1 upvotes, 1 direct replies (showing 1)
View submission: Casual Questions Thread
Yes it's justifiable; but what do you mean exactly? Do you mean 'justifiable' or 'ethically correct'? Because those two seem a bit different to me. Though I don' tthink it changes the answer; any more than it changes the answer to "should a majority be allowed to infringe upon the rights of a minority".
Do you mean should a government be able to bar its people from electing who they want in any way at all?
note: it's not a majority that currently support Trump in polling, it's a plurality, and an uncertain one at that.
Do you want an answer from a deontological standpoint? Or from a consequentialist standpoint? Or some other? There are numerous theories of ethics, and without agreeing on a specific one for purposes of argument, it's hard to say whether or not it's "right" to do so.
Comment by MakeUpAnything at 22/12/2023 at 02:09 UTC
1 upvotes, 2 direct replies
My question is asking whether or not a democratic (or representative democracy like the US) nation’s government should stop a rising authoritarian/fascist from rising to power if the majority of the nation seems to favor that person’s rise.
I don’t understand the nuances between the various answers you said one could give, so I guess I’d just say answer however you want. I am not sure whether it would provide more good to the world to oppress the desires of those who support the authoritarian (and potentially provoke a violent response) or if it would be better to let the authoritarian take power and probably oppress those who opposed him.
I’m not educated enough on this subject to provide more specific definitions to the variables I’m asking. If that means my question is unanswerable in its current state then so be it.