Samenvatting
Social & Political Philosophy: Full Course Summary
- Instelling
- Rijksuniversiteit Groningen (RuG)
This summary includes all topics of the minor philosophy course: Social & Political Philosophy.
[Meer zien]Voorbeeld 3 van de 26 pagina's
Voorbeeld 3 van de 26 pagina's
In winkelwagengesponsord bericht van onze partner
Voorbeeld van de inhoud
SPP – Justifying the State IV– Democracy, Liberty, and
Freedom of Speech
Chapter 6: Democracy and Freedom of Speech
Democracy is a mechanism by which a society can make collective decisions,
taking into account the input of all relevant group members.
One specific form of democracy is representative democracy in which
representatives are chosen by elections, a very specific mechanism that many
classical theorists did not have in mind at that time.
A democratic mechanism is not always the best way to make decisions:
- Many decisions should be made individually instead of collectively (having
children, marry);
- Market mechanism that produce output in other, non-democratic ways.
Many people believe that democracy is the only legitimate decision procedure
for a government, consequently, many people accept a democratic criterion of
legitimacy.
The Value of Democracy
Instrumental conceptions are focused on epistemic considerations (efficiency,
justice, and virtue), claiming that democratic mechanisms are more likely to
lead us to the right outcome.
- Efficiency: highest satisfaction of the preferences and optimally divided
resources;
- Justice: everyone’s interest will be taking into account;
- Virtue: people will develop their rationality and become committed to the
public good.
Intrinsic conceptions endorse democracy as it is a morally superior form of
decision-making.
- Rousseau: democracy will preserve people’s liberty, as they are self-
governed;
- Principle of equal respect;
Anarchist argument:
- Wolff: majoritarian and representative democracy is delegating decision-
power to a representative or to the majority, which means you are being
ruled by other people.
- Equality argument: majority democracy does not treat minorities as
equals because it regularly ignores their input and votes.
Epistemic Arguments for (and against) Democracy
Epistemic argument – the argument that democratic decision-making
mechanisms are more likely to result in the correct outcome. Plato and Aristotle
were skeptical:
- Plato: politics is a craft that requires domain-specific knowledge, that
most people do not possess; he rejects democracy in favor of the rule of a
philosophical elite.
- Aristotle: also advocates giving political power in proportion to their
virtue, but not as negative as Plato; decision-making in large groups will
cancel out individual mistakes (Condorcet).
The Condorcet Jury Theorem states that, when you have n people who vote on
two alternatives, and
, 1. Every voter has a chance greater than ½ to vote for the correct
alternative;
2. The individual votes are independent of each other,
Then: the larger n is, the more closely the probability of the group coming to the
correct decision by majority votes approximates 1.
Besides group size, diversity is also important: including people with different
backgrounds makes it less likely to overlook important information.
However, under empirical circumstances the two conditions do not hold; there
are always some voters who have less than equal chance to get things right.
Libertarian Jason Brennan argues that most voters are ‘ignorant, irrational,
misinformed nationalists, who know less than nothing.’
Condorcet discovers also a paradox: aggregating individual decisions to a
collective decision can actually introduce new forms of irrationality.
Democracy and Popular Sovereignty: Jean-Jacques Rousseau (1712
– 1778)
Rousseau famously uses the term of the ‘general will’ as origin of politically
legitimate decisions.
- It is the will of everyone;
- It is the source not of particular decisions concerning individual people,
but general rules;
- It aims at the interest of everyone.
For a general will to emerge, citizens must put aside their personal interest and
think from the standpoint of everyone. This leads Rousseau to reject the idea
that the mere aggregation of individual preferences is enough. Rousseau argues
that, in the ideal case, an emerging republic will find a ‘legislator’ who is
uniquely talented in thinking from the perspective of the common interest who
develops an appropriate system of laws to which the people as a whole then
gives its consent.
If we assume that the general will is not just an aggregation of everyone’s
preference, then we have to have a mechanism that reliably leads to the right
outcome. Rousseau assumes that majority votes are – under the right
circumstances – the right kind of mechanism. The majority is not right, because
it is the majority; rather, the majority of people is more likely to get it right, at
least under favorable circumstances: setting up a ‘civil religion’, education that
cultivates civic virtues and material equality.
Objection of the anarchist towards majoritarian democracy still holds, how is
this different from signing your rights over to a monarch?
Rousseau: majority voting is not an aggregation of preferences but of opinions
about a factual matter, namely what is the interest of everyone. The minority
does not lose, it merely finds out what it should have voted for (general will is
not wrong, people might mistake what it is).
We might not always recognize the general will as our will, mistakenly hold the
belief that we are unfree obeying the law. Hence, it is only by obeying the law
that we can live in civil society and be free at the same time.
