Quote:
Originally Posted by John Scott
You're speaking of a process. The process however has to be based on principles. And a governing body in itself is not a guarantee that a law will be valid or "right". I could set up a governing body and issue laws until I'm blue in the face, and if they aren't valid then I have no right to demand that anybody obey those laws.
|
I agree. The principles are typically laid down in a constitution -- a contract establishing the powers of the state and rights of its citizens, balance of powers, how to address grievenaces ( such as yours here ), etc.
Quote:
|
Morality does appear to be the issue. Or more specifically, one group imposing their morality by force on others. Simply because you elected somebody to enforce your morality doesn't mean it's valid. It just means it's law. If the majority passed a law saying that Blacks should be enslaved, would that law be valid just because the majority passed it?
|
All true. Slavery was indeed legistlated here in America, the UK, and many other "modern" nations. America was one of the last to relent. But, you see, that's just the thing. It's about law, and how law is performed ( lobbied, legislated, voted upon, and enacted, and then potentially challenged through the judiciary ). The "majority" doesn't pass any of this; the legislature does, via the power of their constituents.
It's not at all a perfect system . . . . but it apparently works better than the alternatives.
Frankly, even the ancient Greeks saw that pure democracy would lead to pure chaos. So they only let high class/caste folks have a say, lest the "hoi poloi" ruin everything. The Romans upped it a notch by introducing a senate and some groundwork on a balance of powers in government. The Magna Carta introduced "rights" above the power of a king and started the move to a parlimentary form of governance. The American Constitution picked up on all of this history and then some, with a balance of powers between three branches ( executive, judiciary, and legislative ) and then quickly realized the need to add amendments defining certain "rights" of the people.
The fundamental concept here was supposed to be that no one group could possibly enforce its will over others . . . . though, as history is our testament, we can clearly see that this isn't always the case.
My arguemnt is not against your position. It's just to be realistic about how things actually do work . . . for better, and sometimes for worse.
I might just add that America has only one unique contribution to the history and practice of philosophy: Pramatism. Though few are actually familiar with this tradition of philosophy, it plays itself out every day -- for better and for worse -- in the American culture -- going back to its beginnings. And frankly, our American political culture is a living example of pragmatism in action . . . but more often, recently, for worse than for better, sadly. Maybe the only other contemporary philosophies that are as or more value neutral are Frech Postmodern and Deconstructionist philosophies. Of the three, I prefer pragmatism.