Comments on: Saunders on Fairness, Democracy, and Lotteries http://ethics-etc.com/2008/06/03/saunders-on-fairness-democracy-and-lotteries/ A forum for discussing contemporary philosophical issues in ethics and related areas Thu, 01 Dec 2011 13:52:26 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 By: Anibal Mastobiza http://ethics-etc.com/2008/06/03/saunders-on-fairness-democracy-and-lotteries/comment-page-1/#comment-2210 Anibal Mastobiza Sun, 05 Oct 2008 10:07:06 +0000 http://ethics-etc.com/2008/06/03/saunders-on-fairness-democracy-and-lotteries/#comment-2210 It´s a real issue that sometimes democracies become tyrannies: "tyrannies of the mayority". But recognizing the fact that democracies are pruralistic, compose of many views, and as a solution trying to give "voice" and representation to those multiple voices assigning a ramdomnize procedure is something like: The remedy is Worse than the disease. The mayority rule is applied because of dialogue, group building, persuasion, argumentation, contrast of ideas, consensus... (i can´t imagine someone voting in a contagious form) Is not better to allow more participation, more public debate and dialogue to strengh democracy and as a result fairness? It´s a real issue that sometimes democracies become tyrannies: “tyrannies of the mayority”.

But recognizing the fact that democracies are pruralistic, compose of many views, and as a solution trying to give “voice” and representation to those multiple voices assigning a ramdomnize procedure is something like: The remedy is Worse than the disease.

The mayority rule is applied because of dialogue, group building, persuasion, argumentation, contrast of ideas, consensus… (i can´t imagine someone voting in a contagious form)

Is not better to allow more participation, more public debate and dialogue to strengh democracy and as a result fairness?

]]> By: Dominic Roser http://ethics-etc.com/2008/06/03/saunders-on-fairness-democracy-and-lotteries/comment-page-1/#comment-2134 Dominic Roser Wed, 04 Jun 2008 17:03:03 +0000 http://ethics-etc.com/2008/06/03/saunders-on-fairness-democracy-and-lotteries/#comment-2134 Here's one thought I had concerning the whole issue of lottery voting: Assume that for most people a less uncertain world yields more good than a more uncertain world (this might be because a less uncertain world allows for better planing, or induces less anticipatory anxiety, or because of diminishing marginal utility, or whatever). If we introduce lottery voting, we "add" uncertainty to the world. There is a randomisation stage added, which brings in additional uncertainty. So, there is a loss of aggregate goodness involved. Of course, considerations of fairness may easily be more important than considerations of aggregate goodness. All I wanted to point to is the fact that there <em>is</em> such loss of aggregate goodness (and note that it is a distinct kind of loss of aggregate goodness from the loss involved in sometimes following the preferences of the minority, or in saving the smaller number in the Number Problem). Here’s one thought I had concerning the whole issue of lottery voting:
Assume that for most people a less uncertain world yields more good than a more uncertain world (this might be because a less uncertain world allows for better planing, or induces less anticipatory anxiety, or because of diminishing marginal utility, or whatever). If we introduce lottery voting, we “add” uncertainty to the world. There is a randomisation stage added, which brings in additional uncertainty. So, there is a loss of aggregate goodness involved.
Of course, considerations of fairness may easily be more important than considerations of aggregate goodness. All I wanted to point to is the fact that there is such loss of aggregate goodness (and note that it is a distinct kind of loss of aggregate goodness from the loss involved in sometimes following the preferences of the minority, or in saving the smaller number in the Number Problem).

]]>