Discussion on Democracy: Universal, rational form vs democracy in the style of Voltaire

Political Philosophy
1

The proceedings are a discourse between Connor and Alex, both citizens of the nation of Vitae.

– Connor
Man that action was quite a fare. People were fighting in the streets. Why should such action occur?

– Alex
I suppose it is for our benefit. Our government would only do things that would benefit us, the public, so why else would any sort of action occur?

– Connor
Then why are people protesting in the streets? Why are people upset?

– Alex
I suppose because certain actions result in wide variety in psychological phenomena. I would suppose it would be good for the poeple to express themselves, it makes for a healthy atmosphere. I would suppose current actions result in a grand variety of expressions, indicative of a healthy civil atmosphere.

– Connor
But if the psychological is healthy then that makes for a good form of government would it not? What about higher principles? What forms of principles are we doing?

– Alex
I would assume we are doing the best of all possible actions with regard to the will of the people. In that regard, the current action is a good. There is no doubt about it, really, once one considers the rational explanations possible.

– Connor
What about universal principles?

– Alex
No we are of the people. There are no universal principles. Only the will of the people.

– Connor
Alright I get you. You are mentioning that perhaps we are more subjective in nature. But doesn’t this mean we can have rational unified principles? Does that not mean we can unify, be the will of the people as it truly means? Which means taking into account the various psychological modes that inform the people.

– Alex
I suppose so. But then you must rely on intersubjective agreement, which may not be the truth. Instead, we rely on elections, which qualify these statements in a numerical way without getting in the way of what is intersubjective.

– Connor
But then what becomes of universal principles? In light of such contrast it appears that we cannot have both subjective means and universal means. What form does our government rely on?

– Alex
I suppose you have us pinned as subjective and I cannot disagree. But in light of this, we may oppose universal principles if it gets in the way of the people.

– Connor
But isn’t that self-defeating? It appears that government rely on rules to achieve ends and that they should be good. But if not universal you may be detested. In that regard maybe the people who are dissuade by your arguments may indeed have stronger moral arguments and hence a justified chauvinism in their beliefs. What do you say to that?

– Alex
We support the people Connor. Even with it’s flaws. There is nothing perfect in human nature. We are not Gods. We all make mistakes. And the government is just one flawed institution like any other. They try for the best, but they are also subject to error.

– Connor
Then why not supplant that government with a more justified government? I see why not in light of what rules are run and why.

– Alex
That is anti-democratic and you are against the people as a result.

– Connor
Then count me as an anti-democratic. I support what is rational and justifiable, not necessarily the will of the people.

– Alex
That is an impass. I suppse you have your opinion in this system.

– Connor
Am I even secure in such a system?

2

I am not sure I understand this rebuttal. What is self-defeating?
And the assumption that governments rely on rules to achieve “good” ends doesn’t seem to be shared. I think Alex could say that the government doesn’t achieve “good” ends unless “good” is specifically those ends wanted by the will of the people.

I am not sure what the message of the dialogue is, but I would not be very convinced by Connor if I were Alex.
Personally, I would highlight how such a system could arrive at terrible conclusions. Against the “we all make mistakes,” show that some mistakes would be very costly and unacceptable.

3

Well to be honest the point is not necessarily to convince either Connor or Alex but to evince a point with the discourse. I am fairly explicit in modelling after Voltaire’s Philosophical Dictionary where often the points are between two fundamentally different viewpoints.

Unfortunately I was not able to finish the discourse as it was to touch on more fundamental ideas of laws and rights and so forth. This forum has a rule against self-bumping and I respect that. I suppose we could finish it, but I would rather converse, the purpose of a forum, rather than evince further.

The argument rests that the will of the people will certain goods. This rests in argumentation of moral relativism of the 21st century, where there are considerable anthropological and sociological arguments for what the goods of the people really are. This is strangely not an absolutist position, as it is culturally mediated, essentially.

To formally clarify it now, the point is to make clear that the government of Vitae is not moral. It is making the people angry. That is the backdrop. To argue about what the government is doing though is to argue about the moral qualities it has. This is the formal argument. I am arguing with morals since some governments are anti-Enlightenment in nature and I would like to make my argument as sound as possible and apply to many real-life governments. Therefore, I appeal to moral relativism. In this sense other forms of government may suite Vitae better, being more moral and hence what the people may actually want, again based on moral relativism. I also want to make light the sort of anti-democratic nature of republic forms, that can argue against the nature of the people and hence deliver justice, which is very psychological. In that sense, Alex is supporting his current regime with rhetoric while Connor is appealing to philosophy.

I understand you want something more concrete, less intellectual, but I want something that I can levy against any immoral government. It is the foundation of revolution, which I am inspired by since Voltaire inspired the French revolution.

4

Okay, I have some trouble parsing what you are saying, so I am sorry for any misreading.

the point is to make clear that the government of Vitae is not moral. It is making the people angry.

Is it in the sense that the government of Vitae should satisfy the will of the people but actually doesn’t?
Or are you arguing that the government shouldn’t necessarily satisfy people but should uphold higher principles?
If the answer to the second question is yes, then why does it matter that people are angry?

Also, I am not sure what people imagine when they see “will of the people,” but I don’t think there is a “will of the people” as “the people” isn’t one entity with one will. So I consider it to mean the majority.
In this sense, the fact that some people are angry is compatible with the claim that the government of Vitae is satisfying the will of the people.

I am arguing with morals since some governments are anti-Enlightenment in nature and I would like to make my argument as sound as possible and apply to many real-life governments.

Although the will of the people is indeed a major part of governments’ rhetoric, I think a lot of them would (and do) admit that some higher principles do limit the will of the people (e.g. constitutions). Same for people today; I would think there are more Connor today than Alex.

In this sense, other forms of government may suit Vitae better, being more moral and hence what the people may actually want, again based on moral relativism.

What if it may be the case that a better government would be more what the people want, but that there is no way to arrive at such a government without violating the will of the people?
For example, it may be that I would prefer my neighbor missing to enjoy peace, but I still could be against killing my neighbor or making him disappear. If those are the only options, we could say the “best” thing to me is my neighbor being there.