Reply
Sat 13 Jul, 2013 03:55 pm
We all love The Moral Maze on Radio 4. But all too often it falls into the trap of debating popular terms without first defining what they should be in any exact way. Thus a debate on the on Egypt today, 2013, and Democracy is like debating running water. If we merely take democracy to be the ballot box and majority rule, nothing is defined of any positive value. Majority rule may be the tyranny of a mass group, or anything else under the sun. It is like debating the virtue of Religion or Philosophy, which encompass all that is good and bad. Except that philosophy does at least have a method of debate that is constructive. If democracy is defined in its opposition to tyranny, and then as a choice between anarchism and altruism, or outright individualism and social responsibility, holistically, there is a firm basis. Without defining the end values a debate is about hot air.
@RW Standing,
You wrote,
Quote:Except that philosophy does at least have a method of debate that is constructive.
When I read this, I had a good belly laugh. Of the many philosophy threads on a2k, the participants can't even agree on the basic issue of reality.
Democracy in its own right is a messy business, because everybody can't agree on what "democracy" means. What democracy is for you may be tyrrany for another.
When the masses can't even agree on where the president was born, you know there's going to be problems.