Book contents
Lecture 16 - Democracy
from Part IV - Democracy
Summary
Affluent philosophers lived in liberal democracies. They also largely approved of this form of social organization. Both their experience and their attitude were historical anomalies. Pre-affluent societies were resolutely undemocratic. And while pre-affluent political philosophy was dominated by the question of who should rule, virtually no one defended anything remotely resembling affluent-style democracy. Hobbes and Locke disagreed over the best system of government. But they both distanced themselves from radical democratic ideas such as the notion that men without property (or any woman) should be allowed to vote. By Rawls's time, these once-radical ideas were almost universally accepted.
In this lecture, we explore the affluent justification of democracy. We also draw together themes from all previous parts of the course. Democratic assumptions and ideals permeated affluent philosophy. Libertarians, utilitarians and social-contract theorists each had their own story about democracy's value and legitimacy.
If we were to follow our earlier practice, we would close this part of the course with questions such as the following. Does democracy have any lessons for our broken world? Is majority rule only appropriate in favourable conditions, or could voting be legitimate today? If so, under what constraints? Affluent people were tragically unworthy of their democratic responsibilities.
- Type
- Chapter
- Information
- Ethics for a Broken WorldImagining Philosophy after Catastrophe, pp. 198 - 210Publisher: Acumen PublishingPrint publication year: 2011