3 ms·
Sorry my statement was very poorly phrased. What I meant was, self sacrifice is not a duty imposed (or even encouraged) on you implicitly or explicitly in a dem
by akiselev 13y ago
Sorry my statement was very poorly phrased. What I meant was, self sacrifice is not a duty imposed (or even encouraged) on you implicitly or explicitly in a democracy (like voting is, for example). It's only a duty if you believe it is. Yes, this is a tautology, but you seem to be asking for a specific answer to a question that inherently depends on each person and each situation. The majority-minority dynamic further complicates it (i.e., if you are in a minority of Americans who cares about what the NSA is doing, do you have a right to sabotage or expose what they are doing, despite being against the majority?).
As for harmful to a minority, you're thinking of winner-take-all electoral processes. Democracy is usually meant to describe the overarching idea of self-rule with checks and balances. I can't think of a single democracy in the developed world that doesn't have a minority-friendly self correcting feature (whether or not the checks and balances are working properly is a different matter).
To me it comes down to, do you "believe" in democracy or do you actually BELIEVE in democracy? The former means that you don't actually give a shit about the type of government you are ruled by until it infringes on you and yours. The latter means that to you, living in a democracy and being free (from oppression, surveillance, an over-zealous majority, etc.; whatever freedom is for you) is as important an aspect of your identity as your job or your family.
- deleted 13y ago[deleted]
- diminoten 13y agoWhat argument would such a person who believes self sacrifice to be a duty give as a defense for such a belief? And democracy is not related to the democratic republic the US currently runs on. If someone's using democracy to refer to such representative democracy or republic, then they're misusing the term. You keep saying, "believe in democracy" which, even if you're granted the definition of democracy you keep using, doesn't explain the argument for a duty to act. If you believe it works, then you believe the system will correct for the supposed abuse of power the government is perpetrating. If you don't believe in "democracy" as you've defined it, then you have no belief that the misuse of power will be rectified. In the latter case, what argument would be given to justify a moral obligation to take action against this immorally acting government system you don't believe is effective? You seem to want to talk about the practical nature of taking action, when that is entirely irrelevant if the philosophical conclusion to be drawn is based on flawed or incomplete reasoning. First we must establish there is even a theoretical duty to act before we even talk about the practicality of doing such a thing.