Rousseau has a very demanding conception what it means to be a citizen –
someone who always puts the common interest of the people above their self-
interest – which is incompatible with the conceptions of the good that many
people have. We might rather want to construct a model of democracy as a way
to find rules for people to live together having very different backgrounds.
Can we do without a conception of a common good at all and does democracy
not require certain virtues of citizens?
, Liberal Representative Democracy: John Stuart Mill (1806 – 1873)
John Stuart Mill defends liberal market-like democracy using both utilitarian and
virtue-based arguments. Democracy functions like a market on which we can
buy – with our votes – policies we like. The fact that some bundles gets a
majority votes proves that the majority of voters prefer this bundle, satisfying
the preference of many voters. Voting is seen as an instrument to communicate
the welfare-maximizing strategy to government and to motivate government to
implement the optimal set of policies. However, there are clearly problems with
such a model:
- Preference of minorities are not taken into account sufficiently, when
majority slightly prefers a over b, while minority very strongly rejects a;
- Implausible that people vote solely self-interestedly. This results in mixed
motivation voting and makes it difficult to determine the optimal bundle.
Mill adopts a different argument in his work Consideration on Representative
Government (1861). Assuming some higher pleasers have more value than lower
pleasers and these higher pleasures are often connected to the full development
of our capacities. Arguing that our capacities are best developed if we can make
choices for ourselves and that general utility is thus best promoted by according
people as much freedom as possible within the bounds of the harm principle.
- Skeptical conclusion about democracy, for democracy poses a danger of
the ‘tyranny of the majority’;
- Mill does not adopt the natural rights as Locke would, but this would
show that he would be in favor of a limited government constrained by a
constitution which protects people’s basic rights.
General problem for liberal democracies: laws are only legitimate when made
democratically vs. laws are only legitimate if they protect people’s basic rights.
What if people make democratic decisions going against basic rights?
Mill shows we can arrive at a form of government which provides both a sound
foundation for democracy and liberty.
The best government is that which most increases general happiness (utilitarian
principle), two things:
1. Important danger of government power is that those who administrate
power can be corrupt;
2. Most important way in which the government can increase general
welfare is by organizing things such that people can develop their
capacities.
Under ideal circumstances, the best form of government would indeed be
‘completely popular’:
1. In a democracy every person can personally take up the task of defending
their own interests, people must be allowed to be self-protected;
2. Democracies, by involving everyone, enlist everyone’s capacities and
motivation for the general good and thereby promote not only the good,
but also those capacities.
Opportunity for participation is one of the most valuable features of a
government.
Why Mill does not advocate for direct democracy:
1. Worries about the tyranny of the majority against individual liberty;
2. Task of the government is to promote the general interest rather than the
interests of any particular group. This can be better done by electing
educated representatives, who are less likely motivated by personal
interests of voters.
How to make sure that voters really select the most educated and less self-
interested representatives?
Voordelen van het kopen van samenvattingen bij Stuvia op een rij:
Verzekerd van kwaliteit door reviews
Stuvia-klanten hebben meer dan 700.000 samenvattingen beoordeeld. Zo weet je zeker dat je de beste documenten koopt!
Snel en makkelijk kopen
Je betaalt supersnel en eenmalig met iDeal, creditcard of Stuvia-tegoed voor de samenvatting. Zonder lidmaatschap.
Focus op de essentie
Samenvattingen worden geschreven voor en door anderen. Daarom zijn de samenvattingen altijd betrouwbaar en actueel. Zo kom je snel tot de kern!
Veelgestelde vragen
Wat krijg ik als ik dit document koop?
Je krijgt een PDF, die direct beschikbaar is na je aankoop. Het gekochte document is altijd, overal en oneindig toegankelijk via je profiel.
Tevredenheidsgarantie: hoe werkt dat?
Onze tevredenheidsgarantie zorgt ervoor dat je altijd een studiedocument vindt dat goed bij je past. Je vult een formulier in en onze klantenservice regelt de rest.
Van wie koop ik deze samenvatting?
Stuvia is een marktplaats, je koop dit document dus niet van ons, maar van verkoper Tomdehaan98. Stuvia faciliteert de betaling aan de verkoper.
Zit ik meteen vast aan een abonnement?
Nee, je koopt alleen deze samenvatting voor €7,99. Je zit daarna nergens aan vast.
Is Stuvia te vertrouwen?
4,6 sterren op Google & Trustpilot (+1000 reviews)
Afgelopen 30 dagen zijn er 62555 samenvattingen verkocht
Opgericht in 2010, al 14 jaar dé plek om samenvattingen te kopen