The Moral Philosophy Of Democracy

What is Democracy?
Democracy is a method of decision making in which the authorization to exercise power must
arise from the collective decisions of the members of the group who are governed by that power
(J. Cohen).

Instrumental arguments for Democracy

JS Mill: Democracy is better than non-democratic forms of collective decision making because
a) decision-makers are forced to take into account the interests, and opinions of most
members of society.
b) it’s more reliable in tracking correct decisions because it relies on many sources of
information and of critical assessment of laws and policies.
c) because it improves the character of citizens by encouraging them to:
- exercise their autonomy (they are encouraged to affirm their rights and interests,
and to think carefully about what they want to achieve and what is important to
them)
- listen to others, take into considerations the interests, and justify their preferences
to them, of others
- think in terms of the common good

Objections to the instrumental Account

Plato: Democratic societies are dominated by those who are good at winning the elections, rather
than by those who have the required expertise to make good decisions.
To win office politicians must appeal to people's sense of what is right, but most people do not
have the time, talents and information required to think well about difficult political issues.
Hobbes: since no one ever makes a significant difference to the outcomes of decision making,
there is a sense of lack of responsibility for outcomes. Citizens do not take their role seriously
and politicians merely attempt to manipulate them to gain more power. This negatively affect the
quality of democratic decisions.
 Citizens are not sufficiently informed about politics and sufficiently motivated to achieve the
best outcomes.
↓
Powerful minorities can take advantage of this to control the decision making progress (by
influencing the behaviour of politicians) bending it to their own purposes, while spreading the
costs to the collectivity.

Non-consequentialist formulation of instrumentalism

The exercise of power of X over Y can only be justified by appealing to the protection of Y’s
interests and rights.
Political can only be justified by appealing to the quality of outcomes of the decision making
process (Richard Arneson).

Non-instrumental arguments for democracy: Self-Government

Democracy is valuable because it extends the ideal of moral autonomy (we should be master of
our own life) to the domain of collective decision making.
 Our life is deeply affected by collective political decisions.
 Only if each person has an equal voice in the process will each have control over the
decisions taken.
Democracy is required by the ideal of self-government independently of the value of the
outcomes.
Why? We have a right to do wrong (within limits)

Non-instrumental arguments for democracy: Public Justification

Laws and policies are legitimate when they are publicly justified to the citizens of the
community, i.e. defended on the basis of mutually acceptable reasons.
By taking part in democratic deliberation we respect each other as equals. We acknowledge that
we cannot impose our conception of the good on those who would reasonable reject them.

Objections to public justification

1) How should we deal with persistent disagreement?
Possible Replies:
• public justification only requires a weak form of consensus (we might agree on the
reasons that are publicly acceptable but disagree on how they should be interpreted, on
their weight etc.)
• “reasonable consensus” does not imply actual consensus
2) Why should we aim to ensure that political decisions are grounded in principles that everyone
can reasonably accept, instead of proposing laws and policies on the basis of controversial
conceptions of the good (Rawls)?
Replies:
Epistemological argument: there is no valid justification independent of what people (NB:
reasonable people) believe.
Moral argument: we fail to respect the reasons held by the other members of society if we
impose on them policies that they cannot accept, given their reasonable views.
Democratic argument: One does not genuinely treat others as equals if one insists on imposing
principles on them that they cannot reasonably accept, even if this imposition takes place against
the background of egalitarian decision making processes.

Problems
Epistemological argument: beliefs can be justified for us even if they are not compatible with
the political beliefs we currently hold, provided that those beliefs can be vindicated by the use of
procedures and methods of thinking that we normally adopt to assess beliefs.
Moral argument: why is it any less of an imposition on me to restrain myself to offering
considerations that others can reasonably accept than it is an imposition on them when I advance
policies on the basis of reasons they reasonably reject? Living in a society that does not accord
with my conception of how it ought to be organized is a loss of control equal to the one that they
would suffer if my policies were advanced.
Democratic argument: why should we think that democratic equality requires that we justify
our views in terms that others can accept? Isn’t it enough that each person has robust rights to
participate in debate and decision making and that her views are given a reasonable hearing?