Debate 1 Discussion: Whether democracy is the ideal form of government: Philosophy Forums

Philosophy Forums » Debates » Debate Discussion » Debate 1 Discussion: Whether democracy is the ideal form of government » Debate 1 Discussion: Whether democracy is the ideal form of government

Debate 1 Discussion: Whether democracy is the ideal form of government

Page: 1 2 3 4

Debate 1 Discussion: Whether democracy is the ideal form of government

Interlocutor
Professor

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Oct 23, 2002
Total Topics: 41
Total Posts: 879

Posted 04/15/04 - 10:06 PM:	#1
Our first debate will begin soon. I'm hopeful that many more, and many great ones, will follow. If anyone cares to challenge anyone else to a debate, feel free to post it in the Discussion forum, or contact me, or ask them straight out. Or if anyone wants to make their potential thread into a debate instead, let me know, and I will give it consideration. Stay tuned for more, and enjoy discussing the first debate.

sensabile
Raisy Daisy...

Usergroup: Sponsors
Joined: Sep 23, 2003
Location: Southern England
Total Topics: 131
Total Posts: 4213

Posted 04/16/04 - 07:10 AM:	#2
This looks like an interesting topic. Democracy is certainly the most widely understood and used form of government, but as everyone knows: quantity is no substitute for quality. It seems that some equivocation is needed when dealing with "ideal" because it has been limited to the meaning of "the best in the world" and because one could very well say that a type of autocratic tyranny based on an intellectual/philosophical heredity is the most ideal, yet not the "ideal" form of government, we may need a more pragmatic measurement of "ideal". The limited definition of ideal will limit the alternatives, since it now means the "best in existence" and not the best possibility. This I feel, will lead to a productive debate in that there will be no silly circularity where on the one hand X is the best, yet it cannot exist, but is better than Y which can exist.
For the winner there was a big three-legged cauldron to stand over a fire - it was worth a dozen oxen by the Greek's reckoning - and for the loser he brought forward a woman thoroughly trained in domestic work whom they valued at four oxen. -Homer's The Illiad Salt is good, but if it loses its saltiness, how can you make it salty again? -Mark 9:50

Distortion
Oh yeah?

Usergroup: Sponsors
Joined: May 08, 2002
Location: Calgary, Alberta, Canada
Total Topics: 46
Total Posts: 1755

Posted 04/17/04 - 07:06 AM:	#3
Impressive opening post. Quite similar to how I would've done it, well done I think this should be quite good, by the looks of things
Make your own rules.

Klaatu
Aspirant

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Dec 11, 2003
Location: In between
Total Topics: 24
Total Posts: 20

Posted 04/17/04 - 07:53 AM:	#4
sensabile wrote: The limited definition of ideal will limit the alternatives, since it now means the "best in existence" and not the best possibility. This I feel, will lead to a productive debate in that there will be no silly circularity where on the one hand X is the best, yet it cannot exist, but is better than Y which can exist. Indeed. But it remains to be seen how far this would go. If the debate is limited to examples of historical governments, that might give a decided advantage to democracy. There are some possibilities to democracy which may be implemented in this world, but as of yet have not come to be. And here the argument might hinge on whether they are unrealistic or not.

sensabile
Raisy Daisy...

Usergroup: Sponsors
Joined: Sep 23, 2003
Location: Southern England
Total Topics: 131
Total Posts: 4213

Posted 04/17/04 - 08:05 AM:	#5
Klaatu wrote: Indeed. But it remains to be seen how far this would go. If the debate is limited to examples of historical governments, that might give a decided advantage to democracy. There are some possibilities to democracy which may be implemented in this world, but as of yet have not come to be. And here the argument might hinge on whether they are unrealistic or not. On the issue of historical success, it would be fallacious to assert that because something has existed, or been in place, for a long period of time it is the ideal or best form of government. I think some form of critera is necessary in which the issue of order of the citizen, in the society, and also the happiness of the citizen is considered. We can be sure that in the past, in the present and in the future there has and always(?) will be defects present in mankind. These defects reflect on the order of society and I feel that how a government deals with the defects of mankind and brings order to society, without limiting happiness, is a key criteria to be considered. On another point there appears to be some ethnocentrism at play here. The majority, if not all, of us are Westerners and have lived with democracy all our lives. Whether democracy is the best form of government for all world societies is different to whether it is the best form of government for the West. What is best for Britain and America may not be best for Iraq (time shall tell) or for China.
For the winner there was a big three-legged cauldron to stand over a fire - it was worth a dozen oxen by the Greek's reckoning - and for the loser he brought forward a woman thoroughly trained in domestic work whom they valued at four oxen. -Homer's The Illiad Salt is good, but if it loses its saltiness, how can you make it salty again? -Mark 9:50

Paul
Tenured Poster

Usergroup: Administrators
Joined: Mar 10, 2002
Location: Sacramentoish
Total Topics: 451
Total Posts: 11794

Last Blog: Blog welcomes giant check in Happy Dry Spot

Posted 04/17/04 - 08:21 AM:	#6
I don't see any reasonable defense for saying democracy is never the best form of government, but neither do I see any reasonable defense for saying that it's always the best. Certain sociopolitical environments make other forms of government necessary for the benefit of the people. Democracy is devisive, and will never work where the minority opinion isn't willing to abide by the opinion of the majority. I'm sure there are countless examples of countries which have been saved from endless and bloody civil wars by the imposition of a strong dictatorship. If you lived in such a country, the dictatorship would seem better than chaos, lawlessness and death. Thus why dictators are allowed to come to power. But hopefully ashingular will be going into some detail on matters like that, so I'll cut short my argument there.

