pseudomonas: (libdem)
[personal profile] pseudomonas
Brexiters must — I think — hold one of two positions* for any given value C of "catastrophe":

1) It's right to implement the referendum result even if it will lead to catastrophe C
OR
2) It would be wrong to implement the referendum result if it would lead to catastrophe C, but we believe that it will not lead to catastrophe C

If their position is (2), they have no right decrying as anti-democratic those of us who oppose implementing the referendum result because of a reasonable belief that it will lead to catastrophe C.

If their position is (1) they should have the [redacted] to come out and say so.




* Whether consciously or otherwise.
Someone may consistently take position 1 for C = a small misfortune (a 50% chance of recession, say), and position 2 for C = a major cataclysm (say, nuclear war)

Date: 2016-10-28 01:46 am (UTC)
gerald_duck: (frontal)
From: [personal profile] gerald_duck
What, democratically speaking, is the difference between the two cases?

Alice can say policy P will cause catastrophe C while Bob says it won't. They will likely vote in opposite directions in a referendum on P.

Alice can say it's right to do P even though it will cause catastrophe C while Bob says it's wrong to. Again, they'll likely vote in opposite directions.

How can one construct an argument for setting aside the referendum's outcome in one case but not the other?


In practice, views will differ. Some people will say 1 and some will say 2. It's also possible to construct more nuanced intermediate positions: "It is right to do P even if it causes one of ten independently possible catastrophes C1...C10. Each of those catastrophes is only 10% likely."

Profile

pseudomonas: (Default)
pseudomonas

April 2017

S M T W T F S
      1
2345678
910 1112131415
16171819202122
23242526272829
30      

Most Popular Tags

Page Summary

Expand Cut Tags

No cut tags
Page generated Jun. 25th, 2017 03:45 am
Powered by Dreamwidth Studios

Style Credit