The minority’s agreement to participate in the democratic game
Hello,
I have examined the argument put forward by you that the moral right of the majority to impose its will on the minority arises solely from the fact that the minority has agreed to participate in a game, and when the minority is not willing to participate in the game, or when the rules of the game are changed, it has not joined the game at all. There is no moral legitimacy for the majority to impose its will on the minority. (Of course, it still has the option of trying to forcefully determine its wishes, Altalena, for example)
But when we actually look at individual rights, it is impossible to ignore the fact that they exist solely by virtue of society.
After all, in the reality of the world, there are really no rights. This is a concept of intelligence that only man created and gave them any values. (Every society and its values)
“Right” is essentially the definition of the relationship between the individual and society, and the moment an individual excludes himself from society, then his rights within that society disappear, right?
For Duma, a person’s ownership of money stems from the fact that the public agrees that only he will have the right to control this property.
And even the right to life only exists because the public recognizes and values it. (We have no moral claim about the lion that preys on a giraffe.)
In conclusion
Would you agree to say that all the rights of the minority are derived from the consent of society, and when a minority excludes itself from society, then it actually has no rights in society, and in fact it has no moral claim against the society that acts in a way that violates its “rights” that do not actually exist!
The fact that rights are an abstract matter that belongs to the intellect is of course true. How did you jump from this to the conclusion that society or the majority are the ones who give them? Part of the rights are indeed the relationship between the individual and society. How did you jump from this to the conclusion that society is the one who gives them?
In light of what I wrote here, of course not.
You wrote “in light of what I wrote here” , if you mean the current answer, then I didn't understand. And if somewhere else, I would be happy if you could direct me.
In any case, if possible, enlighten me, where do you think the individual derives his “rights” from?
As best I understand it, the desire of man for the existence of an individual's “right” within a society is the reason for the existence of the ”right”
and which is therefore arbitrary and selfish. And this is essentially give and take between individuals in society
Of course, the more educated and qualitative the society, the give and take is done at a higher level, but this is only in the type of ”rights” because the reason for ”rights” is always the selfish desire.
Of course, if we assume that there is a ”good” Objective, that is, a world of values that is outside of man (perhaps we could call it God)
Then the whole calculation changes. But then the individual has the legitimacy to impose this on the entire world. And that is certainly not the foundation of the democracy in question.
Narly, you are getting into trouble for nothing.
The sheep is not impressed by the 2 wolves who come to devour it and does not surrender to them because they are the majority.
It will run away, climb trees and do everything in its power to escape
It may succeed, it may be devoured, but it is not convinced because they are the majority to surrender to the prey.
Let's assume there are no rights and therefore what?
Will we agree to be devoured by the dictatorial government without restraint?
No and no
We will make every effort and take advantage of every possibility to escape and save.
If it is by virtue of right and morality, what is good
And if like a land animal and there are no rights, no rules and no morality, then the natural law of force has returned
And by force we saw that the government failed to do what it planned.
No, it's in my answer here.
It's like asking where morality comes from. Rights come from God just as morality comes from Him (in fact, rights come from the morality that comes from Him).
The question of whether democracy presupposes God is a good question. But I would ask first whether morality presupposes Him. In my opinion, the answer is yes to both questions. Except that there are people who are mistaken and think that morality has an independent status (and does not need God to be valid). But as mentioned, they are mistaken, and therefore, as I wrote in column 456, they are either secret believers or inconsistent.
So if I understood correctly, the basis for everything is that there are absolute good and evil that morally obligate everyone
This is quite a scary thing, because it is actually a “moral” basis for dictatorship, and it undermines the fundamental power of democracy
There can be no moral argument against someone who ”understands” that the absolute good is to destroy the LGBT, right?
