In the case of the EU, it is assumed that Britain has the absolute right to decide to leave, presumably forever at any time. But Scotland does not, let alone Yorkshire, or the unenlightened household. — unenlightened
I don't like referendums, and i don't respect them or regard them as democratic.
What would be a good alternative? — JJJJS
And to accept as valid is to accept as legally binding? As I've already said, this isn't true. — Michael
Or is to accept as valid to accept that the government will honour it? I'm sure they will. I haven't said anything to contradict this. — Michael
Why? If I think that the democratic decision is wrong then I'm going to want it undermined. If we voted for slavery then I'm going to want it undermined. If we voted for a decision that would lead to a recession then I'm going to want it undermined.
I'm sure you'd accept at least the first of these. Therefore you accept that one ought not accept a democratic decision simply because it's a democratic decision. Sometimes there are good reasons to want a democratic decision ignored.
So as I've said, you don't actually have a problem with wanting to ignore a democratic decision. You just don't think that I'm justified in wanting this democratic decision ignored.
But again, I question the claim that wants need to be justified. You just keep asserting that I ought want this or that without ever supporting such a claim. — Michael
Because, as I've already said, we live in a democracy, and to undermine it is to weaken it, which is a bad thing if you value our democracy as much as I do, which I suspect you do not. So, again, as I've already said, and as you must have ignored, it should only be done under exceptional circumstances, such as the legal reintroduction of slavery, which would obviously be a humanitarian crisis requiring urgent action.
Just to be clear, this is the justification you say I haven't provided. — Sapientia
No, it doesn't have to mean that. That's a needlessly narrow interpretation. You know what "valid" means outside of the very specific context you've set up for it.
Firstly, me wanting the government to ignore the vote doesn't undermine democracy. Only if the government actually ignores the vote would democracy be undermined – but even that's debatable, as the referendum was only advisory. — Michael
Secondly, I've already said that I'm not an idealist and so don't simply value democracy for the sake of democracy. So to say that I ought not undermine it because it doesn't value democracy is a misplaced hypothetical imperative. For it to have any grounding you'd have to first show that I ought value democracy. — Michael
Thirdly, and most importantly, you're accepting that there are occasions where the popular opinion ought not be listened to simply because it's the popular decision. So, as I've said before, you don't disagree with the fact that I want something undemocratic, you just disagree with my claim that this situation is one of those exceptional circumstances. — Michael
Then what does it mean? Is to accept it as valid to accept that the government ought not ignore it? Well, I'd reject this. There's certainly no legal obligation to not ignore it. I would even say that there's no moral obligation to not ignore it.
It seems to me that this claim that I ought "accept it as valid" is one of those things we tend to say but under closer examination don't seem to be saying anything at all (like the notion of "natural rights"). — Michael
I know. But you want a bad thing. And it was not only advisory, since the government was always going to follow through on whatever the result was, so it's disingenuous of you to keep saying that. — Sapientia
What's the better, realistic alternative? You as our wise philosopher-king?
Of course, I thought I had already made that clear. Some things are more important, like human rights, but this clearly isn't comparable.
So now you're pretending not to know what "valid" means? It doesn't mean that the government ought not disregard the result of the referendum and do the opposite if they think it best, but that is an implication of respecting the result of the referendum, and their prior explicit commitment to abide by the results.
Legal shmegal. That means nothing. They clearly do have a moral obligation to follow through on their prior commitment to honour the results. They were very explicit about that. It was all over the media.
It's not disingenuous to state a fact. — Michael
And I don't see what's "bad" about it. Rather I'd say that it's bad to leave. The pound and the stock market are already suffering. — Michael
Whatever ensures that the best decision is always made. I don't know what that is, or even if it's possible. — Michael
But if you're going to say that I ought always want the popular opinion to be implemented (except when such a thing would be immoral) then you're going to have to offer a better justification than "you can't think of a better alternative". That would be a non sequitur. — Michael
It might not be comparable to human rights, but I still think that it's a good reason to ignore the popular opinion. — Michael
If the popular opinion is idiotic with no concern for the economic consequences then the sensible thing to do is ignore it. — Michael
It might be undemocratic, but as I've said from the start, I don't have an idealistic commitment to democracy. — Michael
I'd rather have done what's actually best for the country. — Michael
I know what it means in the context of an argument; that the conclusion follows from the premises. I know that it can more broadly mean that a thing is based on truth or reason. But I don't see how any of this is applicable here.
So I'm not pretending to not know what "valid" means. I just genuinely don't know what you mean by it in this context. — Michael
As a moral anti-realist I'm going to obviously take issue with the notion of moral obligation. And even if they were morally obligated to follow through, it doesn't then follow that it's wrong for me to want them to ignore the vote.
Unless I'm morally obligated to want another to fulfil his moral obligations? Care to justify that? — Michael
The reason why that would be bad is because it would be to betray the 33.6 million people who to part in the vote on the clear understanding that the results of the referendum would be what determines whether we remain or leave the EU. — Sapientia
You have an ideological commitment to what Michael thinks is right, and to hell with the consequences!
