reasoning for democracy

[Athena]

I am blown away by the argument that democracy is not rule by reason. Even King James understood the people were demanding rule by reason, when he defended his rule by saying he always gives the people his reasoning. Past revolutions may have been about getting better rulers, but the American Revolution was about having a say in how we are governed. Jefferson explains this:

 

When in the course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth the separate and equal station to which the laws of nature and of nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should decline the causes which impel them to the separation. (please note this thread is coming from the threads on logos and morals, and Jefferson is speaking of "cause" as though others can understand the "reasoning" he is about to present.)

 

We hold these truths to be self-evident; that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these rights are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed; that whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing in its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness."

 

 

If Jefferson is not talking about rule by reason, what is he talking about?

Edited May 23, 2012 by Athena

[Moontanman]

Athena, define reason in this context.

 

I think I understand but I need your definition of reason in this context.

[mooeypoo]

I think the question is a definition of reason.

 

Hobbes, for instance, separate personal reason (more or less meaning "what's beneficial for the individual's survival") from communal reason. Also, his way of constructing what "reason" means in general is more similar to a process rather than a conclusion.

 

I highly recommend reading Leviathan, by the way, but here's a good short summary of the reason quote:

 

The process of science, Hobbes says, is reason, and "Reason . . . is nothing but Reckoning (that is, Adding and Subtracting) of the Consequences of generall names agreed upon." Each step of the reasoning process must itself be secure in its claims, like a carefully wrought object of perfect integrity: "The Use and End of Reason, is not the finding of the summe, and truth of one, or a few consequences, remote from the first definitions, and settled signification of names; but to begin at these; and proceed from one consequence to another. For there can be no certainty of the last Conclusion, without a certainty of all those Affirmation and Negations, on which it was grounded, and inferred."

Source: http://www.sparknote.../section2.rhtml

 

The biggest challenge isn't necessarily agreeing that a society should go by reason, it's deciding what that reason means. The fact many people consider a specific issue at hand does not mean they are making the "right" decision at the end, we've seen this throughout history. Not too long ago the vast majority of the US thought african americans and blacks should not marry white caucasian partners. I'm not sure if we'd define that as a reasonable conclusion, though, even though it was "strictly" democratic (majority rules).

 

Democracy, at least in my eyes, is more than just majority rule, it's protection of the minority. Doing that is not easy, though, because individuals in society are often not directly in "contact" with minorities and are often unable to really consider the rights of these groups.

 

Also, there's a lot ot be said about "Self evident" truths in Jefferson's writing. I agree that it's a self evident truth that all men are created equal, but not all society agrees with that. There are people on the extreme that believe some "races" are not inherently equal to others, and some people on the not-so-extreme that believe wholeheartedly that some sexual orientations do not deserve equal tretment either.

 

Whose "self evident truth" do we go by in a democracy?

 

Also, how do you control for groups or people who convince others with twisted "logic"? Politics (maybe sadly) is not like science, there's no "scientific method" for politics that makes people step away from their subjective opinions and feelings to deduce a rational result that is then peer-reviewed. It's more a balance of multiple sides of the spectrum where there might be more than one good answer.

 

Democracy goes by reason as much as reason is the decision made by the majority, while still having provisions to preserve basic the rights (or supposedly so) of the minorities.

 

The fact that it doesn't always work shows that reason isn't as simple as Jefferson and the founding fathers made it. I, by the way, think that is part of the problem of the constitution. It seems to be quite vaguely spelled out in some cases which leads people to argue both sides of the point as the original intent. Either the founding fathers wanted to make it broad enough to satisfy many groups in society, or they thought the underlying truths are so 'self evident' that no one would misread them, but people do, and people argue about the meanings and conclusions of those self-evident truths as well as the truths themselves.

 

It seems to me there's a bit more grey-area to democracy than strictly going by a somewhat vague statement of 'reason'.

 

~mooey

 

 

P.S

Consider as an example the statement "We hold these truths to be self-evident; that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights".

 

• Men in society before the 1920s used this to prevent women from voting ("men" are equal, not women)
• Religious folk in this country up to this day claim that this is evidence for some religious affiliation by the founding fathers because of the mentioning of the Creator, and since it says that these rights were endowed by the creator, many of them use that to say that we should go by the biblical law.

I (and I assume many others) disagree with both points, but these points are not as easy to dismiss based on the text ALONE. They show that "reason" is (a) subjective and depends on the group that makes the decision and (b) evolving with time.

 

[studiot]

Can't see the connection between 'reason' and 'democracy'.

 

Are you suggesting that a non democracy is devoid of reason in government?

 

Hammurabi and Solomon were pretty autocratic guys, yet they are also noted for beeing pretty 'reasonable' rulers.

 

I see reason as about the pursuit of objectives. It has nothing to do with any value system for those objectives.

 

For instance, the islanders of the South Seas were cannibals yet their society was reasonable by their lights.

 

Similarly a company of Pirates was democratic, but was its reasonable?

Edited May 23, 2012 by studiot

[immortal]

If Jefferson is not talking about rule by reason, what is he talking about?

 

I think that's what he was talking of.

 

http://www.princeton.edu/~tjpapers/inaugural/infinal.html

 

During the throes and convulsions of the ancient world, during the agonising spasms of infuriated man, seeking through blood and slaughter his long lost liberty, it was not wonderful that the agitation of the billows should reach even this distant and peaceful shore; that this should be more felt and feared by some and less by others; and should divide opinions as to measures of safety; but every difference of opinion is not a difference of principle. We have called by different names brethren of the same principle. We are all republicans: we are all federalists. If there be any among us who would wish to dissolve this Union, or to change its republican form, let them stand undisturbed as monuments of the safety with which error of opinion may be tolerated, where reason is left free to combat it. I know indeed that some honest men fear that a republican government cannot be strong; that this government is not strong enough. But would the honest patriot, in the full tide of successful experiment, abandon a government which has so far kept us free and firm, on the theoretic and visionary fear, that this government, the world’s best hope, may, by possibility, want energy to preserve itself? I trust not. I believe this, on the contrary, the strongest government on earth. I believe it the only one, where every man, at the call of the law, would fly to the standard of the law, and would meet invasions of the public order as his own personal concern.—Sometimes it is said that man cannot be trusted with the government of himself. Can he then be trusted with the government of others? Or have we found angels, in the form of kings, to govern him? Let history answer this question.