In my opinion, democracy cannot be based on the assumption that there are absolute values of good and evil, because this completely undermines the rationality of the “majority”. And gives clear legitimacy to “moral”anarchy
Of course you will argue that it is not true that the destruction of the LGBT is moral. But this is your subjective opinion (which you assume is absolute), and the ”destroyer” will of course argue against it being moral. And at the end of the day, the strong will dictate their values
On the moral/philosophical level, there will be no decision as to who is right. And we have omitted all moral justification
We can argue about what moral justice is, but it is clear to both sides that the majority is neither above nor beyond the same moral justice that we strive for.
The beginning of the discussion was that the majority does not have moral power over the minority, but rather the minority accepts the rules of the game
I argue that without absolute morality, the majority does not need the minority's consent to be in the game in order to impose its "values" on it, since there is no "right" for the minority within society when it decides not to be part of society.
All of this assumes, of course, that there are no absolute values. Rather, there is a give and take of desires between people
But if it is true that there are absolute values. Then it is clear that the powerful/majority can impose its values on the minority, since they are absolute and the minority is obligated to them. Of course, the minority can object if it is in its power to do so. After all, it has a value justification (its subjective values that it holds to be absolute).
And in fact we have reached the point where the majority can impose its values on the minority out of moral justification (in its subjective opinion of course). Whether the minority has removed itself from society or whether there are absolute values.
At the same time, the minority can resist as much as it can (out of its subjective moral justification).
Ronen,
You wrote some really crazy things here. Does the existence of objective morality scare you? And doesn't the absence of morality, or arbitrary and subjective morality, scare you? I saw an upside-down world. Beyond that, I claim there is objective morality, and you say that it is the basis for dictatorship. Again crazy. On the contrary, morality says that dictatorship is something bad. The absence of morality is the basis for dictatorship.
In my opinion, you are simply mixing up two different questions: what is morality and what will bring the world to uphold it. That objective morality can only improve the world. And even if it doesn't – it can still be true. Just because something is scary doesn't mean it is not true. But beyond that, you are dealing with the question of how we will defend ourselves against evil people who think it is moral to murder or be a dictator. Why is this a question for me? How do you intend to deal with them? What does this have to do with the question of the objectivity of morality?
There can certainly be any moral argument against someone who “understands” that the absolute good is to destroy LGBT people. And it can only be if they understand that there is objective morality. You can’t have an argument against that, because in your opinion, morality is only an agreement. So there is someone who has a different agreement or who doesn’t feel like honoring agreements. What will you do against him? You will probably use force. That’s exactly what I will do too.
To say that objective morality provides a basis for subjective anarchy of morality is really George Orwell on one leg (ignorance is strength, ignorance is wisdom, etc.).
In short, I haven’t seen such a delusional message in a long time.
Without absolute morality, what controls is power. Do you think this is the best situation morally or in terms of convenience? I really have completely lost you. By the way, if a minority has more power than the majority, it will control the majority, so your words about the majority are absurd in themselves even without the other oddities in your words.
I will explain my intention
When the (psychological) infrastructure of a person is that the personal/subjective will is the foundation and reason for the relationship with the surrounding (liberalism). Then there is room for democracy to flourish or at least live.
But when you establish an infrastructure that has one truth. There are absolute values that everyone is committed to, then the person's default is that the other is committed to the absolute values (which I am of course the owner of).
The envy of truth and justice will run him into a demonstration of superiority when he is all wrapped in explosives. (If he is unable to calculate what the appropriate path is to realize the values)
I personally definitely think that there are absolute values that oblige everyone who comes into the world. But. And this is a big but I do not assume that my relationship with the surrounding is based on their commitment to these values.
Democracy, in my opinion, is the regulation of a relationship between individuals in the least bad way possible, when the foundation of this relationship is not the absolute system of values, but the foundation is the subjective desires of the individuals (which they may consider to be values).
Within my own world of values and actions as an individual, I will try not to conflict with my absolute values. But I will never be able to see them as a basis for imposing them on others, not when I am in the majority, and certainly not when I am in the minority.
And from what I understood your point, the minority can certainly impose its (subjective) values on the majority, thinking that they are absolute.