Klaatu
Aspirant

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Dec 11, 2003
Location: In between
Total Topics: 24
Total Posts: 20

Posted 04/17/04 - 08:32 AM:	#7
sensabile wrote: On the issue of historical success, it would be fallacious to assert that because something has existed, or been in place, for a long period of time it is the ideal or best form of government. I think some form of critera is necessary in which the issue of order of the citizen, in the society, and also the happiness of the citizen is considered. I agree with your criteria, note that I gave no specific reason for my own opinion. One might argue against democracy with a limited criteria where one only considers military efficiency or societal order. But would the argument stick to strictly historical examples, or wordly yet possible examples? Although they wouldn't extend into utopian dream-like possibilities, they might extend into alternate choices or possibilities for real-world players. Here there would need to be an argument separating the realistic from the unrealistic. We can be sure that in the past, in the present and in the future there has and always(?) will be defects present in mankind. These defects reflect on the order of society and I feel that how a government deals with the defects of mankind and brings order to society, without limiting happiness, is a key criteria to be considered. Yes, I agree... this seems to be a prime argument for democracy, and a crucial weakness of the Platonic philosopher-king type government. But there is a counterargument, the spectre of Mobocracy. On another point there appears to be some ethnocentrism at play here. The majority, if not all, of us are Westerners and have lived with democracy all our lives. Whether democracy is the best form of government for all world societies is different to whether it is the best form of government for the West. What is best for Britain and America may not be best for Iraq (time shall tell) or for China. This gets back to the issue of historical or possible examples. There are examples of non-western democratic societies however. It might be argued with an appeal to human nature, and to the definition of democracy as stated.

sensabile
Raisy Daisy...

Usergroup: Sponsors
Joined: Sep 23, 2003
Location: Southern England
Total Topics: 131
Total Posts: 4213

Posted 04/17/04 - 09:14 AM:	#8
Paul wrote: Thus why dictators are allowed to come to power. But hopefully ashingular will be going into some detail on matters like that, so I'll cut short my argument there. This I think leads on to the best argument against democracy; but it is guilty of a sort of sophistical avoidance of what the best form of government actually is. The argument goes that the best form of government is dependent on the time and culture in which it is in existence. Democracy may be the best form of government for current times and for some time to come, but that doesn't make it the ideal form of government, merely the most used form of government today. I think ashingular's best chance is to argue that there is no ideal form of government and since democracy is a form of government it cannot be ideal.
For the winner there was a big three-legged cauldron to stand over a fire - it was worth a dozen oxen by the Greek's reckoning - and for the loser he brought forward a woman thoroughly trained in domestic work whom they valued at four oxen. -Homer's The Illiad Salt is good, but if it loses its saltiness, how can you make it salty again? -Mark 9:50

sensabile
Raisy Daisy...

Usergroup: Sponsors
Joined: Sep 23, 2003
Location: Southern England
Total Topics: 131
Total Posts: 4213

Posted 04/17/04 - 09:21 AM:	#9
Klaatu wrote: Here there would need to be an argument separating the realistic from the unrealistic.[...]But there is a counterargument, the spectre of Mobocracy. Hopefully there will be no argument over the definition of "ideal", considering Interlocutor gave a defnition to be agreed upon. If the debate is to be productive at least some consideration is needed into the practicality and reality of alternatives not yet in position. Mobocracy limits happiness though, so whilst having order it's tyrannical nature will destroy any chance of happiness. It could be argued that in older times it was needed in order to procure a chance of a strata in which to build happiness on in times of disorder, wrongdoings and evil.
For the winner there was a big three-legged cauldron to stand over a fire - it was worth a dozen oxen by the Greek's reckoning - and for the loser he brought forward a woman thoroughly trained in domestic work whom they valued at four oxen. -Homer's The Illiad Salt is good, but if it loses its saltiness, how can you make it salty again? -Mark 9:50

Klaatu
Aspirant

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Dec 11, 2003
Location: In between
Total Topics: 24
Total Posts: 20

Posted 04/17/04 - 09:40 AM:	#10
sensabile wrote: Hopefully there will be no argument over the definition of "ideal", considering Interlocutor gave a defnition to be agreed upon. If the debate is to be productive at least some consideration is needed into the practicality and reality of alternatives not yet in position. Interlocutor wrote: "Ideal" means "best in this world," not in a utopian dreamland. There may be that certain possibilities are of this world and some are not. This definition leaves a bit of wiggleroom I believe. For example, one might argue about what sequence of events would carry out if the United States was converted to communism, which is entirely possible in this world. But could one propose an alternate form of government, which was practical, easily implemented, yet non-existent as a historical form of government? I say yes but the arguments for such would have to be very airtight. Mobocracy limits happiness though, so whilst having order it's tyrannical nature will destroy any chance of happiness. It could be argued that in older times it was needed in order to procure a chance of a strata in which to build happiness on in times of disorder, wrongdoings and evil. It all depends on how man's weakness and failure will more easily show up... in the form of an autocratic ruler, or a mobocracy. The issue might have some interesting ramifications.

Page: 1 2 3 4

You don't have permission to post.

Please login or register.