On a Wednesday, the White House issues a national vote to decide whether to murder Leonard, a grocer in Louisville. There is no crime that Leonard has committed - he was randomly selected - they simply want to prove that the government will act in accordance with the public will.
Greater than 50% and Leonard will be captured and executed.
The vote is held and, the American public having come to doubt that the government was working as demanded, have voted 50.2% for the death of Leonard.
We do not live in a direct democracy, where each individual vote counts. In the US we have a representative republic. We elect people to go into the system and vote for us.
The opinion of the American public matters little, if at all, once we elect our representative.
It is not. Obviously, some arguments on the topic would (if accepted) also negate the value of the Brexit vote, but it’s not the genesis of the thread.
Wrong according to who? All men are created equal. There is no ubermensch who knows what is and is not moral.
Let’s say that here, in the United States, it’s generally accepted that you are too young to have sex before you are 18. In the United Kingdom, it is 16. If I’m a British 24 year old with a 17 year old girlfriend and we fly to the United States, I’ve gone from being a young man in a wholesome relationship to being a pedophile who commits sex crimes.
We have had a variety of religions in history that included sacrifice (human and other) as a component of their practice and (if those religions are correct in their beliefs then) in thanks to that sacrifice, many thousands or millions of others are blessed, have bountiful harvests, etc. If there is a resurgence in one such religion and it spreads to the majority, and they all legitimately believe that they need to commit human sacrifices and there is no shortage of willing and joyful volunteers who see it as their duty and greatest honor to be the person on the podium, should they not be able to vote for and achieve an exception?
Morality is not, fundamentally, an objective thing it’s subjective. It is the end-result of cultural world views, which can change over time and simple geography.
The government has many roles; one is to protect the minority from the majority. The will of the people is not the ultimate authority here, and the action would be unconstitutional and against the spirit of our government.
The action is blatantly unconstitutional, and the government does not have the authority to violate the constitution. It doesn’t matter if 110% of all Americans want Leonard to die. It doesn’t matter if they’re rioting in the streets and burning Leonard effigies. It doesn’t matter if Leonard has let his dog take a dump on the front lawn of every member of Congress. If Leonard hasn’t been convicted of a crime which carries a death penalty and been afforded his due process, Leonard isn’t going to be put to death.
You seem to be making some kind of argument about relative morals, but this isn’t an issue of morality. It’s an issue of law.
That being said, there are some people who try to play it both ways when it comes to supporting Cause X that they endorse: If Cause X is unpopular, they will say, “It’s the morally right thing - whether it’s popular or not is irrelevant. We must do the right thing.” But if Cause X is popular, they will say, “We should do it because it’s what the people want; it has majority support.”
I’m having a hard time understanding what the debate is here.
Is this about morality, or is it about the limits (for good or bad) of our constitutional system?
ETA: And if it’s about morality, since you brought up subjective vs objective morality, I’d argue that the desired goal of a moral system may be subjective to the individual, but that we agree on the overall goal in fact and practice far more than we’d like to admit, and that within a “shared goal” system, moral decisions can, in fact, be made objectively, subject to what best achieves that goal.
It’s about the precise question: If the basis of government and law is in the people, then how does the will of the people not preside?
It is not. I was simply giving examples to demonstrate that either morality is the common view of what is correct or it’s the output determination of a select few. How do you decide between the two which to say is the correct version?
The will of the people is that they not be subject to summary execution, as enshrined in the Constitution (sixth, eighth, and possibly other amendments, as well as some main body stuff I’m sure). When wills collide, it is the will that the same process that prevents summary execution (the law) be used to determine which will shall hold sway.
Do you dispute that characterization of at least the American system of government?
And here is where I personally eschew hypotheticals and “thought” experiments whereby ridiculous scenarios are contrived and then our take on morality “put to the test.” The only proper test of morality, in my view, is the real world. In as much as I believe the goal of moral systems should be to advance human well-being (and we can muddle over what exactly that means), in what world do you believe * the execution of Leonard, under the circumstances you’ve described, would be a better world than one in which it is not?
*ETA: insert “allowing” in the place of the asterisk
Because, in a liberal democracy, it’s only the will of the people expressed in the law which prevails. If the people want Leonard to die it’s not enough that they all, or a majority of them, vote that Leonard should die. They have to enact (or have enacted) a law under which Leonard will die. Then, and only then, will their Will prevail.
The issue here is not that the wish for Leonard’s death is considered immoral by many, but that the wish for Leonard’s death is not a law. People are regularly legally executed in the US all the time, and many may consider those executions immoral, but they are done in accordance with law. If the people want Leonard to die, they have to use their democratic voice to bring about a law under which Leonard must die.
Yes. Even the word “democracy” encompasses the idea of rights for 100%, not just 51%.
(Or do I misremember? Googling “definition:democratic” "just now the closest I get is from one dictionary: )
When the 51% (?) who are rational thinkers regain control should we disenfranchise large swathes of the stupidest voters, e.g. white males? Then, the 51% still left with the power to vote can disenfranchise the 49% “worst” voters among the 51% still left! And so on. Would that be democracy?
Sage Rat, Thank you for making an interesting philosophical question. We almost never do this anymore and it’s pretty much all bitter partisan whining. I feel nostalgic for the debates we all used to have.
My answer has nothing to do with the law of the Constitution, but it does have do with the Law, upon which the Constitution was founded. Liberal government, particular the more democratic it becomes, must be founded in a strict moral code. Republics were formed to prevent the arbitrary abuse of power, to limit the tyranny of either majorities or minorities, and to promote the common good where possible, feasible, and practical. It is often true that the United States we have tended to get into the lazy anti-intellectual habit of pointing to something in the Constitution, and therefore saying it is right. This may be good law but it is not good thinking. Things are banned, required, or allowed in the Constitution specifically because they are right or wrong, or must be forbidden by or demanded in a society in order to remain free. This freedom, though it is very great, has some strong limitations ad a very high price: the self-discipline of the body politic by willful choice. A state is created to express a moral position; it is sustained by adhering to that principle, and in breaking that principle would cease to exist.
So I suppose my fundamental answer to your hypothetical is this: the state does not exist to fulfill the whim of the people nor the off-hand decree of any public officer, and if did so, would in that moment lose its moral authority, without which no state can survive. And that may not be your answer, but it is mine.