That is why I said that this leads to anarchy, since everyone will see their values as the absolute values of the world (which if they were not so, their values would not be), and if they do, they have the legitimacy to impose this on everyone. The minority will also feel good and at peace with the fact that it is imposing its "values" on the majority. And this is precisely the "enlightened" public that feels it has the legitimacy to impose on the unenlightened majority.
Regarding your comment about the control of force, it seems to me that even when there is absolute morality, you need force in order to control it. And in fact it is exactly the opposite. If there is absolute morality then I have legitimacy to use force to impose on others (religious coercion). And if there is no absolute morality, then live and let live takes on more significant validity. And this is, in my opinion, the essence of democracy. And this invention called substantive democracy is simply an oxymoron. It is actually religion = absolute values that everyone is obligated to, and the public has no SAY and therefore it is possible for one judge to impose values on 10 million citizens who think differently.
And it is quite endearing that my level of delusion is so unusual.
I'm already exhausted because you don't read what I'm explaining. I'll come back one last time and with that we'll part as friends.
You're making all sorts of completely fallacious assumptions and drawing even more fallacious conclusions from them. I claim that there is an objective and binding morality. That doesn't mean that everyone thinks so, but that I think so. You're saying that this is a dangerous approach. I answered that in turn: 1. Dangerous doesn't mean it's not true. 2. It's only dangerous if they don't listen to me selectively - they accept that there is an objective morality (as I say) and decide that this morality requires murder (not as I say). On the other hand, in your method everyone does what they can do (in your dirty language: the subjective personal will). And isn't that dangerous? What if someone has a subjective will to murder you? Because you personally don't have that will. So what? Why do you assume that your voice will be heard if mine isn't?
I've already addressed the question of coercion. I am also against coercion, although I believe there is objective morality. My objective morality prohibits coercion. Beyond that, I have already written to you that if you believe coercion is unjustified, then do not coerce. How does this relate to the question of whether there is objective morality?
You write that you have objective values, but democracy is not based on them. That is irrelevant. If you have such values, then you are supposed to act according to them. And if objective values require coercion and lead to cruelty, then that is what will come out of your own system. I also do not assume that others accept my system. I do assume that it is my system and that it is the right one.
The naive hope that you express that if we become pluralists and do not adhere to universal values, it will be better, has been disappointed more than once, and many good people have already written against it. The situation is exactly the opposite. If everyone acts according to their personal will, it is a proven recipe for anarchy and cruelty.
That is it. It is difficult for me to repeat myself again and again.
Thank you for your patience, I really didn't understand your point.
And I think the reason you think I don't read what you write is precisely from the opposite point that I think you don't understand what I write, since I know at least about myself that I read what you write well.
Please, if you can be patient, because I'm not writing out of boredom, but I'm genuinely seeking the truth.
If you could please point out a problem or error in the presentation of the things before you, I would really appreciate it very much.
It seems to me as if there is an imperceptible dissonance in your perception. It's as if you're traveling on two parallel paths
And when there's a problem on one path, instead of overcoming it or coming to terms with it, you simply work your way to the other path, even though you didn't start on it at all at the beginning of the journey and you can't really jump over to it. (Only in the world of thought without attention, such stunts can be done since there are no realistic barriers to collide with).
The relationship between individuals in society (“rights”) can operate in two ways
Or it is based on universal values to which everyone is subject and from which the rights of the individual and his duties (which are essentially the rights of other individuals) derive, and according to this method, the individual can impose his values (which are essentially universal) on the other even if he does not wish to do so.
Or the relationship between individuals in society will be based on agreements between them and the values of one do not obligate the other. And the rights of the individual in society are derived from agreements (arbitrariness/selfishness/desires) and in the case of democracy, the consent of the majority.
