|
|
|
|
|
by PavlovsCat
2739 days ago
|
|
Insofar those unjust outcomes undermine democracy itself, they're opposed to democracy. Notice how changed "democracy" to "democratic process", and how saying "democracy can result in bad and unjust outcomes" would have raised the question, as opposed to what, exactly? As opposed to non-democracies, or to citizens who don't care about atrocities elsewhere? Those also "can lead to bad outcomes", and when you have something on both sides of the equation it's usually helpful to ignore it, and focus on the bits that aren't on both sides -- instead of ignoring anything but what is on both sides. > As citizens, we must prevent wrongdoing because the world in which we all live, wrong-doer, wrong sufferer and spectator, is at stake. -- Hannah Arendt |
|
Fine: It is important to realize that democracy and following the will of people can result in bad and unjust outcomes.
There, doesn't make a difference.
> and how saying "democracy can result in bad and unjust outcomes" would have raised the question, as opposed to what, exactly [...]
I haven't got a slightest idea what you're saying. You don't have to sell me on democracy, I'm already sold. You also don't have to sell me on caring about people elsewhere, I'm sold there too.
But you shouldn't define democracy to simply exclude outcomes you deem unethical as that is simply useless for discussion.