• WISDOMfromPO-MO
    753
    The same needs to be asked about other liberal institutions, such as free markets, science, human rights, etc.

    Would the champions of Enlightenment liberalism give up, say, democracy if something else came along with a greater net benefit in their mind?

    Or when people say that democracy is better than the alternatives do they have something other than aggregate pleasure minus aggregate suffering in mind? Do they have something other than concrete experiences in mind? Democracy is grander, or something like that? Democracy is their cultural heritage/legacy and saying it is superior feeds their ethnocentric hubris, maybe?
  • BlueBanana
    917
    Or when people say that democracy is better than the alternatives do they have something other than aggregate pleasure minus aggregate suffering in mind?WISDOMfromPO-MO

    Why not?
  • Michael
    8k
    Or when people say that democracy is better than the alternatives do they have something other than aggregate pleasure minus aggregate suffering in mind? Do they have something other than concrete experiences in mind? Democracy is grander, or something like that? Democracy is their cultural heritage/legacy and saying it is superior feeds their ethnocentric hubris, maybe?WISDOMfromPO-MO

    It could be that each person having a say in who is running the country is itself just, so even if there was a benevolent dictator who could ensure economic and social prosperity, a democracy would still be better on principle.
bold
italic
underline
strike
code
quote
ulist
image
url
mention
reveal
youtube
tweet
Add a Comment

Welcome to The Philosophy Forum!

Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.