Authentic, authoritative, conclusive, confirmed, credible, determinative, ultimate, final.
What's best for the country is a much wider issue than whether we stay or leave. You're attacking the very foundation of our political system, and that has consequences which effect what's best for the country. It would definitely be worse for the country if the government foolishly decided to do the opposite of what the referendum result dictates. You remember the student riots. That was over a pledge that wasn't honoured. Can you image the backlash in this case? It would be much more severe.
If you don't accept that the government ought to follow through on such a clear commitment on such an important and widely influential issue as this, then you are condoning one of the worst aspects in politics on a large scale.
Democracy is a buzz-word, and and only starts to have real application when the constituency is already established. We decide, only when it is already decided who 'we' are. This makes a referendum on who 'we' shall be pretty much of a sham. — unenlightened
The issue of staying in or leaving the EU is far too important an issue to be put to a national referendum and voted on by the uninformed and those who might be motivated by emotions or bigotry. That's why we elect a small group of people to make these decisions for us. They can then actually discuss the issue in depth and seek expert advice before coming to a reasoned decision. — Michael
First to confirm you are living in the USA, second to confirm that what Michael is saying looks a lot like our form of "Democracy".This is a laughable fantasy. — jamalrob
So? Why is it bad to betray these people? — Michael
Does the "badness" of this betrayal outweigh the actual consequences of leaving? — Michael
No, I have a pragmatic commitment to whatever avoids an economic recession and any other actual consequences. — Michael
In a legal sense, it's none of these things. The decision rests with Parliament. Is there some other sense in which something is authoritative and final? — Michael
I've already said that if the consequences of ignoring a leave vote are worse than the consequences of leaving then I would want us to leave. — Michael
But as I've said before, you haven't primarily been criticising my belief that it's best to stay than to leave (even given the referendum results). You've primarily been criticising that I'd want the referendum result to be ignored for anything other than a moral reason. — Michael
You've already accepted that there are exceptions to this. You just disagree with my claim that the economic and other consequences of leaving are justifiable exceptions. I think that they are, because I'm a pragmatist. You think you're not, because you're an idealist (or maybe "moralist" is the better term). — Michael
I don't understand you. You're saying that if the consequences of the government disregarding a leave result are worse than actually leaving, which I think they would be, then you would want to leave. Why? That makes no sense. You want the UK to remain in the EU, yet you'd actually change sides and want to leave, rather than accept it as an unfortunate outcome (since overturning the result isn't a realistic option, and would be political suicide). — Sapientia
But I am criticising your desire that the referendum results be disregarded in favour of your personal belief about what is right.
Clinging to what the law says doesn't make the least bit of difference. Parliament has said they'll honour the vote whichever way it goes, so it is obvious that it's really up to the public. Your tactic here is not going to succeed. There is nothing stopping you from accepting what the government has said as valid, from accepting the result as valid, like the rest of us, except your stubbornness.
I can't believe you even have to ask. You see no problem with deceiving an entire nation over an important decision such as this? Even going so far as holding a referendum in which 33.6 million people voted, only to then betray them by disregarding it and doing the opposite? Some things can't be explained, you just have to have a sense of what's right and wrong, you have to have a conscience.
So, what about the consequences that I mentioned? I think they outweigh the consequence of an economic recession, which might or might not happen.
I want the UK to remain in the EU only because I believe that the country will be better off for it. If, however, the country will be worse off if Parliament ignores the vote to leave than it would be if we left then I'd want to leave. I'm being consistent with my reasons for choosing a side.
What about this doesn't make sense? — Michael
No, I want the referendum results to be disregarded in favour of what's actually right. I just happen to believe that what's actually right is to stay. — Michael
I know that Parliament has said that they'll honour it. I haven't denied this. And I've already said that I will accept that they'll honour it. But I still want them to ignore it. — Michael
But you've been talking as if "accepting" the result means something other than accepting that it was made and will happen. This is the type of "accepting" that doesn't seem to mean anything. — Michael
Is that your answer to moral anti-realism, then? Not a reasoned defence of realism; just a claim that it's something you either "sense" or don't? — Michael
The issue of staying in or leaving the EU is far too important an issue to be put to a national referendum and voted on by the uninformed and those who might be motivated by emotions or bigotry. That's why we elect a small group of people to make these decisions for us. They can then actually discuss the issue in depth and seek expert advice before coming to a reasoned decision. — Michael
The issue of staying in or leaving the EU is far too important an issue to be put to a national referendum and voted on by the uninformed and those who might be motivated by emotions or bigotry. — Michael
I'd like to suggest that precisely these attitudes are what fuel and keep hot the leave sentiment and the rise of nationalism. And let's be real, you're all being pretty repulsive right now (on many other things too, like claiming that older people shouldn't vote [nor,I guess, should any demographic that votes for the wrong policies]). When looking at statements like these, a leaver can genuinely ask, well, why shouldn't we despise you? You clearly hate us and have an active interest in taking away our political powers... — The Great Whatever
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.