that those beliefs can be vindicated by

the use of procedures and methods of thinking that we normally adopt to assess beliefs.

Moral argument: why is it any less of an imposition on me to restrain myself to offering

considerations that others can reasonably accept than it is an imposition on them when I

advance policies on the basis of reasons they reasonably reject? Living in a society that does

not accord with my conception of how it ought to be organized is a loss of control equal to

the one that they would suffer if my policies were advanced.

Democratic argument: why should we think that democratic equality requires that we justify

our views in terms that others can accept? Isn’t it enough that each person has robust rights

to participate in debate and decision making and that her views are given a reasonable

hearing?