> This is the moral dilemma I'm trying to point out here: if you believe
morals and truth are universally valid, you will make claims like
you did in the first passage: I'm right, they're clearly wrong. I
don't see how this can be reconciled with your claim in the second
passage: ordinary people should have practical and moral authority.
Well, here's the liberal answer according to Rawls. In a free society, and among different societies, there are diverse viewpoints -- an ineradicable fact. Consensus is impossible. We wish to avoid resolving our conflicts by force where we can. So we cannot imply appeal to our own conviction that we are right and they are wrong and merely impose our views by force -- even if we were in a position to do that. Insread, we need to back off from strong claimjs about truth and (maybe) justice, and instead settle on lowerst common denominator stuff at a much more superficial that we can agree on.
Like acceptance of democratic procedures --not necessarily strict majority rule, there are lots of democratic procedures -- as the way to resolve our disputes. It's important that we each recognizes that others have a real moral commitment to democratic procedures, that they're not just committed onsofar as it benefits them and not otherwise -- but it doesn't have to be our moral commitment. The religious can believe that God wantsa democracy, the Enlightenment crowd that it promotes the greatest happiness, etc.
> Agreed there is a dilemma. But you seem to believe that it can be
left unresolved; that making a choice can be avoided.
Exactly. Avoiding the choice of who's right by settling on procedures for making decisions is the key to liberal democracy.
> If there is no moral common ground people can agree on, on what
moral basis do you propose to ground any attempt at social change?
Well, there is no such ground that all people can agree on, but if enough groups support what they all agree to be Good Things from whatever moral basis, why does it matter if it is not the same basis?
> This is somewhat amusing to me: this is where I came in
on this thread, but I was defending democracy against
Brian, who claimed that the will of the majority could
be ignored, if it clashed with his deeply held moral
beliefs.
Democracy is not equivalent to the will of the majority (an ill-defined notion anyway). It means rule by the people as opposted to the aristoi, the betters. It is compatible with many voting procedures, including non-majority, eg plurality voting, as well as with constitutional constraints.
> . If the majority
wants to persecute queers and deny them equal rights, if the tool
used to accomplish this persecution is democracy, do you think
that it is okay?
The Supreme Court thinks not . . .
> Once again, moral philosophy drives me bonkers.
Always glad to do our best!
> But every person has morals they live by. And these differing moral
systems do come into conflict. If we do not have a method for
dealing with these conflicts, how can there be peace in society?
That is what democracy is for . . .
jks
--------------------------------- Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail is new and improved - Check it out! -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <../attachments/20040819/37ae394f/attachment.htm>