Wednesday, February 18, 2009

Ethics and Democracy

When I suggest that democracy is anti-Christian, the response usually consists of two statements.

  • We need a government.
  • Democracy is the best form of government.
The first statement has a strange form. It is not a moral statement (normative) but a pragmatic or positive statement about the way things are, like,
  • Humans need water.
This statement can be proved by observation as many people have died of thirst in the desert. However I cannot see how the claim that we need government cannot be proven by observation or experiment.

If I turn the statement into a moral statement:
  • Government is good.
it looks less certain. If I turn the moral statement into a universal one,
  • All government is good,
it starts to look quite shaky. We can all think of governments that are not good. If I qualify it to the following statement:
  • Some governments are good,
It loses all meaning, and begs several questions. Which governments are good? What are the correct criteria for identifying a government that is good?

This leads to the second leg of the double, above:
  • Democracy is the best form of government.
This is a moral statement. It does not just imply that,
  • Democracy is good.
It is a superlative. Democracy is better than all other forms of government. This takes us back to the first statement. What are the criteria for deciding the best form of government? It also begs another question. What is the list of government types that democracy has been tested against?

The truth is that those who use the two statements above never think about these issues. They just assume that the two statements are true. The problem is that they assuming what you are trying to prove is not very sound logic.

No comments: