----- Original Message -----
From: "Justin Schwartz" <jkschw at hotmail.com>
> Not at all. If onefails to come along, will you give it up? For what? I
> mean,a justification would be nice to have, but democarcy is prior. Read
> the piece I posted. Anyway, you want a justification? Here it is, three
> parts, bana;, obviosu, and true: democracy is the fairest means of reaching
> fair and generally acceptable outcomes. Beyond that there is not a lot to be
> said. And yes, I am saying precisely that we must cede to the majority in a
> democracy even when the majority is wrong, perhaps even when it is obviously
> grossly and horribly immoral.
================
Smoke 'em if you've got 'em folks.
Justin how do you reconcile the contradictions between majoritarianism and the notion, which seems implicit, of some objective moral order? Either there is one or there isn't; would that too be up to majority vote? If the people decide there is no objective moral order then how can you sustain the claim that what they might choose to do is immoral?
Ian