Agree? Or do you think there is another way (rational and not arbitrary)
This is a view of the system from above. Of course, the individual within the system always has the choice to die for his values. But this is his subjective view of his life. And our subject is the objective view of the system
And again, I would like to thank you very much for your consideration and patience
I'm sorry, but I've lost my patience. We've completely exhausted ourselves.
Maybe other readers can understand my questions and answer them or agree with them
Anyway, thanks for your time and patience so far
Good day
Ronen,
In my opinion, it is very simple.
Only those who assume an absolute (metaphysical) basis on which objective morality can be built also allow for the additional level built on the first level - the level of relative and subjective morality.
Therefore, those who believe in objective morality - for example, in the recognition that there is an objective basis for concepts such as "justice" or "good" - can allow for discussion and debate on how to approach the discovery of that morality. According to him, we can all make mistakes (including himself) in moving from the objective level to a given concrete act that a certain subject has decided on.
For example, murder. The objectivist understands perfectly well that murder is an objective prohibition but admits that his own definition of "murder" (like the definitions of others) is necessarily biased. After all, there are different opinions on the matter. In any case, he preaches keeping an open mind and it is right to debate about it.
In the eyes of the subjectivist, on the other hand, there is no common standard to discuss. There is no room for rationality. If he decided to define “murder” in a particular case, this is, in his opinion, an indisputable truth.
From here we can move on to discuss democracy
The topic of the thread is.
“The consent of the minority to participate in the democratic game” – This claim comes to explain the power of the majority to morally coerce the minority.
That is, – The majority has no understandable moral superiority to coerce the minority. Only the consent of the minority creates the moral legitimacy for this.
This claim comes to “justify” morally the “rebellion” of the minority in the democratic decision. And the morality of the majority's decision. That is, in such a situation, the majority does not have a moral permit to coerce the minority even from its own perspective (the majority's)
As far as I understand, this claim is wrong (or I did not understand it properly)
And the basis for understanding my claim or mistake. is the definition of democracy
In my opinion, this is a management agreement between members of a group. The management agreement defines “rights and obligations”
An individual's withdrawal from the management agreement forfeits all of his “rights” even the right to life. That exist by virtue of the company
There is and cannot be any claim of “rights” towards the company from which he withdrew, and any action of the company towards him may not be considered immoral unless the company decides so within the framework of its management.
Of course, since each individual has his own set of values (which are not at all the values of the group and are not binding within the framework of the group)
then these values will dictate his behavior towards the individual who withdrew. (Just as his values govern him towards animals or anything else outside of human society). And certainly from the perspective of the individual who remains in the company, he may find behaviors in relation to his set of values that he considers immoral towards the individual who withdrew.
But he will not be able to force society to behave according to his set of values.
The question regarding the rights of a minority that has chosen “not to participate in the democratic game” (what is this? In what sense is it “not participating”) necessarily rests on morality and in my opinion only objective morality is a stable support. Therefore, if you deny the reality of objective morality (and that is how I understood you) then your specific claim about the legitimacy of a democratic regime not to grant rights to a minority that withdraws is also meaningless. That is to say, from a subjectivist perspective like yours, I think your claim (and neither do the opposite claims) have any meaning at all.
Now if you ask about the substance of the matter about the denial of those rights, I don't have a really clear answer and perhaps there can be none. What I do think can be said is that there are quite a few cases where democracy is still obligated to at least some of the rights of those who have withdrawn from it. For example, children. They have not “withdrawn” From the democratic game, but here we are talking about sociopaths and murderous creatures that no democracy would honor as a “citizen model.” Would you say that we as a democracy are allowed to completely deny (as your words imply) their rights? I think you too would agree that it is not and that you will necessarily have to base your answer on “meta-democratic” considerations, that is, moral ones. Of course, there may be other situations (traitors, terrorists, etc.) in which the state has a moral and “democratic” right to deny rights to a dissenting minority. But this too is not only due to your belief that rights are the result of social agreements alone, as you say, but due to objective justification.
Leave a Reply
Please login or Register to submit your answer
