Philosophy Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for those interested in the study of the fundamental nature of knowledge, reality, and existence. It only takes a minute to sign up.
Sign up to join this community
Is it ever morally ethical to override the majority in a democracy if you feel morally obliged to do so?
For example, a recent 'yougov' poll stated that a majority (I think somewhere in the mid-sixties) suppourted the death sentence. However, if I feel strongly morally against this, despite it being a majority, is it right to disregard them then?
Note: this is not about the death penalty itself, simply an example.
Is it ever morally ethical to override the majority in a democracy if you feel morally obliged to do so?
If you're phrasing it like that the answer seems pretty clear to me. The answer is 'Yes' if you admit to morality being subjective, for if you do feel the moral obligation to counteract the majority's wish, why wouldn't you?
The majority vote is interesting in itself. Rousseau said that the agreement on the majority vote is the only necessary concordant vote, because otherwise we cannot explain why pretty much always and everywhere, the majority vote is considered to be fair and valid, and why the minority should be accepting the majority's will (Social Contract, Chapter 5 [I think]). But even Rousseau, a radical democrat (let's call him that for reasons of simplicity), can't refute the possibility of the majority being wrong in exercising the collective will.
I am mentioning this because even if you're not a subjectivist, the argument that majority is always just or that the will of the majority must be considered 'right' is impeachable.
Absolutely. There's a principle called "Protection of the minority" respected by most Democratic systems, that exists to do exactly that. It's the reason most countries have a constitution, and why there's a "bill of Human Rights" respected in most places.
Essentially, this principle exists to ensure that the majority can't vote to further their own causes at the expense of a minority (For example, if we were to vote that all people whose last name started with a letter after "S" in the alphabet had to give all their money to people whose name started with a letter before "S", more people would (ignoring morals) want to vote for it than against, but the protection of the minority would kick in here, through a consitutionally protected right to property, for example).
I define morality as an expression of human compassion (an emotion,) and ethics as the intellectual expression of morality. Therefore, by this definition, nothing which is compassion-less is moral nor ethical. Principled opposition to a real or perceived injustice demonstrates compassion for ones fellow humans and how one acts on those morals determines the objective ethical value of those acts.
Being a democracy doesn't grant any special moral authority to the policies of that democracy. Classical Greece invented democracy, yet never questioned the morality of enslaving other humans.
So, I would argue that opposition to capital punishment, if you honestly see it as an incorrect act under ethics, is not only morally defensible, but morally demanded.
However, the only way to override a democracy is either to agitate for changes within the system, or to topple it and impose another. The taking of democracy from a people is self-evidently unethical: it is wrong to take from others that which isn't yours to take.
Therefore it is ethical to move within a democracy with the aim of changing it through persuasion, argument, and dialog. All other techniques demand the use of force and violence, which are never ethical.
Both the virtue of justice and courage might require that one act in ways which are taken to be very unpopular. Rosa Parks sat in the front of the bus, and more than one Governor has prevented the imposition of the death penalty.
One of the main reasons why there is a Constitution is because of that.
In democracy the people has the ultimate power, at least in theory, but the people itself may decide to protect against itself. To do that, there exists some rules, or laws, that require a special majority to be changed, not an usual one.
What's the reasoning behind that? Basically, when deciding those basic rights that must be enforced, the people reflects upon them, and doesn't make a rush decision, while in future it might happen that some specific event leads to vote for something that's against what the people really thinks is right.
Democracy is not ethically better or worse than other systems, and so, taking that into account, I only see one reason why it might be considered unethical to not take into account the majority's voice, and that is if doing so violates the social contract.
The social contract is a justification of government - the people who will be ruled consciously* choose to give up certain rights in exchange for security, civil liberties, and other benefits. If one of the civil liberties promised in the social contract is the right to political participation by rule of majority, then to ignore the majority's voice is to violate that right, and thus the social contract, rendering the government illegitimate.
*I emphasize consciously here just as a note, since the idea of tacit consent is still debatable.
Other than the above scenario, I don't see it as unethical to override a majority. Of course, some frameworks, such as a utilitarian framework, say we should maximize the majority's pleasure and prioritize that over a minority's pleasure, but that in no way implies listening to the majority.
If you morally obliged in a position of power - meaning, if you have a moral obligation to do X, and have the power right to do X - to override a majority vote, then you, following a principle of civil disobedience, must override that majority.
Yes, it is sometimes ethical to override a democratic vote or a majority opinion.
In your example, say that a criminal is sentenced to death, and that the governor of the state has the final word on whether the sentence will be executed. Let's suppose there is no doubt that the criminal effectively committed the crime for which he or she has been sentenced. And that the majority of the population supports, not only death penalties in abstract, but also the execution of this particular criminal.
Is it ethichal for the governor to suspend/cancel the sentence? Maybe. Of course not if he accepts a bribe for doing it, or if it is based on some personal relation between governor and accused. But if it is based upon a principled opposition to the death penalty, or to its application in the particular case, then I would say yes, it is ethical (what it probably isn't, is political expedient.
Would it be undemocratic? Also no, for the constitution of the state, which is itself the product of a democratic deliberation, bestows this decision upon the governor.
If you see a law as immoral or unjust, it may even be a moral duty to disobey it, never mind how many people disagreee with you.
More generally, we take for granted that some decisions are subjected to the democratic vote (are we going to build a bridge over this river, are we going to criminalise the use or commerce of marijuana or krokodil, etc.) and that other decisions are definitely outside the scope of democracy (who will Jane marry, can John sell himself into slavery or not, should we torture the criminal in the first example before the execution, is the Bible to be taught in school as literally true, and so on). But a long time, a lot of effort, and several mistakes and miscarriages were necessary for us to pacify these views.
This question appears to be somewhat based on the premise that the source of morality is the whim of the majority. But, it is not the case that the source of morality is the whim of the majority.
The source of morality is man's nature as a rational being. Thinking is your means of survival. Use it.
If ever time should come, when vain and aspiring men shall possess the highest seats in Government, our country will stand in need of its experienced patriots to prevent its ruin.
-- Samuel Adams
From that perspective, morality is completely unrelated to whatever politicians decide or whatever the majority wants and democracies should be replaced by alternatives.
We don't just need to choose between Democracy or Dictatorship, between Communism or Capitalism. We mustn't just accept Capitalism and Democracy as the lesser evil, just because we don't like Communism and Dictatorship as alternatives. There ARE other options.
What options can I think of? Well, consider, for example, a communitarian meritocracy, where society is organised along a rigid social hierarchy, but where that hierarchy is based on neither popularity nor heredity but on merit alone. That's just one of many examples I can think of that doesn't fit into the classic dichotomies most people tend to limit themselves to.
Liberty has never lasted long in a democracy, nor has it ever ended in anything better than despotism
-- Fisher Ames
