9

The question is how much well-informed citizens need to be to exercise their democratic rights. The answer depends on theories of democracy. The duty of citizens to be well-informed can be very demanding or not demanding at all. Some theories even require moral duty not to vote. I explain these three views in the following. J.S. Mill's theory can be argued ...


8

Your question seems simple, but is very complicated indeed! Instead of giving a complicated answer ;) I want to bring to your attention the problematic nature of an assumption in it, which I will call Principle P. This assumption is important because if Principle P doesn't hold, then your question cannot even get off the ground. Your questions seems to ...


8

Aristotle classified states according to two variables: who holds power? And: in whose interest is it exercised? There are three politically possible answers to the first question (one, some and all:the kingship, aristocracy, and politeia), and two politically possible answers to the second (the holder of power, and everyone). Aristotle treats kingship and ...


7

I don't think there's any one answer that all will accept on this question, but to simplify the sorting process for you, the real question you are asking is: "What is a state?" and then within this specifically the question of how such a state relates to its members. In terms of philosophical theories of the state (in this case the polis), the earliest two ...


6

The question is what does the following sentence from John Dewey's Democracy and Eduction mean: Education is the laboratory in which philosophic distinctions become concrete and are tested. In that same paragraph Dewey warns that students of philosophy may see philosophy as relevant to philosophers alone: The student of philosophy "in itself" is ...


5

The name of the idea is "weighted voting." There are a large number of proposed ways to weight the votes: contribution-based allocation, education-based allocation, occupation-based allocation, etc. What these variants all have in common is that they are running counter to the "one person-one vote" notion, which has been historically expanding through the ...


5

I'd go for a combination of #1 and #3. The context is polemical; Nietzsche is showing an argument between him and (one or more) putative interlocutors, who Nietzsche responds to. The "free thinker" or "free spirit" in the quoted passage is an opponent who Nietzsche is in the process of dismissing, and does not represent his own views-- and the scare quotes ...


5

There is in fact definite textual support for the Republic being a meritocracy, and indeed through the noble lie of metals. However, I do not think this gives it even a tinge of democracy, as Socrates makes it clear that all the power ultimately lies in the guardians, a small and exclusive group of virtuous people. When he is describing the noble lie of ...


5

Both democracy (in its purer forms) as well as populism are ideologies involving a rule of the people by the people or representatives chosen/ selected by the people. Democracy focuses more on the assignment of governance to the people regardless of class Populism focuses more on the struggle between the common class and the elite class Populism also lends ...


5

When one says "the majority is always wrong", what does one mean by this? Do we mean that the majority is incapable of making perfect decisions (supposing for the moment that it is possible for an external agent to objectively measure the excellence of decisions)? That with universal sufferage, a large portion of people will make their decision based on very ...


5

Foucault's own thoughts for or against things that he writes about, are often difficult to unravel. His first goal in writing is to allow us as readers to see something clearly which at first is not particularly clear. For example with the recent publication of his lectures, particularly, "Society Must be Defended", "Security, Territory, Population", "The ...


5

With Kantian point of view, we can say "Not voting is not universilizable", because if no-one voted, then the elections would not work and that would be a contradiction to the system itself. Then, not voting is not an ethical behaviour, unless you want the system to fall.


5

Contrary to Jobermark, I believe Kant provides a very straightforward answer to your dilemma. Kant's based his categorical imperative on one question "Is it universalizable?", and in your case the clear answer is vote for what you think is right for everybody (presumably in your case that is party B, since it would help more people than party A). Here's why: ...


4

Voters have social reasons to vote. Depending on the country, these may be unambiguously rational as well. For instance, in Australia voting is mandatory and voting day is a national holiday. If you are already forced to vote, you may as well actually vote in your interest instead of against your interest or randomly. There can still be social reasons ...


4

Your intuition that the core of democracy is an unspoken, unwritten, un-examined social contract is mostly right. While there are non social contract theories, e.g., instrumental (or utilitarian) arguments for democracy, many scholarly arguments for democracy are guided by the social contract intuition. But there are many written, examined works. Rousseau, ...


4

Socrates preached to the Athenian young that those with governing power should have the knowledge of the Good. To him, a person obtains this knowledge when she realizes that this world is merely a shadow of the real world. The cave fable of Plato illustrate this idea. This view of Socrates is called philosopher kingship. Plato's republic and Aristotle's ...


4

The paint color metaphor was used a while ago during Brexit debates, when "sources" suggested that indicative votes "will leave us with an Auf Wiedersehen, Pet Brexit'". Auf Wiedersehen, Pet is an old TV show about seven British construction workers. In one of the episodes they pick a color to paint their shed by making lists of preferences. The winner is ...


3

I don't know philosophers who've argued that democracy is inherently flawed, and I think such an argument would be naive (given the right population with a right culture, democracy might be good), but Alexander Guerrero is spearheading a sophisticated proposal he calls lottocracy (see sortition). You can read his own popular summary here, while a paper on ...


3

Here's an attempt at a rationalisation of voting for the individual: 1 If you choose not to vote once, you are significantly more likely to choose not to vote again. After all, you're unusual if you're in a western democracy and you are not at all disillusioned with politics and have nothing more enjoyable to do on polling day with your time. Summary: ...


3

This is actually quite an interesting problem, unique to the modern problem of representative democracy itself. First, modern democratic societies generally hold individual subjects (and their individual "souls") morally and legally accountable. We rule out collective accountability of families, generations, races, as were common in premodern societies. ...


3

It is an interesting distinction, because they are in some ways related but in some cases can be opposite. As one example, Venezuela's President Chavez was considered "populist," but not many people would consider the government democratic. (See, e.g, this article, or searching for "Venezuela populism" on Google). As another example, consider the Roman ...


3

Maybe it would be useful to ponder on Plato's life for a second, especially considering that the Republic is his most mature work, where Plato at last speaks for himself, not anymore impersonating Socrates. Plato's relatives and friends were killed or chased by democrats, then transforming Athens in a state of anarchistic pseudo-democracy. The state was ...


3

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 ...


3

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 ...


3

The book Analyzing Congress (by MIT Professor Charles Stewart) has an excellent section on the "equivalency" of different policies and the effect on voting. I would summarize it as: If we're only talking about a one-dimensional policy (say, tax-rate between 0% and 100%), then there is a single, optimal solution that the electorate can reach consensus on. ...


3

'Fascism' has largely degenerated into a term of abuse but if we look at the meaning of 'fascism' as it characterised the original fascist movements - Italy from the 1920s, Portugal and Spain from the 1930s - its four main features were (1) the totalitarian state, (2) the leadership principle, (3) nationalism, and (4) opposition to communism. Separately or ...


3

The full paragraph containing the quote in question from Chapter 10 of Democracy and Education by John Dewey follows: This state of affairs explains many things in our historic educational traditions. It throws light upon the clash of aims manifested in different portions of the school system; the narrowly utilitarian character of most elementary ...


3

I believe Socrates and/or Plato believed that Greece should be led by a "philosopher king." I argue that Plato believed democratic governance to be erratic and dysfunctional and that the democratic ruler is led by unnecessary appetites and passions. Plato and Machiavelli on Democracy Jean Paul-Sartre was a huge fan of Che Guevara and the Cuban ...


2

The two first waves hold a key revealed in a methodological sub-section: the logos or principle of intelligibility of the whole section. In the first wave, the keyword is nature (physis) and in the second wave, it’s community (koinonia). Physis is nearest to the inferior part of the soul, and koinonia or harmony is the keyword that awaits the task of the ...


Only top voted, non community-wiki answers of a minimum length are eligible